This Forum

[Admin]

I have an idea that I am now considering

 

In a couple of weeks on the day of the RAAus AGM I will change this forum's title to "Ask The Board and Governing Bodies". The forum will be hidden from public view so only site members can view the threads and posts.

 

The forum will be used for you to ask the RAAus Executive specific questions.

 

Threads will start with a question directed to a specific Exec member and no other posts can be added to the thread until the person that the question is directed to answers. If they choose not to answer then they will be judged by all you members for it. This will show how transparent the Exec will be to the members.

 

Some questions may have an answer that is of strategic importance to the RAAus and it is hoped that in these cases the Exec member would simply reply with "Can not answer this question due to its strategic importance to the RAAus".

 

Once the Board Member answers the question whether it be by posting it themselves or by email then you can all add your posts...after the question has been answered...if answered at all. If they choose not to answer then the thread stays open as an indicator that that Exec Member has chosen NOT to answer the member's question.

 

If emailing the Exec Member you must advise them in your email of the question that you have posted that their answer WILL be posted as their answer to the question here word for word.

 

Transparency of the Board to their owners is the objective here and the threads WILL be heavily moderated to ensure forum rules are adhered to. However, the Exec Member's answer WILL NOT be moderated in any way for you to see the Exec Member in their true light.

 

I will finally say that if Runciman is elected on to the Exec then his suspension here will be lifted, I already have a list of yes/no questions for him.

 

So, what are your thoughts??? Will this help you as an RAAus member to have better transparency of the people that you elected to represent you, will it help you to get answers to your questions etc?

 

 

[Guernsey]

I think it is a good idea and I would further suggest that although the forum is only open to Site Members the heading "Ask the Board and Governing Bodies " could still be visible to the puplic with a notation to the effect that you have to be a Site Member to use that forum. This would encourage prospective members to join if they wanted their questions answered.

 

Keep up the good work Ian.

 

Alan.

 

 

[JayKay]

Ian,

 

It may be an idea to first ask the RAAus Executive members if they would be willing to use this site for the purpose you suggest. If they are not willing to participate (and there is no legal obligation for them to do so) then you may be wasting your time and this site may be seen as a threat to the executive members.

 

My suggestion would be that you list the board memebers who are willing to participate and only address questions to them. Addressing questions to board members who have not indicated a willingness to participate may be seen in a negative light by the general RAA membership.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I think it is a good idea and I would further suggest that although the forum is only open to Site Members the heading "Ask the Board and Governing Bodies " could still be visible to the puplic with a notation to the effect that you have to be a Site Member to use that forum. This would encourage prospective members to join if they wanted their questions answered.Keep up the good work Ian.

Alan.

 

Ian,It may be an idea to first ask the RAAus Executive members if they would be willing to use this site for the purpose you suggest. If they are not willing to participate (and there is no legal obligation for them to do so) then you may be wasting your time and this site may be seen as a threat to the executive members.

 

My suggestion would be that you list the board memebers who are willing to participate and only address questions to them. Addressing questions to board members who have not indicated a willingness to participate may be seen in a negative light by the general RAA membership.

Ian: both of the above suggestions seem to be very sensible and worthy of consideration.

 

 

[Admin]

Jaykay...Understand and the way I have thought this through is:

 

1. If the Exec Member does not answer the member's question it will be seen by the membership here that they haven't.

 

2. After a week I will send an email as an ordinary member to the Exec Member asking for an answer to a member's question advising that their answer will be posted in the site's member viewable only forum...that is if the member asking the question has not already done so

 

3. I will then post word for word the Exec Member's email reply to the question

 

4. You can then discuss the Exec Member's answer with common decency and all members here will be more informed

 

5. If the Exec Member refuses to answer the member's question a post will be inserted in that thread that the Exec member has refused to answer the member's question...this will again be seen by the members who will then make up their own mind of the Exec Member's refusal to answer an ordinary member's question

 

If we, the members, are going to achieve transparency of what is happening in our Association and be more informed we must start by fixing it at the top which will then start to flow "ACROSS" to the Board and "DOWN" to the CEO, Staff etc. This will also bring credibility to the site in this area instead of hearsay, accusations, innuendo as questions can be made very pertinent and backed up with supporting material.

 

Guernsey...The forum name and thread titles will be public but the actual posts will only be viewable by site members

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

After the Board members elect commence in their new roles, we will have quite a few board members who are also Rec Flying members and who have committed to improving communication with all RAA members. This forum is but one means.

 

Do you think that applying this sort of pressure may be seen as heavy handed?

 

Every member has a right to ask questions of their representative directly. They do not have to go through Rec Flying to do so. If they then obtain the permission of that representative to post the question and answer here, then that is fine, but some may prefer to communicate in their own way or to post directly in these forums.

 

I think in terms of the election, the die is cast, but it won't be until after the AGM that the effect can start to occur.

 

 

[Admin]

David, my personal opinion is that what you are saying is no different then what there is now and will continue with the he said, she said, gossiping, attacking, innuendo that is currently going on in this forum without any facts. However, everything that I have said is fact yet the gossiping goes on which serves this site no good at all but only serves to bring this site down because of so much crap that gossiping can open up.

 

They can post directly in the forums which would be the preferred method but if they choose not to then their answer could benefit a lot of more members then just going to one person and it would be accurate.

 

In a recent poll site users wanted to have politics but I personally don't want them to always result in what has traditionally happened here...we might as well change our name to Sultana.

 

What will stop would be scenarios like:

 

Board Member X was talking to Member X

 

Member X asked Board Member what do you think about this compulsory carrying of PLBs

 

Board Member X says "I think it is a stupid idea" even though Member X personally thinks it is a good idea

 

Now, it goes to a vote on the Board and it is passed as a good idea

 

Member X posts here that Board Member X thought it is a stupid idea

 

This ends up being a load of crap because Board Member X spoke to some of his members who all said it was a good idea and thus voted "yes, it is a good idea" however Board Member X gets known for trying to trash the idea which is far from the truth. He could respond to a question telling not only Member X but all members here his reasoning for voting yes and things like this IS what will help all members to vote better next time a board election is on. The same goes for those board members that refuse to answer questions or show traits of personal gain or secret agendas...the members will start to see that and vote accordingly next time.

 

This is an opportunity to bring integrity and professionalism back both into the board and this site. If they choose to respond to any questions from an ordinary member who is going to let other members know their answers with things like "No Comment" or "It is not our policy yada yada" then we know that there is something wrong, something is being hidden or more as the members here can but only respond accordingly.

 

This is an Olive Branch opportunity for them to get the facts out properly and accurately to ordinary member's questions just like the member's Meeting at Temora and if they refuse to answer questions, then we will all know once and for all.

 

 

[Guest GraemeM]

I think you are on a good thought here Ian, thankyou.

 

Graeme.

 

 

[ahlocks]

sounds like a plan!

 

 

[robinsm]

Sounds good to me to.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

I agree with Graeme, I also think you are on a good thought here Ian. It may need some fine tuning, but it's pointing in the right direction, for sure. Thank you.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

You would know and could probably name now the current Board Members who would never, under any circumstances, acknowledge RecFlying. As such the responses are always going to be limited to the "usual suspects".

Oh dear, here I go again, asking questions I might regret... What's a "usual suspect"? And am I in danger of becoming one? (asked while wincing, ducking, cowering and cringing all at once)

 

 

[Admin]

A Board Member can not refuse to answer a question from an Ordinary member however they can say that they can't answer that due to strategic reasons which is darn well fair enough IF the question has a strategic impact on the RAAus.

 

A Board Member can not answer an Ordinary Member's question and tell that Ordinary Member that they can not tell any other person unless again it has strategic impact on the RAAus...a Board Member's answer to a member IS an answer to ALL members...the Board Member's BOSS...so a Board Member can not say to the Ordinary Member that they can not post it here however the decent thing to do would be for the Ordinary Member to say in their question, if done by email, that their answer will be provided to other members.

 

Initially I think it would be good to have questions and answers from the Exec simply because the tasks they perform, President, Finance and Secretary which specific questions can be asked but later the entire board if things go well. If the Exec don't answer questions then it will be seen by the members that there IS a problem. For example, I know that last week a Board Member sent an email to a person and then Runciman, on the Exec, sent an email to that person telling him to ignore the other Board Member's email...this is what I was told by the person who got the emails...and this was something just last week which the WHOLE board SHOULD have been advised on the contents but are not. This is the type of thing we need to stop if we are going to have a strong and respected Board.

 

If we are to bring integrity and professionalism back, and to the discussions on this site, then we need to, in my opinion, start with the Exec of OUR association...it may all change over night at the AGM or it may not but one thing is for sure and that is the Ordinary Member is going to be more informed, have a say and be far better equipped with information that will help them with their Association.

 

I, personally, want the Association to be one that is respected, looked up to, trusted and professional to the point that would leave CASA behind in the way that they do things and I think we can help to promote that with this concept...if it goes that way great, but if it falters then we will know about it.

 

(everytime I got a slap when I was a kid I was told "You have to be cruel to be kind)

 

 

[winsor68]

I agree Ian... At the moment we are having to play this BS game of asking our members questions and then having to interpret the answer and not say too much about it.

 

If they aren't willing to answer questions openly and without fear they shouldn't be on the board... unless like you say it is confidential.

 

 

[Bernie]

I dont agree with this plan Ian.

 

Smacks of Dictatorship.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Bernie.

 

 

[robinsm]

By whom???

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Bernie, you said you don't agree with this plan. That it smacks of Dictatorship. I can't see how getting our representatives to answer our questions could be a dictatorship. But then I may be missing something. Could you please explain your thoughts to us?

 

 

[eightyknots]

Surely openness (glasnost) is the sign of an emerging and/or sustaining democracy. I understand that that is what is being proposed. How can Ian's plan be thought of as dictatorial, Bernie?

 

 

[winsor68]

Lets face it Bernie... If we can't ask our Reps questions and have them answer they shouldn't be there...

 

 

[drifter45]

It seems to me from my limited experience that the current situation in RAAus has a dictatorial flavour (secrecy etc) and this forum might reduce that.

 

cheers John

 

 

[Admin]

My opinion is that what is being proposed is the absolute EXACT opposite to a Dictatorship. We all too often see this "Governing Bodies" forum turn into a dog's breakfast and for example things that I say, I can't publicly release the evidence simply because it would reveal the source but being able to ask direct questions and the members seeing the "EXACT" reply will, I believe, help all RAAus members to be more informed accurately or see through the crap very easily which would result in a board with greater integrity and professionalism from day 1...the best asset this site has is it is independent and can't be governed by the board and their meddling to suit the secret agendas and personal objectives so we would have a board dedicated JUST to the betterment of our RAAus Association. Naturally, if the board does refuse to answer questions from Ordinary Members because it is using this initiative, then the personal agendas, secrecy etc will also be immediately seen from day 1 and that is what will get discussed here...they have a huge opportunity with this initiative...if they refuse it then with just that means we will all know the obvious.

 

 

[JayKay]

Some might have difficulty associating "openness" with "... the threads WILL be heavily moderated to ensure forum rules are adhered to ..."

 

 

[robinsm]

They don't have to post do they? Dont like, dont post, easy.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Some might have difficulty associating "openness" with "... the threads WILL be heavily moderated to ensure forum rules are adhered to ..."

Parliament is an open forum. Anything that is said there can never be subject to defamation action. Nevertheless, the actions of MPs are heavily regulated by Standing Orders and the Speaker's ruling. It is still an "open" place and the two can be reconciled.

 

 

[Admin]

Some might have difficulty associating "openness" with "... the threads WILL be heavily moderated to ensure forum rules are adhered to ..."

What is being attempted here is to stop the rubbish and hearsay from being posted and thread drift that is continually happening now