This Forum

[Bernie]

Ian as I said just my thoughs.

 

Is not a closed forum dictating?

 

That would exclude all RAA members who are not members of Rec flying and there are some who visit this site as guests.

 

Also there are members here who are not RAA members and they would be privvy to our "dirty" washing.

 

Putting a question to a "Rep" doesn't mean he will answer or even see the question.

 

Putting the "Rep" in bad light if no answer.

 

Bernie.

 

 

[Admin]

Bernie, you will see by one of my other posts in this thread that if they don't see it or know about the question the question would be emailed to them to their official RAAus email address

 

Yes, there are around 2,000 guest users coming to this site every single day (excluding bots) and yes, not all are RAAus members however anyone that is interested in what is happening with our board would simply have to register, it's free, takes only a couple of seconds and there are also many other benefits for them on the site like the Pilot Tools etc. If they don't want to register then they don't get the fruits of all the work or the answers to board questions...it is entirely up to them...even more democratic in giving people the choice.

 

Also yes, there is a percentage of non-RAAus members here as well however approx 84% of the membership of this site are RAAus members and it is this site that has also helped to convert many of those non-RAAus members to RAAus...I hope that this initiative would make everything so much more transparent that even more will start to have faith in the RAAus but then again that would be entirely up to the board to want to achieve this by being seen as answering ordinary members questions

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts Bernie. For me, I believe Ian has satisfactorely answered most of the points you have raised. Except perhaps, the 16% of viewers who are non RA Aus members being privy to our "dirty washing". But from memory, there was a suggestion/discussion earlier that suggested only members be allowed into what I think should perhaps be a restricted for members only area. 320 non RAAus members a day having access to our "dirty washing", and the possability of one or more of them deliberately causing mischief, is something I think will need to be addressed Ian.

 

 

[turboplanner]

EVERY organization has "dirty washing". The more transparent it is, the less dirty washing.

 

And there is nothing better than dirty washing to appear before the issues are tidied up - our new board of management members are a good example.

 

This is an original idea, why not try it?

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I can see Bernie's take on the idea. In fact he has only expressed in his characterisation of "dictatorial" a similar thing to my "heavy handed" characterisation.

 

I'm not against the plan, just have some reservations, which have not yet been addressed. I don't have time to explain further just now, but will later.

 

 

[JayKay]

I think the idea has merit. The problem I see is that the outcomes are NOT for the benefit of ALL RAAus member, but for the subset of those who participate (and are allowed to participate) on these forums.

 

We must recognise that fact that not all RAAus members:

 

1. choose to use this site, or

 

2. are at all times allowed on this site.

 

This site is a private site and being a member of it is a privilege, not a right. RAAus members are routinely banned from participating for various lengths of time, some may be banned permanently. The banned members would then be unable to communicate via this site with the RAAus Board and Execs because of transgression of the rules of THIS site, rather than transgression of RAAus rules. This in my view is fundamentally wrong and undemocratic for all RAAus members.

 

I would have not problem at all if the scope of this initiative was changed from;

 

"for the benefit of [all] RAAus members", to

 

"for the benefit of those RAAus members who choose to be members of this site" (or words to that effect).

 

Some may think this a trivial issue, but I believe it is an important one.

 

The aim of achieving greater transparency has my full support. I just hope the process does not hinder the goal.

 

 

[Admin]

I think the idea has merit. The problem I see is that the outcomes are NOT for the benefit of ALL RAAus member, but for the subset of those who participate (and are allowed to participate) on these forums.We must recognise that fact that not all RAAus members:

 

1. choose to use this site, or

 

2. are at all times allowed on this site.

 

This site is a private site and being a member of it is a privilege, not a right. RAAus members are routinely banned from participating for various lengths of time, some may be banned permanently. The banned members would then be unable to communicate via this site with the RAAus Board and Execs because of transgression of the rules of THIS site, rather than transgression of RAAus rules. This in my view is fundamentally wrong and undemocratic for all RAAus members.

 

I would have not problem at all if the scope of this initiative was changed from;

 

"for the benefit of [all] RAAus members", to

 

"for the benefit of those RAAus members who choose to be members of this site" (or words to that effect).

 

Some may think this a trivial issue, but I believe it is an important one.

 

The aim of achieving greater transparency has my full support. I just hope the process does not hinder the goal.

A technicality...offcourse it is for the benefit of those that choose to be a member of this site...I can't help everyone however with such a large number of members on this site in one place and being independent the hangar chat between one site member and a person who chooses not to be a member (or that has chosen to break the site rules the everyone here abides by) could also benefit so it also has far reaching benefits. A non site member offcourse would still follow what alternatives they already have but this here is a bulk buy and has the freedoms to discuss answers without any form of board meddling or games

 

 

[Admin]

EVERY organization has "dirty washing". The more transparent it is, the less dirty washing.And there is nothing better than dirty washing to appear before the issues are tidied up - our new board of management members are a good example.

This is an original idea, why not try it?

Exactly...there are many benefits of this including the prevention of any laundry getting dirty in the first place which is what we are on about...there is a lot of dirty laundry already but if the board realises that they are answerable to the members more then they think they are now, then hopefully the integrity will be there and seen by the plenty...wasn't there a slogan once "Keeping the bastards honest" and once the proof is seen in an independent way with no board meddling or control then not only do we see it but the non-RAAus members and other interested parties/stakeholders () also start to see it and what better way to promote an aviation entity to the industry...if it is seen the other way then many of us members and non-members will also know

 

 

[eightyknots]

I would have not problem at all if the scope of this initiative was changed from;

"for the benefit of [all] RAAus members", to

 

"for the benefit of those RAAus members who choose to be members of this site" (or words to that effect).

This seems reasonable. Is this possible, Ian?

 

 

[Admin]

This seems reasonable. Is this possible, Ian?

I think it goes without saying that the actual scope could only ever be for people on this site as it is an initiative of this site...have I missed something as I don't understand how it could be anything other than that...the only thing I can think of is that it will have flow on effect, as I mentioned in a post above, with recreational aviators getting together outside of this site...sorry I'm lost

 

 

[eightyknots]

I think it goes without saying that the actual scope could only ever be for people on this site as it is an initiative of this site...have I missed something as I don't understand how it could be anything other than that...the only thing I can think of is that it will have flow on effect, as I mentioned in a post above, with recreational aviators getting together outside of this site...sorry I'm lost

Ian, I was just giving support to JK's suggestion to make it clear (ie, remove all doubt and suspicion from those people who get suspicious easily) by including his proposed wording: "for the benefit of those RAAus members who choose to be members of this site" (or words to that effect). If this was included, all the naysayers and paranoid types have nothing to complain about later.

 

 

[Admin]

Uh huh...all clear

 

 

[Bernie]

Bernie, you will see by one of my other posts in this thread that if they don't see it or know about the question the question would be emailed to them to their official RAAus email address.

Ian I have people excluded from my email address so I dont see what they send me.

If any "rep" was to have Rec flying as junk mail they wont see your emails, hence not respond and then be put in bad light for not responding.

 

Ian I'm not junking your endevers, just saying what I think this being a sort of democrocy.

 

Bernie.

 

Inserted quote formatting - Mod

 

 

[turboplanner]

Bernie, you're confusing people.

 

RAA and its operations are where democracy is required. You are a member of RAA, so you are required to be told everything that's going on and have access to everyone and have anything you write to RAA seen by all members representatives etc. That is not at risk here, you can write to your Association any time and expect that it will be received and addressed.

 

This site is not part of RAA and doesn't profess to be.

 

If the site wishes to conduct a public question session with RAA members representatives at any time it can set its own format.

 

This is nothing different to a Club meeting attended by one or more board members, or for that matter the Natfly meeting with members, where we only got a very small glimpse of what went on.

 

For that matter there's also nothing wrong with having public discussions with Steve Tizzard. I do it all the time with Council CEO's, and in fact regularly have debates in the open press.There are some boundaries - you can't ask questions that would require the person to speak outside his area, for example talking about policy which is set by board members. That's what transparent management is all about. I've seen people referring to him being an employee and so out of bounds, but in most companies it's employees who are the spokespeople.

 

Let's not get all hooked up on what is a simple proposal to communicate. That will certainly be opposed in subtle ways by certain people who don't want to be accountable and through their mates who come on here and pour cold water on some of our comments, but that's the robustness of democracy.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Ian I have people excluded from my email address so I dont see what they send me.If any "rep" was to have Rec flying as junk mail they wont see your emails, hence not respond and then be put in bad light for not responding.

Ian I'm not junking your endevers, just saying what I think this being a sort of democrocy.

 

Bernie.

Bernie, surely our reps know how to use email? The excuse that the filter ate your email shouldn't be acceptable in this day and age. I think if a rep is unable to manage email they should move on.

 

As an RAA member I feel I deserve to know what my representative is saying on my behalf.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Ok. I said I would list my reservations later...

 

• The proposed title "Ask The Board and Governing Bodies" is misleading, given that the usage then talks about questioning only "The Executive", but again refers to "Board Member". Ian has confirmed in Post # 15 that it would be confined to "The Executive", with expansion "if things go well". Perhaps it should be "Ask the RA-Aus Executive", if this narrow focus is to be applied. I would rather it have the broader focus of simply "Ask the RaAus Board". We already have a number of Board members and Board Members elect who are active contributors on this site and willing to inform us. Why exclude them?
   
   
  
• Of the current RAA Executive, AFAIK the only one who is a current contributing member on this site is Steve Runciman, but he has been suspended. Ok; Ian has said he will lift the suspension if Steve is"elected to the Executive". In addition Ian has said that although members would be heavily moderated, Board Members would not; and yet Steve, who is a current Exec member has achieved the highest level of moderation possible (being suspension of his account). One could perhaps understand if Steve decided that this site was not a suitable forum for answering questions in the future. Nobody could tell if he simply didn't respond or was suspended. I had noticed his absence for some time before it was indicated that he had been suspended, and indicating who has been suspended and why has not been normal practice in the past. It is certainly an excuse that can be used by those who desire not to participate.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

...Those that want to post on this site do so but I don't think we can expect all to participate. This is not a RAA site. Maybe when the new RAA site is developed we could push for a section where the Board as individuals can post and we can discuss what they post there on here. If it is an official site those that want to be open can, and those that don't will be seen to do so.Scotty

A good thought, Scotty.

 

 

[Admin]

David...the actual minute that Runciman was given a suspension was announced here...in fact I have an email where he says to another board member that he had been banned when he hadn't plus a member here also said that Runciman had told him that he had been banned when he hadn't...and that was even after he had a made a very offensive post which just resulted in his post being removed but then everything else that happened after that...well, add all of that plus more and he was then given a suspension and it was announced in the forums.

 

The reason for initially making it the Exec was it could be argued that the President is the only official RAAus spokesperson and I know most questions would be about Finance and Systems, Procedures and Policies so together that makes up the Exec. I have seen an ordinary board member's email to a member be followed up with an email from the Exec i.e. Runciman saying to ignore the ordinary board member's email. For this reason I thought that it would be better initially in not bringing ordinary board members into it at first which is why I said the Exec, and if all goes well then etc.

 

I have also heard now how a current board member is going to try and deal with this but more on this later once it is confirmed but what I will say is for that board member, who does read these posts, be very very careful in your quest for supreme control

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

The Board and Exec. has a real issue to resolve... Normally you would expect that there be a spokesman delegated by the Board to publish an agreed position. That position would then be echoed by all Board members in local communications (such as member questions) They scuttled that possibility with the secrecy nonsense. Effectively that destroyed the ability of the organisation to put a united position with one voice. Now, post Temora, there's a credibility issue with some, so I guess members may like to hear from people they trust to give them the good oil, or perhaps to hear from multiple people so they can compare stories. That's no way to continue, but it may take some time to resolve.