Governance - issues for membership

[Guest Father Ted]

For some years I have logged into the Recreational Flyers site and followed the commentary regarding the progress of Recreational Aviation in Australia). In recent times I have become a new member of the forum and hence this posting.

 

It seems to me that the ultralight movement in Australia, now represented by RAAus via a self-regulating arrangement with CASA, has reached a point where the grass roots decision making of the past has been largely replaced by operational decisions made within the context of professional staff and government regulation. Even with the recent election of RAAus Board/Committee members I do not sense that apart from making direct contact with those individually elected members, RAAus does not have a formal strategic planning facility/process to articulate the aspirations of its membership.

 

More likely any proposed strategic direction from the Board/Committee of the organisation is tested against existing government regulation as opposed to the reverse. Put simply RAAus has become, by agreement, more reactive to government edicts, rather than proactive to community pressure - when both are necessary and essential. This is of course not unique to RAAus but is symptomatic of many of the larger (multi million $) community based organisations doing business in Australia, under contract to the government.

 

The angst generated prior to the last Annual General Meeting demonstrated a lack of good governance on behalf of RAAus. With membership now approaching 10,000 it is crucial that the strategic direction of the organisation is drawn from the experience, talent, expertise and wisdom of its membership (which is diverse and significant). And now, with a debate stirring about RAAus’ capacity to represent all facets of recreational aviation, it is even more important to establish open and transparent governance processes befitting an operation the size and diversity of RAAus. Only operational policy, driven by sound governance decisions, will achieve that end. Not rocket science but certainly a change of cultural practice for RAAus.

 

I would be interested to hear other views on how good governance might be achieved.

 

 

[winsor68]

Spot on Father... I have been thinking the same thing... Ra-Aus has a BIG operations problem.

 

An Ops Manager, an assistant and a few delegates around the country is not going to provide effective Operations functions for 3500 aircraft and 10 000 members... I reckon this is part of the reason our ex operations people have been so keen to depart for CASA lately... They know it... CASA knows it... Its just a matter of time until they act IMO.

 

I would have thought Operations Management would have been the first priority for our organization and at the top of the Pyramid as far as functions CASA requires.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

On the other hand, they have just passed a CASA audit with only minor non-conformance, which was promptly addressed. Sounds like success to me.

 

You refer to the "angst prior to the last AGM". There are some new Board members and there's a lot of work going on. Give it time to improve. The perfect organisation (of any type) does not exist).

 

You seem to be siding with the "grass roots" (who want less regulation and lower fees) on one hand and say that the RAA is under staffed to properly conduct operations, which if taken to its logical conclusion requires higher fees to support a bigger staff and more travel to conduct more frequent FTF audits, perhaps inspection of aircraft etc..

 

it is crucial that the strategic direction of the organisation is drawn from the experience, talent, expertise and wisdom of its membership

The conundrum herein lies in whose opinion is taken over who has these qualities. Being a large membership, there's a big range of opinion.

 

 

[Guest Father Ted]

Just a couple of quick points David. The CASA audit is about compliance under the terms and conditions of the agreement RAAus has with the government. As the nominated body representing recreational aviation in Australia, RAAus Board/Committee is obligated, via its management, to find the resources required to comply with that agreement. Currently those resources need to be found primarily from the membership. My own personal view is that there appears little communication as to how the Board/Committee is going about determining and implementing the improvements which many of us see as necessary. On the issue of the "grass roots" membership there should be a capacity to accommodate all aspects of recreational flying within the Board and management of RAAus. A centralised board/committee governance and management structure that does not tap the resources and talents of regional Australia would also seem to be a retrograde position.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

........As the nominated body representing recreational aviation in Australia, RAAus Board/Committee is obligated, via its management, to find the resources required to comply with that agreement. Currently those resources need to be found primarily from the membership.......

I'm not sure that is true. RAA is one organisation, there's the GFA for gliding, HGA for Hang gliding and some trikes and powered parachutes (both of which cross over into RAA I Think), ASRA (???I think its ASRA) for Gyrocopters, AOPA, Antique Aeroplanes Association, another for ex military......all of which are recreational flying. Which in my opinion is such a shame that we have fragmented into multiple groups when we werent that many to start with compared to the general public.

 

As an incorporated body I think the board has to come from the membership? In any event even if we were able to choose directors from outside the membership they would likely want to be paid, especially if you are looking for quality and experienced board of directors which is what I think you are argiung for?. Already we have some arguing that the costs for membership are too great?

 

 

[Guest Father Ted]

Of course you are correct in your observations Andy. The history of the recreational aviation movement incorporates all of the above and has produced the strength that underpins the overall growth of the movement within Australia. Your comments regarding the fragmentation of recreational flying can be a weakness, but given the right governance structures, a strength as well. But who or what is going to take the initiative to bring together the recreational aviation movement, as a whole, in a way that respects, preserves and promotes those individual interests.

 

Having some years professional experience working in the Community based sector and experiencing corporate governance, I would never argue for paid directors for an organisation that is essentially built around the voluntary contributions of its membership (its greatest strength). There is a ton of quality and experience out there just looking for an opportunity to contribute to the strategic directions of recreational aviation , if the lines of communications can be made clear and defined. The only cost involved should be in establishing those lines of communications.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ok so no paid directors, so if the volunteers come from within as you suggest then exactly how is that different to what we have already?

 

if it's lines of communications that do need to be clear and defined then perhaps thats not something that should occur from only one end of the communications chain but indeed both. I believe that was exactly what one board member mentioned only a few days ago....It seems to me though that the only way for me as a member to communicate what it is that I want to happen to the organisation is to tell them because they wont ring around, so to speak. I can do that here, or by email or lifting the phone. Its been an interesting 12 months and Ive used all of those methods in the last 12 months but have to say before that it was rare if at all that I spoke to a board member.

 

I pressume if the voting turnout is as low as it is then the board member/ general member interaction is probably even less. Im not sure its immediately obvious to me how that can change. Again using the last 12 months as an example, given the significant and heated discussions about the last board the voter turn out was still barely adequate...so......

 

As to the question of uniting the various groups......I think, perhaps self included, that most pilots are pretty opinionated and dont tend to take forever to pick a position. The likelihood of picking lotto winners might be better than reuniting the lost tribes.....and I dont play lotto

 

 

[Guest Father Ted]

You make some good points Andy, and no there is nothing wrong with the RAAus governance structure as it currently exists. Your comments on communications however again highlight the frustration that many, including myself, have with the past lack of contact with the Board/Committee/Director members - members vested with the task of setting the strategic direction for the organisation.

 

With regard to uniting the "lost tribes" I would suggest that we are all players, and sometimes competitors, in the sport of recreational aviation. Each specialist part is, and should be, recognised and respected for its role in the development and growth of the sector. Too many times "uniting" suggests one discipline taking over another and there are examples across Australia where the merging of Powered Aero Clubs and Gliding Clubs have struggled to satisfy both parties. Even having a common forum to air differences provides weight to any argument when approaches to government on issues of aviation policy are required.