RAA Aus resignations

[Admin]

Hypothetically, if say a multi million dollar legal case that had been brewing for some time suddenly came out and it was found that there was no directors insurance, due to many mismanagement actions recently undertaken by management and they were now deemed "uninsurable" because of their mismanagement, you are a director and asked for this to be fixed and due to more mismanagement actions it wasn't...you wouldn't want to be anywhere near the ship at all...I am just saying there are many reasons why a board member may resign and this hypothetical example could be just one of many scenarios.

 

I would say that in that hypothetical situation, with all the mismanagement going on, the only way that they may become "insurable" again could be if the management stepped off the ship at the very first port of call so the ship could be "seen" as being "able" to rebuild itself. However the problem with military management is in my opinion, having a father from the military, they never believe they are the cause of the problem and that they are the ones in the wrong destroying everyone else.

 

 

[Bubbleboy]

It may well be David, that the problem is understood/accepted/recognised, but the cause isn't...It's a magnificent day here on the liverpool plains too, so I think I'll go get Ol' Jay Tiga outa the shed and fly over Sommerton way, in the sincere hope of driving David Isaac crazy with jealousy... I don't want to be childish about this DI, but NYAH NYAH na NYAH na... Ya gotta get the Auster going Mate...

 

Wayne...you can be so childish......

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well if he ain't the Captain of the ship, or the organizations' symbolic 'leader', why does everyone make it his problem when it all goes to shxx ??..........................................................Maj...

 

 

[Admin]

Well if he ain't the Captain of the ship, or the organizations' symbolic 'leader', why does everyone make it his problem when it all goes to shxx ??..........................................................Maj...

Maybe/perhaps because, and I have in my possession an example, legal letters that have proven that the rest of the board have no idea what he is doing, using the RAAus name, till after he does things, and they wouldn't have known unless I had sent an email to them all...this has happened several times

 

 

[facthunter]

I've got the answer. Put Steve and crew in a little boat with a set of oars, and they can prove their navigating skills and the others go to Pitcairn island and multiply. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So, Turbo in a much earlier post identified what the contsitution requires if the members want to call a special general meeting and make substantial changes of the type that have been discussed or inferred. (Read the thread again from the begining if unsure as to what that is)

 

Clearly the numbers of members supporting any proposed changes needs to be significant and Turbo suggested that the likelyhood of achieving the necessary numbers was unlikely. Personally I dont disagree with him, but at the end of the day whether there is or isnt the numbers is specualtion until its actually tested. At the same stage we cant test who would or wouldnt support until there is a set of individual proposals which members can then choose to support or not, and that can then be tested in a membership count towards a call for a special general meeting to achieve what we want.

 

So, I think the steps are:-

 

1) Identify on this forum the changes that you want to the constitution. Search and look for past attempts to change the constitution, there is good advice in those older threads and ensure that the wording meets the suggested characteristics of constitutional language.

 

2) Identify the board and or operational team and or process changes that you want to happen and which should tie into 1) above and in effect give the means to change to align to the new constitutional language.

 

3) Put them up for discusssion.

 

Once that happens and assuming we end up with something that it appears as though a number of us can support then I will create a survey where members can identify their name membership number and annual renewal date and a sentance or two affirming their support for the changes. After an advised period of time I will come back with a count of members supporting the change (but not with a public list of names and membership numbers unless you all identify in the survey that you are prepared to have that publically released,, but noting that if we do have teh numbers to calla GM then those details have to be submitted to RAA so they can validate that the requirements of the current constitution have been met.

 

This is the only way that this thread can move from a hot air producing activity into something that might mean things may be different in the future.

 

So, if we were to talk about the things we would want to see changed in the constitution, or in the day to day board/operations interactions processes etc, what are they? For those taht dont feel inclined to break into formal constitutionaleese and just want to keep it simple and let someone else craft the concepts into words, what exactly do you want chnaged and what part of teh current constituion allows, or ignores current practises?

 

Statements like I want X removed, are in spendid isolation useless. rather, in order to avoid the possibility of more legal embarrasments for all parties I would suggest that a sentance taht says, "Currently I understand that that the position X is able to do Y without appropriate checks and balances from Z. I would propose that the( whatever documentation is appropriate) be changed so that this can no longer occur. In otherwords lets make this a forward looking activity where we play the problem, not the individual.

 

So any thoughts?

 

BTW if you cant contribute towards the steps above, then a general "woe is me, and a pox on them" post is not really constructive. the request for change can only happen one way and unless we as a group are prepared to step up then this thread like others before it will be little more than a squeaky wheel, whcih these days a noise cancelling headset can sort out faster than adding oil :<)

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[robinsm]

I may be naive, but with all the discussion, argument, remarks etc on this thread,I still really dont know the facts. I hear plenty of supposition and accusations, hearsay and innuendo but at the end of the day, nothing to solidly base a decision on. If a serious decision has to be made, then lets all have the FACTS as they stand. Surely one of the executive/management/board/people involved etc could enlighten us. Its no good saying things are rotten unless you can openly substantiate it. This is like making an important decision because someone heard that someone told some other person that someone else did something that may or may not have happenned. With the circular argument happenning here, I am rapidly loosing interest in the topic and you wonder why there is a large amount of apathy out there amongst the members when threads full of crap like this get around. Again I say either s..t or get off the pot!

 

 

[Powerin]

Search and look for past attempts to change the constitution, there is good advice in those older threads

Most of those threads and the constitutional research, time and thought that went into them are now gone.....

 

 

[turboplanner]

I may be naive, but with all the discussion, argument, remarks etc on this thread,I still really dont know the facts. I hear plenty of supposition and accusations, hearsay and innuendo but at the end of the day, nothing to solidly base a decision on. If a serious decision has to be made, then lets all have the FACTS as they stand. Surely one of the executive/management/board/people involved etc could enlighten us. Its no good saying things are rotten unless you can openly substantiate it. This is like making an important decision because someone heard that someone told some other person that someone else did something that may or may not have happenned. With the circular argument happenning here, I am rapidly loosing interest in the topic and you wonder why there is a large amount of apathy out there amongst the members when threads full of crap like this get around. Again I say either s..t or get off the pot!

S...t6 or get off the pot yourself and stay out of it then.

 

I seem to remember seeing your name on a list of "staff", so if you can't bring yourself to pick up the phone and ask one of your representatives what the problem is you might like to ask Ian, but don't just bleat away trying to create enough mud to get everyone confused.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Andy, getting the numbers is not beyond the realm of possibility; it happens in politics every decade or so, maybe about to happen with the Federal Government now.

 

I've seen in happen in quite a few clubs where the usual attendance at a meeting may be ten, then an issue occurs and three hundred turn up, appoint a new committee,boot the ringleaders out and the Club moves forward with a totally different culture.

 

The people in these clubs were much the same demographic as RAA members, so that's not the issue.

 

However, those meetings all had one thing in common, everyone knew what the problem was, and there weren't forums around where ****wits who didn't know what the problem was could put up strong arguments not to worry about what they, the poster didn't know about.

 

Hence the first step is to get the correct information out to all members.

 

EDIT: This post is not to be read in conjunction to the one immediately above it. I was just reacting to robinsm post there.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

It may well be David, that the problem is understood/accepted/recognised, but the cause isn't...

Good thought Wayne.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Look, its really simple... There are some things that should not be aired in a public forum because they have the potential to damage our organisation Arguably the organisation can do without anymore damage at the moment so why cant people read between the lines and underastand if you want that info (and I believe you should) get it first hand (outside of the public forum), along with the understanding of HOW we could be damaged and then make sure you dont. It truely isnt that hard.

 

The fact that from time tio time things shoudlnt be aired would be true of almost every incoporated association and for profit company, and one of those times for RAA is now, assuming its not already fully resolved. Its a temporary thing and will dissapear in the short term. In the mean time if you cant be bothered ringing and discussing as Ive said then stop looking for me to tell you what this specific issue is, because quite simply I wont as I dont want to damage RAA and I want to encourage people to converse with their board members, when it comes to accountability nothing achieves that more than knowing as a board member that normal members will ring and discuss with you your performance and stance on issues of importance regularly.

 

Is it storm in a teacup, perhaps thats all a case of perception where you have to decide that for yourself, however I personally am not so sure.

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well said Andy. I too share the same sentiments which is why I haven't been direct on one significant issue.

 

I would like to put some ideas forward in a positive reconstructive sense about changing our structure but I need to get home and off this iPhone to do it.

 

Let's all move forward now folks. Hopefully what I intend to put up will stimulate some constructive discussion around moving our organisation towards a solid benchmark over time.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy, getting the numbers is not beyond the realm of possibility; it happens in politics every decade or so, maybe about to happen with the Federal Government now.I've seen in happen in quite a few clubs where the usual attendance at a meeting may be ten, then an issue occurs and three hundred turn up, appoint a new committee,boot the ringleaders out and the Club moves forward with a totally different culture.

The people in these clubs were much the same demographic as RAA members, so that's not the issue.

 

However, those meetings all had one thing in common, everyone knew what the problem was, and there weren't forums around where ****wits who didn't know what the problem was could put up strong arguments not to worry about what they, the poster didn't know about.

 

Hence the first step is to get the correct information out to all members.

 

EDIT: This post is not to be read in conjunction to the one immediately above it. I was just reacting to robinsm post there.

As I read this I couldnt help but visualise a heap of those "down down, prices are down...coles Red hand things pointing at me..." I havent been called a ***wit this week.....but perhaps its overdue....Oh well...moving on (Noting that my teflon coat seemed to be working well :<)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

BTW, If I cut and past a fragment from an email I got today (Bolded sections are additions by meto try and make a point clearer because its just a fragment of the email)

 

There is already an upcoming General Meeting, the Annual General Meeting in just 4 months from now. To put the motion for constitutional change at that General Meeting, you would probably want to have an article published in the Magazine outlining the proposed changes and why the members should support the changes.

 

 

The Motion(s) for Constitutional change will need to be formally notified to the Members with the Notice for the AGM. The Notice for the AGM has to be included in the August edition of SportPilot. The deadline for inclusions in the August edition is Wednesday, 11th July, 2012.

 

 

So, from today until 11th July 2012, is a mere 7 weeks and that will arrive very quickly."

 

So, if this thread is to become constructive then the timeline that we have to work to is clear.

 

Over to you people

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

As I read this I couldnt help but visualise a heap of those "down down, prices are down...coles Red hand things pointing at me..." I havent been called a ***wit this week.....but perhaps its overdue....Oh well...moving on (Noting that my teflon coat seemed to be working well :<)

It certainly wasn't pointed at you, I'm supporting what you're saying.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

It certainly wasn't pointed at you, I'm supporting what you're saying.

Yeah I know,

but we were on opposite sides last time... Its the fact that this is another instance, and few more board members havent made it through a single term since then that has made me reconsider my position again.

 

 

[coljones]

BTW, If I cut and past a fragment from an email I got today (Bolded sections are additions by meto try and make a point clearer because its just a fragment of the email)

There is already an upcoming General Meeting, the Annual General Meeting in just 4 months from now. To put the motion for constitutional change at that General Meeting, you would probably want to have an article published in the Magazine outlining the proposed changes and why the members should support the changes.

 

The Motion(s) for Constitutional change will need to be formally notified to the Members with the Notice for the AGM. The Notice for the AGM has to be included in the August edition of SportPilot. The deadline for inclusions in the August edition is Wednesday, 11th July, 2012.

 

So, from today until 11th July 2012, is a mere 7 weeks and that will arrive very quickly."

 

So, if this thread is to become constructive then the timeline that we have to work to is clear.

 

Over to you people

 

Andy

Hello All,

 

It would be nice if the skeleton of the proposal were to be run through some forum first so that supporters can add appropriate meat (detractors can postulate alternatives).

 

That the representation model needs to be changed is one of those issues but no-one, including me, has put up a model

 

Do we want a smaller but more inclusive board drawn from all the membership across Oz - goodbye to the Tas, NT and maybe WA reps?

 

Do we want a more representative board, where Vic, NSW and Qld have the same number of reps - 1 more for Vic and 1 less for Qld?

 

Do we want one rep from each state and territory each elected for 2 years - and the vast majority on the eastern seaboard can get stuffed?

 

The control of RA-Aus is a little narrow, a 3 person exec is too small. It should be increased to 5 by the addition of a senior and a junior vice president.

 

We probably need to re-run the change to the number of Qld and Vic Reps to bring a semblance of equity - should we have a rep from ACT in place of a rep from NSW? (how about a rep from Sydney?)

 

I can't find the bi-laws on either website but the one about how to count votes needs to be fixed up and less subject to the quaint views of secretaries or lawyers.

 

The explanation of proxy forms operation needs to be better formed. The last lot was a dogs breakfast and anti-democratic.

 

Col

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Col, The number of reps are decided and aligned with where the active members are. And the fact remains that most of the numbers are in Vic and Qld then followed by NSW. So rightfully so thats where the reps are also. I have a problem with 3 in SE Qld, and only 1 in North Qld. Problem is the number count is based on where the member lives, not where he/she flys or operates, and fact is people fly all over the state all of the time.

 

in Qld for instance we should have 2 in SE Qld and 2 in Nth Qld.................................................Maj...

 

 

[winsor68]

I am thinking... perhaps we need more "Reps" across Australia... but a smaller and more manageable board that said Reps report to?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Its interesting that we debate this point on a forum that has equal access australia wide. Im of the view that States in Australia are becoming a historical irrelevance and personally will ring anyone anywhere to find out whats going on. I cant believe for 1 second that a decision made by the board will in anyway be a function of anything that is state based? Can anyone tell me something that our board would have to decide on that in reality has anything that is a function of statehood where that function is actually aviation related and not a result of existing state or federal legislation? Is anyone truely scared that it would be bad for all power in a board to concentrate south or north, east or west? If you are scared why, what is it at a practical level that concerns you?

 

As a northern NSW resident I would generally ring the best person on the board to deal with my query rather than limit myself to a board member in say Narromine just becasue they were a NSW rep.... When it comes to specific roles the treasurer is the treasurer no matter where he lives and if I have a financial question then its him (or her) that I'll ring.

 

As to board size, I dont think there is an absolute correct number inside the realms of reason (that is I have a view as to practial maximums (10 IMHO) and minimums (6 IMHO )) rather it to me appears as function at present of individual personalities. An old established clique will be as effective at maintaining their influence over newcomers whether the remainder of the board outside the clique is 3 or 10. The more importantquestionto me is, if we have the clique (and Im not claiming we do or dont), how do we transition to a more collaborative and inclusive board? perhaps there needs to be a limit on how long a member can be a representative. Say a maximum of X continuous terms, a minimum of Y years before offering to do it all over with anyone who currently on the board and who currently exceeds the X measure at transition time to be considered to have reached 1/2X (so we dont throw out all experience and knowledge immediately). The same would not occur with Y.

 

 

[winsor68]

I agree that having to have Board Members elected from areas within Australia is a disadvantage... that is why I suggested that we have "Reps" from the areas... and a minimum size board of professional people who are kept more at arms length from the membership, elected by the Reps who are elected by the members and all representations come through the Reps...?

 

That way we keep our local Representation and perhaps have the opportunity to have a more functional board... I mean as it is the Board Members are being referred to as "Reps" when in fact this is a negative in that all their time is taken up with this minimum function when there are much more important things a proper Board Member should be doing? Or am I wrong here?

 

 

[coljones]

I have started a new thread called RAA -Aus Constitutional Change Proposals at http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raa-aus-constitutional-change-proposals.39246/

 

 

[eightyknots]

I have started a new thread called RAA -Aus Constitutional Change Proposals at http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raa-aus-constitutional-change-proposals.39246/

I wonder if you'll get 250 posts on that thread Col?

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

So the way I read the editorial is that RA-Aus currently has no public liability insurance and it still trying to negotiate a good quote.

 

Personally this doesn't bother me a lot as I think it is low fairly risk and they are big enough to self-insure and save the $ each year (our $) but it seems this issue may have freaked out some board members?