RAA - Aus Constitutional Change proposals

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Don sent me (and David and Col) a copy of the By laws that David requested earlier Ive attached them to this post.

 

Turbo's suggestion that like minded people look to get together and thrash this out is probably quite sensible, clearly unless we commit to something like that this thread and what it represents will liely die and then I guess we have no grounds to complain if we end up thinking UhOh groundhog day.

 

Can I get an indication of who would support getting together face to face to build a proposal that would then be presented at the AGM for member consideration? For those that would support such a move, can you identify your home town so I can work out if there is somewhere sensible and central, or......(insert your thoughts here)

 

At the same time can I get an indication as to members of RAA that believe that constitutional change is required and would in principle support something looking like Turbo's framework suggestions? Again, if we only get 5 members telling us that they support inprinciple improvment then despite comments being made it would appear that things need to stay as they are.... FWIW I believe that changes such as suggested can only assit in RAA evolution and struggle to see how they could harm us, but it would be useful to hear from a lawyer member if there are dangers in what has been proposed.

 

Andy

 

RA_Aus_Bylaws_as_of_September_2007.pdf

 

RA_Aus_Bylaws_as_of_September_2007.pdf

 

RA_Aus_Bylaws_as_of_September_2007.pdf

[coljones]

Don sent me (and David and Col) a copy of the By laws that David requested earlier Ive attached them to this post.Turbo's suggestion that like minded people look to get together and thrash this out is probably quite sensible, clearly unless we commit to something like that this thread and what it represents will liely die and then I guess we have no grounds to complain if we end up thinking UhOh groundhog day.

 

Can I get an indication of who would support getting together face to face to build a proposal that would then be presented at the AGM for member consideration? For those that would support such a move, can you identify your home town so I can work out if there is somewhere sensible and central, or......(insert your thoughts here)

 

At the same time can I get an indication as to members of RAA that believe that constitutional change is required and would in principle support something looking like Turbo's framework suggestions? Again, if we only get 5 members telling us that they support inprinciple improvment then despite comments being made it would appear that things need to stay as they are.... FWIW I believe that changes such as suggested can only assit in RAA evolution and struggle to see how they could harm us, but it would be useful to hear from a lawyer member if there are dangers in what has been proposed.

 

Andy

Hello Andy,

 

I will be away from Mid June til after the 7th July which is the drop dead date for submissions to the magagzine and i can't do a face to face before I go. There probably needs a root and branch review of the constitution anyway, which will take time, but there have been some good suggestions made that can probably be progressed as individual items leading up to 7th July.

 

egs are

 

- calling of general meetings - fixing a lowish number (say 50)

 

- Junior members

 

- Vice presidents

 

- I can live with a change of name from Board to Committee (of management)

 

- I think that the last (AGM 2011) interpretation of the proxies was wrong. It is my belief that if a proxy giver strikes out neither "in favour" or "against" in respect to a motion notified on the proxy form this leaves the vote open to the proxy holder. A better proxy form would also include "/abstain/at the proxyholders discretion"

 

Add more

 

The By-laws needs to be either fixed or properly interpreted to prevent a re-run of the next by-election because the results of the main election will not be known before nominations for the (Don and Bill) by-elections close. Under the current spin if any candidate for the by-election gets elected in the main game the whole by-election gets poisoned and has to be recalled.

 

Col

 

 

[Riley]

Don sent me (and David and Col) a copy of the By laws that David requested earlier Ive attached them to this post.Turbo's suggestion that like minded people look to get together and thrash this out is probably quite sensible, clearly unless we commit to something like that this thread and what it represents will liely die and then I guess we have no grounds to complain if we end up thinking UhOh groundhog day.

 

Can I get an indication of who would support getting together face to face to build a proposal that would then be presented at the AGM for member consideration? For those that would support such a move, can you identify your home town so I can work out if there is somewhere sensible and central, or......(insert your thoughts here)

 

At the same time can I get an indication as to members of RAA that believe that constitutional change is required and would in principle support something looking like Turbo's framework suggestions? Again, if we only get 5 members telling us that they support inprinciple improvment then despite comments being made it would appear that things need to stay as they are.... FWIW I believe that changes such as suggested can only assit in RAA evolution and struggle to see how they could harm us, but it would be useful to hear from a lawyer member if there are dangers in what has been proposed.

 

Andy

There ain't no meeting venue that's sensible and/or central between West Australia and the rest of the world so I couldn't participate in any think tank but I would certainly look favourably at supporting any workable improvements to the current less-than-effective parts of our Constitution. Count me in!

 

 

[coljones]

CHANGE 3

DELETE

 

CLAUSE 12

 

Explanation

 

The present drift into controversy is directly related to secrecy.

 

No one has raised any issues with In Camera discussions where this is required by the Privacy Act, or delicacy, but if necessary a suitable clause might be found.

I am not sure about this, I can't find the relevant bit that covers your suggestion to delete Clause 12

 

Clause 12 of the Constition is about the Board composition but not about Secrecy

 

12. Constitution and membership of the Board.

 

(i) The Board shall consist of financial Members representing each Region, in the numbers described in Appendix B, or such other number as may be determined from time to time by the Board.

 

(ii) The boundaries of each Region shall be as described in Appendix B

 

(iii) The Members of the Board, will elect, at the beginning of the Annual Board meeting, presided over by the Public Officer, the Members of the Executive, from within the Board.

 

(iv) The Executive shall consist of the President, Secretary and Treasurer.

 

(v) No Board Member shall be appointed to any salaried office of the Association or CASA.

 

By-Law 12 is a bit offensive as it provides no appeal against a board decision to exclude - normally there would be a provision to appeal to a higher authority - eg a general meeting

 

BY-LAW No 12

 

The Board may reject an application for Membership

 

Implemented September 2007

 

The board may reject an application for membership where the applicant’s previous

 

history indicates his/her behaviour has the potential to bring the RA-Aus into disrepute.

 

August 2007 - Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. Magazine

 

Col

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry Col, made a mistake, I was referring to Clause 12 (iv) of the Constitution which provides for an Executive. I've edited my post to read 12 (iv)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

The silence is killing me, the number of people, other than those actively posting to this thread (3-4) who would support change of the type we are talking about is seriously underwhelming. Let me ask the question a different way, who among you would not support an attempt to modif the constitution in this way? I dont need to understand why, that is entirely up to you as a member and your absolute right. Im just trying to work out if the response so far is appathy related, or to put it another way, things may not be great, but they arent bad enough in your view to justify any action at all at this stage, or is it because Im doing a "Don Quixote" and tilting at problems others believe simply arent there?

 

Andy

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

I wasn't ignoring you Andy, I've not been to this forum since before you asked who would like to get together for a pow wow...

 

This sort of stuff is way outside my comfort zone. But I'll come from Gunnedah NSW and listen. And Coffs is as good a place as any in my opinion...

 

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Wayne

 

Thanks, its not exactly my area of comfort either, however I feel it is time to make something positive out of these threads which Im sure would be judged on the whole, by those who dont have much detail, as being overly negative.

 

If we cant be bothered to do that then other than the current board mandated review processes I dont see how change will occur. If the issues are real, and the board as a voting entity isnt prepared to act on the deficiencies that some of us see today, then I doubt they will act on the means to address the deficiencies by another mechanism...

 

The alternate is that we again vote in a replacment for Don with high hopes for evolutionary change......and repeat....and repeat.... not fair on the candidate and arguably no progress on the bigger issues (which is not to infer Don didnt do anything clearly he did, but not as much as he could have had he served a full term.....)

 

I dont think Coffs is a good place for a meet, the local airport is class D (so members in general cant fly here) and for anyone who felt this is important and wanted to contribute, its better that it be in a major poulation center so any travel, if required is well provided for and doesnt require multiple changes or segments (if other than by car).

 

That said, we need more to come out of the woodwork if this is to ever get off the ground. I personally am not going to spend my families money on something that seems doomed to failure because at the end of the day there is no support for change.

 

Andy

 

 

[kgwilson]

I have only just read this thread and support Turbos ideas & Andy's for a get together. If Coffs is not viable how about Grafton? It's obviously not a major population centre but you can get there by bus, car, RPT or fly your own. The clubhouse is not huge but we could seat about 30-40. There's a kitchen, BBQ & bar plus bunkhouse & bathroom for those who want to stay over. There is 900 metres of sealed strip (grass also) & sealed taxi way to the clubhouse & plenty of tie down area.

 

Even if we only get 20 or so it would be a start. Remember "From little things big things grow".

 

Kevin

 

 

[David Isaac]

Andy,

 

You have my support.

 

Kevin Grafton sounds great, bunkhouse keeps the cost down and the comeradery active ... LOL

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

PeopleThe silence is killing me...

Andy

Don't despair Andy, we appreciate the thought that you people are putting into repairing our organisation.

 

As Wayne said, this is outside our comfort zone and also outside the experience of many. Who really knows where the wording of a constitution will lead us?Perhaps we need advice from some outside organisations re constitutional changes. The Sporting Shooters seem to be a good start.

 

There are two major problems: Organising a face-to-face meeting, and getting enough members involved. These are related, so why not start with what we have- a successful electronic forum. Phone links and video links should also be useful. Perhaps more members could be encouraged to participate in a series of simple surveys so that the need/desires of the wider membership could be ascertained. This may be a way of getting more members interested and involved in the evolution of our constitution.

 

Eventually we might end up with a core of interested people with experience of how the words guide the actions. Perhaps the membership could empower them to draft the new rules. It won't be easy or quick. Remember that our colonial ancestors debated for decades before Oz was born.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

The RPT airfare for me would be $600 return to Grafton, so I'll stick with electronic communication.

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK there is already the core of interested people.

 

They of course have no power, but no power is needed just to come up with a proposal for a reformed Constitution and present it to a General Meeting

 

That's where the numbers are required to accept all, part or nothing.

 

The problem with using an open forum is:

 

As in the case which existed during the last discussions and now, it is not legally realistic to spell out in full the reasons for needing a change.

 

That then encourages the people causing the problem to band together and activate their touts, so a conflict develops.

 

Various others who know nothing about any problems and either have fixed ideas or are naturally against change join in what is now an elevated argument.

 

This attracts the trolls and it becomes an all in fight with 90% of the participants unaware of what the problems were and the relatively straightforward actions needed to fix them and move on to greater success.

 

The all in fight then leads to inappropriate behaviour, bans and people pulling sensible posts after being attacked by feral latecomers.

 

Add an outside element who just live for the next opportunity to attack the site owner and a site owner sensitive to the slightest move they make, and you have a situtaion which is not unlike the unfortunate outcome of having the zip on your jeans break open just as you'd stepped inside a Feminist Convention to ask for directions to the nearest Supercheap Auto store. You aren't going to be believed inside and you aren't going to get help until you go outside.

 

The location is worth discussing here, because the aim is to get a reasonable number of skilled people - maybe up to 10.

 

What about picking a cheap Jetstar fare location (which probably will be one of the capital cities)?

 

What about having two or more groups initially (so WA can produce input)?

 

 

[ahlocks]

Tubz, that would have be the most accurate description of how these things always seem to turn to pooh that I've ever read.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Tubz, that would have be the most accurate description of how these things always seem to turn to pooh that I've ever read.

Hear hear...

 

Having said that, I'm sorry, but I'd much rather fly myself into somewhere like Grafton than PAX into somewhere in a Kero Burner... On the subject of venues... Perhaps Temora???

 

 

[turboplanner]

Very rough figures

 

Fly yourself Gunnedah to Grafton - $1080.00 return

 

Fly yourself Melbourne to Grafton - $2000.00 return

 

(You could actually get to Tokyo for half that)

 

(This for people who are not board members, just donating their own resources to try to achieve an improvement)

 

Kero Burners

 

Adelaide - Gold Coast Jetstar return $149.00

 

Perth - Gold Coast return $189

 

Melbourne - Gold Coast $119

 

Mackay - Brisbane $99.00

 

Electronic Conference

 

need examples of software

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think you can conference in google plus pretty easily. just need a laptop with a camera

 

 

[David Isaac]

Folks,

 

I think it is time to highlight a couple of things.

 

Some months back Steve Runciman as President of RA Aus announced in the Sport Pilot magazine that the Board had approved the formation of a Constitutional Review Committee (CRC). Don Ramsay was given the task of forming the committee and setting in motion activity around the review of the current RA Aus constitution. I am one of the members of that committee along with a few others.

 

Substantial work has been undertaken by the CRC and a process to document the proposals and review them is established.

 

I would like to say that the CRC is aware of all the contributions on this thread and they will be taken into consideration in the review process.

 

The CRC is planning to meet on the weekend of the 9th of this month to put in place at least some urgently needed changes to the constitution as special resolutions for the next RA Aus Annual General Meeting in September this year to be held on the Gold Coast.

 

The CRC is aware the constitution requires considerable changes in several areas and it will not be possible to put substantial changes to the membership until after the next AGM. This will be done either by a special general meeting called for that purpose (perhaps a general meeting at Temora) or the 2013 AGM.

 

At this stage I would suggest that it would be pointless in holding a separate set of meetings as has been suggested in this thread, however, I would like to suggest that if anyone would like to make further submissions to the CRC that they should do so by emailing Don Ramsay on [email protected] or alternatively myself [email protected] as all contributions are welcomed.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well, transparency is well and truly dead isn't it.

 

A private meeting not to prepare material for Members to consider and discuss, but to put in place changes to the constitution as "special resolutions for the next AGM"

 

Well I guess the members couldn't give a stuff what happens to them, so it probably doesn't matter.

 

 

[David Isaac]

There will be an opportunity for member input to the proposed resolutions Tubz, the proposals will be published in the next Sport Pilot magazine. The special resolutions will follow the member feedback.

 

Remember these are only interim changes for urgent matters, and any change will require the support of 70% of voting attendees and proxies at the AGM.

 

The more comprehensive review will follow post the AGM.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I just lost interest, don't have to worry about it, but I'm incensed that the members, after the treatment they have received have just been kept in the dark like mushrooms once again by someone who we campaigned for and believed in.

 

 

[David Isaac]

That someone has been constrained for good reasons .. I have talked to him and so have a few others. He will hopefully allow us to speak out shortly once a few things have been confirmed. Once the information comes out members will see why it could have been quite destructive to RA Aus if it had been released prematurely.

 

The information will have to come via one of us as he will not use this forum and I note no other Board member is using this forum either.

 

 

[turboplanner]

When you argue that it's wrong to run an Association behind closed doors, and you then go ahead and do the same, regardless of supposed constraints, you finish up with your credibility in the dustbin, and people will say "better the devil you know".

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Very rough figuresFly yourself Gunnedah to Grafton - $1080.00 return

 

Fly yourself Melbourne to Grafton - $2000.00 return

 

(You could actually get to Tokyo for half that)

 

(This for people who are not board members, just donating their own resources to try to achieve an improvement)

 

Kero Burners

 

Adelaide - Gold Coast Jetstar return $149.00

 

Perth - Gold Coast return $189

 

Melbourne - Gold Coast $119

 

Mackay - Brisbane $99.00

 

Electronic Conference

 

need examples of software

You're doing it again Turbs. You're applying logic to matters of the heart... Kero Burners between major airports are the most cost effective transport if you're travelling between major airports. No arguement about that. But it's neither what I am or want to do...

 

Well, transparency is well and truly dead isn't it.A private meeting not to prepare material for Members to consider and discuss, but to put in place changes to the constitution as "special resolutions for the next AGM"

 

Well I guess the members couldn't give a stuff what happens to them, so it probably doesn't matter.

Methinks you're being a bit harsh with this one, Turbz... David Isaac has told us there is already a group (CRC) looking at known problems with the intention of submitting proposed solutions for ratification by the members attending the next AGM, which is to be held on the Gold Coast. He did not say they're going to ram them down our throats. He said they'll be presenting us with solutions they hope we'll accept.

 

David, and a couple of others, have repeatedly called for interested members to contact their board representatives and ask what the issues are that are of concern and/or offer suggestions. David has also given us his and Don Ramsay's private email addresses so that we may ask questions and submit suggestions to the CRC.

 

I feel it is fair to say there are many of us here on this forum who followed, or at least observed, what happened on this forum on "Black Sunday" last year when both Don and David, plus many others, were censored by having literally thousands of posts wiped out without warning or recourse. Because of that, many of us understand why Don, and many others, will not post here again. (Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me) I think saying he is not being transparent is a grose distortion of fact, Turbz... For the fact is Don has asked me, and I must asume he has asked others who have called him, not to go public yet with what he has told me/us, because it'd do more harm than good at this time. Don is not being secretive, Turbz. He just won't talk to us via this forum... So call him if you have a question or a suggestion. And if you don't have his phone number, send him an email at [email protected] and ask for it...

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've heard it all chapter and verse Wayne.