RAAus stopping membership

[Methusala]

Short answer to Metalman "YES!"

 

 

[Yenn]

At the AGM, the president retires and there will be an election for a new president, or to re install the present president.

 

 

[Admin]

At the AGM, the president retires and there will be an election for a new president, or to re install the present president.

Yenn, the President is actually elected, not at the AGM, but in the Board Meeting that follows the AGM. The President, Secretary and Treasurer are elected by the Board Members and not the RAAus Members unfortunately

 

 

[Guernsey]

Does the President retire before or after the AGM itself.

 

Alan.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

has the board given any indication that they don't support the president.

 

 

[Admin]

Does the President retire before or after the AGM itself.Alan.

I don't know the technicality of it but simply at a guess, maybe he steps down at the beginning of the AGM when he declares all executive positions vacant, he then stays on as the chairperson of the AGM and then chairs the following board meeting until the first order of business being to elect a new executive...I don't really know and I assume that the overarching Association rules of the ACT would govern that in the absence of any definition in the constitution...but then again, the executive may stay as the executive until all positions are declared vacant in the first order of business in the following board meeting...certainly is an interesting one

 

 

[cazza]

All executive posit,ions are vacated at the boArd meeting AFTER the AGM.

 

Cazza

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Phil.Regrettably I believe you are correct in that view.

Since I have been labelled as 'that outspoken person' by a current Board member in reference to my involvement at the meeting of members at Temora in 2011 I might as well continue, after all it is my association as well as yours. Someone has to throw the challenges out there, we can either rise to them or divulve into abuse and vitriol, hopefully the former.

 

It is my personal opinion that some Board members are just along for the ride and that there appear to be few possessing the professional aptitude to validly hold the position. But then again who in their right mind would put their hand up to join the Board when IMHO the Board appear to ignore our Constitution, appear to enact inappropriate provisions, don’t appear to enforce proper process and appear to allow the CEO to run off in any direction he chooses … a new competent person may never get support and may need to resign (as two eminently competent Board members did recently) otherwise suffer the possible consequences of an incompetent Board. Perhaps my criticism is a little strong; you be the judge of that. Public positions by their nature are subject to public scrutiny.

 

We are about to see a number of new members join the Board and hopefully some constitutional changes that will put the power back into the hands of the members to hold the Board accountable at at least one extra meeting a year. Alternatively the members can force the board to a general meeting called for the purposes as directed if there is a reasonable amount of support to do so. I wonder whether this will see a different response by the incumbent members of the Board. The Board has a lot of explaining to do at the AGM, just like they did at Temora in 2011, how much of the explanation will be transparent and how much will just be platitudes. Pity I wont be there.

 

Regards,

I've just reread this David, and while I usually agree with you, I think you might be being a bit heavy handed here. Especially the bit about the board allowing the CEO to run off in any direction he chooses... Am I missing something?

 

Please explain.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Now is the time for a couple of the board members who've had plenty to say about this in the background to actually give Wayne some information.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I've just reread this David, and while I usually agree with you, I think you might be being a bit heavy handed here. Especially the bit about the board allowing the CEO to run off in any direction he chooses... Am I missing something?Please explain.

Wayne,

Having decided enough is enough and that the members should understand what some of the allegations are I decided to post a copy of the letter I sent to the RA Aus Board asking them to answer all my questions at the AGM. Those of you that will be at the AGM need to know what the issues are and how the Board responds to the questions. If you are not happy with the answers you need to demand an open and transparent response. Below is my letter ...

 

16th September, 2012

 

The Secretary and the Board

 

Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated

 

Questions with Notice for R A Aus Board response at the AGM Heck Field 22nd September, 2012.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

The president when announcing he could not make the AGM due to work commitments, asked for any questions from members so that he could arrange for answers at the AGM. The following allegations and questions are provided in advance of the AGM at Heck Field in order for the Board of RA Aus to comprehensively respond to the members in relation to the matters raised. They are expressions of concern that have been raised by me and several concerned members over a period of many months.

 

The CEO has drawn significant attention to himself over the last several months. In my opinion, there have been a number of indiscretions that, in most organisations would have resulted in dismissal or sanction.

 

There have also been actions by the President that have been called into question. Below is a summary of various issues and incidents that involve the CEO, President, the Executive and the Board that I respectfully request the Board to respond to, with explanations and answers at the AGM.

 

These questions have been placed on the public record and I would ask that the Board apply rigour, transparency and accuracy around the answers and explanations to the members attending the AGM.

 

1. The CEO’s grounding of Junior Flyers on 23 Dec 2011 without reference to the Board appears to have been in direct disobedience of a Board Resolution. The resolution was passed when the CEO was present at the Board meeting. The problem was compounded in that the CEO was unavailable for approximately 10 days following his grounding action. It has also been alleged that the CEO was asked by the Board to obtain legal advice on the status of junior flyers and failed to obtain this advice for a period in excess of eight months. Compounding this issue, it has been further alleged that the President attempted on several occasions to excuse the CEO’s behaviour on the basis of a miscommunication where the CEO had believed he had the President’s authority to proceed with the grounding – the president’s authority would not be sufficient, a board approval was required. What should be eminently clear is that the President and the CEO cannot override a Board Resolution no matter what miscommunication errors might occur.

 

Questions:

 

Would the Board please explain to the members:

 

a. How the CEO was held accountable for his actions; and

 

b. What has been the final outcome for Junior Flyers; and

 

c. On what basis the outcomes were made; and

 

d. Why a constitutional change has not been proposed to deal with a junior class of membership; and

 

e. Why the Board did not immediately dismiss the CEO for his disobedience of a clear Board resolution; and

 

f. How the Board decided to grant the CEO a salary increase in these circumstances?

 

2. RA-Aus have previously faced difficulties in obtaining liability insurance cover for the Board and the Staff. With the full knowledge of the previous difficulties, it is alleged the CEO allowed the insurance cover to get within a few working days of expiry before submitting the paperwork to the Broker for the renewal process. As might be expected it took around a month for the insurance cover to be obtained. During that month, there were periods when the cover was provided only by the good grace of the insurer and there were periods when there was zero cover. It is further alleged that the lack of insurance and the potential liability to Board members individually was a significant factor in the resignation of at least one of the competent Board members and potentially a factor in the resignation of another.

 

Questions:

 

a. Would the Board please respond to these allegations and detail what was done about the CEO’s lack of performance; and

 

b. What current level of association insurance is held in terms of Public Liability, Product Liability and Professional Liability; and

 

c. What level of Directors Liability insurance is held; and

 

d. The total annual cost for all such insurances in the last year of renewal; and

 

e. What the cost increase has been for that insurance over last year’s cost?

 

3. It is alleged the CEO commenced legal action against Ian Baker, the owner of the Recreational Flying Forum website, without first obtaining Board or Executive approval for what was largely a personal action. Allegedly this action was excused by the President on a technicality, that the CEO hadn’t actually filed proceedings. If this is true, the President’s response is merely a play on words as we all know legal proceedings are typically initiated with a letter threatening legal action.

 

Questions:

 

Would the Board please explain to the members:

 

a. What action was taken in this regard and what costs RA-Aus was subject to as a result of the CEO’s unauthorised actions; and

 

b. Whether or not the Board intends to recover those costs from the CEO; and

 

c. Whether the Board intends to pursue action against Ian Baker and his Recreational Flying website and if so, on what basis and what the litigation risk exposure will be to RA-Aus?

 

4. The most recent activity by the President was to defer Ian Baker’s application for membership. The President did this by his personal actions without consulting the Board. This action is in my opinion an abuse of power. I would also argue that the application of By-Law 12 (a potentially unlawful By-law) shows a callous disregard for procedural fairness. As I understand it, the President does not personally vet membership applications. In my opinion this strongly indicates that the CEO, and presumably the President have prejudged Mr Baker’s fitness for membership, and have done so despite their known personal grievances with Mr Baker. I base my opinion on the fact the CEO previously commenced action against Ian Baker for his free speech and criticism of the CEO on his website Recreational Flying.

 

Questions:

 

Would the Board please explain:

 

a. On what basis this inappropriate action was permitted and how it was taken without the knowledge of the full Board of RA-Aus; and

 

b. Why this matter could not have been dealt with immediately on the Board forum as most other Board matters are; and

 

c. How this action could have achieved a constructive outcome for either the membership or Mr. Baker; and

 

d. Whether the Board intends to ensure that in the future the executive demonstrates good governance by consulting the full Board before undertaking actions of such a serious nature; and

 

e. Its understanding of the impacts on licensing and registration in respect of ultralight aircraft in Australia pursuant to the deed of arrangement with CASA in the light of By-law 12.

 

f. Whether it will rescind the highly controversial By-Law 12, which is quite probably unlawful as it goes beyond the scope the RA-Aus constitution gives the Board to create By-laws; and

 

g. Whether it intends to put a special resolution to amend the RA-Aus constitution to include such a provision properly worded and constructed with an appeal process to ensure procedural fairness?

 

5. The alleged Tizzard / Tully Coroner recommendations (apparently made without Board approval), if true demonstrate that the CEO made a serious error of judgement and some of these recommendations are enough on their own to question the CEO’s fitness to hold the position. It was a gross indiscretion and he should be called to account publicly for his actions. The sad irony of the list of recommendations is the last mentioned one, namely that the completion of the RA-Aus Operations Manual be given the highest priority. This is what the CEO was originally employed to do in his previous role with RA-Aus! More than three years have elapsed since he was given that task. The Operations Manual is such a critical document to the operation of RA-Aus that, even if the CEO had been too busy to do it himself, he should have seen that it was both written, reviewed and approved by other qualified people by now!

 

Questions:

 

Would the Board explain to the members:

 

a. What their actions were or, if they have done nothing so far, what they intend to do in relation to this action by the CEO; and

 

b. What actions will be taken in relation to the incomplete Operations Manual; and

 

c. Why the failure to provide a completed Operations Manual at this point in time is not in itself enough to call for the CEO’s resignation / dismissal?

 

6. The President attempted on a number of occasions to dismiss the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) of which I was a member, by sending Don Ramsay emails to that effect. On each occasion, Mr. Ramsay reminded the President that he had no such power and that it was improper for him to attempt to do so as the CRC was established by a unanimous Board Resolution. The only way the CRC’s commission could be withdrawn would be by another Board Resolution rescinding the appointment. Eventually, the President conceded this but not without a heated email exchange (which I personally witnessed), eventually obtaining the Board Resolution required to shut down the CRC. But this was not before refusing to communicate with Mr. Ramsay anymore on the subject. The President stated, in writing, words to the effect that clearly Mr. Ramsay was not listening and that he would not reply further to Mr Ramsay on this matter. Personally, I viewed the President’s tactics as bullying, arrogant and unacceptable. This left Don Ramsay with no alternative but to communicate directly with the Board. Clearly the actions of the President and the Board did not stop Don Ramsay, David Hunt, Andy Saywell and myself from working on constitutional issues, prioritising four of them and then presenting motions for Special Resolutions. All the President achieved was to remove the need for us to report to the Board and to withdraw the funding of our meeting expenses. In my opinion this is an example of where the President confuses his function as President of an Association with that of a Military Major. What the membership would not be aware of was that there was considerable obstruction by the President to Don Ramsay getting his article on the proposed special resolutions published in the Sport Pilot magazine in order to explain the reasons for the proposed changes.

 

Questions:

 

Would the Board please explain to the members:

 

a. On what basis it decided to disband the CRC given the relatively urgent need to deal with some of the constitutional matters; and

 

b. What possible problem there could have been (perceived or otherwise) in leaving the CRC functioning without a Board member present at the CRC meetings, given that the CRC was bound to report their actions to the Board in any case; and

 

c. Why they allowed obstruction to Don Ramsay’s article on the basis of the proposed special resolutions to continue for nearly 10 days prior to the eventual publication of the article in Sport Pilot magazine?

 

7. It appears the CEO failed to provide appropriate surveillance of the previous Technical Manager for the whole of the time that he was the Technical Manager’s immediate superior. This lack of supervision allowed serious errors with regard to registration of LSA aircraft to go uncorrected until detected by CASA who issued a Safety Alert to RA-Aus. Three aircraft types whose LSA credentials were not correct even though their registration had been accepted by RA-Aus, were involved in either fatal, multi fatal or potentially multi-fatal accidents. This appears as another example of how the CEO has clearly demonstrated that he is not suited to the role.

 

Questions:

 

Would the Board please explain to the members:

 

a. The current status in relation to the aircraft manufacturers and importers so affected by the registration issues; and

 

b. Whether any provision has been made for the replacement of the CEO with a person who actually has successful general management experience of a not-for-profit organisation?

 

8. It would appear that proper procedure was not followed by the Board in the recruitment of a replacement CEO when the previous appointment of Mr. Robbie Costmeyer as CEO was not sustained.

 

Question.

 

Would the Board please explain to the members:

 

a. Why five other short listed candidates, all described by the recruitment panel as excellent candidates were passed over in favour of the current CEO, allegedly a personal friend of certain Board Members; and

 

b. If the Board considered the other five short-listed candidates were not up to the job, why was the position not re-advertised nationally; and

 

c. How the Members entitlement to a transparent recruitment process was not violated by the Board by what appears to be a ‘cronyism’ approach to filling the most senior management role in RA-Aus?

 

9. It would appear that when Mick Poole left RA-Aus a proper recruitment process was not followed by the Board and the administration for the appointment of his replacement.

 

Question.

 

Would the Board please explain to the members:

 

a. Why was the position advertised as ‘A position in the Operations Area’ rather than ‘Operations Manager’; and

 

b. Are these further examples of the Board’s failure to provide good corporate governance and to look after the Members interests as they were elected to do?

 

Yours faithfully,

 

David P Isaac

 

RA Aus Member 205025

 

EDIT: Corrected the reference to Technical manager in Point 7.

 

 

[ave8rr]

David, many thanks for publishing the above. This should make for an interesting and probably very long meeting on Saturday.

 

I would like to be there but distance rules this out this time.

 

I await some answers to your questions on this forum soon after the meeting as I am sure there will be very little on the RAAus web site or magazine.

 

Cheers

 

 

[fly_tornado]

That is, assuming that the board chooses to answer those questions, which they won't.

 

 

[turboplanner]

They told you that I guess FT?

 

They start to cross over into serious personal trouble if they tried that.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I wish everyone all the best of luck with the effort to reform the RAA.

 

 

[Guernsey]

You mean RAAus.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

David

 

In providing these questions in advance of the meeting the board surely cannot "Take the question on notice" which means that at the least a set of answers to the questions should be provided even if they dont agree with the entirety of the basis of your question.

 

It is vital IMHO that those present ensure that in the event that the board disagree with some part of each statement that they answer the questions that they can about the incident and dont let teh dispute about some or all of the basis become the overiding point of discussion.

 

As an example any argument that the president did not extinguish the CRC but rather the board did, is in my opinion going from step A to step Z and ingnoring all the in between steps. the fact that we got to Z was more a function of the totality of those involved than a determination of the president alone.

 

The only other question I would like to understand is if the various insurances we have in place are appropriately sized. I would like to understand how the policy levels were determined and what proffesional advice those levels were based on. We hear of legal disputes (completely different to those contained in your email) that appear to be underway and I wonder if members and the association itself is under thtreat because of these.

 

I think your approach is one that others should also take on. If you have questions and you want answers at the AGM rather than "We will get back to you on that" then ask the questions in advance.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

My email to the board as follows:-

 

 

I would like to ask the following question at the AGM and provide it in advance to you all so that a full and complete answer can be provided at the AGM.

 

 

“Can the board please advise what steps have been taken to ensure that the association is appropriately protected by the suite of Liability and indemnity insurance policy’s that we hold. That is how do we know that the policy amounts and inclusions are sufficient to meet our associations needs and what legal and insurance professional advice was sought to size and scope the policies? Has the requirements to maintain continuous cover from the same insurer been followed where legal action is underway?

 

 

More to the point, are the board able to advise what legal actions against RAAus are underway at present and what our legal teams advice to our liability is with regard to these legal actions and is our exposure believed to be fully covered by insurance policies or if not have suitable provisions been taken in our annual accounts to cover any shortfall?

 

 

Regards

 

 

Andrew Saywell

 

Member # 15361

 

 

[dodo]

It's a fourteen hour drive for me, so I doubt I will be at the AGM.

 

But could someone ask the board why they NEVER tell the membership anything that they need to know about?

 

Examples (should they be necessary!):

 

-LSA registration issues - what is the problem, why haven't the member ship been informed of anything beyond that "there are registration issues with some types"?

 

-Insurance issues - what issues are there, and why? Again, we just get told "there are problems with insurance". Not even what sort of insurance!

 

- litigation. Who is litigating, or who are we litigating? And why? Never mentioned by the board, just appears as an expense, unexplained.

 

dodo

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good question Andy because if Public Liability claims exceed the insured amount its the members who could be coughing up the remaining hundreds of thousands, millions etc., so for sure I'd like to know what claims were in progress, and how much of the insured amount had already been chewed up, if any.

 

 

[Captain]

Wayne,Having decided enough is enough and that the members should understand what some of the allegations are I decided to post a copy of the letter I sent to the RA Aus Board asking them to answer all my questions at the AGM. Those of you that will be at the AGM need to know what the issues are and how the Board responds to the questions. If you are not happy with the answers you need to demand an open and transparent response. Below is my letter ...

David,

 

Good luck with your efforts and don't let them do to you what they did to me at Temora.

 

As you witnessed, even though I gave them 3 weeks notice I still got the absolute crap of "You are not a member" and then the farce of the CEO saying that he "Couldn't remember" in response to one of my questions on notice.

 

Perhaps he needed 6 weeks notice to remember his answer.

 

Can't wait to hear the outcome.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[David Isaac]

That is, assuming that the board chooses to answer those questions, which they won't.

The Board have no choice but to answer, they are questions with notice. The Board must answer questions put to them by the members who voted them in to represent them in the governance of our organisation.

The judgement will be on how truthful the Board chooses to be with their responses.

 

 

[Guest Wigg]

I was under the impression that this site was being run by Corrine not Ian. I havent been on here for quite some time so I do appologise if I am wrong on this.

 

 

[eightyknots]

...

The Secretary and the Board

 

Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated

 

Questions with Notice for R A Aus Board response at the AGM Heck Field 22nd September, 2012.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

The president when announcing he could not make the AGM due to work commitments, asked for any questions from members so that he could arrange for answers at the AGM.

 

...

 

Yours faithfully,

 

David P Isaac

 

RA Aus Member 205025

I counted 34 questions, all very well though out ones. I am so glad that there is a guarantee/promise that any questions will have answers arranged for them. I love the promise of transparency and I hope that the promised answers will take the 'heat' out the situations and issues that have outlined in Davind's letter.

 

The only little, niggly fear I have is that the promised RA-Aus responses to these straightforward, unambiguous and detailed questions will not be straightforward, unambiguous and detailed answers. Does anyone else have this apprehension??

 

 

[facthunter]

Corrinne plugs in the leads and pedals the generator. Nev

 

 

[Guest Wigg]

Thanks for the reply Nev I now stand corrected. Cheers Sue

 

 

[eightyknots]

Corrinne plugs in the leads and pedals the generator. Nev

...and owns the computer...