RAAus stopping membership

[shags_j]

There was definitely no checking to see if only financial members were present or voting.

 

 

[turboplanner]

But was there any voting by a show of hands from the floor though?

 

 

[shags_j]

Some though the votes were all extremely one way fromo the floor (ie. they were all unanimous from the floor)

 

 

[turboplanner]

Doesn't matter that the votes were unanimous, you can't have non members influencing a vote so the question is how long has this been going on.

 

This by the way makes a mockery of the other extreme - secrecy.

 

 

[turboplanner]

since when were 'non members voting'

See post #414

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hi Shags,

 

Re your posts #412 and #414 and CFIcare's post #416:

 

Are you able to confirm how the voting for the specific agenda items was counted if there was a mix of members and non-members in the room?

 

 

[shags_j]

Show of hands only. I'm not saying there were definitely non-members voting though at no point (other than a register that was handed around) did they check to see if everone there was a financial member or not.

 

All the votes were show of hands except for two of the constitutional changes which were foregone conclusions on the proxies alone. The only one that was up in the air (cficare said) was the 5% one. That is until the show of hands which was unanimous for on the floor. There was a guy sitting near me that didn't write his name and member number on the register so I assume that he wasn't a member but was still in attendance nonetheless (he did not vote on anything though).

 

 

[Admin]

I can also report that I believe Steve Runciman has also now lied to the Members on at least one of his answers to the questions that were put to him which will come out in discovery of further legal action against him and RAAus...it seems to be just getting worst and worst...what makes them think that they are the absolute best and greatest people on this earth that are the only people capable of being on the RAAus board, so much so that they can't put the betterment of RAAus above everything else and resign given that there is so much outcry over everything they are doing...how can these people be so blind to what has been presented to them not only yesterday at the AGM but the long running dissidence of the members which is getting stronger and stronger, and all those that are coming out against them...this in itself is a true indicator that they are not fit to hold such a position in my opinion, nor do they have the decency to listen and say "OK, I am hearing you, I will put RAAus first and foremost, above all else, above my own personal agendas of seeking greatness and glory, so let's work at getting some better people in to replace me to get RAAus to the greatest it can possibly be".

 

 

[Admin]

There was definitely no checking to see if only financial members were present or voting.

And look what happened to poor old Capt who got "attacked" (only word I can think of) in front of hundreds of people at the meeting at NatFly by the then President Eugene Reid, who I believe was set up by Steve Tizzard, in being told he wasn't an RAAus member and was not allowed at the meeting...Cap't then had to prove by displaying his membership card that he was in fact a member

 

 

[flyerme]

SO WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Re Shags #419

 

Words fail me.

 

Hold the champagne guys, it may be that these decisions are invalid.

 

If that is the case, then at a future General Meeting where controversial issues which affect people may be discussed, then, in my opinion, the decisions could be legally challenged and overturned.

 

I'm not suggesting this was a deliberate strategy; instead, with such a critical decision you'd have to wonder why the people in the room didn't call for a point of order, and ensure that only members were voting.

 

 

[Captain]

Words fail me.Hold the champagne guys, it may be that these decisions are invalid.

If that is the case, then at a future General Meeting where controversial issues which affect people may be discussed, then, in my opinion, the decisions could be legally challenged and overturned.

 

I'm not suggesting this was a deliberate strategy; instead, with such a critical decision you'd have to wonder why the people in the room didn't call for a point of order, and ensure that only members were voting.

Tubb,

 

Surely those motions that went through on the proxy numbers alone would be OK?

 

And IF, repeat IF, you are correct on the validity of these decisions, it should not be sheeted home to the "people in the room".

 

IF you are right, instead it would be a demonstrable and critical (and another) failure of good governance by those at the top or employed by the organiization to administer this meeting.

 

Perhaps this meeting will be grounded on Monday (but nobody will be told).

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

As you know nothing is ever simple when the lawyers get involved, and this will almost certainly only come up with something critical enough for someone to spend the value of his house on lawyers.

 

I don't know about the proxy ones, but it wouldn't surprise me for an argument to be put that since the vote itself was invalid, then components of the vote were invalid.

 

It's just plain bloody depressing.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

guys

 

there was around 120 people present for the votes and the chairman had pointed out that only financial members could vote and of those voting only if you hadnt already voted by proxy.

 

there was much discussion on the last point with approx 10 members eventually being identified as members present who had also voted by proxy. These members were concerned if they withheld a vote by show of hands they wanted assurity that their proxy was present and in the end such an assurance couldnt be given due to the system we use. In the end it was decided sensibly that a show of hands of members in this position was taken and if the count was cloes enough that this might matter we would revisit...In the end it wasnt that close.

 

furthermore proxys werent handed out, it seemed to me if you voted by proxy then your vote was counted.

 

I dont agree it was unanimous from the floor some board members voted against some (5%one) and the rest of the board semed to neither vote for or against and therefore i pressume may have voted by proxy (Ed H from SA was one and another sitting very close to him) Not sure why the board in general didnt appear to vote? perhaps didnt want the members to see which way they voted, or didnt want to seem to direct the members to vote a specific way....Personally I wish they had shown which way they had voted,so eventhough I was dissapointed that Ed voted against he at least was prepared to show his thoughts to his members.

 

Its true that in the end we didnt vote by show of hands for the last 2 SR's so if someone was to chllenge its those 2 that could possibly be open...Middo (chair) made the claim that these were through on proxy alone, but perhaps he knew something taht the rest of us didnt.....How many people voted by proxy....for it not to matter when 120 members were present then by inference the proxy votes must have been 3times that many at least...if so what a fantastic outcome for RAAus tohave around 600 people vote on anything!!! (This is all suposition by me and not a statement of fact regarding proxy totals or total members present count)

 

To me, the question of challenging the vote always exists the real question is do those for who these changes mean the most (ie those on the board) accept the vote and they seemed to.

 

If for whatever reason the vote was challenged requiring a repeat....anyone want to give odds on the outcome being different after what im sure people will see as a tactic of avoidance.....

 

The 4 special resolutions are through, are sensible, and I doubt taht if it got to the point of being challenged will end up with a different outcome. From the members present perspectiveit was clearly as shags said all but unanimous.I doubt that particular can of worms is going to be touched by anyone.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree with you Andy, I don't see anyone raising any issues until there's a decision at a General Meeting called under the amendment. Then the person affected will go for a lawyer.

 

 

[flyerme]

guysthere was around 120 people present for the votes and the chairman had pointed out that only financial members could vote and of those voting only if you hadnt already voted by proxy.

 

there was much discussion on the last point with approx 10 members eventually being identified as members present who had also voted by proxy. These members were concerned if they withheld a vote by show of hands they wanted assurity that their proxy was present and in the end such an assurance couldnt be given due to the system we use. In the end it was decided sensibly that a show of hands of members in this position was taken and if the count was cloes enough that this might matter we would revisit...In the end it wasnt that close.

 

furthermore proxys werent handed out, it seemed to me if you voted by proxy then your vote was counted.

 

I dont agree it was unanimous from the floor some board members voted against some (5%one) and the rest of the board semed to neither vote for or against and therefore i pressume may have voted by proxy (Ed H from SA was one and another sitting very close to him) Not sure why the board in general didnt appear to vote? perhaps didnt want the members to see which way they voted, or didnt want to seem to direct the members to vote a specific way....Personally I wish they had shown which way they had voted,so eventhough I was dissapointed that Ed voted against he at least was prepared to show his thoughts to his members.

 

Its true that in the end we didnt vote by show of hands for the last 2 SR's so if someone was to chllenge its those 2 that could possibly be open...Middo (chair) made the claim that these were through on proxy alone, but perhaps he knew something taht the rest of us didnt.....How many people voted by proxy....for it not to matter when 120 members were present then by inference the proxy votes must have been 3times that many at least...if so what a fantastic outcome for RAAus tohave around 600 people vote on anything!!! (This is all suposition by me and not a statement of fact regarding proxy totals or total members present count)

 

To me, the question of challenging the vote always exists the real question is do those for who these changes mean the most (ie those on the board) accept the vote and they seemed to.

 

If for whatever reason the vote was challenged requiring a repeat....anyone want to give odds on the outcome being different after what im sure people will see as a tactic of avoidance.....

 

The 4 special resolutions are through, are sensible, and I doubt taht if it got to the point of being challenged will end up with a different outcome. From the members present perspectiveit was clearly as shags said all but unanimous.I doubt that particular can of worms is going to be touched by anyone.

 

Regards

 

Andy

was Davids Questions answered?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Answers were provided, as to whether the questions were answered, thats a whole different question,and one that you'll be able to judge for yourself when the preliminary (unaccepted minutes) are included in the next(or one after next depending on where they are in the production/printing cycle) magazie posted out to members (as ain included set of sheets so wont beavailable in thenewsagent version of the magazine.

 

Im of the view personally that some questions were answered and others were not, but everyone will need to make up their own mindand talk to DonRamsay if on balance you feel that tehanswers are insufficient.

 

Andy

 

 

[shags_j]

IMHO I don't think many of the questions were answered apppropriately (the insurance questions aside). Will be interesting to see the answers in the magazine.

 

I mean the answer to the Jnr Membership questions regarding President going against board decisions was really just:

 

Answer: "It was a mistake". Oops, well then we can just ignore these issues and move on *sarcasm*.

 

 

[Keith Page]

This infighting has me concerned. ..(((( Gravely concernered)))).. We could loose R.A.Aus as we know it.

 

What I am seeing here and it is only one side and it is from the forum members (How many fianancial R.A.Aus members).

 

I love to hear what some board members have to say so I can get balanced information so I can arrive at an informed view.

 

Hence I will seek out some board members and see what they have to say for themselves.

 

Steve Runciman I have to come to his defence here, he is no ordinary person he is well up the military ranks and no one gets there by being a dill. The other point the board members are volunteers not paid people and they do not need all the rot placed on them. As I said I need to have some board members views.

 

My grave concern we could loose R.A.Aus.. As I see it --- if this infighting continues CASSA will close us down and take over, because R.A.Aus operates under a charter from CASSA.

 

(Q). What happens if the charter is taken away??? (A) Fly with Cassa.

 

Just like the kids playing cricket in the backyard and Dad burns the bat and ball after many fights and warnings.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Shags...Was it you down the back that asked why the financial statement notes were not included in the statement even though the statement clear identified at teh bottom that the notes were an integral part of the statement....If so well done, I absolutely agreed with you, without the notes the statement was as useful as Part A only of 2 part epoxy. The WTF are you talking about look that you got from a number on the board also spoke volumes to me.......

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Keith

 

Like it or not, the reality is that we are in an era where communications is expected to take place within 24hrs of an event occuring. Where no communications is made then people will start to speculate and a void will soon be filled....wether the filling is quality material or plain old sh!t is not under the control of the people who perhaps should have stepped up and dealt with the communications void...... Instead of "wishing it werent so" which will be as useful as me wishing I could win lotto, the solution to me is as obvious as the nose on my face....fill the void...communicate often and regularly respond to untruths as and when they occur......instead we got told yesterday that the new RAA webpages are on track and the news section is being used more often....fantastic, in terms of addressing the issue I talk about we have rapidly moved to 1% complete and have no idea if or when the rest of the journey will be taken.... but we sure intend to hang on to the "wish it wasnt so" sentiment....who knows perrhaps that will work better this year than it has in the last 2.......but dont hold your breath!!

 

Are some of the claims made here way out there.....Yes, I personally try and question those that I know or suspect are probably wrong.........but again nothing fills a void better than plain old truth and not months later by a different medium!!

 

Andy

 

Is there risk to RAA??? Yes absolutely and as an aircraft owner I have as much to loose as anyone else, but at teh same time the last 12-18months seems to have some real RAA risky activity completely unlrelated to the discussions here having taken place and those need to be questioned by the membership.

 

 

[Thirsty]

he is no ordinary person he is well up the military ranks and no one gets there by being a dill

Shirley you can't be serious? If you had ever been in the military you wouldn't have made that statement! I recall many, many dills that were Steve's rank (and above). And BTW, promotion to Squadron Leader (Major equivalent in the RAAF) was basically a seniority thing so long as you didn't make any really serious stuff ups.

 

I don't know SR so I'm not commenting on him in particular just the above statement in general.

 

 

[shags_j]

Shags...Was it you down the back that asked why the financial statement notes were not included in the statement even though the statement clear identified at teh bottom that the notes were an integral part of the statement....If so well done, I absolutely agreed with you, without the notes the statement was as useful as Part A only of 2 part epoxy. The WTF are you talking about look that you got from a number on the board also spoke volumes to me.......Andy

Yeah that was me mate. The financials give cause for concern. Huge increases in profit and big decreases in most expenses have resulted in a negligible increase in profit. Their answer that "costs have gone up" is not good enough.

My analysis of the financials (though limited since as stated above we were nto given the notes to the financials) resulted in (these are all from memory):

 

25% increase in employee expenses (from $840k to $1.07M)

 

$100k increase in "Other Expenses"

 

And the big one was a HUGE increase in insurance.

 

This leads to the question as to why our insurance has increased so much. I assume this has to do with the litigation that is ongoing. I know we cannot find out details about the court case but if this is as a result of the boards decisions, should the association foot the bill? Maybe we do want to protect board members to help promote people applying in which case we should foot the bill but how far is too far?

 

Anyways, these are just all questions for discussion but I think the board needs to be aware that there will be increased scrutiny in future years.

 

Any yeah Andy, I couldn't believe the blank looks I got from the Treasurer re: notes to the financials.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Well Thirsty?

 

Yes.. We do have a lot of "hanger" experts. How about you having a go and giving good direction.

 

Remember this infighting is giving CASSA some more ammo to remove the charter from the R.A.Aus which we work under..

 

Then, what will be do then?

 

regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Thirsty]

I wasn't having a go mate just didn't want everyone to think that just because someone is in the military he is not just another person like the rest of us.

 

And as I said I wasn't having a go at SR just making a point, he could be the worlds best President for all I know.