RAAus stopping membership

[dodo]

Keith

 

when you mention the views of "hangar experts",I would make a couple of points:

 

- when the board gives us information, we will, as Keith suggests see a more balanced picture. The only problem is that they don't tell the membership anything relevant. Haven't! Don't! Won't!

 

- if you want an example of why I doubt the board, who on God's earth presents a set of financial statements without the notes? Without note 1, you don't even know the basis for the statements to compare with previous years. Without the other notes, you have so little detail it is barely worth reading. And the president was recently the treasurer, fixing the mess left when the previous treasurer resigned! I would have expected better. As a "hangar expert", I have a well-informed contempt for financial statements provided without the accompanying notes.

 

- the episode at Temora involving the Rat showed a complete disregard for membership requests for information.

 

- the issues around insurance and aircraft registration continue, yet all I know as a normal member is that they exist. What are the problems - they appear significant, possibly a threat to my flying, but no information is ever forthcoming from the board. Why?

 

So, my best guess would be:

 

1 If CASA pull the plug, it will likely be for some long-standing, long-building issue that the membership were never informed of.

 

2 CASA don't want to run little, light aviation, they want someone else to do it - but do it well.

 

3 Right now, the mess regarding aircraft registration, insurance, junior flyers, and other issues seems like poor administration to both CASA and membership.

 

...but CASA can probably get information and explanations, while the membership can't.

 

So RA continues, so far, but you end up with criticism of the board. Not surprising, really.

 

dodo

 

PS your opinion of the military rather surprised me - I have found them 50% very good, 50% idiots with attitude. I don't know which our president is, but I am starting to suspect the latter, especially after the debacle of Ian's membership, which would be criticised in a suburban crochet club.

 

 

[Gentreau]

I've been following this thread with growing incredulity and I need to ask something as an outsider.

 

Is it the case that despite being obliged to become a financial member of RAAus in order to obtain your licence and registration, you could find yourselves financially liable for the mistakes of the elected board and executive should they run up huge legal fees or other costs ?

 

That seems like an untenable situation, and possibly an unenforcable liability, so how the hell did CASA end up creating such a system ?

 

 

[David Isaac]

I've been following this thread with growing incredulity and I need to ask something as an outsider.Is it the case that despite being obliged to become a financial member of RAAus in order to obtain your licence and registration, you could find yourselves financially liable for the mistakes of the elected board and executive should they run up huge legal fees or other costs ?

 

That seems like an untenable situation, and possibly an unenforcable liability, so how the hell did CASA end up creating such a system ?

Gentreau,

The members of an Incorporated Association in Australia are only liable to the extent of their subscription fee, that is all. Any liability the Association attracts to itself must be paid out of immediate funds and assets and if they are insufficient, the association is bankrupted.

 

 

[Admin]

I believe the same people have today been returned to the same positions in the Executive:

 

Runciman (President)

 

Middleton (Secretary)

 

Reid (Treasurer)

 

 

[kaz3g]

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.

I would be most surprised if any such thing should occur. There is no proof as far as I am aware that non-members voted, let alone in numbers sufficient to change the result. I see it as a good result for the motions that were put but a poor result for the response to governance concerns raised by David.

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Gentreau,The members of an Incorporated Association in Australia are only liable to the extent of their subscription fee, that is all. Any liability the Association attracts to itself must be paid out of immediate funds and assets and if they are insufficient, the association is bankrupted.

David technically is very correct however the questions that should follow on from a result that ends up winding up the organisation:-

 

1) How will owners of RAA registered aircraft fly

 

2) What happens to the liability insurance that was prepaid (a sub question to 1) really)

 

3) How long will it take for a phoenix to rise from the ashes

 

4) Will CASA put a new deed of arrangement in place and will teh T's abnd C's be the same or more onerous (again a sub question to 3) above

 

5) How will those who today earn an income from teaching in RAA Aircraft continue to earn an income

 

6) What will the worth of an RAA registered aircraft be to an owner while this is all happening should they need to sell during this period

 

7) Will you have teh same or better rights and reasponsibilities in the future.

 

So, all that said a decision by the members to wind up an organisation like RAA would need to be considered very carefully....It may well be that putting your hand in your pocket might be the more practical thing to do.

 

All that of course assumes the judgement is greater that the total assets of the organisation. Something that from what was touched around the edges yesterday would seem unlikely, that said a judgement would seem some time off yet....

 

Andy

 

 

[kaz3g]

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.

I think the now clearly articulated concerns about the style of governance of RAAus under the current leadership is far more likely to be of concern to CASA than "infighting" between members or groups of members. I thereforepublicly ask the president:

 

What steps the Board (Executive?) took to inquire as to its obligations under the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth), especially clauses 26 and 28 dealing with discrimination in education and the provision of goods and services, respectively before it decided arbitrarily to impose a lower age limit on membership (I'm not arguing the sense of establishing a lower limit, but I do expect compliance with the law)?

 

Whether it is true that the Tizzard/Tully recommendations were provided to investigating police even if they were not actually transmitted to the Coroner, and whether their transmission was shortcircuited because the officer concerned could see the problems they may have raised?

 

Why it was the President wrote to Ian Baker directly regarding the last minute processing of his membership application and never had the courtesy to reply to his solicitor who had opened the communication about this with him? I also ask him why it is he thinks that he can deny that person even now the right to know details of the alleged, not factually proven, incidents of misbehaviour that enlivened the notorious By-law 12? I also ask him how it is that the decision not to process the initial application was made by he and the CEO in concert rather than the Board in accordance with the authority contained in the By-law?

 

And why a GM of the Association shouldn't be called to consider invoking the provisions of cl 17 of the Constitution?

 

kaz

 

 

[shags_j]

Clause 17?

 

 

[Bryon]

Clause 17?

17. Removal of Board Members.

 

The association in general meeting may by resolution, subject to Section 50 of the Act, remove

 

any Member of the Board from office before the expiration of the Member’s term of office.

 

 

[shags_j]

Ahhh k

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'd double check that David when negligence is involved.

 

 

[Gentreau]

David technically is very correct however the questions that should follow on from a result that ends up winding up the organisation:-1) How will owners of RAA registered aircraft fly

 

2) What happens to the liability insurance that was prepaid (a sub question to 1) really)

 

3) How long will it take for a phoenix to rise from the ashes

 

4) Will CASA put a new deed of arrangement in place and will teh T's abnd C's be the same or more onerous (again a sub question to 3) above

 

5) How will those who today earn an income from teaching in RAA Aircraft continue to earn an income

 

6) What will the worth of an RAA registered aircraft be to an owner while this is all happening should they need to sell during this period

 

7) Will you have teh same or better rights and reasponsibilities in the future.

 

So, all that said a decision by the members to wind up an organisation like RAA would need to be considered very carefully....It may well be that putting your hand in your pocket might be the more practical thing to do.

 

All that of course assumes the judgement is greater that the total assets of the organisation. Something that from what was touched around the edges yesterday would seem unlikely, that said a judgement would seem some time off yet....

 

Andy

And that reply shows just how difficult the situation is. You have an association which could someday be declared insolvent, which has the delegated legal responsibility for licencing and registration of pilots and aircraft. Presumably if it ever did happen, the responsibility would default to CASA, but I wonder if that eventuality has been allowed for in the regulations......

 

 

[winsor68]

Honestly... I can't believe there are still people who think this is just a few trouble makers... perhaps a small group of people may be calling for change but isn't it obvious why? Need I go into the reasons why? Need I point out that this situation didn't arise magically overnight...

 

 

[shags_j]

The overwhelming opinion from people at the meeting was the whole "A small group of people causing issues". I tried to keep a low profile since it was my first agm but still, was hard to listen to it all.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

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.

Keith, I think that Steve Runciman has been too soft on the disrepute issue, he inherited this sorry situation from Eugene Reid, who let it get out of control.

 

If I was the President I would permanently revoke anyone's RAA certificate that posted anything on that recreational flying forum until people got the message about who's in charge.

 

You want to nip these things in the bud before they get out of hand.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'd double check that David when negligence is involved.

I'm travelling on holiday, but over the next few days I'll contact a couple of guys in relation to action the Victorian Government took against individuals regarding the North South pipeline and the Port Phillip Bay dredging.

 

 

[Riley]

Keith, I think that Steve Runciman has been too soft on the disrepute issue, he inherited this sorry situation from Eugene Reid, who let it get out of control.If I was the President I would permanently revoke anyone's RAA certificate that posted anything on that recreational flying forum until people got the message about who's in charge.

You want to nip these things in the bud before they get out of hand.

fly-to. At the risk of sounding judgemental, having pondered over some of your curious postings on this forum, I believe if you were RAA President, I'd be sorely tempted to give up aviation and go back to vintage cars. Nothing personal, but just can't suss out your mainstream thinking. Surely you're taking the p!ss??

 

 

[Gentreau]

I believe the same people have today been returned to the same positions in the Executive:Runciman (President)

Middleton (Secretary)

 

Reid (Treasurer)

Le Roi est mort.

 

Vive le Roi !

 

 

[David Isaac]

fly-to. At the risk of sounding judgemental, having pondered over some of your curious postings on this forum, I believe if you were RAA President, I'd be sorely tempted to give up aviation and go back to vintage cars. Nothing personal, but just can't suss out your mainstream thinking. Surely you're taking the p!ss??

Hi Riley, I have no doubt he is really taking the p!ss out of the situation ...

 

 

[rankamateur]

I believe the same people have today been returned to the same positions in the Executive:Runciman (President)

Middleton (Secretary)

 

Reid (Treasurer)

So what can we expect? More of the same!

 

 

[shags_j]

So what can we expect? More of the same!

No, I think they will take in our suggestions and change their ways. I think we are in for a top, profitable, mistake free year.

 

 

[rankamateur]

No, I think they will take in our suggestions and change their ways. I think we are in for a top, profitable, mistake free year.

I like your optimism Shags, you should become a farmer!

 

 

[David Isaac]

Folks,

 

Below is a copy of the response word for word that I received from the President yesterday. I will respond in due course.

 

Dear Mr Isaac,

 

 

 

It would appear that the paper I submitted to your questions was not handed out at the AGM but were read out instead. I think it may have had something to do with the fact that I was very late getting it to the Secretary and by that time they did not have the means to print a lot of copies off. I have attached the replies to this e-mail. Please bear in mind that I am currently on exercise and when compiling the replies it was from memory as I did not have access to documents etc. Please also bear in mind that the board members were not given sufficient time to consider my replies or add to them.

 

 

 

I am more than happy to discuss my reply with you, however, please note that I am on exercise and will remain so until early Nov. I have intermittent access to the internet and can correspond by this means if you would prefer.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Steve Runciman

 

President

 

RA-Aus

 

(Copy of attachment)

 

Answers to questions posed by Mr Isaac with Notice for RA-Aus Board response at the AGM Heck Field 22nd September, 2012.

 

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.

 

Comment: The comments above are interesting to say the least. I have said many times before that if you have concerns then you should raise then to your local board member. I am aware that some board members have fielded some questions from members but some of the allegations (and Mr Isaac is exactly right in his statement that they are allegations) shown below have not, to my knowledge, been addressed to any board or staff member. I am aware that they have been played out in various places but I am also aware of the lack of knowledge some of the contributors have in regards to what is going on and it would seem that some of these members chose to make things up when discussing matters on public forums and I have no doubt that the purpose of this is to sensationalise an other-wise boring story! I would also disagree that the CEO has drawn attention to himself over a number of months or that there have been a number of indiscretions and I would even go as far as saying that the words printed by Mr Isaac above is verging on an attempt to hold a kangaroo court!

 

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.

 

Comment: There was no disobedience from the CEO. I know that some people have been reluctant to accept that this was the result of a mistake involving three people but the simple matter is that it was a mistake. Following a conversation between me and the CEO, the CEO thought that he had permission to go ahead with the grounding of the junior members. As a result of this conversation he simply thought that he was following a directive from an executive member of the board in accordance with S1.01 – of the Operations Manual Paragraph 2 which states: “The day to day administration of RA-Aus is the responsibility of the CEO, who functions in accordance with the directions issued by the Executive members of the RA-Aus Board”. A day or so after the conversation Zane Tully rang me to clarify how I wanted this information passed to members. It was then that I realised that the CEO had misunderstood what I had said and I instructed Zane to take no action and we would clarify the matter once the CEO had returned from leave overseas. The CEO returned from leave and continued about his normal duty. I and Zane spoke to him on several occasions between him returning from leave and the message being passed to all junior members on 23 Dec 11 and neither of us mentioned to the CEO about the mistake. The CEO was doing a final check of outstanding work on 23 Dec 12 and he realised that the instruction to all junior members had not been sent out, so he sent it out. As can be seen this was a mistake involving three people who all had an equal part to play. Apologies for this mistake were given at the time.

 

The statement by Mr Isaac on the CEO not being available for approx. 10 days afterwards would appear to have been made as a factual statement and not an allegation and it is incorrect! The board and staff were advised of the HQ stand down period of 23 Dec 11 from 1300 hours to 0900 hours on 3 Jan 12. During that period the CEO was duty officer from 23 Dec 11 to 26 Dec 11. Further, in an email from the CEO to admin on 7 Jan 12 he asked for his leave record to be amended because he did not take scheduled leave from 3 to 6 Jan 12 due to pressing work matters.

 

The statement made by Mr Isaac on taking 8 months to obtain legal advice is not understood! The CEO was directed in the Board Minutes of the Sep 11 Board meeting to do a full paper on junior members for the Feb 12 Board meeting – motion 15 refers. The CEO handed in the paper which contained legal advice.

 

 

Questions:

 

Would the Board please explain to the members:

 

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

 

Answer: This was an error by the CEO brought about by miscommunication between him, the President and the Ops Manager. There was no malicious intent by the CEO and it was a mistake, it is not considered, therefore, that any formal action is warranted in this instance.

 

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

 

Answer: The final outcome is that personnel below the age of 14 years will not be issued a student pilot certificate and, therefore, will not be permitted to become members of the organisation. However, it is extremely important to retain the interest of those affected by the change and to recruit junior members to the organisation. It is intended to look at this matter in more detail in the coming months with the intention of possibly introducing a Junior membership category which will involve activities to retain the interest, but not to allow members below the age of 14 years to fly. More detail will be forthcoming once this has been worked on.

 

c. On what basis the outcomes were made; and

 

Answer: A vote was taken by the board to introduce a minimum age for a Student Pilot Certificate and this was set at 14 years of age. I cannot, of course, speak for the rest of the board but my decision was made on a ‘what if’ basis. I have explained my reasoning for this in the Oct edition of the magazine but I will explain it below:

 

I imagined the unimaginable; an aircraft accident where the person sitting in the pilot’s seat was a 10 year old child or younger. My view is that if this did happen and the public knew RA-Aus had given someone that young a student pilot certificate, it would spell the end of RA-Aus. Having considered my scenario, it came down to one question – is it worth risking the organization for the sake of the junior members we had at the time. My answer was no. I even believe that we would have the same problem if this was to happen to a 14 year old but we had to draw the line somewhere. As stated above, we are keen to keep the interest of young potential pilots and this will be looked at in the near future.

 

We have also heard from various fathers and grandfathers that the decision made is unfair on their children. However, I do not think for one minute that these fathers and grandfathers have considered my scenario above and what the consequences would be for the other 11,000 members of RA-Aus. Their primary focus when considering this has been on their child and them getting a few more hours prior to being able to go solo at the age of 15 years.

 

Also, we have heard the argument that it is OK because in reality it is the instructor sat beside them who is in control of the aircraft. Does this mean, then, that being an instructor exempts you from any accident? Of course it doesn’t! Unfortunately, we have all seen over the last 18 months alone that being an instructor, and even a very experienced instructor, does not exempt you from being involved in accidents.

 

I have no doubt that the decision taken by the board is the absolute right decision and rather than constantly criticise the people who took the decision, members should be thanking them for having the moral courage to make this very unpopular decision and sticking by their guns when the abuse and unfair criticism was thrown at them.

 

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

 

Answer: We have sought legal advice on this and we have a situation where the legal advice received differs to personal legal advice received by a board member. There are two suggestions; one stating that we need to make a change to the constitution and the other states that we can make this amendment by simply changing the Ops Manual. It was felt by the board that it is imperative that we get this right and the decision was made to not request a change to the constitution but to seek further guidance as to what is required before making whatever change is necessary.

 

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

 

Answer: As stated above this was not disobedience on behalf of the CEO but was brought about by miscommunication of three individuals. As such there would be no reason to dismiss the CEO.

 

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

 

Answer: I do not see that the increase to the CEOs salary has any relevance to this matter. To stop an increase in salary because of one error made during a year’s work would be ludicrous. The increase to the CEOs salary was considered along with the increase to all staff members and the CEO has received only wage increase commensurate for all other staff and is still paid less than his predecessor.

 

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.

 

Comment: I am not sure where Mr Isaac got his information from but it will be shown that much of the information provided by Mr Isaac is wrong. Mr Isaac is correct that RA-Aus has and will continue to face difficulties in obtaining insurance, it is the nature of our business. As I have previously explained to the board, the CEO answered the renewal paperwork when it was received from the insurance broker. There was a period of, from memory, 5 days lapse between receiving it and answering it but this includes a weekend and the fact that the CEO was not in office for a number of days. The CEO and Administration Manager have a meeting at least once a year with our insurance broker to go through the insurance in detail. It was not the fact that the CEO had made a mistake and had left it too late that the insurance company saw fit to provide a cover note. The insurance company were considering our insurance in fine detail and while these considerations were ongoing they provided cover for that period. There was never a period when cover was not in place.

 

 

Questions:

 

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

 

Answer: The answer to this question is provided above. There was not a lack of performance by the CEO in this matter so therefore there is no action required with regards to it.

 

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

 

Answer: The insurance broker has agreed to attend the AGM and will be happy to give a short presentation of the insurance cover RA-Aus currently have.

 

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

 

Answer: As above.

 

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.

 

Comment: There were offensive comments made about the CEO on Mr Baker’s website. The RA-Aus solicitor was asked what could be done about it. Our solicitor then wrote Mr Baker a letter to request that this offensive material be taken off the website. This cannot be considered taking legal action against Mr Baker; it was a simple request to remove offensive material from Mr Baker’s website, nothing more.

 

 

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

 

Answer: This question is not totally understood. The CEO seeks legal advice often on a number of matters. The CEO informed me of the offensive material and told me that he wished to seek legal advice on the matter. I do not have the costs to hand but I will ask the finance officer to obtain the costs involved.

 

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

 

Answer: No. The offensive comments made on the website were directed to him as the CEO of RA-Aus. We have an obligation to protect the staff of RA-Aus from this type of abuse and we will do everything in our power to do so.

 

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?

 

Answer: There is currently no intention to take legal action against Mr Baker.

 

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.

 

Comment: Unfortunately Mr Isaac has this totally wrong and he is making accusations against me that are simply not true. This matter was discussed with the board prior to any action being taken and the majority of the board accepted the course of action taken in this matter. Mr Baker indicated to a member of staff during AUSFLY that this matter is still under legal consideration and as such I am unable to provide further comment or answer the specific questions raised by Mr Isaac on this matter.

 

 

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!

 

Comment: This matter was brought to the attention of the Board by Mr McKeown. I then undertook to conduct a review of the circumstances of this matter. During the review it was discovered that the document, which appears to be causing the concern, is a list of comments made to Mr Tully by various members at various times that is kept by him on his computer. He printed the document off to use for discussion points when all parties involved in the inquest were asked by the coroner to sit together and discuss the case and provide recommendations to him. During the discussion not all points printed on the paper were brought to the table by either the CEO or Ops Manager. I have checked with the police officer of the inquest and can confirm that this document was not submitted by RA-Aus to the coroner. A full report was presented to the board and considered by them. The final recommendations of the report were as follows:

 

a. neither the CEO nor the Ops Manager conducted themselves in a manner that warrants their immediate dismissal.

 

b. there were some judgement errors made by Mr Tully as follows:

 

a. keeping a record of comments made to him about the board by members of RA-Aus; and

 

b. allowing a copy of his personal list to be given to a third party;

 

c. these judgement errors do not constitute grounds for immediate dismissal.

 

d. the CEO has nothing to answer in these allegations.

 

e. I asked the board to be the judge with regards to my actions played in this matter and so far I have not heard from them as to whether they think my actions were wrong.

 

f. I proposed to hold a face to face discussion the matter with Mr Tully on the matter, with the CEO present.

 

g. I further proposed that the matter be closed.

 

h. I further stated that I would be more than happy to discuss the matter further with any board member at any time.

 

This report and the recommendations made in the report were accepted by the board in full.

 

It is correct that Mr Tizzard was previously employed to conduct a review of the Ops manual. However, prior to finishing this task he was employed as the CEO and a replacement was not found to conduct the review of the Ops Manual. The review has been ongoing and has been conducted by a number of staff members. It has been said by some board members that this task should not be rushed and that it is important to get it right. There is also a review sub-committee who are working on this with the CEO and his staff. The review committee have recently been given a copy of the complete review of the Ops manual and I know that they are working through it at the moment. Once they have reviewed it they will provide a report to the board with recommendations for their consideration. A timeline has been established and accepted and it is proposed to have this document finalised and presented to CASA for final approval by early December 2012. You will be kept up to date with the progress of this project.

 

 

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

 

Answer: An answer to this question has been provided above.

 

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

 

Answer: An answer to this question has been provided above.

 

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?

 

Answer: An answer to this question has been provided above. As stated, on appointment of the to the CEO’s position a replacement for the review of the Ops Manual was not sought.

 

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.

 

Comment: I think some of the comments made by Mr Isaac in this section are unfair and unwarranted. The original request to disband the CRC did not come from me. After concerns were raised by a number of board members, on the resignation of Mr Ramsay, I took the matter to the whole board for discussion and lengthy discussions took place. During this discussion phase I did correspond with Mr Ramsay and it is fair to say that the discussions we had were direct (both he and I being direct in what we said) and I would consider the term ‘heated’, used by Mr Isaac, to be a bit strong (however, you would have to ask Mr Ramsay about this and ask how he saw it). I think it fair to say that Mr Ramsay and I have a mutual respect for each other and each other’s views and we have both said on a number of occasions to each other that we should always feel comfortable to say what we think when talking to each other, this is certainly as I see it and you would have to ask Mr Ramsay of he agrees with this. I totally refute the comment made by Mr Isaac that “the President’s tactics as bullying, arrogant and unacceptable” it was an exchange of views and comments between two individuals who had previously agreed to be absolutely honest with each other in our dealings. I am neither a bully nor arrogant. I have said that I see this as an important project and it is certainly needed. However, I also think that the project should be driven by the board and a board member should head up this particular sub-committee to ensure that proper timely reporting to the board is being conducted, to ensure that legal advice is available to the committee in a timely manner, when necessary, and that all funds expended by the sub-committee is correctly authorised.

 

The Constitution review sub-committee was agreed to at the board meeting in February 2012 but following the resignation of Mr Ramsay, the board member heading up this sub-committee, concerns were raised by a number of board members. It was felt by a majority that this important task needed a board member to be on the sub-committee. A discussion was held as to how we should proceed and a volunteer board member was asked for. However, as no volunteer came forward, a vote was put forward to retract the original motion to creating the sub-committee and to revisit the issue at the September 2012 board meeting. During the process of the vote John McKeown came forward and volunteered for this task and he indicated that he would shortly be spending 2 months in Europe. Nick Sigley also then volunteered to be the board representative and stated that he would hand over the reins to John McKeown upon his return from overseas. As a result of John McKeown and Nick Sigley volunteering, one board member changed his original decision but the vote was still passed, having reached a majority in favour of rescinding the original motion. As can be seen the original members of the Constitution review sub-committee submitted the work they had already completed and there are a number of proposals that will be tabled at this AGM.

 

 

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

 

Answer: I cannot speak for all members of the board and give you their particular reason for voting the way they did. However, my particular reason behind my decision is explained above.

 

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

 

Answer: Again, I cannot reply for all members of the board but my reason behind my decision is provided above.

 

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?

 

Answer: Again, I refute this allegation made by Mr Isaac. Mr Ramsay was kind enough to allow me to see the article he proposed to submit to the magazine. I then expressed a few concerns with regards to the article and I asked Mr Ramsay if he would consider reviewing what he had said, however, I did state to him that I had no intention of pulling the article as I felt it extremely important for members to have their say and that if he was adamant that the article was to go in as it was presented to me than that is exactly what would occur. Mr Ramsay agreed to some of the points I had raised and as a result he changed his original. Again, in our e-mail exchange Mr Ramsay and I were direct with each other, which we have both agreed that we should be. There was never any obstruction placed to Mr Ramsay submitting his article, it was a request made by me for him to reconsider what he had written and he agreed that some of what he had written was a bit strongly worded and unfair/unwarranted and he changed what he had written as a result.

 

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.

 

Comment: The current issues with the aircraft registration have been played out for a long period of time, not simply during the time Steve Tizzard has been the CEO and as such this is an unfair criticism. Also remember please that this is why we employ subject matter experts.

 

 

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

 

Answer: There are a number of manufacturers and importers affected by this unfortunate situation. The board and staff of RA-Aus consider this a serious issue that we have been working through it since the discovery of it late last year. We are working with the manufacturers and importers and we are doing all we can to resolve these issues. Unfortunately, we have not heard the last of this matter and further issues continue to be uncovered! In the last couple of days we discovered an issue with another imported aircraft that we have registered as 24 Type Certified that do not have a type certificate and that come to Australia half built and then completed, flown and sold as Factory Certified. The importer of these aircraft has been informed and he is being very cooperative and helpful. Once we know more details you will be informed.

 

Obviously the manufacturers and importers of aircraft are extremely important to RA-Aus and it is imperative that these issues are resolved at the earliest opportunity. Personally, I think we are at the stage where we need to get all manufacturers and importers together to provide a detailed brief of the rules and regulations, have a face to face with each of them to go through the issues in fine detail and provide guidance and direction as to exactly what is required from them and how we are able to assist them. I pay a huge importance on the ‘how we are able to assist them’ part of what I have just said as we do need absolutely everything we can to get this issue resolved.

 

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?

 

Answer: This is an unfair comment and question. There is no current plan to replace the CEO.

 

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.

 

Comment: I was not on the board at the time of this so the following answer has been provided by Mr Eugene Reid who was President at the time of Mr Robbie Costmeyer’s employment and subsequent resignation.

 

 

When the position of CEO was advertised, Steve Tizzard was asked to apply. Steve was happy with his part time position with RA-Aus at the time and decided not to apply.

 

When we advertised the position, very few of the applicants had any aviation experience and those that did, it was from many years in the past. During Robbie Costmeyer’s time as CEO the importance of aviation experience became apparent. Steve Tizzard had spent his entire life in aviation in the armed forces and many years working for CASA, in both flying and office positions. After seeing the problems caused by a CEO with no aviation experience, Steve Tizzard applied for the position. We had only just been through the recruitment process and if Steve Tizzard had been interviewed at the same time as the other candidates, I believe that he would have been given the position.

 

There was no ‘cronyism’; Steve Tizzard was recruited into the position of CEO due to his abilities, aviation experience and his immediate availability.

 

 

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

 

Answer: At the time there was debate between board members on how best to approach this matter. There were two trains of thought; one that the Asst Ops Manager should step up and we should recruit a new Asst Ops Manager and the other was that we should recruit a new Ops Manager and invite the Asst Ops Manager to apply for the job. The debate was going on for a period of time and because it remained unresolved it was decided, in the interest of advertising a position and filling this position as soon as possible, to submit an advert as a position available in the Operations area so that we should be in a position to inform interested parties what the position was thus giving them the opportunity to proceed with the application of not.

 

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?

 

Answer: Absolutely not. We had a responsibility to ensure the position left by the outgoing Ops Manager was filled at the earliest opportunity. This shows that the board took action to ensure this and to ensure that we got the procedure right.

 

 

[eightyknots]

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?

Establish another organisation that will do the job RA-Aus is doing at present ....hopefully a better one.

 

 

[winsor68]

I think the whole episode proves a point... Much better communication is required.