Change Needed ?

[farri]

Ok! So we need some changes made to the constituation of the RAA.

 

I will have to appoint a proxy and I would like to have a better understanding of the current situation, so that I can be more informed before casting my vote.

 

Can anyone please tell me the reason/s why we need the changes and why I should vote in favour or against the resolution.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Zibi]

There's been some explanation to the issues at hand here: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/very-important-have-you-recieved-your-monthly-magazine-yet.44441/#post-232909

 

They generally come to making it easier for members to control the board and stop the board from making changes without members approval.

 

The other issue seems to be Ian's membership or rather it being denied by the president of RA-Aus - http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-stopping-membership.46127/

 

All I know is that there's been some issues within the board which apparently we should be concerned about but I couldn't find any details.

 

There's a group of people on this forum, who would like us to pick the pitchforks and torches and march against the board, but each time when it comes to some details why, it ends with a declaration, that such issues should not be discussed on a public forum so I'm getting confused myself

 

 

[turboplanner]

All I know is that there's been some issues within the board which apparently we should be concerned about but I couldn't find any details.

There's a group of people on this forum, who would like us to pick the pitchforks and torches and march against the board, but each time when it comes to some details why, it ends with a declaration, that such issues should not be discussed on a public forum so I'm getting confused myself

Andy and David Isaac have made informed posts which stand up on their own logical merits, without creating any air of mystery.

 

There are other matters which various people have become aware of from time time to time which are not appropriate for publishing on a public forum, and people have shown a lot of restraint. Those matters don't influence the arguments put up by Andy, David and others.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Also see the very informative letter in last month's magazine which explains exactly what is proposed.

 

I reject the President's suggestion that there may be a legal impediment to them and urge you all to support the motions in their entirety.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

Legal impediment?

 

To paid up members going about making changes to the constitution of their Incorporated Association?

 

If there was an issue, it would have been simply a matter for anyone in the Association, and even the CEO and other staff to raise it, so corrective action could be taken.

 

But that wasn't done.

 

Even at this point, the author of that piece of information still has the opportunity to spell out any concerns he/she might have.....or was this just a "softener" to try to weaken member resolve?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

In fact has anyone seen the September magazine yet?

 

We were hopefully going to get clarity around the "legal issues" question as determined by the RAA Lawyers (hopefully as a result of a complete and accurate briefing to them by the Secretary I pressume) which the committee of management (board in RAA terminology) were going to hopefully add to the September magazine. Failing that I pressume it will be addressed at the AGM. I'm very much hoping the former has occured, because if we are told that there are issues at the AGM, then what are Don, David and I to do that will have an outcome of allowing these needed change rather than allowing them to be delayed for another 12 months.

 

Im not one who believes in conspiricy but if the latter occurs then I will very bl**dy annoyed because Don, David and I have had 2 seperate lawyers advise their personal opinions on the legality of the proposed changes when they are measured againt the A.C.T incorporated associations act., both advising that in their personal opinion there were no "legal issues" We shared those opinions with the board.

 

Andy

 

 

[kaz3g]

Legal impediment?To paid up members going about making changes to the constitution of their Incorporated Association?

If there was an issue, it would have been simply a matter for anyone in the Association, and even the CEO and other staff to raise it, so corrective action could be taken.

 

But that wasn't done.

 

Even at this point, the author of that piece of information still has the opportunity to spell out any concerns he/she might have.....or was this just a "softener" to try to weaken member resolve?

I did gain the impression that the President was not supporting it. Always easy to have things "legalled" if you want to delay and/or obfuscate.

 

Kaz

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

Mine arrived yesterday and I must say it is great to have an Editor as fearless and open as Brian Begg. My short letter to the Editor supporting the proposals was published verbatim.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Also see the very informative letter in last month's magazine which explains exactly what is proposed.I reject the President's suggestion that there may be a legal impediment to them and urge you all to support the motions in their entirety.

 

Kaz

For those who don't know already, Kaz is a Solicitor...

 

 

[johnm]

Trouble with this, is ............ its the politics of it all

 

Yes I know our fathers fought in the trenches for these rights but this constitution stuff is as thrilling as the inside of a ping pong ball

 

Perhaps this site could have an indicator like the forest service - Fire danger - 'High to low'

 

RAA board performance - 'Great - not bad - OK - alright - poor - woeful - where the guillotine'

 

I wish there was an easier way that members could voice their opinions without the complications of interpretations, legal advice (god forbid) etc etc

 

I'd be picking the majority out there (me included) don't have the stamina to get involved in it - I'd also guess the majority (me included) don't know the characters on the board or have full knowledge of the real 'nitty gritty' ............... this also lessens any intrigue or complusion to act ?

 

 

[winsor68]

The President I recall felt that having another compulsory attendance meeting of the Board at Temora would raise costs... My thought was that if the review team was not hobbled and was allowed to introduce the full range of changes necessary a smaller board would then even that out.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Trouble with this, is ............ its the politics of it allYes I know our fathers fought in the trenches for these rights but this constitution stuff is as thrilling as the inside of a ping pong ball

 

Perhaps this site could have an indicator like the forest service - Fire danger - 'High to low'

 

RAA board performance - 'Great - not bad - OK - alright - poor - woeful - where the guillotine'

 

I wish there was an easier way that members could voice their opinions without the complications of interpretations, legal advice (god forbid) etc etc

 

I'd be picking the majority out there (me included) don't have the stamina to get involved in it - I'd also guess the majority (me included) don't know the characters on the board or have full knowledge of the real 'nitty gritty' ............... this also lessens any intrigue or complusion to act ?

The people who've had their aircraft grounded, and there are quite a few, wouldn't be very happy reading your comments.

 

When our fathers fought in the trenches their mates stood up and supported them

 

And to air your view you are using the site of someone who is being accused by a person who was elected to represent him, of bringing the Association into disrepute.

 

So how about I make it a very simple question; in all the material you've read, do you think Ian has brought your Association into disrepute?

 

If not, it's time to step up and get into the trench even if it is as thrilling as the inside of a ping pong ball.

 

 

[johnm]

turbo

 

I'd suspect the MAJORITY (me included) don't know these issues - I'd say the majority (me included) will willingly support the betterment of flying

 

Your sumary certainly defines some issues - clearly - thanks ?

 

I've seen some posts that talk about the potential to stop planes flying - are there any specific posts on the subject ? - are there great numbers of planes not or potentially not flying - how big is this problem ?

 

I don't thing Ian has brought my Assoc into disrepute ................. do you think Ian has !

 

 

[turboplanner]

No I don't, and that's one of the primary reasons to follow the advice of Andy and David and either vote, or send a proxy.

 

I haven't followed closely the story of the aircraft being grounded, and I think subsequently restricted or due to be restricted, so maybe someone else could give us an update on what the problem was, who caused it, how it is affecting owners and operators (eg what happens if you are operating a training school and your training aircraft is downrated from 24 .... to 19 .....

 

 

[frank marriott]

Farri

 

Have you any better understanding of what is trying to be achieved??? I am missing something here.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

At the risk of being considered "in your face" let me try:-

 

The various state parliamentary legislations that have been established to allow incorporated associations have been set up such that members have a fair degree of control over what their associations do. That is fair and reasonable after all its our money that is being used to run the association. It is the view of those that have put forward changes to the constitution that as a result of cicumstances surrounding RAA that the checks and balances that are in the constitution to allow a set of bad circumstances to be reset by the members before it gets out of control are ineffective in our association for the following reasons:-

 

1) Our membership base is now in excess of 100 times bigger than what it was when the constituion was established

 

2) We are an association of that size in general not because we all want to be involved in RAA, but rather its a requirement of being allowed to fly (which is exactly John point above and is reason why so few understand the issues)

 

3) because flying a recreational aircraft is in general a solitary activity we dont generally associate in our hundreds

 

4) The constitution as it is written today requires that in the event that we as members want to short circuit a bad actvity before it happens we have to find 5% of the membership to call for a General Meeting. Today that means we would need to get 550 like minded members to agree that we need a General meeting. I cant speak for you all but I havent got a chance of ever getting 550 members to agree to anything because quite simply I havet a chance in hell of ever knowing let alone getting agreement from that many members.

 

5) Huge companies in australia who have a profit motive only need 100 unique shareholders to agree and they then must hold a general meeting where the board can be asked to please explain an activity, why should we as a not for profit organisation have a burden that is 5.5 times greater?????

 

The changes we are putting forward speak exactly to Johns points above. We are asking that the constitution be changed from "5% "to "5% or 100 members which ever is the lessor" to trigger the need for a General Meeting. Secondly we are asking that our association hold a general meeting while Natfly is on, its such a rare event that brings as large a chunk of the membership base together that the opportunity to hold a GM should not be missed. We are also asking that from the date of the upcoming AGM forward, that all changes to By-Laws be formally announced to the membership with a view that if a great chunk of the membership doesnt like or agree with the By-Law it can be addressed before it causes damages.

 

All these things are about lifting oversight by the members such that it practically becomes possible where it simply isnt today and that communications between the board and the membership (and more importantly the reverse) are better than it is at present and that the membership can exert control appropriate and as intended in the legilation over the committe of management.

 

As a member who owns his own aircraft its imperative to me that the freedoms to continue doing what I can do today are retained and that the association does what it can to support and further that position. As such I can either choose to not take too much notice of what is occuring trusting in luck to ensure the outcome I need is provided, or I can be actively involved in shaping and ensuring our association does what it needs to do to further those aim.

 

I dont generally believe that trusting to luck is a good strategy and believe that 99 out of 100 rec flyers would have a similar outlook to me. Its my belief that allowing the status quo to remain is ineffect a trust in luck. A vote for the propossed changes is a vote that will enable us all as members to have a greater input into ensuring the aims of the associatio are allways upermost in our associations consideration. A "no" vote = status quo, a "yes" vote is a move from member who can control nothing and therefore may aswell not be interested, to a member who has the option to become a group of consolidated masters of our own destiny rather than just a passenger on someone elses ride, always hoping it is going where we want.

 

As things stand at present, ignoring the legal action between Ian and the association, if you dont like what is happening re Ian there is virtually nothing you can do about it other than convey that to your representative. If the changes we are asking for are established and you dont like the way thingws are shaping up you would have an ability to step in, with 99 likeminded members and force a revisit of the processes and by-laws that have been used to trigger where we are today. While the current situation with Ian is certainly timely when considering the changes, in general the need to step in should be rare to nonexistant, the need to find 99 likeminded members is to me not a minor undertaking, as it should be, because I dont want every decision in the organisation to be made at a general meeting I truely want the majority of decisions to be made at board level, not at operational staff level.

 

In otherwords the strategic decisions should have this precedence. 1) the whole board, 2) the membership 3) and never the operational staff of RAA (CEO and ops team)by themselves. Today to me it seems that the operational staff and the board seem to swap 1) and 2) as they feel they need to. Operational staff making strategic decisions for our organisation without first obtaining board agreement, or indeed even ignoring board direction, tells me that what we have is dysfunctional and to continue to "trust to luck" is likely in the near future to have a poor outcome for the general membership base.

 

Please support the constitutional changes. They simply allow the membership a greater ability to control the future and that control is only what IMHO the legislation inteded us to have, it doesnt grant unlimited or dangerous control.

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

For the record, I add my weight to Andy's very eloquent commentary and implore you all to support the special resolutions we have put to the AGM. If you cannot make the AGM then please post in your proxy to head office in the time required. If you don't want to nominate a particular person, you can always nominate the chairperson of the RAAus meeting as your proxy because there will always be a chairperson present and avoids the problem of your nominated person not turning up to lodge your vote.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Bandit12]

I'm not even a member of RA-As, and I would implore people to look carefully at what has been proposed and ensure that you vote, either personally or by proxy. Apathy has the potential to kill the rich history and current privileges enjoyed by the members. This is an opportunity to have a say, and if people don't have a say, then there can be no complaints about what results afterwards.

 

 

[johnm]

Andy@coffs

 

thanks for that - big subject and lots of parameters .............. no doubt

 

Can't this website arrange collection of proxies - or even conduct a pole to see how many would contibute

 

Seems to me lots read this website so a good 'war chest' should be able to be created ?

 

Or is that a 'no no' & would that antagonise (assuming that the right word to use) RAA further ?

 

 

[farri]

in all the material you've read, do you think Ian has brought your Association into disrepute?

Not from where I sit,but to me, this is the bit of the cnstituation every RAA member should be concerned about.

 

aa. Failure to comply with a direction from the Board or the Operations/Technical

 

managers will be deemed to have brought the organisation into disrepute.

 

b. has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Association.

 

Farri,Have you any better understanding of what is trying to be achieved??? I am missing something here.

Frank, I`m trying, I`m trying to understand, but if everyone is going to keep ducking for cover, for fear of bringing the RAA into disreput, then what hope is there?

 

Franco, RAA member 993.

 

 

[David Isaac]

..... I`m trying to understand, but if everyone is going to keep ducking for cover, for fear of bringing the RAA into disreput, then what hope is there?Franco, RAA member 993.

Franco,

 

At the end of the day the 'Hope' is always in the hands of the members and apathy is our greatest enemy ....

 

 

[kaz3g]

Not from where I sit,but to me, this is the bit of the cnstituation every RAA member should be concerned about.

aa. Failure to comply with a direction from the Board or the Operations/Technical

 

managers will be deemed to have brought the organisation into disrepute.

Have a look at the introduction to Rule 9(i) And then ask yourself why clause aa doesn't seem to fit with it. It seems to me it has been added by someone who hasn't a legal background or even a good command of English. It immediately raises the question as to whom the author was and by whose authority was it added to the Rule, and when?

 

The power contained in that clause is all-encompassing...without limitations. The direction doesnt even need to be lawful. If the Board tells you to stand on your head and you refuse, you risk being found to have brought the Association into disrepute and can be expelled.

 

I think the Board needs to provide answers to those questions because they raise some very serious issues as to the integrity of the Constitution.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good points Kaz.

 

The whole Constitution and By-laws need a good comparison between the original, what's on paper now, and the procedures which led from one to the other.

 

This should be a priority of concerned members, and the people the voted in to represent them.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Surely there is a history of any amendments of the constitution?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm sure people would remember the large attendances.