RAAus Fails CASA Audit Again

[Pete Greed]

Powerin So...what needs to change if we the members cannot be trusted to vote in a competent board? Voter apathy is a fact of life, I believe, and we have to compensate for this somehow. Many non-profit boards (including one I am a member of) are ditching the idea of regional representation and concentrating hard on getting people with skills to volunteer. This is not as democratic....but I believe pure democracy has not served RAAus well. It is ironic that when we did finally vote in some people with skills, they didn't last long.

 

This really is the crux of the matter. We need a skill-based board in governance, not management (management is employed by the board) and there are many board training opportunities available to make this happen. However, the elected board does not own the organisation - it governs it on behalf of its membership. How that membership contributes to the boards agenda, and tests the boards decisions, is clearly the missing link at present. This is about establishing a new governance process - I believe we must utilise the regional club network and be proactive in canvassing, and promoting, what is already beginning to take shape.

 

Pete

 

 

[Zibi]

I was hoping for more than what you were able to muster, and actually be told why. You know: An actual, formed argument that might be able to convince me.

Mate,

Do you mind slowing down a bit on your whining, please.

 

According to your own words you haven't even flown in Australia, couple days ago you didn't even know what the difference between RAAus and GA is.

 

You've had no contact with RAAus, yet here you go whining and complaining about how bad RAA is how we're ran as a third world country, and whatever else you can come up with.

 

Maybe before you start going off like a mad man about how bad it is, you actually get some experience in the subject.

 

And before you start complaining about me - I'm also not Australian, but at least I've been with RAAus for over a year now.

 

I don't know how bad exactly it is mostly due to the issues mentioned in this thread (lack of communication), but so far RAA hasn't been too bad to me.

 

They've allowed me to learn and fly, they've processed most of my request very quickly (although the registration took a bit longer than I'd like it to, but that was just before all of this blew up).

 

Yes there are some issues, like with any big organization (or maybe a bit more), and we need a bit of change at the top, but stop complaining about things you have no idea about.

 

 

[dodo]

Ring your Board Member and ask them. I did.

I tried that. I emailed, explaining my concerns.

 

Got referred to the website.

 

I emailed again, explaining this seemed circular, and uninformative.

 

Got a placebo replay.

 

Emailed again...

 

Was told I had been answered.

 

I emailed back, suggesting that was rubbish,and suggesting the board member review his replies.

 

Got a reply saying his answers were fine, checked by a friend.

 

Lost confidence in anything he said.

 

Very, Very, Unimpressed.

 

Contact a board member? Get spin and lies.

 

dodo

 

PS sorry it sounds bitter,but that email exchange was the final straw for me. I had just found out about the CASA shutdown, and it was the first time I have contacted a board member. Not a good experience.

 

 

[Captain]

This really is the crux of the matter. We need a skill-based board in governance, not management (management is employed by the board) and there are many board training opportunities available to make this happen. However, the elected board does not own the organisation - it governs it on behalf of its membership. How that membership contributes to the boards agenda, and tests the boards decisions, is clearly the missing link at present. This is about establishing a new governance process - I believe we must utilise the regional club network and be proactive in canvassing, and promoting, what is already beginning to take shape.Pete

Pete

 

There are two other issues that I suggest must be addressed:

 

1 THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE. We have one where, as I have posted elsewhere (See Andy's "Need for change" thread), the Executive, no matter who has been in those positions, have (since I have been a member) most of the time appeared to run the show on almost a day-to-day basis and given day-to-day directives to Management, often then retrospectively ratified by the Board.

 

And when we finally got a considered and calm, professional individual (Don Ramsey) into the Treasurer's position, he was mortified with what he found that he had inherited and was not willing to place himself at personal risk due to the issues that he uncovered and described on this website.

 

2 CULTURE. The Executive triumverate seem to sit in a no-mans-land outside of proper Board direction and also outside of the management, but in a position of control where some Board Members have been abused or vilified in the past because they have tried to push for the type of governance that we all want.

 

Witness the fact that the Treasurer still hasn't provided audited accounts to the membership and the Secretary still hasn't provided the AGM Minutes to the membership. Those 2 and the President are obviously therefore operating in this uncontrolled no-mans-land, or they would have done their jobs under some form of control by the Board (and the Constitution).

 

I think this Cultural issue is almost the biggest issue, as if a Board Member pushes to change this status quo he or she is "shot full of holes" (as one present Board Member has described it to me) and whether you support them as individuals or not, just check out what Don Ramsey and Ian Baker have had to say in previous threads about their experiences when representing us on our Board.

 

Regards Geoff

 

PS. And in response to dodo's post #569, this "contact your representative" malarkey is, while it sounds quite reasonable at 1st glance, just a sop to cover the very poor communication between the Executive, the Board and the Membership. The responses that dodo received are a clear indication that some Member's Reps either don't give a rats about their members, are incompetent, or are part of the No-mans-Land cone of silence. As I have expressed previously, I have no confidence that my reps will give me the full picture.

 

 

[facthunter]

That's not how it is supposed to work. I think the displayed past apathy leads the board to do the job they think is best, because the average member does not even vote.

 

You would have to wonder who put the last two CEO's in. That really is quite a big job for anyone, but the over-riding authority rests with the board. Meeting twice a year is not frequent enough. We all seem to agree with that now, but it is a major cost item. The paid staff have always been up to the standard as far as I have found them but some a bit higher than that don't seem to understand their job description, and where they fit in the big scheme of things. Candidates who promised open government and all the good things seem to have changed their tune. ( Not all though).

 

If you are going to contact your rep don't wait till you have a skin full of grog in before you do it. He/she might have had a long day.

 

PS.. This was posted before I read Captain's contribution , and is not a response to his ..Nev

 

 

[AM397]

Mate,Do you mind slowing down a bit on your whining, please.

According to your own words you haven't even flown in Australia, couple days ago you didn't even know what the difference between RAAus and GA is.

There were particulars I didn't know. I'm not whining at all. I'm reading all this, old threads and whatnot and I see a trend, which should be obvious to everyone, considering I am able to pick up on it. Tell me exactly where I "whine"? Come now.

 

You've had no contact with RAAus, yet here you go whining and complaining about how bad RAA is how we're ran as a third world country, and whatever else you can come up with.

Once again, show me exactly where I whine. From what has been happening in RA-Aus with its utter lack of competence, utter lack of transparency, and utter lack of willingness to communicate, it's only fair to compare that organisation as it is at present to other places, where incompetence, lack of transparency and unwillingness to communicate is how things are "done".

 

Maybe before you start going off like a mad man about how bad it is, you actually get some experience in the subject.

Perhaps unlike you, I prefer to do my research before committing. Especially something as big as this. I don't want to go blindly into a commitment, just because I "can't possible know what it's like unless I have paid for a membership".

 

I don't go into a plastic surgeon that has shown himself to be utterly incompetent and is on probation for dodgy work. To argue that I must be part of it before I can assess the competencies is as ridiculous as suggesting I need to be attempted to be excluded, before I can assess if it's bad or not when the CEO attempts to stop someone like Ian from renewing his membership (and thereby de facto stopping him from flying).

 

And before you start complaining about me - I'm also not Australian, but at least I've been with RAAus for over a year now.

I don't complain. My posts on these matters have not been complaints. They have been my assessment of this farce. As for you having been a member for a year. Well, lucky you

 

I don't know how bad exactly it is mostly due to the issues mentioned in this thread (lack of communication), but so far RAA hasn't been too bad to me.

It's not just this thread. Look at older threads too. Look at how RA-Aus is actually handling things (or not, as it were), look at how they're in effect under administration because of how they have been (mis-)managing the organisation.

 

They've allowed me to learn and fly, they've processed most of my request very quickly (although the registration took a bit longer than I'd like it to, but that was just before all of this blew up).

Good for you. And with any luck, you might avoid being grounded because of their incompetence. But hey, you can fly at the moment, right?

 

Yes there are some issues, like with any big organization (or maybe a bit more), and we need a bit of change at the top, but stop complaining about things you have no idea about.

Appparently I seem to have a better grasp of what is happening than you. Perhaps it's because I'm not entrenched, nor have any misplaced loyalty to an organisation who has shown themselves to be utterly incapable of managing themselves and their members.

 

 

[Gentreau]

.......This is not as democratic....but I believe pure democracy has not served RAAus well. .......

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

 

- Winston Churchill

 

.

 

 

[eightyknots]

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."- Winston Churchill

.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” Isaac Asimov

 

“A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” Theodore Roosevelt

 

...and, adding to Gentreau's quote from Winston Churchill (above), here's another one I like from him:

 

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Winston Churchill

 

 

[eightyknots]

There's also Thomas Jefferson's description of democracy which is pretty clever:

 

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

 

 

[turboplanner]

If that IS what Thomas Jefferson said, he said it in remarkably modern English compared to most of his other statements - English that wasn't around at the time - and it was an extraordinary statement for someone who was one of the founders of the push for ex British immigrants to democratically break from Britain and introduce democracy to their own new Country.

 

 

[David Isaac]

If that IS what Thomas Jefferson said, he said it in remarkably modern English compared to most of his other statements - English that wasn't around at the time - and it was an extraordinary statement for someone who was one of the founders of the push for ex British immigrants to democratically break from Britain and introduce democracy to their own new Country.

That is probably why he said it Tubz ... LOL

 

 

[David Isaac]

EDIT: There have been complaints about the Board executive.....an executive exists to take care of decisions that arise and need to be taken care of between board meetings. Given there is 6 months between board meetings this gives the executive a whole lot of latitude. It will cost us a lot more...but as has been said before, an organisation the size and budget of RAAus needs a lot more than two face to face board meetings a year!

Hi Pete,

The constitution clearly spells out the role of the executive and even though the Board only meet face to face twice a year, they have their electronic forum facility in which they can discuss and 'resolve' issues (which is later ratified at a face to face Board meeting). Even with this facility the Executive have many times operated outside the terms of reference set down for the Executive in the constitution.

 

The Executive apart from being closer to the action are bound to act only as directed by the Board which means they need to seek direction from the Board on any matter before they act. We know this is NOT what they have done on several occasions as I have had statements from a few Board members alleging they have been told after the fact of an Executive action; the Ian Baker incident was one such case.

 

Given the Board and the Executive actively participate in this breach of constitutional rules, why is it they have never attempted to put up a constitutional change that allows them to officially call 'electronic' meetings and why has the Board never held the Executive accountable for their actions. Is it because the Board is weak or the Executive bullies, or is there collective ignorance of the principles of governance within the rules, or is it possible some form of cronyism is active in the Board.

 

One of the significant issues against Board involvement in my opinion is that the position is voluntary and the involvement necessary to the task requires a significant level of commitment ... many of us just simply do NOT have this time resource. I believe that is an impediment to good candidates because of the current constitutional rules on Board membership. Board membership is way past the concept of a member of a club committee, yet I am suspicious that many think it is just that.

 

If we continue doing what we always have ... we will continue to get what we have. We need a major constitutional shake up to ensure proper governance, but that will require the membership to get off their collective asses and get involved ... stand up and be counted. The next step forward will be a hard one ... do we the members have the collective guts to do it ?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Powerin So...what needs to change if we the members cannot be trusted to vote in a competent board? Voter apathy is a fact of life, I believe, and we have to compensate for this somehow. Many non-profit boards (including one I am a member of) are ditching the idea of regional representation and concentrating hard on getting people with skills to volunteer. This is not as democratic....but I believe pure democracy has not served RAAus well. It is ironic that when we did finally vote in some people with skills, they didn't last long.This really is the crux of the matter. We need a skill-based board in governance, not management (management is employed by the board) and there are many board training opportunities available to make this happen. However, the elected board does not own the organisation - it governs it on behalf of its membership. How that membership contributes to the boards agenda, and tests the boards decisions, is clearly the missing link at present. This is about establishing a new governance process - I believe we must utilise the regional club network and be proactive in canvassing, and promoting, what is already beginning to take shape.

 

Pete

Pete, you're getting way off the track here, RAA is an Incorporated Association and past members unfortunately have used misleading terms such as CEO, given as a sop to one person, and Board.

 

The RAA "Board" is not a Board of Directors, it's a Board of Management, and it's job is not as you say to "govern on behalf of the membership" it is to represent the Members, who own the organization, and manage the staff, applying the decisions and policies decided by the Members.

 

That is the strength of a voluntary or sporting body.

 

If you step out and form a limited liability Company, with a Board of Directors AND a paid management structure AND the managers employ staff to do the work, you have a model which costs considerably more to run, so which needs a constant income to cover overheads. The primary source of this income is usually Members' pockets, so I would expect members to be interested in what you seem to be promoting - a limited liability Company.

 

That is until they are told the cost, which I just very roughly estimated at an additional $184.00 per year per member to cover the additional staff, fees and employment benefits.

 

So a rough comparison of Membership subscriptions for the two models is:

 

Incorporated Association - membership subscription per year: $187.00

 

Limited Liability Company - membership subscription per year: $371.00

 

The disadvantage of using a limited liability company structure for a sporting operation is that it disconnects it's operations from the members.

 

By that, I mean that the shareholders usually are not interested in the fine points of making and selling toilet paper, or manufacturing a range of products; their interest is in buying shares that steadily increase in value for a capital gain, and if possible provide a dividend as spending money.

 

As a result, the Directors usually have a free hand as to how to go about making profit to achieve this. They can decide to enter new markets, or they can even decide to get out of existing markets and completely change the operation, and they can do this without any input from the shareholders, or in this case Members.

 

I can just imagine the Directors sitting around reviewing the last Natfly and deciding that since the rag and tube brigade couldn't even mount a display, that interest had died, they were a financial burden and noisy anyway, and making a decision to drop them and focus on those other thingys, the real ones.

 

So that's where the Incorporated Association has the advantage; you own it, you run it.

 

The current slide over the last couple of years is not related to the structure of the organization, it is related to a little clique doing their own thing in secrecy - in fact much like a company.

 

Members just need to take back control and vote in some skill.

 

 

[facthunter]

Your figures may be right turbs, but some will dispute them and we could debate that for a while too. We can be diverted in many ways at this point in time and fall apart . We certainly cannot run like an aero club. have you ever worked for one?

 

Personalities have had a lot to do with where we are now. I think our problem is in part that we have not defined aims and policies and constantly work towards them ( or modify to a small extent). We have a very general aim. To have cheap affordable flying etc ( or whatever it is, it's something like that. Whatever it is it is a motherhood statement too broad to have any real meaning in the day to day running of the show.

 

If you have gone to the trouble of having a specific set of aims and policies and somebody goes way off at an individual tangent , the rest can say, Hey! what are you doing mate? This is not what we are supposed to be doing. You are way out of line. Justify it or pull your head in. Also at any point in time we can assess how we are doing. Policies that are not activated are reassessed. {Why haven't we done this or is there some way to improve it or has action in another way achieved it. Your policy manual is a living responsive document giving both direction and an ability to ascertain your effectiveness/progress.

 

Individual members or groups, can have an active part in the dynamic nature of the Policy document by contributing working paper{s} which if accepted become a part of the document. They have to "sell" their ideas and have them voted in, but good policies DO end up getting through, and remain to be a guide of what our objectives are for all to see. There was some evidence of the existence of a policy document at the Meeting that I attended as Ian's proxy. This is not rocket science, just a way to stay "on track" ( should have some meaning to pilots) better. We certainly couldn't say we have been "on track" lately. Nev

 

 

[horsefeathers]

While I hear and understand the frustration on this forum about the membership's continued "apathy" towards the running of the RAA, I can't help but wonder how many RAA members actually know or hear what is going on, apart from those who frequent his particular website.

 

I would hazard a guess most members don't read these forums, and given the almost total lack of informed communication from the board to members (where's the Treasurer's report, ffs), most would not know about the ongoing issues.

 

Having said that, is it possible to get contact details from RAA to set up a mailing list or similar, to send out regular updates.

 

It would seem that as the board has abrogated its responsibility for this function, that it be taken over by a relatively independent group - perhaps this could be implemented as an agenda item in an upcoming general meeting.

 

 

[shags_j]

I tried that. I emailed, explaining my concerns.

Contact a board member? Get spin and lies.

 

dodo

I have to disagree re: my representative was very quick in getting back to me. I am now waiting on president for a response. Not all the board reps should be tarnished, some I think do a very good job.

 

 

[turboplanner]

FH:

 

1. I said my figures were approximate - if people got serious of course you would debate the structure and get accurate costs.

 

2. Jesus you don't read do you - in no way am I suggesting an Association be run like a bloody aero club, and I'm not going to repeat once again my experience in Incorporated Associations, and dealing directly eyeball to eyeball with Ministers.

 

 

[Admin]

While I hear and understand the frustration on this forum about the membership's continued "apathy" towards the running of the RAA, I can't help but wonder how many RAA members actually know or hear what is going on, apart from those who frequent his particular website.I would hazard a guess most members don't read these forums, and given the almost total lack of informed communication from the board to members (where's the Treasurer's report, ffs), most would not know about the ongoing issues.

 

Having said that, is it possible to get contact details from RAA to set up a mailing list or similar, to send out regular updates.

 

It would seem that as the board has abrogated its responsibility for this function, that it be taken over by a relatively independent group - perhaps this could be implemented as an agenda item in an upcoming general meeting.

I think this is an appropriate time for everyone to start looking in their email address book and start sending out emails to all they know to come and join this site, read this thread, and help them to become more informed as to what has been happening in our beloved RAAus.

I am trying to stay out of this great discussion however there are a couple of points that I would like to make if I may:

 

1. Let's not turn against each other in any way, individual opinions are just that, and may or may not be the same as yours but nevertheless, we are entitled to our own opinions

 

2. Perhaps there is another element that may be getting confused in the discussion of apathy and number of members voting. This could well be that a member may not vote if the candidates are not worth voting for, in a member's opinion, so that member doesn't vote...this is not apathy on the voters part but to a degree, they ARE actually voting...by not voting.

 

This means, to me, there is another elements to the voting apathy and that is the number and quality of candidates that do put their hand up. For example we either have no competing candidates so the previous incumbent is re-elected by default OR if say I had a choice between Runciman, Middleton or Reid for Victoria...well, I can clearly say I wouldn't even bother voting...to me that is not apathy on my behalf but rather my vote that I don't like any of them.

 

The point is that yes, member apathy is a enormous concern but so too is the number and quality of candidates and that is why we have a board that we have today

 

 

[Ches]

Ian, I take you point. Tiger and I recon the of the 13123 members of Ra Aus, if 1% know or even are interested would be most likely close to the mark. The rest would'nt give a stuff what was happening. All they want to do ios to jump into their plane anf FLY.IMWO the way the board is behaving , the answer to having anything on the website would be zero.

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Ian, I take you point. Tiger and I recon the of the 13123 members of Ra Aus, if 1% know or even are interested would be most likely close to the mark. The rest would'nt give a stuff what was happening. All they want to do ios to jump into their plane anf FLY.IMWO the way the board is behaving , the answer to having anything on the website would be zero.

I disagree Ches.

 

I believe that most of the problem is due to lack of knowledge by the greater majority of RAA members of what is going on. Yeah, maybe people are blase about the issues, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt at least try reaching out - there MUST be a huge number who would be mighty pissed if only they knew.

 

If you frame a message to the entire membership (or hell, even 25% of them), about the current longstanding issues, with the theme about its effect on each individual's flying privileges, you may be surprised about how vociferous the response might be.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Horse feathers (I love that forum name), I believe you are correct.

 

Nothing motivates Aussies and Kiwis more than to threaten their rights and privileges. They will sit on their asses until the wakeup call goes out and then all hell breaks loose.

 

Time is now for the 'all hell' to break loose.

 

The problem we have always had is that the Board gives us the mushroom treatment out of what I call arrogance and there is no way you can get the message out to the members on any form of media other than forums like this one.

 

Some time back the RA Aus board passed a resolution to create their own forum for members, but that never happened did it, and I wonder why? That would expose the board collectively to scrutiny and you could imagine how they would act and censor this discussion.

 

Laughable to the extreme except it is a long way from amusing.

 

 

[Teckair]

I was hoping for more than what you were able to muster, and actually be told why. You know: An actual, formed argument that might be able to convince me.

Casa is very bad news probably one of the worst government departments in the country. If Casa was governing us the only way for many would be to give up flying. I do not have time to go into great detail for you but you could read some other posts on here by experienced people about it. The only people who think Casa might be the way to go are people who are new to flying and have no knowledge about Casa and the type of organisation it is.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

CASA don't want to get involved in GA or ultralights. That's kind of obvious.

 

 

[AM397]

Casa is very bad news probably one of the worst government departments in the country. If Casa was governing us the only way for many would be to give up flying. I do not have time to go into great detail for you but you could read some other posts on here by experienced people about it. The only people who think Casa might be the way to go are people who are new to flying and have no knowledge about Casa and the type of organisation it is.

Fair enough, I guess. It's just that Casa still has the power to shut down Ra-Aus as they have more or less done - on the basis of Ra-Aus not doing their job to Casa's standards. So, being devils advocate, it seems a lot like having to live up to Casa's standard as an organisation, yet being unable to do it, resulting in train wrecks like this, so the "freedom" gained is null and void.

 

However, I will concede that it might not be the best option to come under Casa's administration and have them do proper paperwork, so let's see if the members can be a force to re-align RA-Aus. Perhaps one could argue for a compromise of sorts, since Casa are helping Ra-Aus to meet their demands. Perhaps it would be possible for someone to contact Casa directly and see if they can get some info from them, since Ra-Aus aren't very informative?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have AM397, and so far there has been no response, however there is a ladder of procedure laid down by the Australian Government to protect enquiries like that and I need to give it a few more days.