RAAus Fails CASA Audit Again

[AM397]

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.

Super, TB

 

 

[facthunter]

AM397. Your intentions are good but that last post is one of the most naive I have ever read . Don't make those of us who know about the beaurocracy that is CASA, write more details. We have to survive too or walk away which looks like the most likely outcome for any thinking person now who is a realist. The alarm bell rang when the new CEO of CASA said things like if you don't have a lot of money don't come flying. He also threatened to sue people who said unkind things about him. ( I posted as much as I was game back then). As soon as he saw what was going on in the ultralight world ( a scene I believe he has never understood, and probably never will) he stopped everything that was happening in the RAAus, so there was complete "nothing happening" for years. That little episode cost me at least $35 K ( probably much more). That has just about put me out of owning a plane for ever... The legislation is not complete even now. Don't talk about CASA "helping" The FAA do because it is part of the charter under which they operate. CASA doesn't operate that way. If they helped us to any degree others would expect it too. but don't worry It just doesn't happen. We are a nuisance and the best way to make sure you guys don't end up in the windscreen of a Dash 8 is to have yoou on the ground. The safest place is on the ground for U/L's. We are the Authority. we will act. ( IN many cases to do nothing)

 

CASA's motto. We're not happy till you're not happy.

 

It would be nice to get Dick Smith's comments on some of this. He tried to reform it. The first magazine on the cover featured

 

DICK SMITH, YOUR NEW HEAD Nice Eh!! Nev

 

 

[Pete Greed]

David: As a comparative new-comer to posting on this excellent site, I note your very pertinent points. Especially "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 ?"

 

And Turbs: "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".

 

From my experience of both Incorporated Associations and Company's Limited by Guarantee (a common option to incorporation, but under company law) there should be no significant increases in cost to members but perhaps more accommodating protection for boards that comply under the act. The Committee of management model is rarely (if ever) used in multi-million dollar operations and "Executive" powers are usually subject to very serious scrutiny by boards. At the financial level RAAus operates, what you described is the minimum of what happens now "with a Board of Directors AND a paid management structure AND the managers employ staff to do the work"

 

I am not really promoting either model as both will work if proper governance structures and planning are in place. By the way the difference between a Company Limited by Guarantee and a Company Limited is that basically the profits of the Company Limited by Guarantee are turned back into/retained by the organisation where as profits from a Company Ltd. are distributed to shareholders. The corporate model of governance/management with paid (executive directors) answerable to shareholders, is not, I believe, appropriate to the community based sector.

 

Under increasing pressure to redefine/restructure, the board may decide to bring in professional assistance. It will be at this time that we as members (as David so politely put it) will need to get off our collective asses and get involved. I hope time is allowed for that engagement to take place. The opportunity may be available....sooner than later.

 

Pete

 

 

[turboplanner]

Interested in what you had to say Pete, and that's worth further debate.

 

I agree that whatever the model, proper governance is the biggest priority, and the immediate priority before even that is to correct the audit defaults. Then there's some time to get it right.

 

 

[facthunter]

Turbo, I am sorry that it appears that I have rejected your view there out of hand, I haven't. I really do apologise if it looked like I was just cutting you off I just don't awant to see us go off in all directions and fragment. My remark wasn't directed at you, specifically, but was a general thing, consistent with my view that splitting off into different thought groups can distract us from the critical situation we are in NOW. The argument you bring up will work or not based on facts, which will speak for themselves. 4 or 5 experts, at most, would be best to assess that sort of matter and they could prepare a report which should be reliable if the right people did it with the right motives. Convincing the whole forum of the merits might take a while and do we have lots of time here? Some ( not you) act as if there is all the time in the world and it will fix itself. We have to be carefull not to get into a situation where nothing productive comes out of all our efforts. If it gets too complex we will not get to the essentials. People lose interest if it looks too hard. Nev

 

 

[AM397]

FactHunter, It may very well be naive, but it's late here (as in really late), and being a journalist by trade, dumbing a question down is a good way of getting people to explain things, often in no uncertain terms. I note that it worked here too, but unlike when I'm working, I do appreciate the answer, and there might just be someone else out there who can use your answer to make a better decision if the question comes up in earnest.

 

 

[David Isaac]

.......From my experience of both Incorporated Associations and Company's Limited by Guarantee (a common option to incorporation, but under company law) there should be no significant increases in cost to members but perhaps more accommodating protection for boards that comply under the act. The Committee of management model is rarely (if ever) used in multi-million dollar operations and "Executive" powers are usually subject to very serious scrutiny by boards. At the financial level RAAus operates, what you described is the minimum of what happens now "with a Board of Directors AND a paid management structure AND the managers employ staff to do the work"I am not really promoting either model as both will work if proper governance structures and planning are in place. By the way the difference between a Company Limited by Guarantee and a Company Limited is that basically the profits of the Company Limited by Guarantee are turned back into/retained by the organisation where as profits from a Company Ltd. are distributed to shareholders. The corporate model of governance/management with paid (executive directors) answerable to shareholders, is not, I believe, appropriate to the community based sector.

Under increasing pressure to redefine/restructure, the board may decide to bring in professional assistance. It will be at this time that we as members (as David so politely put it) will need to get off our collective asses and get involved. I hope time is allowed for that engagement to take place. The opportunity may be available....sooner than later....

Pete,

There is an intention to call a general meeting of members where these issues could be intelligently debated by the members. Interestingly if you read the beginning of the constitution you will find that the original organisation 'Recreational Aviation Australia' was in fact a company limited by guarantee and changed to an incorporated association under the ACT Act:

 

"B.1 To take over, acquire, operate and administer the activities and property of the Company limited by

 

guarantee, known as Recreational Aviation Australia Inc."

 

A strange maneuver in my opinion to go from a sound corporate structure with higher corporate accountability requirements to one of a 'club' nature. I wonder on whose advice that position was taken and whether that was done properly by support from the members. I was a director of such a company for many years and prefer the structure under the Corporations Act to the sloppy Incorporated Association Act in the ACT.

 

... I agree that whatever the model, proper governance is the biggest priority, and the immediate priority before even that is to correct the audit defaults. Then there's some time to get it right.

I agree with both of you ... no matter what, we have governance issues and what appears to be a lack of understanding of proper corporate behaviour let alone governance. We appear to have a culture in the Board (committee) that believes they have no obligation to keep the members informed and do NOT honestly advise the members where the money is going. A few financial matters come to mind that were never adequately declared in the accounts ... an alleged $90k payment to Ungerman to relocate him to Queensland from where he promptly left RA Aus and joined CASA and an alleged 'payout' to Costermeyer (the former CEO) after his employment was terminated by RA Aus after only a short time in office to then appoint Tizzard under questionable selection methodology. There was also a matter of substantial monies spent by the Board when they attempted to expel a member, and the failure to disclose insurance issues and legal spends relating to those insurance issues. In other words allegedly deceptive or at the least misleading financial reporting.

 

This is the time for members to act ... watch this space ....

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo, I am sorry that it appears that I have rejected your view there out of hand, I haven't. I really do apologise if it looked like I was just cutting you off I just don't awant to see us go off in all directions and fragment. My remark wasn't directed at you, specifically, but was a general thing, consistent with my view that splitting off into different thought groups can distract us from the critical situation we are in NOW. The argument you bring up will work or not based on facts, which will speak for themselves. 4 or 5 experts, at most, would be best to assess that sort of matter and they could prepare a report which should be reliable if the right people did it with the right motives. Convincing the whole forum of the merits might take a while and do we have lots of time here? Some ( not you) act as if there is all the time in the world and it will fix itself. We have to be carefull not to get into a situation where nothing productive comes out of all our efforts. If it gets too complex we will not get to the essentials. People lose interest if it looks too hard. Nev

Forums are forums - that is anyone can get up and make a speech, but they are not good planning instruments because they naturally take their own direction which at times can be totally different from where they should be going, and at other times totally fragmented to the point where the participants forget what they started to resolve.

 

I agree with you about the 4 or 5 experts, particularly if they spend time doing their research

 

 

[Pete Greed]

David: "A strange maneuver in my opinion to go from a sound corporate structure with higher corporate accountability requirements to one of a 'club' nature. I wonder on whose advice that position was taken and whether that was done properly by support from the members. I was a director of such a company for many years and prefer the structure under the Corporations Act to the sloppy Incorporated Association Act in the ACT"

 

Thank you for that information David........indeed a strange, and somewhat regressive, decision to take (but somehow perhaps, not surprising).

 

Given some of the comments of this and other threads, I feel that work should commence immediately on the structure of a general meeting. The last thing we want is a talk fest and no productive, worthwhile conclusions reached. If we as members are to make the effort and get to a meeting, the agenda needs to be rock solid and unambiguous. Over a two day session, with a skilled facilitator, we should finish up with a much better informed Board/Committee, members who would see value in standing for board/committee nomination and the framework for a strategic plan. A strategic plan which would be assembled by management and staff, in consultation with the board/committee. If the Board and Membership do not take ownership of this process, then they are abrogating their responsibilities and the talk will go on.

 

Pete

 

 

[Powerin]

I'm sorry, but blaming the members for not being able to vote in the right people is unfair. The problem is, that RA-Aus has been less than forthcoming when it comes to divulging details of occuring problems, or in fact, most any information at all. How would the average member know, not only that there was a problem, but what kind of problem and who was responsible without any information to go on at all?Seriously, blaming the members in this farce is bull as far as I'm concerned, and it sure as heck won't motivate people to become more active and vote, if the blame for RA-Aus incompetence is shifted to them.

My intention was not to "blame" members as such, but to point out that the board we have is the one we voted in.

If it is true, as you say, that "the average member (didn't) know not only that there was a problem, but what kind of problem and who was responsible without any information to go on at all" , then how are members supposed know which way to vote to fix or avoid the problem?

 

If we accept that the average member does not know what's going on, or doesn't care (and I'm fine with that) then our system needs to change to take that reality into account and prevent a board or management from taking advantage of that reality. And I'm not sure a few changes to the constitution is all that needs to happen because the constitution isn't even being adhered to at the moment.

 

Would a limited liability company be easier to manage in terms of ensuring boards adhere to the constitution? It will cost more to run that way, but for the low cost Incorporated Assoc. option to work the members need to put more time and effort into the running of RAAus. I'm not sure that will happen.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

.......Would a limited liability company be easier to manage in terms of ensuring boards adhere to the constitution? It will cost more to run that way, but for the low cost Incorporated Assoc. option to work the members need to put more time and effort into the running of RAAus. I'm not sure that will happen.

Im guessing like most corrective actions we are about to see the pendulum effect in full action we are likely to swing from no or little member involvement to a position where there is likely to be substantial member involvment, however like a pendulum its always swinging, how long before that interest fades away?

 

I think its a function of how much you try to involve the members.

 

Constantly berating members in a magazine for lack of involvement or lack of interest in ringing reps etc has failed.....FFS board, drop that approach how many years of failure will it take before peopel acknowledge that approach in trying to drum up involvement didnt work.......

 

Lets try teh technology approach, it wont cost much and can be done quickly and has teh potential to make people feel part of the gang if they can review and scrutinise the decisions made....

 

Im of the view that the constitution can be made to work withthe structure we have already, we just need the mechanism to be able to ring the alarm bell more widely when things appear to be going off track. This website should not be that alarm, but has been....

 

Flying is a hightech undertaking, so why do we seem to be scared of a little bit of high tech around the organisation? I dont understand it.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Admin]

Andy, this web site, this valuable resource has been the alarm for many years because it is independent and unbiased, free from any RAAus or CASA etc control and that is the only way you could have it...it is the "Watchdog" of the system

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Imagine if the RAA board had sued Ian back when they started making threats to him!

 

 

[skeptic36]

My intention was not to "blame" members as such, but to point out that the board we have is the one we voted in.

Seems to me the board you have now is made up of at least some members which are second choice, given two of the first choices resigned imediately after taking up their positions. Those blokes must have had a reason which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong)was that their personal assets were at risk if they continued to serve on the board.

Two questions I have are a) how do you expect to attract a candidate of any quality while this situation exists (does it still)?

 

And b) why haven't all the board members ran for cover?

 

I am not a member although I hope to be soon , and only know what I have read here, but if and when the above situation changes it needs to be publicised so that any new talent is not scared off before they even start.

 

 

[boingk]

Simple plan:

 

Participation in elections is compulsary for ALL members. If you miss one you MUST vote in the next or have your membership restricted or revoked until such time as a fine is paid.

 

That'd sure get people voting.

 

- boingk

 

 

[facthunter]

That has already been done but a while back after the resignations. It was done HERE. I don't recall any other place and I don't know what the individual board members think. I personally could not envisage jeopardising my home but that could be possible. The liability should not extend to members individually of RAAus beyond the possiblity of the organisation going bankrupt. Others on this forum are far more conversnt with the details than I am. I don't know specifically why Bill Kane resigned but obviously he was not happy with what he found. I am sure they all went in there with good intentions. Nev

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

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.

I emailed the President and was extremely impressed with his rapid and well thought out response. I CALLED my Board Member (CALLED not EMAILED) and I was most impressed with his response. They know that RA-Aus has it's problems, and the CASA Audit is being used as a means of helping RA-Aus to improve, so they have my full support!

 

 

[Robert]

Simple plan:Participation in elections is compulsary for ALL members. If you miss one you MUST vote in the next or have your membership restricted or revoked until such time as a fine is paid.

 

 

That'd sure get people voting.

 

- boingk

Arent we becoming a big enough police state/country as it is. We dont need this type of stuff

 

After the last voting episode I can see why most members dont bother to vote it just get to involved.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Looking for a system that works? Nothing will work well, or for long unless all processes are open and accountable.

 

I vote in my Local Government elections to elect a representative (Councilor). That Councilor will attend all MONTHLY Council meetings, or provide reasons as to why he cannot attend. That Councilor may serve on sub-committees to deal with individual complex matters and report back to full Council. ALL new Councilors receive comprehensive training in their roles and responsibilities (what they CAN do, CAN NOT do and are EXPECTED to do. The Councilors set policy and direction as well as employ a CEO, the CEO employs the rest of the staff (with senior positions approved by the Councilors). Any deficiency in staff performance or legislative deficiencies show up very quickly with such regular Staff/Council meetings.

 

The Local Government will put on its website EVERY MONTH the agenda for the upcoming meeting and soon after that meeting will have the minutes on the website. This information includes what is happening, how the Councilors voted and FULL FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS for the month.

 

As a ratepayer I can access this information on the website anytime I like and can get a good understanding of what our Council is doing.

 

THIS SYSTEM WORKS! Isn’t this what we as members of RAAus want?

 

Perhaps we don’t need a CEO with great aviation knowledge (that’s what staff are for) but with the knowledge of the procedures to ensure things happen as they should. Maybe a former Local Gov’t CEO or similar is what we need?

 

 

[AM397]

My intention was not to "blame" members as such, but to point out that the board we have is the one we voted in.If it is true, as you say, that "the average member (didn't) know not only that there was a problem, but what kind of problem and who was responsible without any information to go on at all" , then how are members supposed know which way to vote to fix or avoid the problem?

 

If we accept that the average member does not know what's going on, or doesn't care (and I'm fine with that) then our system needs to change to take that reality into account and prevent a board or management from taking advantage of that reality. And I'm not sure a few changes to the constitution is all that needs to happen because the constitution isn't even being adhered to at the moment.

 

Would a limited liability company be easier to manage in terms of ensuring boards adhere to the constitution? It will cost more to run that way, but for the low cost Incorporated Assoc. option to work the members need to put more time and effort into the running of RAAus. I'm not sure that will happen.

I realise the limited liability is not solely directed at me, and that is lucky, because I don't know enough about it to make an informed comment on it. I can gather it would be more expensive, and I figure a change to auch a thing won't help much, unless you get rid of all the bad apples. And, that if it's made into such a construction, what can the members do about crappy governance, Cronyism or what else might be there?

 

 

[Guest john]

Im guessing like most corrective actions we are about to see the pendulum effect in full action we are likely to swing from no or little member involvement to a position where there is likely to be substantial member involvment, however like a pendulum its always swinging, how long before that interest fades away?I think its a function of how much you try to involve the members.

 

Constantly berating members in a magazine for lack of involvement or lack of interest in ringing reps etc has failed.....FFS board, drop that approach how many years of failure will it take before peopel acknowledge that approach in trying to drum up involvement didnt work.......

 

Lets try teh technology approach, it wont cost much and can be done quickly and has teh potential to make people feel part of the gang if they can review and scrutinise the decisions made....

 

Im of the view that the constitution can be made to work withthe structure we have already, we just need the mechanism to be able to ring the alarm bell more widely when things appear to be going off track. This website should not be that alarm, but has been....

 

Flying is a hightech undertaking, so why do we seem to be scared of a little bit of high tech around the organisation? I dont understand it.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Hi Andy,

Many thanks for ringing through your email address. I will sign & return this document to you by email tomorrow as I have had a few beers tonight to drown my sorrows of today as I have been kicked in the ass that much today I certainly don't want to upset your day also.

 

I sent an email to the President yesterday & told him that when the outgoing President was in office one could forsee that RAAus, was then on the past of self destruction, & was notified accordingly in writing but unfortunately the exPresident could not see the wood for the trees. The existing President related how he had inherited this disaster & assured me that he would tackle the issues head on as seen this week by the CEO & Technical Officer resigning.

 

There is probably going to be a lot more shuffling of the chairs on the sinking Titanic by the time the extroardinary general meeting is requisitioned early in the new year. The Constitution will stipulate the calendar time the Secretary is required to call this meeting by no later than x weeks from the official notification of the required number of members who have petitioned for this meeting.

 

Keep up the good work because I am now too old to deal with all this crap.

 

Roy Loepresti the modifcation guru for Mooneys & Comanches use to have a slogan in his advertisements as follows:

 

"Life is short fly fast"

 

 

[facthunter]

The tragedy in all this is that I think most people are of good intent but have a problem with loyalties. A sense of direction is lacking. Perhaps they have a "seige" mentality as regards this forum. If I lent Steve Runciman some money I wouldnt have any anxious moments about him paying it back. I really believe that a military background results in a lot of "baggage". (misdirected loyalties etc). There are no "BAD" guys. They have just shown how inadequately they respond to being "OPEN" . If we are too demanding and critical we will not get any "normal" person to run for office. You will only get a big egotist...Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Who on the board suggested the secrecy clause a while back? He or she should be the first to offer their resignation.

 

 

[pylon500]

That tends to reflect my cynicism somewhat after reading a popular science fiction series.....

 

“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[facthunter]

You could say that people who WANT the job are unsuited. You should find someone who can DO the job and twist their arm. I don't think Steve Runciman needed the job. I think he perceived a NEED for a job to be done properly. I think events have overtaken him. Nev