RAAus Fails CASA Audit Again

[fly_tornado]

we would be lucky to get 20 viewers, technology won't cure apathy.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Firsty, The only complaints I have read here regarding the calling of the EGM, revolve around the fear that a few stirrers might hijack the voting. My view is that hijacking could not happen if all interested parties (all members or at least a lot of them) simply take an active interest in the EGM, communicate their views and at very least send a trusted proxy to vote on their behalf. It is a democratic process after all.

 

Secondly, the streaming of sound would be a great step toward transparency and communication. Especially to help the majority who are probably unable to attend in person. Pending permission if that is required - is there anything about it in the consitiution? Any steps toward communication will work toward preventing misinformation getting out of hand.

 

Thirdly, what about slow scan video or low definitiion (lower bandwidth required), would that be possible? I'm sure that there would be some honorable members who would be prepared to stump up a donation/subscription to help pay for any overhead costs. For instance I'm sure my club would definately pass the hat around and we would have a dozen or so watching at the clubhouse. This doesn't have to be a television show, just a camera and a microphone near the front so we can hear the answers.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

pretty much exactly what Im talking about...... The constitution is very prescriptive about votes and proxys. You can vote if your physically present or if you complete a proxy form as per the appendix to the constitution.

 

The constitution could easily be modified to allow voting via electronic means, however for that to happen will require a special resolution (and a fair bit of debate and thought first......) and constitutional change isnt a resolution its a special resolution which has different notice requirements to plain ordinary ones........

 

 

[turboplanner]

Firsty, The only complaints I have read here regarding the calling of the EGM, revolve around the fear that a few stirrers might hijack the voting. .

nomad, under no circumstances would it be safe or acceptable for a few stirrers to hijack the voting and run of with their own ego-based agenda.

 

If you class me as a stirrer, I won't be there to influence anyone. I made my decision about 18 months ago when I obtained the financial records (I hope you've obtained them too - if you won an aircraft the cost is a miniscule amount to inform yourself independently without influence.

 

I can't speak for anyone else who may be attending, but many people have aired their views from one extreme to the other, and I'd have to congratulate the Moderators on this forum, and Ian for providing a free-speaking platform.

 

I would repeat my first line though, that the situation is distressing enough for it to have got to the point where members have paid their money but can't fly, HOWEVER, it would be a disaster if one clique was booted out by another (and I'm not referring to Andy's group), and major improvements in processing and transparency did not occur immediately, so nomad I'm right with you on that fear.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

A board member pointed out an inaccuracy in an earlier post here http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-fails-casa-audit-again.50744/page-41#post-256232 it's materiel so check out the edited version...

 

Andy

 

 

[nomadpete]

Turbo, please don't take offence re: my 'stirrers' remark. Nor anyone else. I was only trying to paraphrase what I think is the thrust of those against the EGM. I don't personally think that there is a hazardous stirrers camp unless you count the silent board and executive. I have faith in the due process of a properly conducted meeting. I would like to extend the communication so that more of those who have so far been apathetic, may get involved in the democratic process.

 

I, for one, am unable to get to Canberra for any meetings. Knowledge is required for us to make informed decisions (and a prerequisit to vote wisely). We can use our presently available processes to start reforming RAAus. This must happen as soon as possible. The purpose of this forum is to debate and air our thoughts and opinions. And to try to rationalise what is happening in our organisation - at this time we only have this forum to discuss things. Thank you Ian for that. Although there are not enormous numbers of us interacting here, remember that there are probably many more sitting on the sidelines wishing to get some facts to fill the information vacuum. Hopefully even some more of the board members ? I heard someplace that for every person motivated to write about something there are ten more who are thinking it but are afraid to voice it.

 

regards,

 

PeterT

 

 

[Captain]

Although there are not enormous numbers of us interacting here, remember that there are probably many more sitting on the sidelines wishing to get some facts to fill the information vacuum. Hopefully even some more of the board members ? I heard someplace that for every person motivated to write about something there are ten more who are thinking it but are afraid to voice it.

Pete,

 

One of the great things about this thread and the related ones is that there are a lot of new people posting, some only with 1 or 2 previous posts in total.

 

Plus there are a lot of others lurking.

 

The entire discussion has been very worthwhile IMHO.

 

Other than the existing Executive, I don't know anyone with an intent to highjack anything at the EGM ...... and in my case, all I want is for good communication, sound management and good governance to be the norm in RAA instead of being the exception.

 

But I have to add, in the interests of fair disclosure, that I also want a president that allows the full Board process to function. I have had enough of egomaniacs at the top who will not brook any disagreement from any elected Rep. That is still going on, even at the present time, where one of the Board members is copping heaps because he disagrees with the leadership in quite a reasoned and reasonable way on a couple of issues. And I have always quoted 3 other ex Board Members who have reported being intimidated & treated in this way, although recently I have been advised that the total is actually 5.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[slartibartfast]

a normal AGM held in Canberra in years gone by may have been attended by less than 20 members, (EDIT: Ive been informed by a board member that 20 is rubbish! its never been that high and indeed constitutional change has been approved with 2 normal members present!!!!!! (ALARM BELLS ALARM BELLS!!!!!!!!)

Andy, I call shenanigans on your advice from a board member.

I went to last year's meeting. There were more than 20 there. More people than satisfaction in fact.

 

Shouldn't the minutes reflect the number of attendees?

 

You were there Mr Isaacs. What say you?

 

Still grounded though.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Pete,One of the great things about this thread and the related ones is that there are a lot of new people posting, some only with 1 or 2 previous posts in total.

 

Plus there are a lot of other lurking.

 

The entire discussion has been very worthwhile IMHO.

 

Regards Geoff

Geoff, I have noticed this as well. Also good to see two or is it three current Board members posting.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy, I call shenanigans on your advice from a board member.I went to last year's meeting. There were more than 20 there. More people than satisfaction in fact.

Shouldn't the minutes reflect the number of attendees?

 

You were there Mr Isaacs. What say you?

 

Still grounded though.

Ive updated it again...... http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-fails-casa-audit-again.50744/page-41#post-256232

 

 

[slartibartfast]

[Captain]

Andy, I call shenanigans on your advice from a board member.

G'day Ross. This thread is getting out of hand when a member uses that aggressive and distasteful word "shenanigans". Someone might smile, so will a Moderator please step in and calm this down. Regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

He's from Canberra Geoff.

 

 

[Bandit12]

I too have noticed that this thread and others related have had the effect of bringing an awful lot of people out of lurking to post their opinion, and quite a number who have been members sometimes for a couple of years here and have little or no posts. So obviously what is happening is being absorbed by many more than just those who use the forum, and we can only hope that there may be a slight lift in the level of apathy out there.

 

It's remarkable to think that with more transparency and communication that is likely that things could never have got to this stage. Hopefully those that follow in the management side of RA-Aus will heed that lesson.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

But secrecy and an unwillingness to share knowledge are the secrets to maintaining power.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Andy, I call shenanigans on your advice from a board member.I went to last year's meeting. There were more than 20 there. More people than satisfaction in fact.

Shouldn't the minutes reflect the number of attendees?

 

You were there Mr Isaacs. What say you?

 

Still grounded though.

Yes Mr Slartingfartblaster ... damn I always ge that wrong ...

This year I was not there at Heck Field and I believe the number was >150.

 

Typically when held in Cantberra, the number is shamefully much less, certainly, <20.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

I am one of those with few posts here because I don't like airing my views in this type of public arena, things said here can be taken entirely the wrong way and not in the way they were intended,I would much rather go to a meeting personally and talk face to face, I then I know exactly who I am talking to and what was said both ways.

 

The idea of webinars and audio will not work IMO, I don't think that will prevent apathy in our organization even if it were possible to do it, we need to make it easier for ALL members to attend these meetings. If we need more money to do this, a meeting in each city for example, I for one would be prepared to add some to my membership.

 

Just in passing...I just wonder how many people making comments here are actually fully paid up members of RA-AUS ?

 

David

 

 

[Guest john]

To All Interested RAAus Members,

 

These past few days has shown an incredible interest by uses of this Forum, concerning the inexcusable failures that have occurred over recent times at RAAus Canberra.

 

It is apparent that 1 of the major contributing factors that has allowed these failures to occur by the incompetence & negligence of the RAAus Board & CEO has been in not communicating to us little people, & telling us about these issues when they have become first known to the above personnel.

 

You can be assured of a winning bet, that if any of these major failures had been notified to us little people, when they first raised their ugly head, then at least they would have been out on the table, & they would have been addressed in a timely manner so as to resolve the issues asap, whereas the failures have been kept amongst a chosen few & multiplying whilst "ROME HAS BEEN BURNING."

 

In other words all us little people have only been allowed to see what is in the "SHOP WINDOW" & yet behind the CURTAINS there has been an ongoing & a multiplying of ugly issues continually occurring which we have not been privy to.

 

There is an old saying about change as follows:" The only thing constant about change is change itself", & it is about to occurr within RAAus in the near future for the betterment of our organisation .

 

RAAus & its members are now entering into a short duration of "CALM before the STORM" & after the STORM, RAAus will rise from the ashes for its long term betterment.

 

 

[Gibbo]

But secrecy and an unwillingness to share knowledge are the secrets to maintaining power.

As a very wise Jewish Senior manager once said to me 'Only ever teach 70% of what you know, You can never be made redundant then'.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't take Holidays It shows them how well they can get along without you Any how, cemetries are full of indispensible people.. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I am one of those with few posts here because I don't like airing my views in this type of public arena, things said here can be taken entirely the wrong way and not in the way they were intended,I would much rather go to a meeting personally and talk face to face, I then I know exactly who I am talking to and what was said both ways.The idea of webinars and audio will not work IMO, I don't think that will prevent apathy in our organization even if it were possible to do it, we need to make it easier for ALL members to attend these meetings. If we need more money to do this, a meeting in each city for example, I for one would be prepared to add some to my membership.

 

Just in passing...I just wonder how many people making comments here are actually fully paid up members of RA-AUS ?

 

David

David

 

Chicken or egg, thats the problem.

 

The changes you suggest may well be appropriate and may well be voted for, but they cannot occur until the constituion is changed to support them. For example a motion is put in all the capital cities it passes in 4 and fails in 3 does that mean it passes or fails overall?

 

Well on city count it passes

 

On representative count (if a rep is in the state where it passes then eth rep votes pass) it fails

 

On determining what percentatge of the membership live in each state and in then scaling up or downt the result to reflect membership it fails

 

We cant do that until we consider it, change the constitution and have teh changes voted in, which must occur in a single location GM because thats what is required under the constitution.

 

With regards your comments on the webcast......Can I ask if the approach "this wont work" is based on your experience and knowledge or just a "gut feel" I have seen it work and used it myself very effectively. Its not as good as being there in person, but then poor isnt as good as winning lotto...... I have priced it and it will cost $2250 per meeting and will support as many members as want to attend that way, and it is also available after the meeting as a recording so even those who cant attend due to time clashes can watch afterwards. Any arguments about teh minutes....not a problem just watch what really occured..... It terms of client computing needs...an internet connection (reasonable bandwidth) and any device with a browser...... The technology is used every day in enterprise across the world its not new or bleeding edge technology, it was that about 10 years ago. So again I ask why wont it work? and what could possibly be wrong with improving transparency....

 

Andy

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Andy,

 

I and some others proposed we move the 2011 AGM to a Saturday so there could be more member participation. We also encouraged many members to attend. We had the best result for Canberra ever.

 

Having the AGM on a Friday afternoon in Canberra as in years past had very poor attendance. From memory some years only had MaxB. and Ken M. Present, apart from the Board themselves, and staff. Occasionally we had some visitors.

 

You could get exact numbers from old minutes. You would need to discount the Board, staff and visitors to get the actual total of ordinary members. You could count them on one hand.

 

John McK

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Well Andy, there are lots of older people that don't have mobile phones these days let alone a computer that is good enough and or a connection fast enough to watch a webinar, I am guessing you have a good connection and good computer, what about the people that live in the country or just out of the city that don't have a fast internet connection or good computer, do we say bad luck to them, no of course not we need to work hard to find a solution for all.

 

I have done lots of webinars and there is a percentage of them you have problems with them, connections etc, that's probably enough to put people off doing it again.

 

Ok on your figures, one meeting per year in each major city ..$2250 per meeting x 6 cities = $13500..right? divided by 13000 members (approx) correct me if I am wrong..how much would that cost to run, do the sums yourself ???? I think I wouldn't mind paying some extra to go a meeting in person in my city without paying for accomodation and time off work in a far off place.

 

I don't know, maybe CASA could help us with the venues, maybe??? I would make the meetings late in the afternoon say 5.00pm or 6.00pm and the meeting could run through to 10.30pm or so, 4.5 hrs to 5.0 hrs for a meeting, there are a lot smarter people than me to coordinate the meeting properly and ensure it runs to time.

 

David

 

 

[coljones]

(EDIT 2: A member has advised that he was part of last years AGM and there were >20. So perhaps the most accurate statement is that in some past AGM's there have been only 2 and by the board members recollection average was 4...... which when compared to the member base is almost statistically irrelevant. In terms of difference it moves from a disgrace to merely appalling)

Certainly more than 20 people at the AGM last year, 2011.

 

The previous year, when there was a proposal to amend the Constitution to better align board representation with the region membership (reduce SE QLD to 2 and increase Vic to 3) there was a very large number of proxy votes tendered. The body count might have been low but the interest was very high.

 

Properly crafted motions together with appropriately treated proxies are very powerful weapons. While not as good as attendance they do serve a vital role. The only problem I have is with proxies made out to the chair. We did have the situation a few years ago where Nick Whitlam was entering NRMA proxies made out to him, as the chair, as he saw fit - if he didn't like your vote, your vote wasn't cast.

 

People are worried about going to the AGM. It is a long way and the costs are not minor and the treasurer's report can be pretty boring and there is a tendency for the high table to obfuscate. But the agendas are published beforehand and members should carefully consider the business of the GM and rather than not doing anything they should give their proxy to a trusted party with an explanation as to their attitudes so that the proxy holder can do the right thing.

 

Keep well

 

Col

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

David perhaps Im confused, I thought you were suggesting that instead of one meeting we have 6 to achieve the 1 meeting outcome.

 

If there are 13 board members and we assume that at an average 11 of them will have to travel for each meeting then we are talking just for board members (No staff and staff are usually present at these meetings) we are talking 66 trips. I would assume that each trip will cost $500 for airfares and $300 for accomodation $300 for subsistence) so we are therefore talking 66 *$1100 or approx $73,000 for one meeting in effect. At that meeting will be those members local to that city, probably no further than 300km away so again we cover more of the membership but still not all. On the otherhand, $2250 and potentially cover as many members in 1/6th of the time for 1/30th of the cost. If arguably 20% who try to connect cant make it work then thats 80% more than we get today.

 

No matter how I look at it I cant make your solution cost effctive? what have I done wrong?

 

So again your solution =$73k and takes probably 2 weeks out of volunteers time, my posible solution, even though not perfect, costs $2k and the hours neede for the meeting that was already going to occur anyway...If its my money I know which way I'd like to go If we were doing all 6 meetings instead of one I wouldnt be suggesting the webinar approach......

 

Have I missrepresented you?

 

Andy