Time for significant changes

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

Im of a view that the time to continue as things are in RAAus has well and truely come to an end. The fact that we had to fail 4 consecutive audits with I'm sure help and guidance from CASA along the way is astounding. The fact that we have at least one major and probably more in the sidelines, legal actions against us for ages without any disclosure to the membership, until a month or so ago is in my opinion proof positive that our organisation needs a bit of an overhaul.

 

However to achieve that I would need to put forward proposals for change and have the members support them in a call for a general meeting.

 

The constitution (if its been changed since the AGM. EDIT: It has been changed) says we need 100 likeminded members to call a General Meeting.

 

Can I ask you if you would support a call for a general meeting if I was to propose one, and if we were to assume that the 100 needed members were available what changes and discussions would you want to see on the agenda?

 

To me, historical performance is indicative, assuming no change, of what future performance is going to be. As such I would propose that we not focus only on historical actions or inactions but rather what the future should look like.

 

So, all that said, would you support a call for a General Meeting that is open only to financial members of RAAus to openly discuss the state of the nation and potentially enact changes to the way we do things.

 

If you feel so strongly that we need a GM to get to the bottom of these things please email me directly with your thoughts, your name and your membership number to asaywell (the usual) esc dot net dot au. If people are as angry about this as I suspect then I expect a few emails and will update this thread with numbers so as people know if we can achieve the 100 and can then polish and complete the agenda

 

 

[David Isaac]

For the purpose of clarity; the petition calling for a general meeting of members does not require the putting of resolutions in the agenda prior to the meeting ... to do so would be unwise, except in the case of required advance notice of 'special resolutions' for constitutional change which is not what we are proposing in this meeting.

 

The petition (signed by a minimum of 100 members) only needs to spell out what the 'terms of reference' for discussion will be. The terms need to be broad enough to allow robust discussion on all the issues we want to discuss and allow the meeting to put resolutions as a result of the discussion. As an example, such a resolution may be to stand down the executive; a meeting of members has the constitutional power under Clause 17 to do just that as long as the principles of 'natural justice' are applied; (unlike what the Board did when they attempted to refuse Ian Bakers member application).

 

These are just some brief guidelines to help members understand how we call a special meeting.

 

There has been some discussion that the constitutional changes may not have been lawfully passed at the AGM due to an allegation that NON members were voting on the changes. Since we have not seen the AGM minutes or heard from the Board on this matter it would be interesting to see if the Board had the audacity to not call the meeting on this basis; something I am certain would raise the ire of the membership if they attempted to flaunt any democratic rights the members may have.

 

 

[dodo]

I think it would be brave, at least, to claim, some months afterward, that a motion was not passed, when the board has not brought the matter to the attention of members. It would then be obvious that whoever was responsible for managing the election had some serious questions to answer. I don't think we could blame anyone other than the board for the way a motion at a general meeting was handled. And the minutes? "Ummm....." is the best answer we could expect. I don't think anyone would like the consequences of that.

 

dodo

 

 

[Captain]

Andy

 

While your thread is mentioning "significant change", I would like to add one more issue for discussion here.

 

Based on what has previously been reported, it is reasonable to suspect that there has been, and still is, a culture of intimidation and possibly bullying that operates at the Executive and Board level of this organisation.

 

This was reported by Ian Baker when he was a Board Member and if I recall it correctly, pressure was applied to him on how to vote on some issues and he received the consequences of reporting to the members on some issues via this website. I also suspect that this treatment was continued when his membership rejoining application was initially refused.

 

Based on similar reports it might also be assumed that Carol Richards may have also been treated less than properly when she was a Member's Representative.

 

If I recall it correctly, something similar was also reported by Don Ramsey, which I think was quaintly described as "robust discussion" by the inflictor. I take it from that that he considered it normal and acceptable, which Don plainly did not.

 

I am now aware of another Board Member who has advised that he has been the recipient of something of like description.

 

It appears that some on the Board and Executive, and/or perhaps a "clique", take an "its our way or the highway" attitude to any Member's Representatives who does not toe their line, or has the temerity to question the way that the organisation is managed (so called).

 

If what has been reported is correct, I believe that this is counterproductive to the membership, destructive to the organisation, and if what has been reported by the above is correct it deserves attention and independent investigation.

 

Regards Geoff

 

PS ........... Still no Audited Accounts and still no Minutes from the AGM. When will the Treasurer and Secretary supply them or follow the CEO out the door? And even if those items are provided now, they are still ~ 3 & ~ 1 months late, respectively, in contravention of the Constitution, and those responsible should be sanctioned in the strongest possible terms ................ so based on this & the audit c*ckups, surely the Management & Executive are now officially dysfunctional.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

For those that voted Yes, can I ask that you take up a pen and paper and write to me telling me that you support a call for a general meeting to understand and possibly act on:-

 

1) the circumstances that lead to CASA preventing RAAus from renewing registrations, and to review the involvment of the board and the executive in those things

 

2) the constitutional obligations for the preparation and distribution of minutes and financial reports with a view to determine if they have been complied with this year,

 

3) review the currently published constitution against the constitutional changes voted in at the last AGM with a view to determine if it is accurate and reflects the members will as determined at the AGM, and (Edit: the constitution has been updated to reflect the AGM Outcomes, so ignore this one)

 

4) to determine after reviewing all previous points if there is a case for one or more of the board/ committee of managment to be removed from their position in accordance with section 17 of the constitution.

 

Could you please ensure that the letter contains your full name, your RAAus Membership number and that you formally sign the letter. The body of the letter needss to include the paragraphs above either verbatim or in your own words.

 

In getting you doing those things asked above exactly as they are asked, we accurately fulfill the requirements of the constitution section 17 and can then use your letters if we are forced into a position of requiring that to happen.

 

Ultimately the group of which I am part, which contains David Isaac and Don Ramsay among others, will use these IAW S17 only in the event that negotiation withthe board/exec fails in achieving the changes we believe are needed to put RAAus back on a sustainable footing. Calling a GM is not a cost free exercise for the organisation or indeed the membership which I sincerely hope having supported a call for a GM then actually attends the said GM. The group I belong to ultimately wants to ensure that what we achieve is membership aligned. What we have at present is unsustainable and must change!

 

Understand that in the end your letter allows us only to call the meeting. What we discover at that meeting and what the members present at that meeting then determine to do is a seperate action to the letter. There is no risk of damage to the organisation by you producing the letter, and a very real chance for improvment if you can produce the letter and then subsequently come and be involved in the GM that is called.

 

Please post either by Australia post to:-

 

Eighteen Bluewater Place, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450 or

 

scan a copy of the letter and send by email to asaywell (the usual) esc dot net dot au

 

Please PM me if you use Aus Post to tell me its on the way.

 

Its one thing to be annoyed with where we are, but eminently more useful to turn that anger into action.

 

Ultimately I personally am taking an approach similar to that which Doctors takes, "First do no harm!"

 

 

[Bandit12]

Maybe attach a form letter Andy, to make it easier for those who don/t/can't take the time to write their own?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Shane

 

Your right, A real simple form of letter is attached (Thanks to Michael for that) It has space for more than one signature so please try and get your friends to sign it also. Details as to how to return the form are on the form itself.

 

Andy

 

Requisition for a RA-Aus GM.pdf

 

Requisition for a RA-Aus GM.pdf

 

Requisition for a RA-Aus GM.pdf

[Bandit12]

Perfect - the easier you make things, the more likely people are to follow through.

 

 

[gareth lacey]

Hi Andy

 

what is your email address please

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Hi Andywhat is your email address please

asaywell(the usual)esc dot net dot au

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Yeah I dont understand it, Lets for argument sake say that I have got it completely wrong.......We call a meeting we discuss we get explainations for things that have happened (where we should have already had that explaination) The members present like the explaination and know that in having the meeting the board are clearly put on notice that teh "Troops are restless". Lets say that the whole process costs the membership $26k (cant see it myself but an easy number to work with) that means each member has contributer $2 towards ensuring good governance. Our insurance against bad governance costs us orders of magnitude greater than the $26k ea year!!

 

Alternately we get to the bottom and make change that mean the organisation is safer longerterm.....That will also only cost you $2 How can it be bad?

 

Please support this poll vote Yes and more importantly send me the form.....I need more forms to turn words into actions..

 

Thanks CFIcare for pointing it out.

 

Its my personal opinion that we are watching a train wreck occur in slow motion, every week that nothings done (and make no mistake talking here is still nothing!) we are closer to the point where our ability to put it back on the tracks under control again is lost.

 

So, please, what can possibly be wrong with spending that $2ea?

 

 

[Guest john]

PeopleFor those that voted Yes, can I ask that you take up a pen and paper and write to me telling me that you support a call for a general meeting to understand and possibly act on:-

 

1) the circumstances that lead to CASA preventing RAAus from renewing registrations, and to review the involvment of the board and the executive in those things

 

2) the constitutional obligations for the preparation and distribution of minutes and financial reports with a view to determine if they have been complied with this year,

 

3) review the currently published constitution against the constitutional changes voted in at the last AGM with a view to determine if it is accurate and reflects the members will as determined at the AGM, and (Edit: the constitution has been updated to reflect the AGM Outcomes, so ignore this one)

 

4) to determine after reviewing all previous points if there is a case for one or more of the board/ committee of managment to be removed from their position in accordance with section 17 of the constitution.

 

Could you please ensure that the letter contains your full name, your RAAus Membership number and that you formally sign the letter. The body of the letter needss to include the paragraphs above either verbatim or in your own words.

 

In getting you doing those things asked above exactly as they are asked, we accurately fulfill the requirements of the constitution section 17 and can then use your letters if we are forced into a position of requiring that to happen.

 

Ultimately the group of which I am part, which contains David Isaac and Don Ramsay among others, will use these IAW S17 only in the event that negotiation withthe board/exec fails in achieving the changes we believe are needed to put RAAus back on a sustainable footing. Calling a GM is not a cost free exercise for the organisation or indeed the membership which I sincerely hope having supported a call for a GM then actually attends the said GM. The group I belong to ultimately wants to ensure that what we achieve is membership aligned. What we have at present is unsustainable and must change!

 

Understand that in the end your letter allows us only to call the meeting. What we discover at that meeting and what the members present at that meeting then determine to do is a seperate action to the letter. There is no risk of damage to the organisation by you producing the letter, and a very real chance for improvment if you can produce the letter and then subsequently come and be involved in the GM that is called.

 

Please post either by Australia post to:-

 

Eighteen Bluewater Place, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450 or

 

scan a copy of the letter and send by email to asaywell (the usual) esc dot net dot au

 

Please PM me if you use Aus Post to tell me its on the way.

 

Its one thing to be annoyed with where we are, but eminently more useful to turn that anger into action.

 

Ultimately I personally am taking an approach similar to that which Doctors takes, "First do no harm!"

Hi Andy,

 

I am not computer literate like you. I only know the basics & therefore I need your full email address not an abreviated 1. I have got through life so far without all this new technical knowledge, & because my days on this planet are numbered, I am now not wanting to learn all this new stuff. Could you please supply your actual full email address for the signed form to be sent back to you or if you don't want to put your email address on this site, supply a fax no: or ring me on 0428151381 & tell me your email address.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[JabSP6]

Andy

 

I have emailed you a copy of a signed form.

 

Maybe to capture the attention of people visiting this site you could add some wording to the heading of this thread in BOLD RED.

 

something along the lines of URGENT. PLEASE READ AND VOTE TO HAVE YOUR SAY.

 

Just a thought.

 

Safe Flying

 

JabSP6

 

 

[Yenn]

I have been watching this type of thread for some time and I did vote at the AGM by proxy.

 

What I have not seen is a record of what is being done wrong by the board, set out in readable fashion. There have been many "snide " remarks made about people but when I have asked for particulars I have been told that the information can't be put on the web and I should phone someone.

 

I do not know what is happening. I know that there are some unhappy members, but they do not give me enough info to let me make up my own mind. They could PM me with all the details and I would treat it in confidence. As far as I am concerned RAAus still lets me fly and that is what it is all about.

 

 

[terryc]

The problem I have is that if I vote for a GM {and I'm 100% behind the need for a one} I feel the pressure to be present at the meeting to back up my position. I feel I may not be alone on this. I would like to see an agenda for the meeting so I know I do support what's put to the meeting. When I deal with

 

this "in my head" Andy I"ll be right behind you. No I am already right behind you I just need more info.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Yenn

 

If your aircraft registration fell due last week,or indeed anytime this week your last statement would technically be wrong. You would not be able to fly because RAA cannot renew registrations on the RAA fleet (any aircraft) until tomorrow apparently (hopefully!!!!) and then only because we have employed a consultant (Ex CASA) to overlook the registration process and have right of veto as to whether a renewal is granted or rejected. Some people are likely to find that when they try to renew this consultant will reject and advise that the aircraft folder at RAA is missing certain pieces of information.

 

With some luck those people will be able to find the missing documents or be able to arrange to have them recreated. Either way until the missing documents are provided to RAA you will not be renewing the registration of your aircraft. Which of course means your grounded.

 

Steve Tizzard has "resigned" and rumour has it that he had an option, resign or.....

 

Adam Finn was terminated.

 

We have a tech man problem area and no techman (well actually we have 1/2 the team we did last week) and its this area that forced CASA to prevent registrations.

 

So, what did the board do wrong in recent months that we want to hold them to account for:-

 

1) Minutes for the AGM are still not published in contravention of the constitution (This isnt optional!!!!)

 

2) Audited financial results have not been published in contravention of the constitution (This definately isnt optional!!!)

 

3) We have failed 4 CASA audits in 12 months.where does the buck stop for that. Anyone who believes it stops at the Techman level is wrong, the last techman Adam Finn was around for only 1 or 2 of the 4 as I recall (might be wrong but definately not all 4)

 

4) There are a number of reports of exec members doing things that wound up CASA to the point that they did what they did in grounding renewing aircraft

 

5) There are aircraft on the register where it appears they never should have been put onto the register because they didnt technically meet the registration guidelines. They are still grounded and have been for months. I imagine that the owner, the importer and RAA are all playing the pointing game

 

6) some aircraft over the last 12 months that fitted point 5) and which were registered as 24 class and therefore capable of being used for hire or training are now registered as 19 class and now incapable of those 2 revenue producing activities, some will argue good thing they can still fly, but if you were relying on 24 to fund your aircraft then life suddenly took a turn from chinese takeaway towards occasional vegimite sanga's for you!!

 

7) Our insurance cover is insufficient for our needs and we are most likely to need to call on financial reserves to continue fighting a legal case.

 

Surely thats enough?

 

1 and 2 above will be fixed shortly but thats not the point, there is a timeline that they have to meet and they didnt, and not for the first time.

 

Oh yeah The Techman who was sacked the other day is commencing a case for unfair dismisal against us so lets add another legal case to the list...

 

Now some will argue that the board didnt inherit all this and to an extent they didnt, but things to me( in the abscense of clear communication) appear to be significantly worse today than it was 12 months ago and the buck has to stop with someone.

 

I believbe in our structure it stops with the board of management. They may well argue that the CEO has indeed failed many things...and I might agree after being convinced but at the end of the day who supervises the CEO???? that would be the board of management.

 

So asking for GM gets us the oportunity to explore these things and have the management explain what has happened and why is in my opinion the first step needed to understand if we have the right team in place today and if so what they need in assistance from us to get back to being a respected organisation in the industry. If they arent the right team then lets get the right team in place or probably more accurately start the process of getting the right team in place.

 

Andy

 

 

[AM397]

That's a good summary, Andy :)

 

 

[Robert]

asaywell(the usual)esc dot net dot au

Andy sorry to say this but for the people who are not totally up with computers you could have done it better

 

 

[facthunter]

True, but with the same nimber of words, YOU could have spelled it out. Lets work as a team, OK? If everyone pushes in the same direction we get somewhere... Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have been watching this type of thread for some time and I did vote at the AGM by proxy.What I have not seen is a record of what is being done wrong by the board, set out in readable fashion. There have been many "snide " remarks made about people but when I have asked for particulars I have been told that the information can't be put on the web and I should phone someone.

I do not know what is happening. I know that there are some unhappy members, but they do not give me enough info to let me make up my own mind. They could PM me with all the details and I would treat it in confidence. As far as I am concerned RAAus still lets me fly and that is what it is all about.

You've probably answered your own queries.

 

You received good advice; many people argued that unproven statements or hearsay should not be put up on the web. Others argued that some of the information could be damaging to RAA, and the advice was to phone and get the inside story. You obviously didn't do that, or you would have known that the advice was sincere and wise.

 

Two years on and we are now getting facts out in the open, and clearly RAA, and quite a number of pilots would now be much better off if more people had actuially made the small effort to make a phone call.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ok sorry here it is:-

 

[email protected]

 

Now Im going to get a million emails from people who want me to buy via-gra, a bigger plonker (pressumably to make the most of the via-gra) and my financial institutions, even those I dont use, will want to to log in and check my details so that some russian gangsta can steal all my money......I hope RAA is worth the grief I'll get from posting my email address.......You guys betta send me the damn letter to make up for the crap email junk Im now guna get!!!

 

No greater love hath............but to give out his email in a public forum!!!!

 

 

[Robert]

Ok sorry here it is:-Now Im going to get a million emails from people who want me to buy via-gra, a bigger plonker (pressumably to make the most of the via-gra) and my financial institutions, even those I dont use, will want to to log in and check my details so that some russian gangsta can steal all my money......I hope RAA is worth the grief I'll get from posting my email address.......You guys betta send me the damn letter to make up for the crap email junk Im now guna get!!!

 

No greater love hath............but to give out his email in a public forum!!!!

HaHaHa Andy why should you be any differant than the rest of us !!!!

 

 

[Admin]

Andy, perhaps an alternative could be to create a new Gmail email address that you can use temporarily for this and then delete it later

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Yeah I could do that....but if it becomes a problem I'll just have my email address changed at the ISP...... Robert you asked why should I be any different and the answer is simply that if you are careful as to who you give your email address to and think" Do they really need my email address?"en filling in forms then in the most part you can be relatively free of spam....However once its "out there" throw away is all you can do....

 

Andy

 

 

[jetjr]

Andy, have to say Im with Yenn on this, I read the forums, take it in but the core issues seem hard to pin down. Im not against a GM however there needs to be a clear outcome not just a vent for the members. Unfortunately replacing people doesnt guarantee an outcome.

 

I do understand the management of RAA (dont really care if its the board members, CEO past or present, admin, tech or other various personalities) needs serious improvement or possibly restructure.

 

So much of the real issues are clouded by personal hearsay and certain points of view. Even here some feel unable to share a point of view in case it offends moderators, owners, vocal posters.

 

No doubt transperancy has to be improved but thats difficult with the team of angry birds outside the door - being us - and some problems becoming apparent.

 

As you said the issues regarding reporting, whilst appearing pretty incompetent can be fixed easily by the manager or at least explained openly.

 

Failing the audits is simply many years of inattention to detail coming home. Once someone starts looking for problems more have appeared than expected.

 

The fact that the "new" tech manager has been speared and is not happy about it says to me whoever is making these decisions STILL doesnt get it or is responding to outside pressure.

 

This is that the core problem is that the team is under-qualified, inexperienced or understaffed. Why has it taken CASA to force us to use a consultant to fix the issues, Why wasnt this done before? Possibly because of the flogging they would have received here and elsewhere for the waste of money?

 

Bottom line here is that RAA is trying to manage serious technical administration on a very small budget. To expect adequate management with volunteer board members and key positions cant work.

 

So a core problem is management AND funding.

 

The issue with aircraft being grounded due to breaches to the requirements is the RAA doing EXACTLY what we are saying they should be doing, sorting out old issues. Whilst Im sorry for the owners caught up in this it would seem the manufacturer let them down but I dont have the full story.

 

The insurance issues is further evidence we are trying to use inadequate advice for very important decisions.

 

CASA has sucessfully offloaded a pretty difficult part of their job onto RAA and wont fund it.