Time for significant changes

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Jetjr

 

You are right there needs to be more than just a lets replace, however at the same time the principles of natural justice need to apply. For that to occur we need to call a meeting and ask for an explanations.

 

If I produce a publically available agenda or list of things that I want to see addressed at the meeting and they are all based on an the premise that no matter the explaination given we want to remove from the board X , Y and Z and then commit the organisation to do A , B and C then Im sure anyone could argue that the principles of natural justice have not been applied. It may well be that teh explainaition we are given is felt to be sufficent by the members and in effect the GM becomes an endorsement of the current approach (God forbid! as my personal view, but it isnt about personal views, its about group views)

 

I can privately, or with a likeminded group, assume that the explaination will be insufficient in which case I/we plan to propose after the explainations are given and we judge them to be insufficient that we then to do A, B and C but to publically annouce it before explainations are provided would be unfair in my opinion.

 

So in my opinion we need to take the steps 1 at a time and the first is to call a meeting to ask for explainations. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

The most important thing to me, beyond getting the necessary signatures to allow the meeting to be called is to ensure that there are then sufficient members at the meeting so that determination of acceptibility of the explaination and consideration of the subsequent proposals if there are any is robust appropriate.

 

I will be trying as hard as I can to set up an online collaboration event using something like Blackboard (which all recent external Uni Students will recognise as the web based software used to deliver lectures and interact with the lecturer and other students) so that even if members arent able to be at the meeting they can see the explainations and the subsequent questions and proposals in real time. They will not be able to vote (i dont think) except by proxy because online isnt the same as being there. Still this is just an idea at this stage..... but I'll bet those of you who are online and engaged in this forum and who cant make it to Canberra for the meeting will be pretty interested in using this facility if it was offered.

 

So, in summary, removing board members is not a plan of itself it is merely a single line in a recipe, there needs to be much more that occurs in parallel to ensure that removal if needed is to the good of the organisation and not to the detriment. The group understands that and is working through that now. We met and discussed at some length last night and will reconvene tonight to further the plan.

 

As I said before Im still wanting to adopt the doctors approach "First do no harm"

 

regards

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well said Andy.

 

Yenn and JetR, we do NOT under any circumstances want to increase any harm that has been already done.

 

We must first ask a wide range of questions and expect an honest response. Any decision, action or resolution that follows must be a member decision.

 

This is not a vendetta against the Board, this about them understanding we are a member organisation and that they are accountable to us.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

The form has been updated to reflect the agenda we want on the day. As previously said its an agenda based on discovery and possible action depending on what that discovery finds.

 

The form has space for up to 7 signatures so if you aim to sign it yourself, try and discuss with your RAAus friends at the same time and get them to sign it as well.

 

If you have returned one of the original forms dont worry about the change the old one is still as valid as the new. The new one has my email, post and fax numbers to give the best possible chance of successful return...so, if you voted in this thread that you would support the team I am working with, then please print it off and return via one of the 3 paths.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

As we feared.............

 

From the RA-Aus Website:

 

November 23, 2012 | opsassist

 

Registration renewals for aircraft have recommenced today (Friday 23rd November 2012). Whilst working through the files for the renewals there have been a number of deficiencies noted and the aircraft owners have been, or are being notified. Please be aware that RA-Aus are unable to process the registration renewals until the required documentation is received. It is, therefore, essential that all the information we have requested is provided to ensure there is no delay in processing your renewal.

 

New Aircraft registrations are expected to recommence shortly and we will keep you updated via this means.

 

RA-Aus again apologises for the inconvenience this has caused, and we assure you that we continue to do all we can to resolve the situation as soon as possible.

 

Steve Runciman

 

President

 

RA-Aus

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Sometimes when your too close to the action you miss important things......

 

I thought this was understood but just in case it isnt.........

 

The form Im asking to be filled out doesn't commit you to actually being at the meeting (although if you can great) just that you believe there should be a meeting.

 

So if some have held off on the form thinking it was commiting them to being in attendance at Canberra shortly that is not the case. If you think a meeting should be held, but cant be there yourself then filling in the form and returning is still a significant help towards achieving that outcome........

 

We want all completed forms back to us by the 28th of November if at all humanely possible!.......So....what are you waiting for?

 

Andy

 

 

[pudestcon]

Sometimes when your too close to the action you miss important things......I thought this was understood but just in case it isnt.........

 

The form Im asking to be filled out doesn't commit you to actually being at the meeting (although if you can great) just that you believe there should be a meeting.

 

So if some have held off on the form thinking it was commiting them to being in attendance at Canberra shortly that is not the case. If you think a meeting should be held, but cant be there yourself then filling in the form and returning is still a significant help towards achieving that outcome........

 

We want all completed forms back to us by the 28th of November if at all humanely possible!.......So....what are you waiting for?

 

Andy

Done!!!

 

Pud

 

 

[dodo]

Andy

 

was that humanely, or humanly?

 

Depending on context, this could be painful, or worse...

 

dodo

 

 

[Guest john]

Hi Andy,

 

Reading the various comments on this forum for the proposed forthcoming extroardinary general meeting, it is apparent that there are some "doubting Thomases" starting to surface who don't want to stir the pot, & yet they want all the RAAus defective procedures instantly fixed by "waving the magic wand". These types of spineless people are always critical of anything whether it be for the good or otherwise.

 

The only correct & effective democratric procedure we have in this fair country of Australia to fix the systemic defects that presently exist in RAAus, is the path you have taken by requsitioning the extroardinary general meeting, which provision exists in the constitution exactly for this purpose, otherwise there would be no need for such safety valve provisions.

 

Don Chipp once said "Lets keep the bastards honest"

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi All,

 

I have already written to Don about this, but will post it here as the Mail Out has gone out universally. The last paragraph on the mail out from the Reform Group concerns me.

 

"NOTE: Signing this requisition for a meeting form does not require you to attend the meeting. It is only an indication that you support the calling of the meeting.

 

Failure to return the form immediately, will indicate that you do not have the interests of our Association at heart and could ultimately lead to the erosion of your current hard fought privileges."

 

Don, and others in the Reform Group, will be aware of my stand on Honesty, Transparency, and Accountability in RAA, and Don and some others will also be aware of what I get back when I speak out about contentious issues, such as the Baker incident, Lismore matter, Secrecy, Problems in the office, (just as a small example.) However this bit above guys is pure verbal bullying of the Members. Don, I, and others in RAA have been on the receiving end of stuff like this. But two wrongs do not make a right.

 

To the Reform Group. - Guys I support so much of what you are aiming to achieve. Please don't spoil it.

 

John McK

 

Update. My mistake. I thought this was a full mail out to all RAA members from the Reform Group. The paragraph I have written about above was added on to the bottom of an email by one club, and only to their members. -- Sorry Guys.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

John

 

Your point is valid and in reading it with the slant you put on it I can see your point. For what it's worth it's certainly not our intent to bully and we will stand over no one to achieve a signature.

 

In fact it's fair to say that we actually stand strongly against bullying, it doesn't work. You may well be able to make someone publicly back down but rarely does that translate to acceptance behind the scenes. In most situations were there is a disparate amount of force all you do is create "freedom fighters".........Viva La Revolution!

 

So, if anyone took offence at the paragraph you brought attention to, which is just trying to overcome apathy then I personally apologise on behalf of our group as it was not our intent.

 

John I look forward to receiving a signed letter from you to add to the group of concerned members.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

Agreed Andy and John. It is not our intention to bully anyone into signing the form. We would always prefer to inspire them into signing it and if in the end they choose not to, that is democracy at work.

 

Bullying is something we will not tolerate as a team and not the intention of the paragraph you highlighted.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

So an update. We are looking if possibe to get many more than the required 100 names and as such I would request that anyone who intends to sign the form requesting that RAAus does hold a General Meeting please do so asap.

 

It is without doubt that the 100 will be collected and in the very near future and we have had many passionate letters in support of the "stand up and be counted" call. So, please, if you want to support the call for a meeting, whether you can come to the meeting or not, please take the time to fill in the form and fax, or email back to me, or Aus Post if you dont have fax or scanner for the more rapid turn around options.

 

Without doubt the 100 is achievable, but like the AGM and its votes I would feel much better if the count was 2-3 times that so that people know we are very serious about evaluating the set of circumstances that have beset us of recent times. Im equally confident, uncomfortably so, that things have never looked so bad in RAAus as they do today. If you cant bring your self to act then I really have to wonder what it will take? Anyone who has and uses their pilot certificate has probably of the order or $3,000 to $6,000 invested in that, and if you own an aircraft you have at least one more zero and possibly double the amount at risk in my opinion. If we cant get you interested when that much is at risk then what will it take? Having determined what it will take, how much more is it in real terms from here to there? I feel as though we are a building set for demolition with all charges placed which is the lions share of the work. The next step is just a tiny one of wiring it to the detinator, only a few more minutes work and not much work at that.....

 

In lists of reasons that have been circulated there are many items listed, some are of recent times (days to weeks) and other s much older. I speak for myself when I say I am much more interested in recent events (even though old or new they tend to have the same underlying issues IMHO). Im pretty sure if I was to ask (and this is looking forward) in 2 weeks time as to how the renewal process is working, that the answer will most likely be that less than fall due for renewal each day, are being renewed each day. Simple logic tells you then that the size of the grounded fleet will be growing larger every day.

 

So, the logical extension to that is, if we cant renew the daily rate, then how will we ever reduce the grounded fleet size, let alone catch up. Furthermore if we could publish (Communicate!!! evil word!!) what the checklist is, people can look at what was originally submitted and know if they have holes in their file before they end up grounded.

 

It would seem to me that it wouldnt take much to bring forward notice of renewal, include a checklist of what is required, possibly even include whats already in the file and let people work out for themselves if they meet the required renewal standard before they actually fall due.... People could then start work in parallel to falling due rather than having to wait as a serial activity to be grounded.

 

Does that sound logical?

 

In any event, given the above, is it an appropraite time to halve the team whose role it is to work with the consultant on aircraft renewal? what is it that he did, or didnt do, that takes a current bad position and requires that it be made worse? In removing him the board must have felt they had addressed a risk that was bigger than teh one we face.......What the hell is it that you reduced given the magnitude of the issues we already have on our plate????

 

All these questions and history shows that there is only ONE way to get tehm answered and that is in a formal meeting! Asking your member, directly isnt the way, as many of the passionate letters tell us of questions asked and subsequently ignored........It seems that the point we often hear is that people dont bother to contact us, and yet if the emails and phone conversaions Ive had are anything to go by, its more the case that People dont contact with questions the board is prepared to answer.....

 

So IMHO bring on the GM. What we have doesnt appear to be working.

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

What a load of BS CFI, anyone can see straight through that spin. There is a current audit issue that must be fixed. Who have you been talking to?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

...my fear is that the changes we seek will have a number of results......CASA takes over (we have demonstrated we can't do it ourselves).......and they have a team to do the job...Costs associated with the type of flying we do escualate dramatically...many pilots will elect (because CASA will make so)..to give up...and the ultralight movement will die.Be very careful about what u seek...change at the top...or...decimation?

Anyone who is considering the things the teamI'm involved with are considering, should recieve absoluely zero member support if they can say, "CASA nah havent talked to them!!"

 

We have and in some detail. It is our informed view that CASA has exactly zero interest in resuming the place that RAAus now fills and making it there own. They are however interested in their percieved level off risk in the sector as a result of uncertainty and disquite within the membership. Well, we ve lost another Techman and now the CEO. If their risk profile was only based on how things are rather than now things might be inthe near term future then I ask you "How comfortable do you reckon they are?"

 

Is what we are suggesting, which in the end is the membership keeping the board honest and true to their incorporated association aligned roles which is about governance and strategy and very little outside the right of Veto on the hands on management role, which to work means we must have an appropriate head of operations (intended to be the CEO role) to do the hands on stuff.....going to make them more or less comfortable. Im biased but I'd argue what we are doing is a medium to long term risk reduction activity for CASA and the members.

 

If you think thats wrong, let me know how its wrong and on what contact with CASA you've based that position.

 

For too long people have constantly talked as though CASA will at any second pounce back in and resume this space.....I think the reality is that CASA pays RAAus a pitance/token each year to manage the sector, a fraction of what it would cost to do it themselves. In reality I see it as a symbiotic relationship we both get something from it, and while we do as the law and our constitution intends us to do CASA will happily allow us to be master of our own mini sandpit. Step outside of that and you'll have them all over you like a rash...of auditors as an example!!!

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest nunans]

So true andy, rec aviation is where the interest and growth is. There is no shortage of aircraft and members who are happy to operate within our existing red tape exemptions. The association IS its members and our membership is very strong. We are a very successful sector of aviation in an otherwise dwindling market and I put this down to us operating free from the cost and headaches that ga are exposed to. Hopefully with the help of the meeting we the membership can sort out our current shortfalls at the top and continue to be the successful organisation that we are.

 

 

[David Isaac]

...its a directionless meeting...if u want to bash the incumbents do it when they come up for election......ring your local member and ask when the next meeting is planned.............u might be surprised..

Phil, on what information do you rely to make that allegation?

There is no intention to 'bash' anyone I can assure you. The intention is to hold the Board and Executive to account for a number of issues and to seek answers to questions from the floor. The members at the meeting will decide what actions will follow. There could be no resolutions or many depending on what the Board have to say.

 

This is not a vendetta meeting, this is all about the members holding the Board/Executive accountable. An action no Board could reasonably object to.

 

The Board have the power to call a General Meeting at any time, and in this time of crisis have chosen not to.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

CFI

 

Ive said this once already and I'll have to say it again. The A.C.T Incorporated Associations ACT requires that the concept of natural justice is required in all association dealings. You say its directionless and I say there is one public direction and that is to:-

 

1) Ask Questions

 

2) Listen to the answers (and no this one isnt optional!!)

 

3) Make judgements that might lead into

 

4) Motions and proposals from the floor

 

Now as I said, point 2) isnt optional we cant just gloss over it and present here (publically) a whole bunch of motions that assume no matter what teh exec tell us its all B/S.

 

That said, to think that the members who will be present at teh meeting havent formed a view as to what it is that we might do if 2) turns out tobe a crock would also be naieve in the extreme.

 

We will produce targeted communications between now and the meeting identifying exactly what it is that we propose to change and how. I can assure you that at the time the meeting occurs (or more accurately at the time a possible vote is called for a motion or proposal) anyone who wants to know what it is that we intend to do will absolutely know and be asked to vote on it.

 

Im not stupid enough to expect member support for change without telling people what it is, yet at the same time I have to apply the principles of natural justice just as I expect those in the board to do likewise....even if in the past there are those that may have judged that particular aspect missing in some of the board or exec dealings with potential members......

 

So right now today I can see some might say "talkfest" no defined outcome......It has to be that way in a public forum.....but that is a real reason not a means of achieving out with the old, in with the different old......

 

Andy

 

P.S unless the next general meeting is in December I dont see your point.....

 

 

[kaz3g]

...my fear is that the changes we seek will have a number of results......CASA takes over (we have demonstrated we can't do it ourselves).......and they have a team to do the job...Costs associated with the type of flying we do escualate dramatically...many pilots will elect (because CASA will make so)..to give up...and the ultralight movement will die.Be very careful about what u seek...change at the top...or...decimation?

In my view, the last thing that CASA wants to do is takeover RAAus other than perhaps for a short space of time in which some of the pressing issues might be sorted out.

 

CASA has made it very clear that it seeks to have all the sports aviation and similar self-regulating. CASA is about keeping commercial aviation, primarily passenger carrying, under control, and its only interest in us littlies is when we start killing ourselves and others at an unacceptable rate or get hopeslessly bound up in litigation that joins CASA as defendant.

 

Warbirds, SAAA, GFA, HGFA and others seem to be doing a pretty fair job so the question is why isn't RAAus and what needs to be done to fix it.

 

My answers include:

 

• An incorporated company with a Board elected by the shareholders;
   
   
  
• Bimonthly meetings;
   
   
  
• Clear policies and accountability guidelines for Board and staff, including limitations on executive powers and delegations;
   
   
  
• An accreditation and audit process for delegated authorities; and
   
   
  
• Training in governance and fiscal responsibility for incoming Board members
   
   
  

 

 

The problem is that RAAus has grown exponentially in a relatively short period but our management's ability has not grown with it.

 

kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

CASA won't close down RAAus per se. The whole scene is being denegrated and suffers, by all this It's not a matter of who will control this scene, it's a matter of what will be left to control. If YOU all dissappear in the big scheme of things , who cares. You have shown ( or have been set up to show) how you cannot manage what is required of you. Watch out for a scenario of all that we collectively have strived for just dissappearing. I call for CASA to commit themselves to continuing the existance of something like what RAAus stands for. I'm not sure they are fair dinkum in this. Its a reasonable request to know what there position is. There is a lot at stake here The question needs to be asked and answered so we know exactly where we are.Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

Today the group delivered a completed General Meeting Requisition to the RAAus Headquarters. The signature numbers are well in excess of that required in the constitution and only the first postal form was recieved to day and wasnt included in the count that went to RAAus.

 

I expect to recieve probably up to 50% of teh current numbers again in australia Post form over the next week and am still getting fax's and emails as I write this. No one will ever be able to argue legitimacy is questionable......

 

So we'll see those who can come the GM in the not so distant future.

 

Well done to those that took the time to turn words and anger/frustration into actions.

 

Regards

 

Andy.

 

P.S to those that signed and, or, sent us forms stay tuned as we will be getting back in contact with you in coming days/weeks to discuss our plans for the GM with you

 

 

[Captain]

Well done Andy to you and to your group.

 

A great effort.

 

 

[rankamateur]

As a new member I wondered wether there would be anyone left to cash my cheque when I joined in April, I started my training last Tuesday, went

 

solo yesterday, and hope to have my papers in by the end of next week, now I am just hoping there will be some one left with authority to issue my licence. It is essential that we sort these messers out because if we don't we will all lose out, even though Andy already has the numbers, this thing will have real wings if we can give him the five percent not just the minimum 100 signatures.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Andy,

 

I have been absent from the forums for a while trying to get our club back on track. We have the same dysfunctional issues and a small minority trying to wreck things. One of the things I am proposing is a "Standards of Conduct and Ethics" document to get rid of the bullying, harassment and other unsavoury tactics of those who were originally deposed at the last AGM. While this is not as important as the complete management operational overhaul at Ra-Aus it seems that this stuff is very much alive & well in RA-Aus. I have changed the club name but there will be other things that need change as well and it does not cover employees as I took all that stuff out. I have attached a copy here FYI.

 

By the way do you still want me to send you the form given you already have the numbers.

 

Kevin

 

Standards of Conduct of Ethics.doc

 

Standards of Conduct of Ethics.doc

 

Standards of Conduct of Ethics.doc

[David Isaac]

Kevin,

 

RA Aus already has policy documents regarding Board behaviour and how one should conduct ones self as a Board member. Bullying and harassment being one of the prohibited behaviours.

 

It is a real problem when the president of our organisation allegedly bullies and harasses anyone who disagrees with him and those individuals have been met with significant vitriol by the president.

 

So if we have the behavioural policy documents and the president doesn't abide by them, what is the point????

 

 

[kgwilson]

In that case a complaint should be made against the president by whoever was on the receiving end of his vitriol. This should be heard by an independent body as the existing board could be accused of collusion. I've never read through the RA-Aus constitution but if it has similar clauses to a standard NSW Inc Associations constitution, it should cover a complaint and disputes process that could end up with suspension or expulsion if upheld.

 

The problem in any of these situations is that legal advice is then sought by both parties, the process takes forever & the winners are the Lawyers. It's enough to drive one to drink. Now where did I put that beer?