President Resigns ** Then Thinks about it **

[coljones]

You are talking about a Board of Directors, which operate at arms length from a management hierarchy Sunfish. This is not a Board of Directors, but a Committee of Management and so IS the management, who employ about ten employees rather than 50 to 100. Unfortunately someone with an ego renamed the positions, apparently for self gratification, and that has created the confusion.

Sorry Turbs, I don't think Sunfish is talking about the local golf club. I am sure that he is reflecting on organisations like RAA which is national in scale.

Because of other duties and location and a whole variety of reasons the "board" cannot be hands-on and must rely upon quality professional managers to do the day to day and week to week stuff.

 

The directors can have hands-on sometimes, such as the great work Gavin did with NatFly West but you can't and shouldn't expect that a board member be super hands on -

 

1) isn't their job.

 

2) they have other jobs - working for someone else etc who should expect that their employee gives them their first loyalty.

 

3) if you can't sack someone you can't regulate their work. If you employ a manager (CEO etc) their pay-packet, proper targets and a real job closely focus their minds much better than a hovering board looking over their shoulder.

 

Vote Col Jones [1] for NSW/ACT rep on RAA board.

 

 

[Macca274]

I thought I would get sin-binned as I made a direct allegation of xxxxxx ( x being whatever I wrote). I think it should only be used where you have made an allegation and thought better of it.However...do what you will with it. Only Apple and Samsung think you can own something as brief and obvious as that!

 

dodo

Fortunately, dodo, I entered this discussion with the intention of lobbing a few grenades. When one does so, one must be prepared to have a thick skin. I do, and therefore on this occasion, I am prepared to ignore your imputation and am happy that it has been deleted.

Here's to happy days.

 

Macca

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Firstly, regarding Macca, my last comment is "how do you spell troll?" The only way to live with trolls is to totally ignore them and I will, henceforthth, take my own advice on the subject.

 

Turbo, while you are technically right about RA having a management committee and not a Board I totally disagree on a practical level. In my view, RA needs a Board and a genuine Geeneral Manager nothing remotely like the CEO of the last few years.

 

Sunfish may be technically incorrect as RA is an incorporated Assoc but he is spot on practically. RA does not need to change its form of incorporation to get the technics right but it may be desirable to end any confusion. This is a job for the Constitution Review Committee to consider.

 

In my simple view, the problems RA face at the moment are down to mismanagement. Members have mismanaged who they have allowed onto the Board, the Board has mismanaged the CEO and the CEO does not seem to me to have appreciated the meaning of the word "Chief".

 

I believe our current structure could work but we need a Board with skilled people on it not just CFIs. Critically, we need a very capable and industrious General Manager.

 

The coming General Meeting is the democratic process at work. It is the members stepping away from their previous mismanagement of the Board and reestablishing the members as the owners and top managers of RA.

 

The Board seem to have acted as if they had absolute power and we know what absolute power does . . .

 

 

[turboplanner]

Alfa, at one stage I was President of two Incorporated Associations, and never had the issues you and a couple of others point to.

 

If, from the present mix you delete:

 

• Secrecy
   
   
  
• Management and Policy totally separated from the membership, except for those members in the executive particularly, and board generally
   
   
  
• Failure to identify, report on, and correct spending anomalies
   
   
  

 

 

 

and to this mic you add:

 

• Administration Manager to manage staff day to day
   
   
  

 

 

 

and you produce

 

• a committee of people selected for their skills rather than their geographical location,
   
   
  

 

 

and through the members

 

• A Financial Policy, setting out approval levels and requirements, logging, and monthly reporting to the committee
   
   
  
• A Technical Policy, enabling the Technical manager to operate in clear guidelines, producing a monthly report for the committee
   
   
  
• A set of necessary Job Specifications required for staff
   
   
  
• Sub-committees for each class of aircraft
   
   
  

 

 

If you do this, within the present RAA structure, you fix pretty much ALL of the present problems and can go back to flying with the exception of those who participated in a monthly electronic Committee meeting.

 

You do not need the added Membership Subscription hike paying for grandiose titles who will attract people who will live up to them and suck out your money for "meetings", interstate trips, and other perks.

 

Where necessary, such as an accounting tidy up, temporary staff can be called in.

 

 

[Macca274]

Firstly, regarding Macca, my last comment is "how do you spell troll?" The only way to live with trolls is to totally ignore them and I will, henceforthth, take my own advice on the subject.Turbo, while you are technically right about RA having a management committee and not a Board I totally disagree on a practical level. In my view, RA needs a Board and a genuine Geeneral Manager nothing remotely like the CEO of the last few years.

 

Sunfish may be technically incorrect as RA is an incorporated Assoc but he is spot on practically. RA does not need to change its form of incorporation to get the technics right but it may be desirable to end any confusion. This is a job for the Constitution Review Committee to consider.

 

In my simple view, the problems RA face at the moment are down to mismanagement. Members have mismanaged who they have allowed onto the Board, the Board has mismanaged the CEO and the CEO does not seem to me to have appreciated the meaning of the word "Chief".

 

I believe our current structure could work but we need a Board with skilled people on it not just CFIs. Critically, we need a very capable and industrious General Manager.

 

The coming General Meeting is the democratic process at work. It is the members stepping away from their previous mismanagement of the Board and reestablishing the members as the owners and top managers of RA.

 

The Board seem to have acted as if they had absolute power and we know what absolute power does . . .

As Corporal Jones used to say to Captain Mainwaring, "They don't like it up 'em sir" He also ran around like a headless chook shouting "Don't panic, don't panic"! Just an obsevation, Alf! Ignore away, but I am as entitled as you to put forward comments regarding the R.A.A., or do you pay double dues to give you more say than others?

Ascerbic? yes, a curmudgeon? most definitely, allowed to come on here and deliver a metaphorical boot up the arse to some? well it works for many others, why not me?

 

There are some here who I will never agree with and others who are of a more accepting disposition. Following a crowd can often lead to unforseen destinations. I don't enjoy flying in cloud either, it can ruin a perfectly good day very quickly and has a tendency to make one lean one way or another. I much prefer to see where I'm going. Crowd, cloud, in any other language, they may indeed sound the same!

 

 

[Macca274]

Alfa, at one stage I was President of two Incorporated Associations, and never had the issues you and a couple of others point to.If, from the present mix you delete:

 

• Secrecy
   
   
  
• Management and Policy totally separated from the membership, except for those members in the executive particularly, and board generally
   
   
  
• Failure to identify, report on, and correct spending anomalies
   
   
  

 

 

 

and to this mic you add:

 

• Administration Manager to manage staff day to day
   
   
  

 

 

 

and you produce

 

• a committee of people selected for their skills rather than their geographical location,
   
   
  

 

 

and through the members

 

• A Financial Policy, setting out approval levels and requirements, logging, and monthly reporting to the committee
   
   
  
• A Technical Policy, enabling the Technical manager to operate in clear guidelines, producing a monthly report for the committee
   
   
  
• A set of necessary Job Specifications required for staff
   
   
  
• Sub-committees for each class of aircraft
   
   
  

 

 

If you do this, within the present RAA structure, you fix pretty much ALL of the present problems and can go back to flying with the exception of those who participated in a monthly electronic Committee meeting.

 

You do not need the added Membership Subscription hike paying for grandiose titles who will attract people who will live up to them and suck out your money for "meetings", interstate trips, and other perks.

 

Where necessary, such as an accounting tidy up, temporary staff can be called in.

Maybe you read this part of a previous post? (or maybe not).

"We have members with boundless talents and experience. Perhaps there is an opportunity to utilise those talents with a bit of "Pro-Bono" advice, a second opinion, a list of Members with various talents, as we have lists of L.A.M.E. with various qualifications noted. A voluntary list available only to the Board and not for general publication."

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Turbo, again you are right in theory but what you describe is so far away from where we are now you can perhaps forgive me for being pessimistic about reaching Nirvana as you describe it. For example, with 13 Board Members, they have the devil of a time to fill even one subcommittee with one Board Member. Plenty want to be on the Board but very few want to actually do anything. The Teasurer needed 3 months to get the Financials from being signed to being on the website. Some could have done this in one day.

 

That is what leads me to think that RA has to be driven from GM level and just guided from the Board. When was the last time RA had a Board with genuine drive, zeal even?

 

 

[turboplanner]

If the current backlog of mess was cleared away AR, which often happens when there's a complete shakeout of a clique, everything quickly settles back to normal and becomes more simple to handle. 13 board members has proven unworkable, and I don't think there's too much argument about that. With a change, and transparent communication I think you'd find more willing committee members. There never is an oversupply of good people stepping forward I admit, but out of 9,400 people you only have to find five or six who will give up some of their spare time and work for the members, and of these you need a couple with good business skills who'll be listened to by the others. In fact there are many Associations which work fine with one benevolent person effectively leading the decisions.

 

 

[Macca274]

Y

 

If the current backlog of mess was cleared away AR, which often happens when there's a complete shakeout of a clique, everything quickly settles back to normal and becomes more simple to handle. 13 board members has proven unworkable, and I don't think there's too much argument about that. With a change, and transparent communication I think you'd find more willing committee members. There never is an oversupply of good people stepping forward I admit, but out of 9,400 people you only have to find five or six who will give up some of their spare time and work for the members, and of these you need a couple with good business skills who'll be listened to by the others. In fact there are many Associations which work fine with one benevolent person effectively leading the decisions.

NOW we're getting somewhere...........

 

 

[Pete Greed]

From some postings there is still a tendency to mix governance and operations - the committee of management scenario. OK for small operations but not appropriate for a national organisation with a contract with the Commonwealth Government (CASA). Even Jim's initiative to bring in a recruitment agency will fall short without a change in board culture.......Who or what is determining the roles and responsibilities of both the board, and management? There is clearly work to be done - perhaps it is being done?

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Whether you call it a Board, a General Committee or a oogadooga matters not. The function of the highest elected body in a National organisation HAS to be to operate in a Company Director - like manner. If you don't do this, and get professional help about the duties, responsibilities of Directors and the corporate governance aspects, I guarantee that you are not going to thrive because you won't even know what questions you need to be asking about management, let alone answering because the task is simply too big.

 

You need a Board to direct a CEO and then he needs a finance manager and operational staff. Members can and should help with the subcommittees, etc

 

To put that another way, you cannot be Captain of the ship and a stoker in the engine room at the same time.

 

http://www.companydirectors.com.au/

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sunfish, AUF/RAA did just fine for many years.

 

If the points I outlined were fixed, then what's left?

 

A number of people have made comments about "outgrowing" or needing a large company structure:

 

What for?

 

After a few years of a separatist/secret executive drive style, do you really what that endorsed as a corporate structure, because if a Board of Directors was appointed, a Managing Director, a General Manager, an Administration Manager, Technical Manager, Operations Manager, Finance Manager and perhaps another one or two, how much day to day say do you think the members would have.

 

You would be paying a Membership subscription to support all these salaries, plus cars, perks etc (because you have to include these to get the right people), and you would be totally in their hands.

 

I understand you decided against going anywhere near RAA and opted for SAAA - what's the annual Membership cost, and aircraft annual cost there?

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Turbo,the reason so many institutions and corporations adopt the structure they do is because it works. Some may call it "bureaucracy" without realising that bureaucracy as developed by Weber in Germany saves us all from corruption. nepotism, favouritism and a whole lot of other nasty "isms" by defining roles, procedures and responsibilities.

 

You don't necessarily need the legal corporate structure, but you need the corporate roles.

 

The key to why a corporation works is the operation of the Board.

 

First of all you do not EVER want a Managing Director because that conflates the two separate roles of supervising, conserving, and operating the organisation. A Managing Director can easily hijack the direction of an institution, that’s why you don’t see many of them any more. You want, in my opinion, the equivalent of:

 

A board - charged with overall responsibility for your organisation. Geographical appointments can work. The Board has a Chairman who is responsible for the running of the Board.

 

The Board hires and fires a CEO and develops, with him, his brief of responsibilities and authorities (for example spending limits) and also the parameters for the organisations strategic plan.

 

The CEO develops the detailed operating plan and annual budget, etc.

 

The Board then approves and supervises the CEO's implementation of his plan. He is their one direct report. He is responsible for ALL the day to day operating of the company with his staff. If he cannot develop a good working relationship with the Board and/or his proposals are found by the Board to be flawed,more than about three times, then off he goes - which is why they get paid good money, it's not easy being a CEO, its a highwire act without much of a parachute.

 

It is possible to run an organisation with Quarterly meetings, but if Board decisions are required between them, then the CEO will have to develop his Board paper, send it to each Director, allow the Board time for discussion with him and between themselves and each come to an individual decision. This takes a lot of time. That is why the CEO needs a fair bit of authority without having to get Board approval for any day to day stuff.

 

What the Board actually DOES is a secret I'm going to share with you. It holds the CEO to account for his action or inaction in operating the organisation. How they do that is an art I'm not going to share because its difficult for some to understand. This is why there are numerous "Wannabes" amongst employees and the General public who think that being a Director is easy money and that they could be just as good directors of BHP, Telstra, etc. as the incumbents. I assure you this is not the case.

 

Your best port of call for information on what I am talking about is the institute of company Directors who even run courses for Directors of not for profit associations, whose link I have already posted.

 

Since I am not an RAA member, I haven’t followed nor could I comment on your exact woes, who did what to whom, etc. However your problems all seem to me to stem from not getting the corporate governance right.

 

On another matter, It is perfectly possible to have robust democracy, factions , etc at Board level and transparency and just about all of what you seem to want. However bear in mind that the CEO is entitled to be given clear and transparent instruction, timely approvals and have opportunity for intelligent and reasoned debate on the direction he is taking the organisation. Members who have issues also need to know that their first port of call is the CEO, but he doesn’t work directly for them, he reports to the Board. If a member has a complaint and it cant be resolved by the CEO, then it goes to the board.

 

You cannot have backbiting and confusion of roles and responsibilities if you want the respect of CASA let alone your insurers. Get help from the AICD, or find some public company Directors who are RAA members to help you straighten this out.

 

As for the SAAA, I am still building my aircraft and helping a partner who has terminal cancer, so I haven't engaged nearly enough with the SAAA to offer anything meaningful.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Nothing against you or your post Sunfish, and I'm not against discussing that subject in other places, but I've realised that some people have been cleverly steering the subject matter of serious threads for members away from the thread subject and into areas which have no relevance, and I apologise for being sucked into this tactic.

 

So back to the subject; where we appear to be is that allegedly:

 

• Steve Runciman resigned as President, and more significantly as a board member; at that point he became a standard member
   
   
  
• Shortly after, he had a change of heart and wanted the President's job again
   
   
  
• Paul Middleton, Secretary advised that he had obtained legal Opinion and this was OK.
   
   
  
• Steve Runciman has since been acting as President.
   
   
  

 

 

However,

 

• When he resigned his board member role, the only way he could become a board member again was through a by-election.
   
   
  
• No by-election was held, so he is not a board member.
   
   
  
• If he is not a board member he cannot be President.
   
   
  
• The Secretary has been unable to produce the legal Opinion based on this scenario
   
   
  

 

 

 

The situation is controversial and the crisis compounded by a decision of board members to advertise senior positions, including a new one of General Manager without general consultation with the Members who own the Association, and without a detailed discussion with the Members on what exactly the job descriptions should be, thus perpetuating the problem of confusion within staff at this level on what exactly their responsibilities are.

 

If I have any of this incorrect, I'm more than happy for it to be corrected.

 

This is s serious situation requiring immediate resolution, since if the above information is correct, any actions involving Steve Runciman since his resignation will need to be reversed or confirmed by duly elected persons.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Turbs:

 

In another life I was involved in multi-million dollar contracts with the Commonwealth Government. In tendering for those contracts it was imperative that the cost of the service plus a margin for growth and development was factored in. The tenders also required a detailed operational and financial plan, including the staff required to operate the service. Assembling the tenders required 100% support from the board/committee, management that was 100% across all aspects/components of the tender and expert help contracted in from outside. I feel for your desire to make the process simple and have argued at the institute of Company Directors training sessions that the Corporate model of governance is not totally appropriate for the community based sector. We are stakeholders not shareholders. We do it to provide member services - the corporate sector does it for profit (and fair enough).

 

The separation of roles and responsibilities between the board (governance) and management (operations) must happen otherwise no one can, or will, be held accountable. Your concern about members paying for management services should not be an issue if the tendering/contract with CASA is properly constructed and implemented.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

We need to get the office holders of the highly successfull, and highly regarded Australia Parachute Federation (APF) to come over and show our board how it's done !...They are the most comparable "self -regulating" sporting body to the RAAus in Australia, with I would imagine, similiar funding and CASA oversight.

 

They stopped the foolish political bickering years ago, and got on with it, and today have a very effective management set up that works...................................................Maj...

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Maj, benchmarking as the technicians like to call it can be helpful for all who engage. But, I always felt that you had to fix the obvious things before you set out to see what everyone else is doing which is more for fine tuning than basic setup.

 

But this Board cannot see the basic flaws in the org structure. ST claimed he was not responsible for the Tech Manager stuff ups on two grounds. First he believed that he was entitled to rely on the special knowledge of the Tech Manager. Second, the TM reported to the Board not to the CEO. Have a look at the Ops Manual. That is what it says.

 

Has the Board worked out yet that there is a problem with relying on the technical capabilities of the Tech Manager(s) and being letdown? Happened twice. Get rid of two tech managers and rely on a third? This is nuts! The Captain of a ship is responsible for what goes on in the Engine room. He can't just rely on the word of the Chief Engineer. The Captain must interrogate the Chief to make sure he knows what he is doing - before the ship loses drive and ends up on the rocks.

 

RAAus is too big for the current style of "management". It just has not worked. Runciman's resignation created the space for a new, more professional approach that is so foreign to the current Exec. Now all we need is for the other two to take responsibility for the mess they have crated and fall on their swords as well and then we can get on with the future. Maj, we need professional managers not just people who shxt birdseed or own/operate FTFs on the Board.

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Turbo:

 

This is s serious situation requiring immediate resolution, since if the above information is correct, any actions involving Steve Runciman since his resignation will need to be reversed or confirmed by duly elected persons.

While I cannot comment on the RAA situation, I would have thought that it is not just a simple matter of confirming or reversing actions to heal any breaches of rules if they have been broken.

 

I would have thought that every member of the committee is personally liable for such actions if any harm results. I hope that the legal opinion was sourced from a very well versed practitioner in Administrative law, but I am outside what little competency I have here.

 

What concerns me personally as that alleged RAA's problems may enrage CASA enough that they use it as an excuse to vary legislation and regulation to the detriment of the rest of us recreational flyers from other organisations. In particular there is the question of flying over populated areas and in controlled airspace. If RAA stuffs up I don't want to be tarred with the same brush.

 

To put is another way; FFS get your house in order and ensure that there is no possibility of your committee being seen as less than disinterested in the daily management of the organisation. That has to be left to a CEO/GM type of person. You have got to ensure that your committee cannot get bogged down in technical or administrative matters, no matter how great the temptation to meddle. Your committee needs to be thinking at least Two levels higher!

 

I have noticed that when pilots get to manage things, the robust ego and preference for action which is part of all good aviators sometimes gets in the way of successful management. There are what are called "Wicked" management problems that can't be solved. There are other matters for which the only approach is to muddle through slowly. There are some problems that should be left to solve themselves or vanish. These types of things seem to drive pilots to distraction.

 

For example you cannot have a technical manager reporting to the committee if this has indeed happened, because it puts the GM in an intolerable situation! He now has no control over the technical manager and therefore can have no responsibility for the TM's actions at all! A GM is a GM, every staff member reports to him or one of his subordinates. The buck HAS to stop with him or he isn't a general manager!

 

 

[webbm]

Could this whole issue be as simple as the Board didn't accept his resignation? No need for reelection or appointment in that case.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Could this whole issue be as simple as the Board didn't accept his resignation? No need for reelection or appointment in that case.

No, unfortunately not that simple webbm; the President's resignation was in writing by email to the Board. The resignation was from both the President's position on the Board and from the Qld representative position. It was unconditional and effective immediately. It was not tendered (offered) to the Board.

Effectively, the moment he hit the 'send' button his resignation was sealed. In any case, the Board cannot speak on behalf of the President's Qld electorate and since his resignation was effective immediately from the Qld representative position, he was no longer a Board member and therefore cannot hold the President's position. Of course this is just my humble opinion based on the simple wording of our constitution; I think a legal opinion (if it was ever obtained) would be an interesting read.

 

EDIT: Added last sentence so as to clarify it is just my opinion.

 

 

[webbm]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll be at the general meeting and am trying to get an understanding of what's going on...

 

Cheers.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll be at the general meeting and am trying to get an understanding of what's going on...Cheers.

I think ultimately that is exactly what we are all trying to achieve. The great pity is the members had to call a general meeting, to force the Board to give us an understanding of what is going on.

Had the Board culture been more open, the communication transparent, some of the inappropriate Board actions not occurred and the Board was meeting their constitutional obligations, we may have never had cause to call a general meeting.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Spot on David! Why would anyone want to go to Canberra at considerable personal expense when they could be spending it on real aviation? Nobody wants a General Meeting. The only reason 300+ members signed the requisition was because it was the only way they could get some facts out of the Board Executive. If they had been prepared to talk to us, we could have just enjoyed the holiday season.

 

My guess is we will get more than 100 to the General Meeting and it will cost, on average, more than $500 per member. So $50,000 because the Board Exec like to be super secretive and ignore the Constitution and breach the Act as if it did not apply to them.

 

I bet many on the Board still don't know what Act we are talking about (Gavin) and those that have an inkling still haven't read it. They by their actions don't feel obliged to act within our Constitution or apologise if they breach it and take corrective action (Treasurer).

 

 

[Pete Greed]

The issues confronting RAAus have been articulated many times on this forum. Who did what to who, dodgey decisions taken by both board and management and/or a combination of both (the Executive), the size and scope of the operation, its "contract" with the Commonwealth Government(CASA), a rapidly growing, membership based organisation as opposed to a corporation and a way of communicating with the membership currently considered by many, as less than ideal. It paints a picture of an organisation in transition - but transition to what?

 

This is what the debate should now be about, and that debate needs to be led by the board in concert with the membership. At the special general meeting it is likely that the board will take the high ground and attempt to explain away at least some of the identified non-communicated issues. What we as members need to know however, is how the deficiencies of past governance and management practice are going to be addressed and by who or what. We need to be very specific in how our questions are crafted and presented as they will contain the answers to the way in which our organisation can/will move forward with confidence.

 

Pete

 

 

[nomadpete]

The issues confronting RAAus have been articulated many times on this forum. Who did what to who, dodgey decisions taken by both board and management and/or a combination of both (the Executive), the size and scope of the operation, its "contract" with the Commonwealth Government(CASA), a rapidly growing, membership based organisation as opposed to a corporation and a way of communicating with the membership currently considered by many, as less than ideal. It paints a picture of an organisation in transition - but transition to what?This is what the debate should now be about, and that debate needs to be led by the board in concert with the membership. At the special general meeting it is likely that the board will take the high ground and attempt to explain away at least some of the identified non-communicated issues. What we as members need to know however, is how the deficiencies of past governance and management practice are going to be addressed and by who or what. We need to be very specific in how our questions are crafted and presented as they will contain the answers to the way in which our organisation can/will move forward with confidence.

Pete

Thanks Pete for such a good summary. We should all start from that summary and discuss / refine / craft our questions in readiness to present at the Special General Meeting. That is the only way to make a positive contribution toward navigating RAAus out of the darkness.

 

PeterT