President Resigns ** Then Thinks about it **

[Guest Andys@coffs]

What is it that you people want? Every Board Meeting, phone conversation and chat to be put on YouTube? Printed in full, verbatim and published online? Get a grip? In my opinion, this campaign is either personal or provocative. Which is it?

Macca your response suggests that we are a bunch of naïve children who don't have a clue. Such a simplification is the more naive. In the company I work at I have for a number of years been a direct report to a company director, where we were approx 6500 employees in size, others involved as part of the petulant children are significant company directors themselves.....

 

I have managed budgets of orders of magnitude larger than the RAAus annual budget and know for a fact that had I applied RAAus governance I would have been sacked in no time flat.

 

What do I want? I want our organisation to take the business management seriously. I want us to deliver to our stakeholders what we formally promised in "Deeds of Arrangement". I suspect if we were to review the obligations of the last few years we would be found to be seriously wanting! Managing the business will allow us to fly as we all want. Treating it as an unfortunate side effect of flying will lead to a restriction of our ability to fly...don't believe me??? Just see what has happened in the last few months!

 

[comment removed by moderator]

 

Andy

 

 

[ahlocks]

Some posts removed and Macca is having some cool off time. Keep it calm and on track please.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Here's what I wonder... Just what were the reasons for which RAAus failed the CASA audits? Were they real things which impacted on real safety issues or were they trivial issues which some bullies in CASA decided to make into an issue because its fun to be a bully?

 

There has been a lot of criticism for the RAAus lot for "failing audits". Maybe the failure was pre-ordained.

 

The only specific thing I have heard of is that some RAAus files didn't have a photo of the aircraft. Well if that is typical of the "audit failure" detail then the fault is with CASA and not the RAAus.

 

So what are the details of the audit failures which actually are real issues as opposed to bureaucratic bullying?

 

......Bruce

 

 

[turboplanner]

Bruce, I have an FoI application in with Casa and that is being processed. It may be a few weeks to a response and that could have political implications so we'll have to wait.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Others have spoken to Lee Ungerman to get CASA's point of view. As we understand it the first audit was the scheduled one, the next 3 were Unscheduled close out audits aimed at ticking the boxes of the things we got pinged on 1st time around. CASA normally give 1 chance to resit not 3chances. So if it was bullying they went to extreme lengths to be seen to be fair.

 

As I understand it the missing photos are symptoms not causes, our procedure manuals say we will collect that info and the audit identified that we weren't doing that as matter of course. The photos themselves in my opinion probably aren't that important, the fact that we have a detailed process that wasn't being followed is probably the more telling....

 

Anyway that's as I understand it and as such as CFI suggested it may well be wrong because its never been explained to us members in any detail.(in my opinion another symptom not the underlying cause)

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

As an interesting aside, is anyone asked for a photo of their car with its registration plates on by a road authority.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

We stuffed up the CASA audit because of poor governance /management processes. Lets get it right and move on.

 

Happy new year

 

Pete

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Your AGM is going to do nothing to resolve your problems if all you want to do is ask questions and/or make accusations and tear scabs of old wounds.

 

You need a series of motions to effect change and the ability to have those passed on the day.

 

Another alternative is to convince a magistrate or suchlike that the association be put into Administration, but that is the limit of my legal knowledge.

 

The entire concept of the Board or General Committee of an association with 9000 odd members doing anything other that acting as the Board of an incorporated company board would is just unworkable in my opinion, which I have stated time and again. It sounds to me that CASA might be of the same opinion.

 

It also appears that the RAA needs professional help to solve its problems and that the members are going to have to pay for that as well as whatever changes are necessary.

 

One way to achieve this is to pass a motion, ideally with the support of the Board, to hire a reputable business consulting firm to analyse existing governance arrangements, and prepare a report, including any recommended changes if necessary, for the membership. After that was published, you would call an extraordinary general meeting and pass motions to implement the consultants proposed changes - each and every one of them, no ifs, no buts.

 

If the Board is smart, they will do as I suggest. Providing a reputable and capable firm of consultants is selected, this is the least painful option, and I should think that is might also mollify CASA a little. A good consultant will get to the heart of the matter very quickly, which is that strategy has to follow business structure and vice versa.

 

If the Board is not smart, then things will get very bloody indeed before the RAA expires.

 

Happy New Year.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're feeding off the comments of the forum Sunfish, and those include persistent attempts at empire building, preferably with the poster finishing up at the helm.

 

They are irrelevant to the present issues, which I listed a few days ago, and which are relatively simple for the existing structure and members to fix.

 

 

[dodo]

Sunfish,

 

although Turboplanner has not explained his reasoning, I think he is alluding to RA being an Incorporated Association, under ACT legislation. This form of association is often used by clubs and associations, and has simple and straightforward requirements. It does not assume or require a board to be oversight of an executive & administrative arm, and in fact, in smaller associations, the board would do all the work.

 

This works quite well is small associations - I am a member of a NSW club of about 80 members, operating under similar legislation, and it works well. But is it appropriate for RA-Aus?

 

dodo

 

 

[webbm]

As an interesting aside, is anyone asked for a photo of their car with its registration plates on by a road authority.

I'm guessing some of the preliminary findings of the Old Bar incident has something to do with the photo requirements and the general look into the accuracy of the record keeping for all RA-Aus stakeholders.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

You've git the nail firmly on the head there webbm..............................................................Maj...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sunfish,although Turboplanner has not explained his reasoning, I think he is alluding to RA being an Incorporated Association, under ACT legislation. This form of association is often used by clubs and associations, and has simple and straightforward requirements. It does not assume or require a board to be oversight of an executive & administrative arm, and in fact, in smaller associations, the board would do all the work.

 

This works quite well is small associations - I am a member of a NSW club of about 80 members, operating under similar legislation, and it works well. But is it appropriate for RA-Aus?

 

dodo

There we go again, around 20 threads on current RAA issues to choose from and we ignore the serious issue of the current status of the President of RAA, we ignore the damage and fallout which may be in progress, we ignore making a sound decision of how to fix it and we go off into cloudland dreaming up a different organization structure in which no corrective action is suggested - the key issue of RAA are completely ignored.

 

It's hard to take this forum seriously when there are 20 or so threads rambling all over the place, yet only two of us have attempted to make lists - both under 12 issues in attempt to get some priorities.

 

It was only last night, after 18 months that a serious attempt to look at the official financials appears to have finally got off the ground.

 

I have no objection to people throwing ideas around for entertainment, but there are real victims here which fellow members should be trying to help.

 

To counter dodo's story of an 80 member club working well, implying that a big Association like RAA can't, here's a repeat of what I posted on another thread below:

 

Quote from thread "RAAus General Meeting Called", post #67

 

"I mentioned previously the Sporting Shooters Association, and a membership from memory of 125,000. Well membership has increased since then to 144,000 - 19,000 more than the last time I mentioned it.

 

One RAA member said they don't do licensing and certification checks, and while that's true, it's just a question of trained staff and processes.

 

However, offsetting that are their huge shooting operations which have to be managed almost daily.

 

For example, in Victoria alone:

 

the Springvale .22 Range operates Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday,

 

Eagle Point Range (which I assume is centrefire) operates Friday, Saturday Sunday and Monday

 

On top of that there will be a shotgun range somewhere, and there will be country venues.

 

Multiply that by about six to get a National total, and bear in mind every one of those ranges requires people to manage, act as safety officers etc on all those days all over the country.

 

So its important not to confuse a correct structure and constitution with setting up a BHP-Billiton."

 

RAA has worked magnificently, attracting big numbers of new members, and in fact the solutions to the current problems are well within the functions of the existing Executive and existing board working with existing members. That it's in its current situation is a people problem, not a structure problem.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Turbo, I must respectfully disagree with you and support Sunfish. I believe we have a dysfunctional Board. Sacking the entire Board and replacing them without fixing the structural problems will get us back to,where we are now very quickly. We must have fewer Board Members and selected on the basis of skill not geography.

 

There are problems with the management reporting structures that need to be fixed to avoid a CEO with no responsibilities.

 

We cannot function with a CEO or GM who reports to the Board only twice per year. People wonder about member apathy but they only have the opportunity to participate once per year at the AGM. We need more General Meetings per year so members are engaged and the Board connected to the members more often than once every two years.

 

Even with a Board of 13, it seems no Board Member can spare the time to do the governance properly let alone take on strategic planning and advancement.

 

There were three notable resignations from the Board in recent times (not counting the President). Driven away by legal threats, insurance inadequacies and frustration that the amateurs would not listen to the Professionals. A PhD, a jet freight business proprietor with 200 engineers on staff and an experienced graduate accountant. And they were replaced by, a failed Treasurer, another CFI and a an enthusiastic amateur.

 

RA has not been well managed by a Board but the same people could be good at Policy if they are supported by a highly competent and motivated professional MANAGER! Aviation knowledge is desirable but not as critical as a proven track record of top level management.

 

RA does not need to have the superstructure of a BHP just because the Board stay out of the office and leaves that to the employed management. All the Board needs to manage is the Chief Executive whatever his/her title.

 

What might have worked for Sporting Shooters may not work for RA and so far history is not on the side of RA being run by the Board Exec.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

I'm guessing some of the preliminary findings of the Old Bar incident has something to do with the photo requirements and the general look into the accuracy of the record keeping for all RA-Aus stakeholders.

The first CASA audit in Nov 2011 was not in response to the Old Bar incident. It had been scheduled long before that. No doubt the CASA auditors (Lee Ungermann was one of) interest was sharpened by the Old Bar incident. That incident should have been a huge warning to RA. But for an enormous amount of good luck, there could have been multiple fatalities of non aviation people. That incident had the potential to wipe out the $2.5million of RA net assets and bankrupt RA. Yet 12 months later we were still failing CASA audits. That was not CASA's fault. Numbers painted under wings are there to identify law breakers. They are essential to safety over time. Their absence won't cause wings to fall off but they are a serious safety requirement.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The only reason the RAAus 'has worked so well' is that there is no other avenue to take if you wish to fly under these regs.

 

Attracting so many members? think not! It is the aircraft that is attracting the pilots. really think all those members want to belong to a limp dick outfit like the RAAus. The RAAus is not working well, far from it. Way to many catagories, way to many endorsments and very poor managment. Imagine how well it would function if there was some competition.

 

 

[dazza 38]

The only reason the RAAus 'has worked so well' is that there is no other avenue to take if you wish to fly under these regs.Attracting so many members? think not! It is the aircraft that is attracting the pilots. really think all those members want to belong to a limp dick outfit like the RAAus. The RAAus is not working well, far from it. Way to many catagories, way to many endorsments and very poor managment. Imagine how well it would function if there was some competition.

I agree Ozzie. It has lost its way. I dont understand how the membership fees have gone up over the years.I thought that they would have gone down due to the expenses being spread over alot more members.I would be out in a heart beat if I could get a Certificate issued from some other governing body. SH&T I would take one from CASA ( one for life like a GA licence) if that meant that I didnt have to pay $186 bucks a year .

PS- I have mentioned this before, it is not the cost of the $186 bucks that jacks me off. It is that the $186 bucks in my eyes could be better spent.Not saved up in the RAA bank account, for a rainy day or the monies being missed managed.It looks like the financials have more holes in them than a sieve.

 

 

[Methusala]

I said:-

 

I feel that,no matter the terms in which it is couched, a resignation must be seen to be an offer and it has to be accepted by the official to whom it is offered. Don. (By which post I mean that the official, in the end has to decide whether or not he will accept it.)

 

Sorry Forumites but, despite what has been written since, I still don't see that, since the board has refused to accept SR's resignation

 

, he has any choice but to continue to act in that position.

 

When a majority in the House of Reps nominates a PM, the GG has reserved powers to accept or decline that nomination. (We learned this following Kerr's actions in 1975.) The PM then fills the position for the term of the parliament or "at her Majesties pleasure"

 

.

 

This means that the reserve powers can be invoked to sack the PM. Should the PM wish to resign against the wishes of the GG then it aint going to happen. The PM would need to not show or act in a manner that was unacceptable to the GG and be sacked. It seems clear to me that the board has always (In fact MUST have) the power to appoint it's president. And the same goes for the position of area rep. Regards, Don

 

 

[Methusala]

It seems clear to me that the board has always (In fact MUST have) the power to appoint it's president. And the same goes for the position of area rep. Regards, Don

 

 

[Methusala]

To all forumites. I posted the above comments simply because I think too much energy is wasted on external and not very important issues. Runciman will continue to act as president until real reform is in place. Energies should be used in restoring the validity and credibility of our organisation. I am in awe of the amount of energy and good sense expressed on this issue and feel humbled by the good efforts of so many members. I simply think that this issue is a non sequiter. Don

 

 

[dazza 38]

But apparently SR also resigned as a QLD Nth Member. That would mean that he couldnt still be President, or a board member for that matter.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I said:-I feel that,no matter the terms in which it is couched, a resignation must be seen to be an offer and it has to be accepted by the official to whom it is offered. Don. (By which post I mean that the official, in the end has to decide whether or not he will accept it.)

 

Sorry Forumites but, despite what has been written since, I still don't see that, since the board has refused to accept SR's resignation

 

, he has any choice but to continue to act in that position.

 

When a majority in the House of Reps nominates a PM, the GG has reserved powers to accept or decline that nomination. (We learned this following Kerr's actions in 1975.) The PM then fills the position for the term of the parliament or "at her Majesties pleasure"

 

.

 

This means that the reserve powers can be invoked to sack the PM. Should the PM wish to resign against the wishes of the GG then it aint going to happen. The PM would need to not show or act in a manner that was unacceptable to the GG and be sacked. It seems clear to me that the board has always (In fact MUST have) the power to appoint it's president. And the same goes for the position of area rep. Regards, Don

I don't see any similarity between Whitlam and Runciman, and I'm sure our secretary would not be comfortable with your characterisation of him as another Kerr.

 

Don, it is not the fact of his resignation as President that is the issue. It was his concurrent, unequivocal resignation as the representative of his constituency in NQ. If it had only been the former, yes the Committee could have voted him back again because he would still have been a committee member. But, because he resigned from his representative position, he is no longer a committee member and therefore cannot be President.

 

Mr Runciman apparently has the numbers to continue to act as though he were President and it seems to me that there needs to be a second requisition to spell out more clearly by way of notice the various motions that may be moved in February including, should the GM think it appropriate after hearing his submissions, his removal.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

To all forumites. I posted the above comments simply because I think too much energy is wasted on external and not very important issues. Runciman will continue to act as president until real reform is in place. Energies should be used in restoring the validity and credibility of our organisation. I am in awe of the amount of energy and good sense expressed on this issue and feel humbled by the good efforts of so many members. I simply think that this issue is a non sequiter. Don

Don I understand your rationale and I personally agree that of the important things to focus on, its not as important as some of the others.......but and there must be a but, I wonder if it is true that he has resigned and the board has no right to reject a non rejectable resignation then anything he does he potentially does in a personal capacity rather than a president of RAAus capacity if simple and relatively minor things happen between the resignation and the Feb 9th GM then there may be no issue, however if there is a major activity undertaken (Lets say for argument sake that the exec decided to splash out on something big and expensive, then on the 9th after the meeting the exec at that time, assuming its different, may repudiate any deal done arguing that the exec at the time had no legal right to transact....bring on the lawyers....)

 

You infer that you cant resign unless whatever and whoever you resign from accepts that resignation. I believe that basis is a flawed starting point. Any employee has the ability to resign from their place of emplouyment and the employer has no right to reject the resignation, he can negotiate, but cant outright reject. In what way is that different?

 

Andy

 

 

[Riley]

Ozzie, even though I only agree with about 95% of the content of your post #381, I pissed myself at your description of "limp dick RAA". Don't know if it was intentional but your little bit of humour in this depressing thread was quite refreshing. Thanks for the smile. cheers

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

It seems clear to me that the board has always (In fact MUST have) the power to appoint it's president. And the same goes for the position of area rep. Regards, Don

The Board is given that right by toe Constitution. Nobody can say otherwise. But, the Board must choose from among their own ranks. The Board cannot appoint an ordinary member President.

And please, let's not attempt analogies with Whitlam and Runciman. The Royal prerogative and RA are, let me assure you still unconnected last time I looked.