President Resigns ** Then Thinks about it **

[drifterdriver]

You must be fully up-to-date on what your company is doing:

 

• Find out and assess for yourself how any proposed action will affect your company’s business performance, especially if it involves a lot of the company’s money.
   
   
  
• Get outside professional advice when you need more details to make an informed decision.
   
   
  
• Question managers and staff about how the business is going.
   
   
  
• Take an active part in directors’ meetings.
   
   
  

 

 

Yep, sent an extract of that document to the board when I couldn't get the information required to do the job properly. Thanks for the reminder.

 

Nick

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The financials as published do not support the claim that there are 13,000 members as reported by the secretary at the AGM. I have asked the board members for an answer on the 14th of December but as yet do not have an answer or a timeline for when an answer will be provided.I have heard that a report was run on our organisation administration database very recently and that reported that there was <9000 members I also heard that there was 10,500 magazines printed each month for distribution to members, both of course significantly less than 13,000 as reported at the AGM.

 

If you take the numbers above and multiply by the basic membership costs (after removing GST) you'll see we are talking significant $ as a delta. Is that missing money or not missing money? Worst case we have a problem requiring police intervention, best case we haven't a clue as to how many members we have, if we haven't a clue then how can we contract for magazine printing, or how can we contract for insurance? How can we be sure that nothing shonky is happening if we don't understand how many members we have?

 

I wait for a response from the secretary or the treasurer, these guys should be ableto set my mind at ease, but something that should take only moments to answer from established systems seems elusive.

 

Andy

Yesterday I recieved an email from SR addressing my concern around that fact that the financials do not support the claim that was made at the AGM that we have 13,000 members. SR provided a timeline for my concerns to be addressed and that they would be addressed by the auditors.

Specifically we should have a response after the 7th of January. SR went on to suggest as I also did in my original email that the AGM member count was inflated above reality, but that was a gut feeling rather than a fact until he has spoken with the people involved in getting the member counts for the auditors and teh AGM seperately....

 

So progress is being made...

 

Andy

 

 

[Captain]

Yesterday I recieved an email from SR addressing my concern around that fact that the financials do not support the claim that was made at the AGM that we have 13,000 members. SR provided a timeline for my concerns to be addressed and that they would be addressed by the auditors.Specifically we should have a response after the 7th of January. SR went on to suggest as I also did in my original email that the AGM member count was inflated above reality, but that was a gut feeling rather than a fact until he has spoken with the people involved in getting the member counts for the auditors and teh AGM seperately....

 

So progress is being made...

 

Andy

Andy,

 

I have had the 13,000 members figures quoted twice to me recently by email from a Board Member.

 

Is your post #395 really indicating that this same figure was given at the AGM, and now it may be that this CEO, Executive and Board really may not know how many members they have?

 

I guess that must be the case if they need to check with the Auditor, BUT a Membership List (available to members at the Office) is a core requirement of the Constitution/Legislation, and these days you might even expect a competent organisation to have that Membership List computerised, but even if still long hand and quill-written, it should be pretty simple to maintain a summary total of all members and flying members & any other categories.

 

SURELY the number of members is a key health & performance indicator for an organisation such as RAA, and would be reported by the CEO & Executive to allow it to be monitored by the Board on at least a monthly basis?

 

And this Group may not know?

 

And could this really have been overstated at the AGM, and to me more recently, by something like 40%?

 

If so, what better & more simple measure can there be for the membership that RAA management is and has been out-of-control?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

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 an enthusiastic amateur.

Thanks Alf for refining the issues so well.

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

A resignation from a voluntary body HAS to be accepted. Virtually any person can withdraw their voluntary labour at any time and no institution can compel them to contribute further. The only legal let out I can think of is perhaps a scrivenors error, but I am not a lawyer. Where is the legal opinion reversing the resignation?

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Turbo, I am not a member of the RAA. I have no qualms with the exact form of incorporation anybody uses either. What I am talking about is corporate Governance. This transcends whatever form of association the RAA actually adopted. I think you would agree that nobody can argue that just because the RAA is NOT a company that corporate governance standards therefore do not apply - they are universal, they are like the laws of nature and breaching them has exactly the same consequences as breaching the law of gravity.

 

From the sound and fury that has been going on for some years here and in Pprune it appears to me that there is something fundamentally flawed in the concept of duties and responsibilities within RAA - ie: Corporate Governance.

 

The way to manage competing interests in human affairs is to separate the making of policy from execution of the policy. - separation of the powers.

 

The way you stop elected representatives from getting their sticky fingers meddling with other peoples interests, as some might allege, is to make them all sit on a Board and approve policy, but leave the implementation of that policy to a disinterested employee - a servant of the Board. That way the Board members can watch the other Board members and make sure that they are all doing what they are supposed to do - acting in the interests of all members without fear or favour.

 

The time tested way of doing that is for the Board to appoint a CEO to supervise the day to day running of the organisation. These are roles Turbo, they don't necessarily involve setting up corporate structures, but the roles must be filled.

 

To put it another way, the Board must have absolutely NO involvement in running the day to day activities of the RAA and especially not the President or Chairman - his job is to make sure that the Board does its job of supervising the CEO and making sure that he/she is always on track. You can do that with a monthly CEO report to the Board and Quarterly Board meetings - its not rocket science, and suitably edited progress reports can come from the CEO to members as well. It really isn't difficult at all.

 

While there is a place for voluntary labour, if you are running with 9000+ members and a contract with CASA, then those voluntary labourers are going to have to be supervised by the CEO or one of their minions because you MUST have continuity in an organisation that size and with the best will in the world you can't get it with a voluntary subcommittee.

 

My personal view is that $186 annual fee is way too cheap considering what everything else connected with aviation costs. If it has to be $286 or $386 to get the type of service you need then you should be happy to pay it.

 

 

[Methusala]

To Kaz and others, I did not intend my words to infer that Middo's position or actions reflected Kerr's disgraceful conduct. Merely using a metaphor to illustrate my strong view that the position of head of the board was in the gift of the board to fill as it wished and that if they chose NOT to accept a resignation then not much to see here! Can't see that the position of area rep is much different. Don

 

 

[terryc]

"My personal view is that $186 annual fee is way too cheap considering what everything else connected with aviation costs. If it has to be $286 or $386 to get the type of service you need then you should be happy to pay it".

 

The idea that you pay more you get more is flawed. I've always found that you pay more you get the same or less and could sight many examples. Did someone say we should be aiming for $200.000.00 pa savings. [profit] I could see good arguement for a decrease in fees. Raa should meet their obligations to casa and stay away from every thing else.

 

 

[facthunter]

Money from subscriptions should not be considered "profit" in the ordinary sense. It is members's funds. Sales of the magazine at newsagents could produce a profit. Charging non members entry somewhere also.

 

The insurance is worth quite a bit, being a component of the fees so that has to be allowed for in any comparisons for them to be fair. I don't think the price of the article is a problem at the moment. It's what the article is doing. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo, I am not a member of the RAA. I have no qualms with the exact form of incorporation anybody uses either. What I am talking about is corporate Governance. This transcends whatever form of association the RAA actually adopted. I think you would agree that nobody can argue that just because the RAA is NOT a company that corporate governance standards therefore do not apply - they are universal, they are like the laws of nature and breaching them has exactly the same consequences as breaching the law of gravity.From the sound and fury that has been going on for some years here and in Pprune it appears to me that there is something fundamentally flawed in the concept of duties and responsibilities within RAA - ie: Corporate Governance.

 

The way to manage competing interests in human affairs is to separate the making of policy from execution of the policy. - separation of the powers.

 

The way you stop elected representatives from getting their sticky fingers meddling with other peoples interests, as some might allege, is to make them all sit on a Board and approve policy, but leave the implementation of that policy to a disinterested employee - a servant of the Board. That way the Board members can watch the other Board members and make sure that they are all doing what they are supposed to do - acting in the interests of all members without fear or favour.

 

The time tested way of doing that is for the Board to appoint a CEO to supervise the day to day running of the organisation. These are roles Turbo, they don't necessarily involve setting up corporate structures, but the roles must be filled.

 

To put it another way, the Board must have absolutely NO involvement in running the day to day activities of the RAA and especially not the President or Chairman - his job is to make sure that the Board does its job of supervising the CEO and making sure that he/she is always on track. You can do that with a monthly CEO report to the Board and Quarterly Board meetings - its not rocket science, and suitably edited progress reports can come from the CEO to members as well. It really isn't difficult at all.

 

While there is a place for voluntary labour, if you are running with 9000+ members and a contract with CASA, then those voluntary labourers are going to have to be supervised by the CEO or one of their minions because you MUST have continuity in an organisation that size and with the best will in the world you can't get it with a voluntary subcommittee.

 

My personal view is that $186 annual fee is way too cheap considering what everything else connected with aviation costs. If it has to be $286 or $386 to get the type of service you need then you should be happy to pay it.

What has this got to do with the President resigning?

 

What corrective action is being taken there?

 

The structure and governance policy of RAA is only one resolution away, with suitably researched Constitutional changes.

 

One good President can give RAA direction

 

Your monkeys watching monkeys concept might well be the flavour in the yacht club, but isn't out there in any of the big companies I've worked for.

 

Warren Buffet's actions when the SEC stopped Salomon, of which he was a director with $700 million at stake is a good example of the real world. He went in there and fired the key failures, cut all the fat cat bonuses, personally dealt with the Chairman of the SEC, fired the lawyers, auditors etc who hadn't acted in the interests of the shareholders and virtually lived in the place at a time when it was almost certain to be the biggest corporate failure in world history. If you study his actions over sixty years where for a number he was the richest man in the world, you'll notice that he knows all the products, all the prices, all the daily turnovers what is happening with the management structure. He certainly isn' hands off.

 

As for jacking up the membership fee, that's exactly what your concept would do, but when you cost in the extra fees, salaries, employee benefits company cars, and expenses, its a long way above $286.00 or $386.00 - this is not a manufacturing or sales operation where these costs are covered by turnover. You clearly haven't studied the fiancial patterns of RAA.

 

I'll repeat - I once ran an Association for 40 cents per member per year and virtually all the decisions were unanimous, and we had great success entering a new era.

 

 

[Gentreau]

Yesterday I recieved an email from SR addressing my concern around that fact that the financials do not support the claim that was made at the AGM that we have 13,000 members. SR provided a timeline for my concerns to be addressed and that they would be addressed by the auditors.Specifically we should have a response after the 7th of January. SR went on to suggest as I also did in my original email that the AGM member count was inflated above reality, but that was a gut feeling rather than a fact until he has spoken with the people involved in getting the member counts for the auditors and teh AGM seperately....

 

So progress is being made...

 

Andy

Is it only me who finds it unbelievable that the RAA does not know the exact number of financial members ????

 

 

[facthunter]

It might be the difficulty is acknowledging the numbers. Nev

 

 

[Captain]

It might be the difficulty is acknowledging the numbers. Nev

Nev,

 

There are 2 other possibilities, and Andy will get to the bottom of it.

 

The 1st is that they simply don't know, ......................... but there is another possibility, and that is that there may be a fiddle going on somewhere.

 

Why else would you overstate such a number (if they have)?

 

I don't have any evidence of that 2nd poissibility, but this wouldn't be the 1st organisation where something suss might be discovered if misleading numbers have been bandied around.

 

I'm with you Gentreau ... see my post # 396.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Admin]

The office uses the MYOB Financial Accounting Software Package so to get a current number of members wouldn't it be a simple matter of counting the number of journal entries that have been made in each of the "Membership" accounts for the last 12 months...that would give a pretty close number...barring a couple of extras like Life Members etc, you have to have paid your money to be a member

 

 

[facthunter]

Regardless of the method, it would not be rocket science. An add on to any of many processes would provide it. Perhaps not to the instant and to a single member. We are not talking of that degree of accuracy anyhow, but I wouldn't be surprised if we have lost a few (hundred) or more. I've seen this happen in clubs of all kinds. The organisation was growing, but the effect of the REC PPL would be to lose some. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

I wouldnt be surprised if the number of members is alot less now than it was 3 or 4 months ago. I think a few have not renewed their membership in the last few months simply because they have felt let down and are feeling disheartened.

 

.

 

PS- I was typing this when Nev put his post above on.

 

 

[facthunter]

dazza, I think that would relate to how many really are aware of any problem. This site is not a large percentage of the members and not all here think the same about it. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Better start to spread the word about these forums the more that know what is going on the better.

 

 

[kaz3g]

To Kaz and others, I did not intend my words to infer that Middo's position or actions reflected Kerr's disgraceful conduct. Merely using a metaphor to illustrate my strong view that the position of head of the board was in the gift of the board to fill as it wished and that if they chose NOT to accept a resignation then not much to see here! Can't see that the position of area rep is much different. Don

Hi Don

 

Please excuse my warped sense of humour and accept my best wishes for the NY.

 

The position as head of the committee is a gift given by the committee to one of its own.... Another committee member.

 

The position of an area representative is the "gift" of those who elected that person to represent them. Unfortunately, no one asked them if they wanted to offer it again after it was returned.

 

Kaz

 

 

[coljones]

To Kaz and others, I did not intend my words to infer that Middo's position or actions reflected Kerr's disgraceful conduct. Merely using a metaphor to illustrate my strong view that the position of head of the board was in the gift of the board to fill as it wished and that if they chose NOT to accept a resignation then not much to see here! Can't see that the position of area rep is much different. Don

The filling of the position of NQ rep is NOT within the gift of the board. Recent casual vacancies on the board have gone unfilled for extensive periods of time due to the need to conduct By-elections. Whatever SR has done he DID resign as NQ rep and this should be now subject to filling by by-election not executive fiat.

In the case of resignation from parliament (not the same as resigning as Prime-minister) the position is automatically vacated and is subject to filling by by-election (or equivalent)

 

 

[dazza 38]

dazza, I think that would relate to how many really are aware of any problem. This site is not a large percentage of the members and not all here think the same about it. Nev

That is true.

I was thinking that chinese whispers would have a effect as well.Like one member of a flying group has his rego held up.Then says WTF is going on, then he tell all his mates about it & they tell all their mates about it.

 

 

[Teckair]

"My personal view is that $186 annual fee is way too cheap considering what everything else connected with aviation costs. If it has to be $286 or $386 to get the type of service you need then you should be happy to pay it".

 

 

Might be an opinion but not shared by me. Funny how someone who is not a member and doesn't have to pay it comes up with that little gem.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Membership counts will change up and down, probably more down than up of late however it is imaterial to the question that I asked which specifically is how many members did RAAus have as at the end of the last financial year and then again at the time of the AGM when we were specifically told a set of numbers which to me, subject to final checking, are likely significantly wrong.

 

Membership count is fundamental to what it is that RAAus do, they have to report this metric every 3months to CASA and it is used to buy insurance and magazine print runs. It's my view that if we can't understand how many members we have and we overstate by 40%, then anyone guess as to how much too much we paid for insurance? I recall that insurance cost us $300k+ pa so if we overpaid that by the same percentage (and it isn't that simple some of the policy elements will be membership size driven and others may not be) then we are talking big money!! I struggle to understand how the number of magazines printed each month can be so different to the number of members reported and no alarm bells ring! Every member supposedly gets a monthly magazine!

 

Looking at previous years suggests that the "we don't know how many members we have" problem has been around for years!

 

So big money wasted multiplied by lotsa years....... Fantastic! (And even better that its through a broker and insurance company that in my opinion isn't doing the right thing by us) we absolutely need to revisit the insurance selection process using tried and trusted RFP procurement processes as all large organisations do today

 

Anyway all supposition until I hear back from SR.....but if I was a betting man I'd be betting there is a problem it's wether it's just a c*ckup or something requiring police intervention that concerns me. I hope the former.

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Another little puff of smoke from the gun discovered......

 

 

[skeptic36]

I struggle to understand how the number of magazines printed each month can be so different to the number of members reported and no alarm bells ring! Every member supposedly gets a monthly magazine!

Could be a bit of discrepancy there Andy, I subscribe to the mag and I'm not a member (mostly I get it before a lot of the members do, judging by posts on here lol). I have also seen it in newsagents.

Regards Bill