President Resigns ** Then Thinks about it **

[webbm]

I would imagine just names would be available webbm.

Thanks for the clarification. That's what I thought, but I remember this discussion...

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/working-party-for-2nd-organisation.52345/page-2#post-257538

 

Cheers,

 

Matt.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

RAA membership was 9,200 as at December 2009 (assuming they were counting all classes) - as per the RAA website http://www.raa.asn.au/join/ Then at the end of 2010 there were 9674 members (including Juniors) - again on the RAA website http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/benchmarks.html#growth_slackens

 

So on the figures released today - 9447 (end of June); we have gone backwards.

 

Personally I would not be counting magazine subscriptions as "members" as these are most likely to be libraries, universities, govt depts, etc. From an accounting perspective they would be sales.

 

I estimate the revenue (without GST) to be $1,542,139 - I am away so I can't check what the financials attributed to Membership Income.

 

I'll do some more detailed analysis when I get back mid next week.

 

Sue

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

RAA membership was 9,200 as at December 2009 (assuming they were counting all classes) - as per the RAA website http://www.raa.asn.au/join/ Then at the end of 2010 there were 9674 members (including Juniors) - again on the RAA website http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/benchmarks.html#growth_slackensSo on the figures released today - 9447 (end of June); we have gone backwards.

 

Personally I would not be counting magazine subscriptions as "members" as these are most likely to be libraries, universities, govt depts, etc. From an accounting perspective they would be sales.

 

I estimate the revenue (without GST) to be $1,542,139 - I am away so I can't check what the financials attributed to Membership Income.

 

I'll do some more detailed analysis when I get back mid next week.

 

Sue

Reported Revenue is circa $1.6m and as you did, I did the comparison this morning when SR wrote to me with the numbers. In terms of soes this feel reasonable when checked against the 11-12 financials, yes Im happy it does.

 

However I still need an answer to my questions:-

 

1) on members Liability insurance, what were the member counts used to determine that, ( an issue potentially for much more than a single year in my opinion with the assumption that cost has as a function membership count)

 

2) What was the membership count for each year over the last 5, I dont believe them any more than I believed this years after FT pointed out the discrepency

 

3) What numbers have been reported to CASA each 3 months because Im concerned that they are wrong given that Lee Ungerman while not telling me

 

numbers reported did not seem at all suprised by the claim of 13,000......

 

Andy

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Thanks Sue. I've discovered where the hole is. It's gotta be the junior members.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The youth of today have no respect for the hard work the exec does!

 

 

[flyhi]

gee whizz ft....that could be another can of worms just opened..............u could ask RAA..of its 'flying'membership....how many have valid/current BFR's!

Don't need a current BFR if you are grounded. Wait until you are flying ---eventually before you renew.

 

 

[Captain]

For the record, Secretary Middleton, at the last AGM, announced with pride that "Membership numbers are still growing,and as of July this year we had 13,123 members of which 11,616 were pilots. I am sure you will agree these are very heartening numbers."

I wasn't at the AGM, but based on what AR has reported here, the RAA Secratary gave a report of the above numbers to the AGM in the above terms and then used those to crow about how healthy those numbers are.

 

"Very heartening" indeed.

 

And now, based on figures that Andy and John McK have extracted after detailed questioning, it turns out that the Secretary has overstated the figures and mislead the AGM by something like 30%.

 

As membership numbers are such a core issue for an organisation such as RAA, is that misleading, incompetent or just another little "mistake", and how long must members put up with this performance at Executive level?

 

Perhaps this is even more serious than Reid's inability to provide the audited financials on time for the same AGM? Another "mistake" perhaps.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Tiger]

WHO IS RAA ? We the members are RAA and the board members are our elected representatives and we the members can terminate their board position if need be under Rule 17 of the Constitution. If a Board member resigns his position before the expiration of his term, then it is up to US and US ALONE, the members, as per our Constitution, to elect our new representative, not have the Board “appoint” someone. There is no provision in the constitution for this.

 

I have heard a rumour that the Board has legal opinion that they could “re-appoint” Mr Runciman to the board as North Qld. Representative. Let the members see this legal opinion on this site, including the brief to the legal person from the Board which outlines his resignation.

 

To have the “Board” appoint someone denies members, and we the members are RAA not the Board, natural justice (as per clause 50), and that action is not a democratic process. I thought that we still live in a democratic society!. It is some six weeks since his resignation and we have yet to be told when we are having a By-election? Under our Constitution it should have been in the December / January Sport Pilot.! Is it in the next edition of Sport Pilot?

 

 

[John G]

Hi Everyone,

 

Due to a lot of requests by RA-Aus members in my local area I have decided to bite the bullet and attend the RA-Aus General Meeting at Queanbeyan on the 9th February.

 

I have had a number of people who trust my judgement request that I act as their proxy at the meeting.

 

I am happy to accept any proxies from members of this site who have not as yet made up their mind as to who should hold their proxy vote.

 

If you would like me to hold your proxy vote you need to complete it and Email it to me before Friday.

 

My details are:

 

Email

 

[email protected]

 

Details of proxy Holder: John Gardon

 

PO Box 154

 

Wardell NSW 2477

 

Member #5334

 

You also need to select whether you wish me to vote in a particular way on each question; or how I see fit, if you trust my judgement.

 

In addition to sending it to me, you need to send it to

 

[email protected]

 

by 09:30 on Friday or I suspect that it will be judged invalid.

 

Regards,

 

John Gardon

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hello John

 

Hi Everyone,Due to a lot of requests by RA-Aus members in my local area I have decided to bite the bullet and attend the RA-Aus General Meeting at Queanbeyan on the 9th February.

 

I have had a number of people who trust my judgement request that I act as their proxy at the meeting.

 

I am happy to accept any proxies from members of this site who have not as yet made up their mind as to who should hold their proxy vote.

 

If you would like me to hold your proxy vote you need to complete it and Email it to me before Friday.

 

My details are:

 

Email

 

[email protected]

 

Details of proxy Holder: John Gardon

 

PO Box 154

 

Wardell NSW 2477

 

Member #5334

 

You also need to select whether you wish me to vote in a particular way on each question; or how I see fit, if you trust my judgement.

 

In addition to sending it to me, you need to send it to

 

[email protected]

 

by 09:30 on Friday or I suspect that it will be judged invalid.

 

Regards,

 

John Gardon

I have great respect for your professional skills, John and think highly of you as a person. but I would like to know what your take is in regard to current issues such as:

 

1. The failure of an audit on four successive occasions

 

2. The failure to comply with requirements under the Act to provide and publish all of the financial materials in time for the AGM (I note the 6 monthly update hasn't been published, either)

 

3. The reappointment of Mr Runciman to the Board as President event hour he also resigned as NQ rep

 

4. The granting of type certificates to various LSA aircraft that allegedly do not meet the requirements and are now also grounded and unregistrable other than as experimental

 

5. The alleged refusal by the person claiming to be President to release information equally to all Board members

 

6. The apparent blatant use of RAAus funds to pay for a political mail out designed to attract proxies to Board members and maintain their security of tenure

 

Just to mention a few.

 

Kaz

 

 

[John G]

Hi Kaz,

 

In response to questions 1 to 6 ---UNACCEPTABLE ! To the others I know you could also mention the answer would be the same.

 

JG

 

 

[bilby54]

Hello John

 

4. The granting of type certificates to various LSA aircraft that allegedly do not meet the requirements and are now also grounded and unregistrable other than as experimental

 

Kaz

Just to clear up one point Kaz, the Pacific Ibis (of which I am an unofficial caretaker of one machine here at Roma) is grounded permanently - the offer of 19 category is not avaailable at this stage.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Error404]

Item 6 is a misnomer. Giving ALL proxies to non-board members for example will NOT result in board members being removed because it can't so there's no point suggesting that this would be the case. The members would need to vote on it.

 

It's like saying if I'm a witness in a murder trial, I am the one that puts the offender in gaol.

 

Ps: I believe the IBis is Colombian? That's interesting in terms of cerification.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Just to clear up one point Kaz, the Pacific Ibis (of which I am an unofficial caretaker of one machine here at Roma) is grounded permanently - the offer of 19 category is not avaailable at this stage.Cheers

Really sorry, mate. Poor old macrotus lagotis is an endangered species in more ways than one.

 

Kaz

 

 

[rankamateur]

Just to clear up one point Kaz, the Pacific Ibis (of which I am an unofficial caretaker of one machine here at Roma) is grounded permanently - the offer of 19 category is not avaailable at this stage.Cheers

Even as LSA Experimental?

 

 

[Guest Error404]

Just remember it wouldn't qualify for 51% if it was "factory built" in Columbia or wherever it came from so that potentially makes it intelligible for amateur built caregories, in theory unless I am mistaken.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Item 6 is a misnomer. Giving ALL proxies to non-board members for example will NOT result in board members being removed because it can't so there's no point suggesting that this would be the case. The members would need to vote on it.It's like saying if I'm a witness in a murder trial, I am the one that puts the offender in gaol.

That's a really interesting legal analysis I'm sure, Error 404, but I'm having trouble following it.

 

Are you saying that members votes and proxy votes are not the same thing? How is item 6 a misnomer?

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi Kaz,In response to questions 1 to 6 ---UNACCEPTABLE ! To the others I know you could also mention the answer would be the same.

 

JG

Fantastic, John!!!

 

That is so reassuring I can't tell you how relieved I am. I apologise if I have been a little forthright in my comments but I feared that you may have been persuaded another way.

 

I hope to catch up on Saturday and make my peace in person.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Error404]

Misnomer because everyone who is running this 'class action' is saying the intention is not to oust the board but rather to gather information, yet you make it sound like proxies for the existing board from members will mean they can hold their positions which were in theory never in jeopardy. Perhaps your agenda is different to the rest of the actioners.

 

To add to my comment after re reading yours, if Joe Bloggs turns up with 1000 proxies and moves to boot one particular board member or more, nothing will happen until a vote from the members via the magazine and post etc unless I am horribly mistaken.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Misnomer because everyone who is running this 'class action' is saying the intention is not to oust the board but rather to gather information, yet you make it sound like proxies for the existing board from members will mean they can hold their positions which were in theory never in jeopardy. Perhaps your agenda is different to the rest of the actioners.To add to my comment after re reading yours, if Joe Bloggs turns up with 1000 proxies and moves to boot one particular board member or more, nothing will happen until a vote from the members via the magazine and post etc unless I am horribly mistaken.

Where do you ever get that there is a class action, for goodness sake?

 

There are a lot of unhappy campers who want answers and, if the answers aren't forthcoming will do their best to change their representatives to people who will supply them sometime down the track.

 

What I am saying is that there is a perception that Board members seeking to attract proxies for a meeting that is intended to hold them to account are more interested in protecting their arses than satisfying the genuine concerns of their members.

 

I am also saying that putting their version of events in the magazine and again in the mail out, without giving equal space to the opposing views is a denial of natural justice to the latter group in my opinion.

 

And I am adding that it appears like a misuse of members' funds to me to engage in what is really a form of electioneering for their own benefit.

 

I can tell you that if Joe whomever turns up with a thousand proxies and wants to support a vote to dismiss a member, it will get up because that's how the system works. That is a vote by 1000 members and would trump any proxies held by others. Whether it would be sustained on an appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that procedural fairness was not afforded is another question again.

 

But that's hypothetical and we are dealing in reality here.

 

Kaz