President Resigns ** Then Thinks about it **

[Aerialink]

But Nev, no one gave a damn ... all they wanted to do was fly ... they didn't want to get involved in the politics .... well guess what, get involved folks or will will lose what you have.

The point to me, and referred to by Powerin, is that the organisation was formed many moons ago to promote the sport and hopefully manage or even reduce the onerous requirements of GA rules that were not really applicable to RAA members.

It was not, nor ever should be, a vehicle for the discharge of petty personal differences and vitriol of office holders and board members.

 

It is very disappointing that the organisation is crumbling from the top down at a time when more than ever we need unity to maintain access to our privileges.

 

Out there is some geriatric ex owner of something like a Weedhopper saying this is why I never joined.

 

Politics is everywhere but a smart person minimises it where ever possible or its all politics and no progress

 

 

[dazza 38]

Oop's

Just adding to what David said.

Don't worry about it Kiwi, we would have found out about it anyway.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Don't worry buddy, we all without a doubt had a right to know, the information was not confidential and concerned our governing Board that we all individually elected or at least elected by default.

Yeah, its only for those that as a function of proportional representation live in SE Queensland, us people in NSW(within an hour or 2 of the border) cant know unless Dave Caban or Middo tell us.(both much further away).......If only I could live that long that it would eventually happen!!!!

 

proportional representation neds to go the way of the morse key! Its completely unrelated to modern day realities.....

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

None of us are enjoying this journey aerialink, I have much better things to do with my time and I could just as easily walk away and leave this mess behind.

 

Facthunter (Nev) said in an earlier post "...The price of freedom is eternal vigilance..."

 

 

[David Isaac]

...Politics is everywhere but a smart person minimises it where ever possible or its all politics and no progress

Well said ... and the politics would be simply of a practical nature if we communicated with the members and had proper, professional (in nature) fair procedural governance in place.

 

 

[Guest john]

To All Interested RAAus Members

 

An email will be sent to our President this afternoon, requesting that any General Meeting of the Association regarding the GOVERNANCE of our ORGANISATION is required to be officially notified on the RAAus website as per the stipulated calendar time in the Associations Constitution.

 

 

[dodo]

To All Interested RAAus MembersAn email will be sent to our President this afternoon, requesting that any General Meeting of the Association regarding the GOVERNANCE of our ORGANISATION is required to be officially notified on the RAAus website as per the stipulated calendar time in the Associations Constitution.

It is a sad reflection on past behaviour that you need to spell that out!

 

dodo

 

 

[Spriteah]

Ok guys, gals let me put some info on here.

 

Yes the board meeting this Friday is cancelled because it was organised at short notice and the majority of Board members could not attend. Me being one of them.

 

I have been 'active' on the board for less than two weeks. Yes there are communication issues to both the membership and to board members. If I am still on the board in the furture I will endeavour to correct this if I can.

 

Are there conflicts and is the board falling apart as so many posts suggest? At this stage I do not believe so. There are personality clashes which have led to less than professional conduct in writing. I have raised this as a issue and I can certainly state it is not just one person. It needs to stop. That will certainly be discussed at face to face meetings in the future.

 

Further to the communication and members concerns if its not on the RAA site then call your elected rep. or send them an email asking for details. If they can answer I'd hope they will. If they don't respond then ask me.

 

As to the problems with the Audits what needs to be made very clear is the majority of the detected problems happened under different technical managers and different Executive, although the Board has the responsibility to over see a lot was hidden and the job huge to repair. I admit it certainly has shown deficiences in how the office ran. Hopefully this can be corrected and not re-occur.

 

On a last note I want to mention the upcomming meeting. The tone I get from lots of posts is that sacking members from board positions or possibly sacking the complete board would be a good solution. They will be two options that you could do if you have the numbers but personally I would be very careful with this decision. We (the membership) know that CASA are keeping a close eye on what the Association is doing. They have watched the Tech managers leave or be terminated. They have watched the CEO resign. Ask yourself what will they be thinking if the membership sacks its board? I would guess it might be along the lines of "can we trust this group to manage the privellages we have given them?" And if the answer is no then I would expect them to step in quickly. I'll let you all decide what action they may or may not take.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

 

Victorian Board Member. (For 2 weeks and counting)

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Jim, you sound like the board has been notified by CASA that they are intent on closing the operations of the RAA.

 

Is that an accurate statement?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well Jim, with four audits failed in a row they will be looking for people who will correct that situation, and I don't see there would be any objection to new people.

 

However, I'm not getting any feeling of a trend to wipe out ALL the experienced board members.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Jim,

 

Firstly welcome to the Board, we wish you the best in your endeavours to contribute to resolve the issues on our behalf.

 

Secondly, there is NO intention to sack the Board of RA Aus on my part or the part of my colleagues and apart from some ill informed comments on this matter I see NO 'Tone' as you suggest. The General Meeting that has been called is called with the following purpose which is already in the hands of the secretary:

 

1. The Board Executive and Board Members to give an account to the Members for their stewardship of the Association.

 

2. The Board to inform the Members how the current state of affairs was arrived at and what plans the Board has to ensure RA-Aus is never again so challenged.

 

3. Questions from the floor of the Board Executive and Board Members.

 

4. Motions from the floor to be considered, debated and voted.

 

It is our intention to conduct this meeting professionally and courteously. In spite of the scare mongers and critics of the proposed meeting, this is not a vendetta based meeting and those who suggest this is the case and that 'tempers will run high' and 'there will be hot blood' are doing so irresponsibly and in my opinion to derail the genuine motives of those who arranged to call the meeting.

 

Should the performance of the Board come into question or should there be serious matters that concern the members, it is possible that someone may put a motion to remove a Board member under the provisions of Clause 17 of our constitution, but that will ultimately require the consent of the majority of members present. I can assure you that procedural fairness will be maintained and the principles of Natural Justice will be followed, unlike the Board previously demonstrated in the matter of refusing membership to Ian Baker.

 

I would imagine that the calling of a general meeting by the members would be seen as it should by CASA; a responsible move by the members to get to the bottom of the issues and ensure they are resolved, because at the end of the day that is exactly why the meeting was called.

 

People should calm down and we can all resolve this together, there is finally enough momentum and interest among the members to resolve all the concerning issues once and for all over the next few months.

 

 

[dodo]

I agree with David.

 

Re registration issues, the main thing I want is to find what was found in the early audits, what action was taken, why it didn't work, and what the forecast is now.

 

I asked a board member and got nothing. No one else got much either, or if they did, they aren't saying.

 

A GM seems the reasonable response.

 

Secondary to that, I would want to know what the board are doing to address the endemic communication failures, and how members can be informed in future.

 

If the responses to these sort of questions are unsatisfactory, then there might be a question of other resolutions.

 

dodo

 

EDIT - Jim - thanks for posting your information and position on the issues.

 

 

[Captain]

On a last note I want to mention the upcomming meeting. The tone I get from lots of posts is that sacking members from board positions or possibly sacking the complete board would be a good solution. They will be two options that you could do if you have the numbers but personally I would be very careful with this decision. We (the membership) know that CASA are keeping a close eye on what the Association is doing. They have watched the Tech managers leave or be terminated. They have watched the CEO resign. Ask yourself what will they be thinking if the membership sacks its board? I would guess it might be along the lines of "can we trust this group to manage the privellages we have given them?" And if the answer is no then I would expect them to step in quickly. I'll let you all decide what action they may or may not take.

Jim,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

I understand what you are saying but I have trouble with the logic in your final couple of lines.

 

By any standards that I am used to in private business in the mining & related industries, the governance within RAA has been poor for a number of years, the management has been poor to terrible and the intimidation as reported by various board members has been to the point of being illegal, and certainly unconscionable, from what I can gather.

 

Conclusion - the existing system has failed or at least needs a big fix, and the Board has been responsible.

 

And the straw that broke the aircraft's back has been RAA's numerous proven inabilities to survive CASA audits.

 

Surely a constitutional majority of members have the right, and the obligation, to set this right if that is what the membership sees fit, and I don't see how that can be regarded as worse than leaving a disfunctional board, management & systems in place.

 

All the members want is a well run organisation that keeps the members informed, but IMHO the Board has allowed the situation to go well past the point where we can just say "Buck up, chaps".

 

But as I opened, I and I am sure others, really appreciate your coming back to us here.

 

Can you perhaps please explain why the President and CEO don't see the need to post daily on the website to factually & fully update the members on what is happening in the current situations? That is the first thing I would have done if I had been them. It even looks like as of this morning there has been a move not to inform the members that Runciman had resigned.

 

Regards & thanks.

 

Geoff

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Jim

 

What follows is my personal view, so take for the 1c its worth...maybe.....

 

Any board, upon accepting the position accepts that things wrong with the organisation whether it happened on their watch or somone elses has Zero right to claim"It was someone else, it wasnt us"

 

The problems were highlighted officially, when we had the first audit failure. At that time, when teh failure was understood and the size of the underlying issue understood then a good board has only one option and that is complete disclosure to the membership.

 

If complete disclosure didnt occur then its either because they chose not to (communications failure) or they didnt understand the problem size (management/Governance failure) so in this case if people want some blood its becuase of either of the bracketed failures which DID occur in the current boards timeframe (mostly).

 

Now I could see a bunch of volunteers arguing (appropriately in my view) that to have either failure after audit one was probably excusable with some member disquite but to allow it to happen and repeate the failures 4 times is to me clearly a sign that we have teh wrong people (albeit employees or board member volunteers) in control

 

As I said in one of my many postings yesterday a Hard work ethic, while great is useless if that ability to direct teh hard work appropriately isnt also present.

 

Sorry but some of the board (perhaps all)need to be held to account.

 

The concerns about CASA being troubled.......to me you'r talking about a CASA that is already significantly concerned. You argue that sacking the board would make that concern worse, On what basis do you argue that? I could see an argument that its finally signs of teh membership reclaiming their organisation and taking the first steps to clean it out. Now Ive a view that if we the members allow CASA to make their mind, completely by themselves without any briefing, as to whether what we are doing is good or bad then those advocating for change are equally stupid. The group I am part of that has set this process in motion is ensuring that CASA is briefed on what we are seeking and why so they see the change for what it is, which is a move in the required direction.

 

I personally see that sacking the entire group would be about focusing on punishment rather than focusing on moving positively to improve....but then I'm not one of the 200plus group of aircraft owners who are unable to legally fly at present...maybe they feel differently.... The group Im with are looking only at moving forward, we dont have an agenda of 1 item being punishment!

 

Andy

 

 

[Spriteah]

Jim, you sound like the board has been notified by CASA that they are intent on closing the operations of the RAA.

 

Is that an accurate statement?

 

Not at all accurate. Im stating my viewpoint only and putting myself in their shoes.

 

Jim.

 

 

[Admin]

Please note that the current Exec have been in those positions for well over a year now and have even been on the board for over 2 years. I do know for a fact that all audit failures have been whilst the current Exec have been on the board, so any talk of inheriting the issues I would assume could only be a cover up PLUS how many of the failed audits happened in the last 14 months, as the current Exec HAVE been the Exec for this long, I can't see CASA as leaving a failed audit on the books for over 2 years which in my opinion could only mean that the Exec knew all about it and have done nothing to prevent the current impact on so many members.

 

I also note that not one, not one RAAus member, voted the current President (Steve Runciman) on to the board.

 

And, having spoken to CASA, I can say that they do not want RAAus and in fact WANT RAAus to work so any scare mongering about CASA taking over RAAus I believe is just that...Scare Mongering to possibly safe guard Exec positions

 

 

[dodo]

I have seen a lot of speculation about CASA taking over RA-Aus, or CASA not liking this or not liking that.

 

I have done contract work with Commonwealth bureaucracies for the last 14 years. I work in a weird little niche that has taken me to about 20 or 30 government organisations. I haven't done any work for CASA (although I know plenty of people who have). So I would like to make some observations based on my experience:

 

CASA does aviation policy and safety. They really don't want to do process work, renewing licences and registrations, but its part of the job. They would prefer to look at CARs and CAOs, overseas policy developments, developing trends etc. Managing trivial detail like aircraft registration is administrative work, not policy. More admin work (such as RA-Aus's administrative work) means more admin staff, which means more managing process and people, and consequently, less time spent on important policy issues. Policy is interesting and glamorous (in this strange world), administration is not.

 

So CASA is happy with the six delegated organisations who do the hack work, SO LONG AS THEY DON'T EMBARRASS CASA.

 

For a notorious example, take a plane crashing into a ferris wheel, where the ATSB preliminary report states that there were issues with the pilot's certificate, the aircraft's registration, the aircraft's factory status and build quality, as well as pilot preparation, and God knows what else. It doesn't greatly matter if these are true or not, but a formal ATSB report has brought these to the world's attention, so it is _SERIOUS_ for CASA. And people then ask "What was CASA doing?" And CASA can only say "We outsourced this to an organisation that said it would manage things - and it hasn't".

 

The trouble is, you can outsource the work, but you can't outsource not the responsibility.

 

CASA don't want to do the work. The only thing they want less that taking over RA-Aus is some disaster that is an outcome of outsourcing the regulation of RA.

 

They also do not care what RA-Aus does,so long it regulates to the agreed standards, and does not bring CASA into disrepute.

 

CASA's nightmare would be seeing a Sixty Minutes investigation of RA--Aus and CASA after some debacle.

 

So CASA really don't give a flying F what RA-Aus does,so long as it gets it's house in order. We could elect a new board every month, and fire CEOs on a weekly basis, so long as we don't bring them into disrepute. CASA just want us to register aircraft and certificate pilots in accordance with legislation, and agreed conditions.

 

And CASA pulled the pin after FOUR failed audits. Generally, you make sure EVERYTHING is fixed before the second audit. I am surprised CASA waited until the fourth audit. Generally having a third audit is very bad news. A second is bad enough.

 

CASA won't flip-flop on this. Having taken harsh action,they will want EVERYTHING fixed before we are let off the hook. And they may feel that if aircraft rego was handled like this, that they might need to check on other aspects of administration. So things won't go back to normal in a hurry.

 

In summary:

 

1 CASA do not wish to take over RA-Aus.

 

2 RA screwed up big time, and will not be let off the hook in a hurry

 

3 CASA may well take a deep and pedantic interest in other regulatory aspects of RA,and we may find we are asked for all sorts of other information, and the bureaucracy required of the membership may increase and be a pain in the neck for individuals.

 

4 CASA do aviation safety, not aviation. So if we don't do it their way, we don't fly.

 

5 CASA just wish we would get our house in order, and don't greatly care how.

 

Dodo

 

 

[timb]

4 CASA do aviation safety, not aviation. So if we don't do it their way, we don't fly.

It used to be a standing joke in the old Dept days that some AWI's would rather an aircraft stayed grounded in the hangar as that way it couldn't crash, and they couldn't cop the blame for it crashing

 

 

[dazza 38]

Its funny how CASA dont want to to do process work like -Licences, Registrations etc. BUT THEY STILL DO IT for VH registered aircraft, the registration fee is a one off fee until it changes ownership. They still process RPL, PPL, CPL & ATPL licences which is still a licence for life.

 

Is there going to be a day when the above licence holders have to join a circus and pay a membership fee every year like RAA members have to? I doubt it.

 

PS- of course CASA doesnt want to take over RAA. It would cost them to much money, money that we ATM pay for through our membership.

 

 

[facthunter]

I wouldn't disagree with any of that Dodo, but CASA may have a big difference of opinion about how things are done, from what we thought would be good enough. I'm talking about standards not the breaching of them. If they imposed a similar standard to SAAA re construction engines and maintenance surely that would that have to be agreed. It would be the end of RAAus as we know it. Perhaps that is the aim? With RAAus, There is a trade -off of restrictions relaxed on one side and privileges reduced on the other. Can we be sure that the anti is not being upped bigtime.?

 

I agree, failing four audits is bad, but it should never have got to that. Intervention of some type should have happened before that or are they just trying to make the point that they are the boss and we don't fly unless they say so. IS that no If's no but's.

 

Inconsistency ... Why is it that everything is presumed OK untill individuals come up for renewal? If the system is suss then the guys who just got through ( Lucky them) have been permitted to fly by a system that was failing audits at the time, and presumably would have from way back. I'm not suggesting everything needs to be grounded, but the arbitrary nature of this doesn't make a lot of sense. Some can lose a lot some lose nothing. we are all exposed to a lot of uncertainty.

 

Again I say what is being done about funding the court action? Without some indemnity there we might as well not bother with the rest. We will have to start off all over again with the current assetts GONE. Have a think about that.

 

PLus with the precedent of the massive court costs what will the new premiums look like? Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

FH I did suggest a few weeks ago that members set aside $3000.00 to $5000.00. Nothing is insurmountable, it's just a matter of the cost.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Ok guys, gals let me put some info on here.Regards,

Jim Tatlock

 

Victorian Board Member. (For 2 weeks and counting)

Jim,

we have just had member John make the following comments on the 'RA Aus fails CASA Audit Again' thread:

 

"To All Interested RAAus Members,

 

An email was sent to Steve Runciman today asking him bluntly "Did he submit a letter of resignation to RAAus as President".

 

He has been open & honest in his reply stating that he did in fact submit a letter of resignation to RAAus on Monday 26.11.12 to RAAus, & during mid week he obtained a legal opinion about wanting to withdraw this resignation letter & the legal advise received indicated that this would be in order to do so, which the Board accepted".

 

Please advise us when the Board sought legal opinion and when exactly did the Board approve the withdrawal of the president's resignation, or accept what is alleged as the President' legal opinion?

 

 

[Spriteah]

David the majority of the board voted yesterday to accept the presidents withdrawal of resignation. In fact no-one voted against it. There is a legal opinion from slater and Gordon, I'm not sure if that is an archive opinion or fresh

 

Regards,

 

Jim.

 

 

[dazza 38]

David the majority of the board voted yesterday to accept the presidents withdrawal of resignation. In fact no-one voted against it. There is a legal opinion from slater and Gordon, I'm not sure if that is an archive opinion or freshRegards,

Did that legal opinion cost me money as a member , because if it is, I am getting pretty jacked off with it.

 

Not you Jim, good luck & I hope you succeed.

 

 

[David Isaac]

David the majority of the board voted yesterday to accept the presidents withdrawal of resignation. In fact no-one voted against it. There is a legal opinion from slater and Gordon, I'm not sure if that is an archive opinion or freshRegards,

 

Jim.

That's interesting Jim, can you explain why John McKeown was excluded from that vote.

Yes there is an historic opinion on this and it is allegedly that you cannot accept a withdrawn resignation; further the Board has already set that precedence with John Garden in 2008. This is from the RA Aus Master resolution list:

 

07/11/08

 

08/56

 

Motion: That a withdrawal of a letter of resignation from a board member be accepted. Eugene Reid/Lynn Jarvis NOT CARRIED

 

I am also reliably informed there was a general Board resolution that no withdrawals of resignations received from Board members would be accepted.

 

So with great respect what are you guys playing at ... excluding a Board member because of his known disagreement with the President is tantamount to excluding all those members he represents from governance. I would respectfully suggest that if you guys thought you had problems before ... you have major ones now.

 

We the members could now have an injunction brought against the Board and RA Aus for allowing the President who has resigned from continuing in his presidential capacity.

 

What on earth are you guys playing at?