President Resigns ** Then Thinks about it **

[JohnMcK]

Hi All,

 

 

 

Tonight I was asked by one of the members about a vote to accept Steve Runciman's withdrawal of resignation. I told this person I knew nothing about the vote.

 

 

 

The normal process when there is a Board vote is to email and/or phone all members to tell them there is a vote so they can go to the Board forum. Apparently I was missed this time. It happens.

 

 

 

I logged on to the Board Forum just now and there was indeed a formal vote. There were also extracts from the legal opinion the Board received after the JG matter. (There was not a new legal opinion). I remembered this bit of legal advice. "Once done it is done" However there was also advice that in the event of a withdrawal of resignation the Board could vote to either accept or reject the withdrawal. A Proper Board vote was held and the majority of the Board has voted to accept the withdrawal.

 

 

 

I voted no, but my vote had no relevance. Jim is correct in his post above. Until my vote tonight there were no, NO votes. A majority had been achieved before I voted. Mine was just a token vote. I must now accept the majority decision. Steve Runciman has been voted back as President.

 

 

 

John McK

 

 

[Captain]

Having given calm consideration to this issue of the President's resignation and the manner in which the Board have reacted to it Vs the way that they reacted to John G's resignation, I conclude that there is a clique who handle matters selectively and/or to suit themselves ......... and for the 1st time in my life I am speechless.

 

This whole sorry mess demands outside indpendent investigation as the damage to the ultralight movement just cannot continue like this.

 

If our leadership were as good at managing the organisation as they are at manoevering the politics of it all, we would be in good shape.

 

I have lost all confidence in our leadership and their processes.

 

Have just read John McK's post above mine. They didn't contact him to let him know that there was a vote. What bullsh*t. That sounds like corrupt conduct to me, or a corruption of due process..

 

PS - My Board members are Middo and Dave Caban, so I am stuffed.

 

 

[riverduk]

"As a new member to the board I am trying to keep the masses on this forum informed."

 

Jim, firstly, thank you for your efforts to keep us informed, it's good to see at least one board member interested in doing so, I have just found all of this here and am left wondering, what the heck is going on with RAA? I had guessed there were some problems but never realised that it appears to be such a mess.

 

Secondly, if what I have been reading is true regarding the bullying (lets call it for what it is) in the past of other new board members, might I suggest you watch your back, if some of the encumbent board members of longer standing are a bit too comfortable in their positions, they may not take too kindly to a newby talking to the rank and file members and trying to keep us in the loop.

 

Finally, with regards Steve Runciman's resignation, as my elected Vic representative to the RAA, I would ask you to convey to the executive of my non-acceptance of the withdrawal of his resignation in light of a previously set precidence by the board with regard to the non-acceptance of Mr John Garman's withdrawal in 2008, to my way of thinking they cannot have it both ways, once a precident is set, it is set, unless recinded.

 

As a final thought to all RAA members, with regards Mr Runciman's resignation, if you feel strongly enough about what has happened then perhaps you need to contact your state board member and convey your feelings to them and request them to convey those thoughts directly to the board, then to ensure that it does get through to the board, I would suggest that direct contact (email or snail mail, this way they have to reply, a phone call can be denied) with RAA office to inform them of your concerns, enough member contact will let the executive know of the feeling within the camp. For me, first part is done, next step is an email to the office in Canberra, will post the reply, if any, when it arrives,

 

cheers, the Duk blame the coffee

 

 

[John G]

As a new member to the board I am trying to keep the masses on this forum informed. Please be mindful what I am posting is correct to the best of my knowledge. As to a board member not being able to vote I believe is incorrect as we all have access to the board members forum to which is our primary form of communications.Regards,

 

Jim tatlock.

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks for taking the time to talk to members. Please don't take my comments as personally attributed to you. Welcome as our representative, please proceed with "eyes wide open"

 

Your post response: I really hope that is the case!

 

I actually set up and ran the Board member Forum from its inception as means of accountability, transparency and audit trail much to the chagrin of long standing Board members.

 

The situation in the past was that some Board members would cite viruses and other problems with their Email for lack of action or response to their expected Board duties.

 

The Board Forum was an excellent tool for for getting the same information out to all Board members and ensuring that all were singing from the same sheet of music and their actions or inactions recorded for posterity.

 

I have no way of knowing since I left the Board, but some Previous Board members who left after my time tell me that the old guard reverted to using selective Emails to conduct business leaving some Board members in the know and others not. It should be easy for you to check, just go back and look at all the Board business and if there are big gaps you will know I am right.

 

While Pres I also insisted on weekly status reports be posted on the forum from the CEO, OPS Manager and Tech Manager so that the Exec and Board were on top of any developing issues. I believe that stopped right after I vacated the position. Check for yourself, but I do still have some sources that tell me that is what occurred. When there is no accountability by the CEO and Managers back to the Board, is how we got into the sorry mess we are now in.

 

Please tell me I am wrong.

 

In any case a vote by the Board on the Forum was always set as a 7 day minimum to allow for debate and discussion before a vote and the fact that Board members may be away from their computers for a couple of days. If in the rare occasion that an emergency vote was required a phone poll would be conducted with all responses duly recorded. I leave it up to you to ascertain whether due process was followed, particularly when we have some Board members telling us they never got an opportunity to vote.Or does the Secreatary just phone the folks he thinks he will get a yes vote from and then declare the motion carried once he gets a majority.

 

Please tell us it aint so.

 

 

[riverduk]

Apologies to John McK, it would appear there are at least 2 board members who are interested in the rank and file members, good to hear. With regards the vote today, should we care what the board wants, it would appear that they aren't really interested in what the members want, I agree with the Captain:

 

"This whole sorry mess demands outside indpendent investigation as the damage to the ultralight movement just cannot continue like this.

 

If our leadership were as good at managing the organisation as they are at manoevering the politics of it all, we would be in good shape."

 

Well said Captain, can't help but think, a mini version of politics in the land of oz, an independant investigation would sort this out, but who pays? by the sound of things the RAA is blowing our money quicker than we can send it. Personally, we just got screwed by the Banksia Investments collapse, I can't afford to get screwed again!

 

Cheers, the Duk

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Hi All,Tonight I was asked by one of the members about a vote to accept Steve Runciman's withdrawal of resignation. I told this person I knew nothing about the vote.

 

The normal process when there is a Board vote is to email and/or phone all members to tell them there is a vote so they can go to the Board forum. Apparently I was missed this time. It happens.

 

I logged on to the Board Forum just now and there was indeed a formal vote. There were also extracts from the legal opinion the Board received after the JG matter. (There was not a new legal opinion). I remembered this bit of legal advice. "Once done it is done" However there was also advice that in the event of a withdrawal of resignation the Board could vote to either accept or reject the withdrawal. A Proper Board vote was held and the majority of the Board has voted to accept the withdrawal.

 

I voted no, but my vote had no relevance. Jim is correct in his post above. Until my vote tonight there were no, NO votes. A majority had been achieved before I voted. Mine was just a token vote. I must now accept the majority decision. Steve Runciman has been voted back as President.

 

John McK

As always the devil is in the detail..... John did SR resign as President only (in which case he could argue "still a board member and therefore board could reinstate to president position") or did he resign from the board. Please check that the legal advice and the SR actions are aligned It would be a shame if the advice related to a resignation from the position of president when in fact what SR had actually done was resign from the board.

 

The constitution identifies only one way an ordinary member can be raised to the board and it isnt as a result of a board meeting!

 

Andy

 

 

[Tiger]

riverduck,

 

I would say you won't get a reply from the board.

 

At the AGM I heard one person ask the board why they hadn't answered a question from their club after 8 months And it was about some policy decision.

 

There was no real response from the chair

 

You will probably have to wait like them still

 

 

[Ches]

Riverduck.

 

Getting an answer from the board is like you going to fly to the moon tomorrow? a non event. My club at the AGM asked the board why they had'nt replyed to a junior members father who wrote the the board expressing his concern re their handeling of junior membership issue. after a futher 3mths

 

 

[riverduk]

Yeh Tige, I know, just goes to show what utter contempt some board members have for the people who put them there, like I said before, "a mini version of politics in the land of oz" but any how, gunna give it the old college try, going straight to Mr Tizzard, see what happens, probably nothing considering that he finishes early next year, unless he changes his mind as well, cheers, the Duk

 

 

[riverduk]

C'mon, where's the team spirit?

 

 

[Tiger]

Well if the board just decided to not accept the presidents resignation, then the board will probably do the same with the CEO's resignation as mentioned by riverduck.

 

As I said we have lost our represenattive here in North Qld but according to JmCK they had OLD board advise they could reinstate the President.

 

I ask the question - was the legal advise that the board could reinstate the President or reinstate a board member against the will of us the members up here.

 

In my last post I said -We need board members that understand the constitution and will work with the framework of our Constitution, not write their own rules and own constitution and do what they want against our , the members, will.

 

 

[John G]

Hi All,Tonight I was asked by one of the members about a vote to accept Steve Runciman's withdrawal of resignation. I told this person I knew nothing about the vote.

 

The normal process when there is a Board vote is to email and/or phone all members to tell them there is a vote so they can go to the Board forum. Apparently I was missed this time. It happens.

 

I logged on to the Board Forum just now and there was indeed a formal vote. There were also extracts from the legal opinion the Board received after the JG matter. (There was not a new legal opinion). I remembered this bit of legal advice. "Once done it is done" However there was also advice that in the event of a withdrawal of resignation the Board could vote to either accept or reject the withdrawal. A Proper Board vote was held and the majority of the Board has voted to accept the withdrawal.

 

I voted no, but my vote had no relevance. Jim is correct in his post above. Until my vote tonight there were no, NO votes. A majority had been achieved before I voted. Mine was just a token vote. I must now accept the majority decision. Steve Runciman has been voted back as President.

 

John McK

John,

Can you inform this forum whether the original resolution by the board not to accept a retraction of resignation has ever been rescinded?

 

And if not, do you consider the current motion legal?

 

 

[riverduk]

OK, I have just sent my email to Steve Tizzard, here is a copy for you all to read, must admit, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a reply though,

 

cheers, The Duk

 

"Hi Steve,

 

I just wish to convey my disappointment with todays decision to allow the withdrawal of Mr Runciman’s resignation in light of a previous board decision to dis-allow a withdrawal of resignation of Mr John Gardon in 2008. I would consider that a precedent was set by the board of the day back in 2008 which should have, I believe, been followed today.

 

I have only, up until today, been following the merry go round that is RAA as an aside, as I am basically more interested in flying rather than the politics of it all, but it now appears to me that this is what some or most of the executive want, for members to fly and keep out of their (the board) hair whilst the the RAA is basically ruined by what appears to be a lack of competence somewhere along the line. Four failed CASA audits resulting in aircraft being grounded due probably in most cases to incompetency's at a managerial level rather than from an owners perspective, a lack of presentation of reports of meetings and financial reports in a timely manner, what appears to be a high turn over of staff and executive members and a lack of value for dollars with regard to the supposed changes to the web site along with an overall lack of transparency as claimed by members on a local forum. It is also interesting to note that of the 13 board members listed only 2 have the respect for their members of this organisation to discuss items of interest with said members.

 

I mentioned on the forum tonight that it was my intention to voice my disappointment directly to RAA, to which the overwhelming opinion is that I will not get a reply as, like many other organisations and individuals who have questioned RAA policy recently, I too will be left waiting for a reply , for this I can only come up with 3 reasons, a. You are leaving soon so why bother, b. RAA has something to hide and c. the board and management feel that they are above having to answer to the members who pay for the privilege of being treated as if we don’t exist.

 

I hope that the forum members who tell me I won’t get a reply are wrong but I guess that if I haven’t had a reply in a reasonable time frame, I guess they were right and I will join the long list of dissatisfied RAA members who are still waiting to hear from OUR organisation.

 

I look forward to your earliest reply"

 

 

[dodo]

Inspiring writing. Very well done. Go for it.

 

dodo

 

 

[fly_tornado]

riverduk, you need to send that email to your local rep as well as Uncle Eugene and Uncle Middo as they are what's left of your elected executive.

 

Mr Tizzard is merely an employee of the RAA.

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

I have watched the continual attempts by a small group to undermine the current executive and board. I am one year into my term on the board and represent WA. In the time I have been on the board I have worked hard to get as much as possible for our members, I unashamedly have had my main focus on improving things for our WA members, but haven't forgotten the bigger picture and have worked for the general good of the association.

 

I make it very clear that I take my due diligence very seriously and always vote only for what I honestly believe is the best for the association.

 

The fact is when I came on to the board I found that we have inherited a time bomb that was left from boards and staff long past. Even though the board has made attempts to resolve issues, many years of problems cant be solved overnight. It seems that a portion of our membership wants to blame the current board for things done long before we came on the scene, some of the people stirring the pot on this would have been on the board at the time the stuff ups happened yet are keen to blame the current board for them.

 

I have taken particular note of board members who go beyond what could be reasonably expected. It seems that most of them are the targets of ongoing and cowardly character assassinations from a clique within the membership.

 

The board of RA-Aus is not a paid group, we take the time when we would be flying and sink that into working to try to fix things to let you all keep flying. I have flown less than half my normal flight hours since being on the board, the time I used to fly has been spent arranging events and contributing to board duties. Much of the time I would normally have spent taking my wife out to somewhere special has been spent working for the association. So while you all get on this forum and slag off at the board we have put our lives on hold to work for you.

 

I can honestly say that I have acted at all times with integrity and honour as a member of the RA-Aus board. I have answered all member queries put to me both expeditiously and accurately. I have voted my own vote making my decisions on what I believe is best for the association.

 

My door has always been open and I have always taken calls from members when they wanted to discuss anything. The answers I have given are always honest and if I dont know the answer to a question I find it and get the information back expeditiously.

 

If any member has anything that they believe that I have done wrong during my time on the board, or if they feel that I have neglected my duties then I would like to hear it.

 

Gavin Thobaven

 

 

[Guest john]

To All Interested RAAus Members,

 

Over the past few days sufficient factual information has come too hand regarding the incompetent & negligent actions of the Executive Board & CEO to now determine the most practical & effective method with which to rid this organisation of the severe cancer that has rapidly spread through our organisation& in particular the Executive Board

 

Several past political world events have shown us little people the effectiveness & strength in PEOPLE POWER

 

Sometimes we have do take unwanted medicines to cure the cause of the illness.

 

Concerning the actions of the President resigning & next withdrawing his resignation, this could be likened to saying that one is only 1/2 pregnant, or better still, you can't unscramble an egg.

 

The Board Executive are acting how they want to without due consideration to other board members & rank & file members, which is unconscionable & untolerable in this day & age.

 

If thats the way they want to act, then thats their choice but eventually it is going to be at their own peril as sure as night follows day.

 

NOW THE MOST PRACTICAL & EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR THE RANK & FILE MEMBERS TO GET RID OF THE DEAD WOOD ON THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, IS WELL ON THE WAY TO BEING FULFILLED.

 

WHEN THE EXTROARDINARY GENERAL MEETING IS CONDUCTED, WHICH IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REQUISITIONED BY US MEMBERS, A MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE & INSTANT DISMISSAL OF ALL THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS IS TO BE TABLED & VOTED ON AT THAT MEETING & IF CARRIED BY A MAJORITY OF VOTES BY US MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE MEETING THEN ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PACK THEIR RESPECTIVE BAGS IMMEDIATELY & WALK OR RUN OUT OF THE MEETING WITH THEIR TAIL BETWEEN THEIR LEGS.

 

 

[JohnMcK]

John,Can you inform this forum whether the original resolution by the board not to accept a retraction of resignation has ever been rescinded?

And if not, do you consider the current motion legal?

Hi JG

 

As far as I am aware that resolution still stands, but as I lost all my files in the Brisbane flood I can't be sure of the exact wording. If the wording was not to except a resignation withdrawal, then this Resolution should have been rescinded first, before the vote was cast.

 

Yes, I consider it legal. The vote was properly conducted. A majority of the Board voted to accept Steve Runciman's withdrawal of his resignation. For information purposes the Board vote is Yes, No, Abstain. It is optional secret voting in that you can just vote, or you can give an explanation of how you voted and why you voted that way.

 

Proper procedure was perhaps not followed. Eg. Vote to rescind the old resolution (if it is as I remember it). Then Vote to except the withdrawal of resignation of the NQ Rep. (SR not only resigned as President but as NQ Rep. There was legal advice to say this could be done). Then vote for SR to fill the vacant President's position.

 

Riverduct. You sent your letter to the wrong person. Steve Tizzard is the CEO. he does not get involved in politics. He can not reply to your questions, except to say he has received your correspondence. You must direct political or policy questions to your local Board Member and the Executive.

 

John McK

 

 

[turboplanner]

I wonder what ASIC would do if a group of members had a chat to their local member of the non-labor varity.'Can the minister for transport (or whatever department they call it now) please advise the house on what efforts are being made to insure that some 3000 small aircraft and 8000 pilots are being regulated and managed correctly'

I have spoken to the Shadow Minister on another matter, but unfortunately he is one of those happy go lucky professional politicians in a safe seat well past having the attack dog nature needed to get the Minister who seems a bit overwhelmed with understanding the different facets of transport to fire up the Director. It needs more of the story to come out in the open, and the fatalities to show up.

 

In any case, if it did get to an embarrassing question, the reaction would start with CASA - a bit like throwing a grenade at close quarters - there would be shrapnel coming our way as well.

 

The situation is still relatively easy to fix internally (within RAA), and the gaffes and actions of the last few days should make that easier, with more and more people realising there really is a serious problem, and the nest people to fix it are the members, and more of them.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There was legal advice to say this could be done

John, legal advice is always given on the basis of what the solicitor was told, and what's reported in this case is that Runciman reported to the board members the solicitor's advice that he alleged was given.

 

If a concerned board member put the story which is emerging here to a solicitor AND MOST IMPORTANTLY mentioned the precedent vote by the board, another solicitor may well have given a different opinion.

 

So the situation is like a loaded gun. It could well be found that the second advice was the correct advice, in which case, as I've mentioned before, any action Runciman took after he resigned becomes very significant, and now, as a result of some board members ignoring the precedent and accepting what he said, they also could face some serious consequences, particularly since it appears some board members were excluded from the vote.

 

If a serious issue comes up in this period there could be very serious consequences for the people involved, but the quickest fix for this fiasco is just to move the participants on at a General Meeting.

 

The good thing coming out of this is that some board members are emerging as valuable representatives to be kept at all costs.

 

 

[JohnMcK]

John, legal advice is always given on the basis of what the solicitor was told, and what's reported in this case is that Runciman reported to the board members the solicitor's advice that he alleged was given.If a concerned board member put the story which is emerging here to a solicitor AND MOST IMPORTANTLY mentioned the precedent vote by the board, another solicitor may well have given a different opinion.

So the situation is like a loaded gun. It could well be found that the second advice was the correct advice, in which case, as I've mentioned before, any action Runciman took after he resigned becomes very significant, and now, as a result of some board members ignoring the precedent and accepting what he said, they also could face some serious consequences, particularly since it appears some board members were excluded from the vote.

 

If a serious issue comes up in this period there could be very serious consequences for the people involved, but the quickest fix for this fiasco is just to move the participants on at a General Meeting.

 

The good thing coming out of this is that some board members are emerging as valuable representatives to be kept at all costs.

Hi Turbo,

 

As far as I am aware there was no second advice obtained by anyone. Posted on the Board Forum was the original legal advice from the JG incident for Board Member information. I have already made mention about this above.

 

No one was "excluded" from the vote. Voting is open for a full seven days to allow participation of all Board members. If members vote early and a majority is achieved then the vote is carried. In theory, you could have a vote result within half a minute or so of the vote being posted if a majority voted quickly. Or it could be a full seven days before a result could be declared.

 

John McK

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks John, good system.

 

 

[Gentreau]

Thanks John, good system.

Is it really a good system ? Not in my opinion.

 

Seems to me like it favours the status quo and allows those who are worried about rocking the boat to effectively abstain from voting as "a majority has already been reached". It also favours a small majority group (some of whom may be under pressure to tow the line). You will never know what the sentiment really was on the board as 49% of them don't ever need to vote. How will you know whether the full vote would have been 51%/49% or 95%/5% ?? It would also be interesting to know how the system defines those who did not vote before the majority is reached (abstained?).

 

IMHO the only truly fair way to vote on board matters is a secret ballot with 100% obligatory participation. That way the individual members cannot be subjected to pressure or revenge and the true level of support for any motion is communicated by the vote.

 

 

[kaz3g]

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.

Hi TP

 

I don't believe that is necessary at all.

 

If the organisation runs out of insurance and cash reserves and realisable assets then it will fold... Bankrupt.

 

Then, like Phoenix arising from the ashes, a new organisation will be put into its place. No doubt a differently structured organisation, and a more closely regulated and monitored one, but still one to manage the 13000 and growing number of active pilots and owners outside of CASA's immediate procedural management responsibilities.

 

I also don't think talk of mass sackings of Board and or employees is helpful either. I do think that they need a management consultancy on tap to provide governance and other managements training to elected officials appropriate to their position on the Board. I do think it needs to be run as a business, a company with BOARD members matching as Board members and not amateur managers of the organisation. I do think it needs far tighter policies and procedures and help to develop them. And I think it needs audit processes that look not just at the financial end of year stuff but also at its regulatory/admin functions and discharge of those responsibilities.

 

Kaz

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

Is it really a good system ? Not in my opinion.Seems to me like it favours the status quo and allows those who are worried about rocking the boat to effectively abstain from voting as "a majority has already been reached". It also favours a small majority group (some of whom may be under pressure to tow the line). You will never know what the sentiment really was on the board as 49% of them don't ever need to vote. How will you know whether the full vote would have been 51%/49% or 95%/5% ?? It would also be interesting to know how the system defines those who did not vote before the majority is reached (abstained?).

 

IMHO the only truly fair way to vote on board matters is a secret ballot with 100% obligatory participation. That way the individual members cannot be subjected to pressure or revenge and the true level of support for any motion is communicated by the vote.

Gentreau there's the philosphical and there's the practical - we are not talking about a full organization vote here, just a dozen people.

 

If a majority is reached the vote is not going top change

 

The reason I say that particular method used in that particular context is a good system is that fast decisions can be made by people in widespread geographic locations, and is not delayed by someone being away on holidays, overseas, at a wedding etc.

 

Those decisions are always reversible, and where one or two of the group strongly disagrees they are usually on the phone very quickly calling for a reversal.