President Resigns ** Then Thinks about it **

[Gentreau]

.....Seing as I am the only ex president posting on here ......

Some might say that the recently resigned president is still legally an ex-president .....

 

.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Tiger can you clear up which ex president you were referring to; this really is a loaded gun if Runciman legally has no status other than member and is making decisions and communicating without authorisation because those decisions and communications (which might well be with CASA) may not be legal.

 

 

[pbugg]

Jim, good luck with your board position, I hope you are a breath of fresh air. Please do not disappoint us.

 

The problem as I see it, and I have good valid reasons for saying this, is it would appear the Exec of RAA have developed the habit of "we know everything, just leave us alone, we know what we are doing, look mummy no hands"

 

They have refused to accept advice, offers of help from members with greater knowledge than themselves. Most on the board have great experience of managing really small business, and/or running a one man band flight school. I cannot think of one who would cut it in the cooperate world in their own right.

 

The old Chinese proverb "you get the politicians you deserve" rings true here.

 

I think part of the solution is to pries a few eyes open so they may see, clean out ears so they can listen, sew a few lips shut so they cannot put their foot in.

 

We need a forced change of direction before it is too late.

 

 

[Admin]

Posted on the RAAus web site today:

 

I have received a number of emails expressing concern about the resignation of Mr Steve Runciman as President of RA-Aus. Some members make reference to a precedent that was set in 2008 when former President resigned and was not permitted to withdraw his resignation, however, on 3rd May 2012, another Board Member notified the Board of his resignation. Shortly after, he changed his mind and was permitted by the Board to stay on as a Board Member.

 

I am satisfied that due process has been followed in this matter and as a result Mr Runciman remains the President of RA-Aus.

 

P.Middleton (Middo)

 

Secretary

 

RA-Aus

 

 

[Gibbo]

I must confess that I feel that doing it the proper way is no weight to carry. I find lately that few councils etc seem to worry about rules. They can't be there just to ignore or use as you see fit. If you think that this categorises me as some lacking in initiative boring unimaginative type be advised that I am a bit of a devil's advocate, and stirrer at times, but abiding with the rules gives order and predictability. It's a no brainer as far as Im concerned. Nev

Im lucky where I am living.. Cardinia Shire is functional and the Mayor is always happy to have a chat.. (plus he lives just down the street!). What ever happened to 'Best Practice'.

 

 

[Captain]

Posted on the RAAus web site today:I have received a number of emails expressing concern about the resignation of Mr Steve Runciman as President of RA-Aus. Some members make reference to a precedent that was set in 2008 when former President resigned and was not permitted to withdraw his resignation, however, on 3rd May 2012, another Board Member notified the Board of his resignation. Shortly after, he changed his mind and was permitted by the Board to stay on as a Board Member.

 

I am satisfied that due process has been followed in this matter and as a result Mr Runciman remains the President of RA-Aus.

 

P.Middleton (Middo)

 

Secretary

 

RA-Aus

I am one of those who has written. My enquiry concentrated on the fact that SR also resigned as Nth Qld Rep, the direct consequence of that being that he must therefore no longer have any position on the Board. Due process for that circumstance is clearly spelt out in the Constitution. Middo's above note does not address that at all, so I'll wait on a further response from him.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Posted on the RAAus web site today:I have received a number of emails expressing concern about the resignation of Mr Steve Runciman as President of RA-Aus. Some members make reference to a precedent that was set in 2008 when former President resigned and was not permitted to withdraw his resignation, however, on 3rd May 2012, another Board Member notified the Board of his resignation. Shortly after, he changed his mind and was permitted by the Board to stay on as a Board Member.

 

I am satisfied that due process has been followed in this matter and as a result Mr Runciman remains the President of RA-Aus.

 

P.Middleton (Middo)

 

Secretary

 

RA-Aus

What happened in May wouldn't necessarily carry any weight; it looks like there are in fact two current questions rather than one.

 

 

[ports]

I am one of those who has written. My enquiry concentrated on the fact that SR also resigned as Nth Qld Rep, the direct consequence of that being that he must therefore no longer have any position on the Board. Due process for that circumstance is clearly spelt out in the Constitution. Middo's above note does not address that at all, so I'll wait on a further response from him.

Not only is it clearly spelt out in the constitution, but I feel that given the resignation seems to have been written, as opposed the spoken in the heat of the moment, surely it would have to stand. This appears to be the case in employment law, given it is a clear, considered and deliberate act of resignation (from what I can found from google anyway). Several cases seem to have upheld such views in the past.

 

 

[riverduk]

Well ladies and gentlemen, regarding the email I sent to Steve Tizzard the other night, we are both right and wrong, right in that he probably was the wrong person to contact and wrong in that he wouldn't reply, his reply was short and too the point, but at least he replied, here it is in full:-

 

"Ross

 

Good morning.

 

I note your concerns but do not wish to comment as the matters are beyond my area of responsibility.

 

As you can see from the above I have forwarded your email to the Executive.

 

Regards

 

Steve Tizzard"

 

So, I too, am now one of those who have voiced my concerns to the executive.

 

Having read through this forum's latest posts again to get up to date since yesterday I would like to add, if all this is as it has been reported on this forum with regard Mr Runciman resigning as N Qld rep as well as President of RAA and the constitution says what is reported then I would call upon the Executive to get correct legal advice regarding this matter, do the correct thing, as per the constitution and clear this up once and for all, no more assumptions, no more jumping to delusions, (sorry, conclusions) both from the executive as well as members both on this forum as well as in the greater community. Make the conclusions and actions both clear and transparent for all to see and understand, with an appropriate explanation as too why they have done what they have done, at least this way wether we like it or not, we will have a full understanding of how they arrived at their outcome.

 

To me, at present it appears that there is a lot of suspicion of the Executive within the membership, wether that is warranted or not I can't comment but what does worry me is that, as we members continue to clash with the Executive, who are also members, it brings all of the RAA under closer scrutiny of not only CASA but also other areas of the community, including people who may well be considering learning to fly AND joining the RAA to do so, personally I don't believe that we are presenting a very good picture to those on the outside looking in.

 

Yes I want answers, truthful and transparent, but I also want to be a part of an organisation that I can be proud of, one that I can recommend to others as a great group to be a member of, not just an organisation I have to be a part of to enjoy my hobby, flying. It is time to stop the potential self destruction of RAA and get together to strengthen what should be a great organisation to be a part of, if we don't, well, CASA may not want to run the show but they won't stand by and not act, I enjoy my flying to much to loose it this way.

 

Just my two pence worth,

 

Cheers, The Duk

 

 

[Gibbo]

How many members of the board are elected unopposed in their area? And could this be an issue in the make up of the board?

 

Eugune - Tas (for example only).

 

 

[turboplanner]

It could be an issue Gibbo because they are not tested by competition, but that's not their fault, it's the fault of complacent members who couldn't care less and don't bother to carry out their obligation to self administer their association, and I'd be surprised if a few of those hadn't been on here complaining now that their wasted votes have backfired on them.

 

 

[Gibbo]

It could be an issue Gibbo because they are not tested by competition, but that's not their fault, it's the fault of complacent members who couldn't care less and don't bother to carry out their obligation to self administer their association, and I'd be surprised if a few of those hadn't been on here complaining now that their wasted votes have backfired on them.

Its the question of the lack of competition that I was trying to raise.. How many times have they not faced an electral test?

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

When nominations were open for North Qld, a member of this forum was thinking about putting himself forward, and a good candidate he would have been too, but when it was indicated who he would be standing against, he stepped back and the incumbent was elected was unopposed.

 

It is a big ask, to stand against a sitting member, especially one with many years on the Board as the voters who "just want to fly" will favour the status quo ("I'm still flying - why rock the boat" mentality). I know a number of RAA members (and I'm a member myself) and the assessment of candidates is more along the lines of "has he flown my type of aircraft?" There needs to be a total mind shift to now consider we need management, financial, technical, legal expertise combined with knowledge of sport aviation in all its facets.

 

I would support an honorarium for elected members, but for that I would expect that they took a pro-active role in the running of the organisation and not leave it to the CEO. My local Council became dysfunctional when only the Mayor could speak to the CEO and the CEO would interpret Council policy. Some Councillors collected their $65K and didn't bother attending any Council - Community meetings. Decisions were made by the staff "within policy" that horrified voters and Councillors. Because a Council is local the issues were obvious and only one hard working Councillor was returned, unfortunately no one was game to stand against the Mayor so he was elected unopposed (again). I would like to see the RAA elected Board being able to work alongside the Tech/Ops Officers, admin/finance/management - to ensure the best outcome. We have a wealth of knowledge amongst our members and some of them would have the capacity to help out in varying roles.

 

Sue

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thank goodness our Olympic Ice Hockey team didn't have the same thought process as your member who was thinking of putting himself forward.

 

If he had, he would have gained considerable respect for a start, but right now may have tipped the scales to a much more microscopic look at the events and legalities of the last few days.

 

Your Council issue is not uncommon today and unfortunately was started by Jeffrey Kennett who was frustrated at Local Government pettiness, waste and incompetence which was frustrating council Officers, and introduced the CEO position with powers to overrule elected Councillors who can only do something about it by not renewing his contract. You still see the pantomime in the Chamber, but many decisions are made in meetings outside the chamber.

 

The end result has been a disconnect between ratepayers and decision makers (which used to be their local members) when there was full debate of items and open decisions made in Council. Fortunately not all Councils have ego-driven CEO's, and when you sit in these Council meetings it's like a breath of fresh air.

 

You gave a good parallel example Sue.

 

 

[Macca274]

Well. I've had a bit of catching up to do. The volume of posts precludes me from reading each one so may I ask. As a result of the situation as it stands and with a General Meeting having been called, do any of the main protagonists intend to present themselves as candidates for future elections?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Bad luck Macca, you/re going to have to read all 13 to 15 threads to come up to speed.

 

 

[Macca274]

Bad luck Macca, you/re going to have to read all 13 to 15 threads to come up to speed.

Then I shall continue to plough through - thanks.

 

 

[facthunter]

"Ploughs will be provided".. with acknowledgement to a certain deceased Irish comedian.. Nev

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Well. I've had a bit of catching up to do. The volume of posts precludes me from reading each one so may I ask. As a result of the situation as it stands and with a General Meeting having been called, do any of the main protagonists intend to present themselves as candidates for future elections?

Macca, there were around 300 members who requisitioned the General Meeting. That is not a few trouble makers. While some Board Members may have earned a break from Board duties, the main aim of the General Meeting is to secure a better future for RAAus. An end to nepotism, real two-way communication and no more secrecy! We need a revamp of the Constitution and even the management structure needs modernising. There are 13 Board members. You could sack half and you'd still have enough. We are not short of Board Members but we are short of expertise on the Board and at the top level of Management. You interested?

 

 

[Macca274]

Macca, there were around 300 members who requisitioned the General Meeting. That is not a few trouble makers. While some Board Members may have earned a break from Board duties, the main aim of the General Meeting is to secure a better future for RAAus. An end to nepotism, real two-way communication and no more secrecy! We need a revamp of the Constitution and even the management structure needs modernising. There are 13 Board members. You could sack half and you'd still have enough. We are not short of Board Members but we are short of expertise on the Board and at the top level of Management. You interested?

Where have I suggested anywhere that those leading the charge here were troublemakers. Don't confuse a protagonist with an antagonist. "Am I interested"? you ask. Were I not interested in the situation, then I would hardly use my time to read the information provided and ask questions. Am I interested in a position on The Board? Not at this time.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Macca, my apologies. My post came across as aggressive and worse. It was not intended as such. I'd like to blame text as communication but that would be a cop out. Just poorly expressed. Your question deserved better.

 

 

[Macca274]

None necessary, but thanks for the consideration. This is obviously an issue that has inflamed some tension and I am not fully aware of the facts of the situation. I am making an attempt to sort the wheat from the chaffe in order to better form an opinion. As you can imagine, coming to the situation somewhat late means that there is a deal of analysis to be done. There have been statements made in the form of accusations and allegations and as we all know, there can be a tendency to "Gild the Lilly" somewhat when forcefully putting forth a point of view. Through all of this, I seek to find a middle ground that more accurately reflects the true nature of the situation, its severity or otherwise and possible positive resolutions.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Requisitioning a General Meeting could be seen to be an extreme move. However, it became necessary when the Board Exec failed the No. 1 reason for being of RAAus: members having registered aircraft that they can operate (above ground level) with their pilot certificates. The other primary reason we needed the Board to stand before the members and give an account of their actions and inactions was because they seem to be unable to fully communicate any other way.

 

How we got into this situation, the full truth about this situation and how we are to get out of it and how/why we will never be in this situation again have not, imho, been genuinely forthcoming from the Board Exec. There have been breaches of the Constitution by the Exec in financial and minutes reporting and their attempt to appoint Mr Runciman to the Board after his resignation. There was the unsuccessful attempt by the then President to block reform of the Constitution by cancelling the commission of the Constitution Reform Comittee. The Board has also cancelled the GYFTS committee.

 

We must get from this Board a quantum leap in honest communication with the members. They must take seriously their obligations to CASA for good governance. They must hold sacred the Constitution of RAAus that at the moment they don't even give lip service.

 

Macca, is this an extreme view, middle ground or an understatement?

 

Should the Board Exec stay in office when they have so little regard for the Rules set by the members of RAAus?

 

I'll leave that for you to judge Macca but I would be very interested to hear that judgement from you when you have had time to think about it. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to get the Board's honest view on these matters. They just will not tel us.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The Exec should be IMMEDIATELY SACKED and removed from the premises and the locks to the building changed TODAY.

 

They are a complete and utter insult to all the ordinary members of the association. They are incompetent and are only concerned to their own wellbeing in the RAAus pecking order.

 

If you are a member of the exec and reading this undersdtand this, DCM, it means Don't Come Monday. We have plenty of ordinary members that are more than capable and better qualified to take over your positions.

 

on ya bikes

 

 

[Macca274]

Requisitioning a General Meeting could be seen to be an extreme move. However, it became necessary when the Board Exec failed the No. 1 reason for being of RAAus: members having registered aircraft that they can operate (above ground level) with their pilot certificates. The other primary reason we needed the Board to stand before the members and give an account of their actions and inactions was because they seem to be unable to fully communicate any other way.How we got into this situation, the full truth about this situation and how we are to get out of it and how/why we will never be in this situation again have not, imho, been genuinely forthcoming from the Board Exec. There have been breaches of the Constitution by the Exec in financial and minutes reporting and their attempt to appoint Mr Runciman to the Board after his resignation. There was the unsuccessful attempt by the then President to block reform of the Constitution by cancelling the commission of the Constitution Reform Comittee. The Board has also cancelled the GYFTS committee.

 

We must get from this Board a quantum leap in honest communication with the members. They must take seriously their obligations to CASA for good governance. They must hold sacred the Constitution of RAAus that at the moment they don't even give lip service.

 

Macca, is this an extreme view, middle ground or an understatement?

 

Should the Board Exec stay in office when they have so little regard for the Rules set by the members of RAAus?

 

I'll leave that for you to judge Macca but I would be very interested to hear that judgement from you when you have had time to think about it. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to get the Board's honest view on these matters. They just will not tel us.

Thanks for your reply, Alf. :-) In answer to your questions. I don't consider myself in a position to 'judge' the merits of your comments. What is important is that it is your view and is as entitled to be voiced. The only criteria I set is A) is it truthful?, B) is it factual?, or C) is it reasonable?. Since you have given me no reason to have any doubts then I accept all of the above.

As to the question of the Board Exec remaining in place, I believe that ought to remain unanswered until they have had the opportunity to answer questions as and when they are put. To pre-judge prior to that fails the fairness test. I do note that written responses to questions were incorporated into the minutes of the A.G.M.. For myself, I was satisfied with those responses with the rider that, I am not fully aware of the history (if any) between the parties or the full log of events leading up to the exchange.

 

I continue to inform myself with the help of other members so as to bring myself as fully up to speed with the issues as I can.