RAAus General Meeting Called

[DGL Fox]

It will certainly be interesting to see how many actually turn up for the meeting and how many proxies in total will be presented out of a membership of thousands..

 

I personally can not give my vote to people I have not met, when all I have read about their views is either on this forum or in other forms of media (our magazine), I would not give my vote to a politician from only what he has said or written and then let him go with my vote to a meeting that I can not attend, there is just no way I can do that.

 

I won't go over again about all that has been said about web cams and all of that stuff to be set up at the meeting so that all can see what's going on, it' a good idea by the way, but I will say this, that until something like that IS set up for these meetings no one will get my vote.

 

Out of the thousands of members in RA-Aus it would be interesting to see who else thinks like this, I am sorry to say that there will be a minority group that will drive the direction of our association into the future...until a fair and open playing field for ALL members is brought about..IMO..

 

I for one will be glad when all of this is over and we can get back to talking about things we all enjoy talking about..flying..

 

David

 

 

[Guest Error404]

I heard that a professional mediator will have to run the meeting because normally that is the job of the president however with the lynch mob suggesting he isn't the president it wouldn't go down very well if he tried to run it would it !

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

David

 

I respect your views, however claiming that a minority group will set the direction is a function of you not attending or providing your proxy, not that the minority group (in excess of 300 members) called out the current board for performance that is in our view unacceptable.

 

Perhaps Im being overly sensitive, but your post infers that me, as part of the minority group who has spent hundred of $ hosting conference calls and has spent near on $1000 to be able to go to the meeting, is somehow to blame for wanting our direction towards a clliff changed!

 

Your details say you fly a tecnam, last I checked there is a hell of a lot of $ tied up in that, and I bet its insured every year....In fact when costs of funds and hangar costs and RAAus costs are considered I suspect that like me your flying habit costs you well in excess of $10k to 15k per year so I struggle to understand why as one of the stakeholders who has the most to loose you would allow a minority to set the direction? It was never our intent to remain a small minority nor to drive direction on our own, but if you for whatever reason cant attnd or provide a proxy then what are we to do????

 

If you wont provide a proxy (as is your absolute right!) and you wont come to the meeting then to my mind you loose the ability to complain about a small group somehow driving direction. The best way of assuring that is not the case is to bloodywell go to Canberra and be part of the decision tree!

 

Those things like the ability to use technology to braodcast meetings, we respect the fact that we are limited by the constitution. If you want that changed then as an ordinary member it is as much within your power to change as anyone else, however constitutional timing constraints mean that if you and others that have decided they cant or wont attend do then see a video of the meeting it will be after the fact, not in real time! There is the General Meeting at Natfly however so why dont you and others (I'd be pleased to be a part) start putting a special resolution together to have the constitution changed so that this limitation is removed and teh board directed to have the technology in place for all future meetings!

 

Im sorry if Ive overreacted, but I'm the one that is saying to my family sorry those things you want will have to wait because this is more important and your post infers that it is not

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Why have wages to RAA staff blown out from $508,729 in 2008 to $1,075,708 in 2012 over 5 years years or by over 111% and in this tough economic times?

I'm surprised no alarm bells have gone off here............

 

You're getting these levels of pay increases are you?

 

Do the accounts show where that money actually went?

 

That by the way is YOUR money.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree with you Andy.

 

I can accept that some members are not computer literate.

 

I can accept that some members have difficulty concentrating on reading long documents

 

I can accept that forums are dogs breakfasts of posts with hopeless indexing.

 

But none of that excuses a naked attack on the very people who are trying to protect members freedoms, interests and finances.

 

And as you say Andy, some of these people have donated thousands of dollars on behalf of their fellow aviators.

 

 

[facthunter]

General apathy will perpetuate the Status Quo. The reliance on no-one doing anything is part of the thought music that has brought about the current situation. They genuinely see it this way. Do the job and the membership will accept it. Circumstances are not such that you can accept this anymore. You don't know what you've lost till it's gone. Of course none of this is pleasant. Difficult things never are, but the correct things don't always just happen either. Nev

 

 

[JohnMcK]

I'm surprised no alarm bells have gone off here............

You're getting these levels of pay increases are you?

 

Do the accounts show where that money actually went?

 

That by the way is YOUR money.

Alarm Bells did go off Turbo, but no one listened. I was Treasurer at the time, but only served one year due to large philosophical differences to the then President and Secretary. (No association wants discord in the Ex.)

 

I made a great effort at the time to bring this matter to the attention of the membership. But in the end it is up to the General Membership to set the direction they want their Association to follow.

 

Any business must look at its cost per unit. In our case the unit is the member. So we must look at the cost per unit member. This should always be fairly static, or even decrease slightly with member increase, as the fixed cost component of our business, is spread wider. One issue I always look at is the employee cost per member. This is the most important number of all. Many a great business has been brought down by employee costs getting out of control. And it is not just a business that can be brought down. Nations or states will be bankrupted by excessive public employee costs on the nation. We, as taxpayers should also be very concerned at the cost of Government per individual citizen.

 

But back to the issue at hand. The employee costs per unit member, instead of remaining static, have exploded over the past few years. I think some of us have the mentality of spend, spend, spend, and then increase member fees to pay for the excessive spending. (Just like our Government)

 

Treasurer’s Special Report to the members at the 2009 AGM

 

November 2009 special AGM

 

This is a special update report I would like to bring up to the membership.

 

I am concerned that the rate of increase in Employee Expenses is unsustainable.

 

Our mission statement says “Minimum Bureaucracy” yet in the last two years we have allowed a significant increase in bureaucracy to occur, without a similar corresponding increase in our membership. I must state here that some of this increase in bureaucracy has been forced on us by CASA, but the majority appears to be of our making.

 

In Fiscal 08 our employee expenses were $508,729. In Fiscal 09 these costs jumped to $651,410, and in Fiscal 10 they are estimated to reach $825,000. This is an increase in two years of over $361K. Or an increase of 62%. All this with our membership remaining fairly static.

 

Of real concern to me as Treasurer, was the large salary increases granted by the Board at the recent September meeting. When most Australians received little or no wage increases in 2009 due to the economic climate, the board, as a whole chose to approve increases of between 8% for junior office staff, and up to 25% for managers. On top of these increases we must now budget for all the “add on” costs. I am the first to agree that our staff are our greatest asset, but we are a non profit association, funded in the main by member fees. It is my personal belief that we must live within our means.

 

However it can also be argued that we need to pay the right money to gain and keep the right staff. I see it as my duty as your treasurer to bring this matter to your attention. What you choose to do with this information is entirely up to you. You are the membership. You are the association.

 

To bring this into perspective we really must look at the cost per individual member.

 

In previous years our employee cost per member was running at around $56 to $57 per member. This jumped to $68 per member in F09 and I now estimated this to hit $90 per member in F10. An increase of over 60% in just two years.

 

As treasurer I believe we must seriously address the rate of increase in our employee costs. If it can be shown that some of the increase is due to CASA requirements then I believe we need to seek some cost recovery from CASA. But we, as an association need to “own” this issue, and deal with it appropriately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graph of employee costs per individual member over time.

 

Finally, I won’t be seeking re-election as Treasurer, but I would urge the incoming treasurer to be very vigilant to prevent our costs getting out of proportion to our membership levels.

 

However, we are an association, and you people, our membership, may be quite comfortable with these increases. But I believe, as unpopular as it may be for me, it is my duty as your Treasurer to bring this matter to the attention of the membership.

 

John McKeown

 

RAA Treasurer.

 

Nov 2009

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Andy,

 

I respect your views, however claiming that a minority group will set the direction is a function of you not attending or providing your proxy, not that the minority group (in excess of 300 members) called out the current board for performance that is in our view unacceptable.

I believe that a minority is less than 50% of any club or entity?

 

Perhaps Im being overly sensitive, but your post infers that me, as part of the minority group who has spent hundred of $ hosting conference calls and has spent near on $1000 to be able to go to the meeting, is somehow to blame for wanting our direction towards a clliff changed!

No I respect your opinions as I expect you to do with mine, but I am sorry, I didn't ask you or anyone to spend your own money on conference calls etc.

 

It was never our intent to remain a small minority nor to drive direction on our own, but if you for whatever reason cant attnd or provide a proxy then what are we to do????

See Andy this one of the problems, you say that you don't intend to stay a minority, well get up on your soap box and open up and tell everyone what you and your group intend to do now (before the meeting)and into the future, maybe then you will get more members (and proxies)to side with you and your group, and I am not saying this just for your group, but all the others should do the same if they want to be supported by the majority.

 

If you wont provide a proxy (as is your absolute right!) and you wont come to the meeting then to my mind you loose the ability to complain about a small group somehow driving direction. The best way of assuring that is not the case is to bloodywell go to Canberra and be part of the decision tree!

Yes it is my right were my vote goes, and I would love to come to Canberra to voice my opinion but that is not possible right now. The Webinar is an idea that must be used in the future IMO.

 

Those things like the ability to use technology to braodcast meetings, we respect the fact that we are limited by the constitution

Yes that is a definate thing that has to happen if we want the bulk of our membership to be involved.

 

Im sorry if Ive overreacted, but I'm the one that is saying to my family sorry those things you want will have to wait because this is more important and your post infers that it is not

Like I said Andy if you have chosen to spend your own money and time to the detriment of your family that is entirely your business, but I then have to ask what do you and your group expect in return for this sacrifice?

Andy, I'm am sure you are an honest and a good guy but from where I sit, and as do many others I would imagine, I just see someone speaking words to me in a forum, with all due respect I don't know you from a bar of soap as I don't know anyone else on this forum personally, I just don't feel for this reason I can give anyone here my vote, maybe that will change in the future but as of right now, no..sorry that's just the way I feel about it.

 

David

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

........See Andy this one of the problems, you say that you don't intend to stay a minority, well get up on your soap box and open up and tell everyone what you and your group intend to do now (before the meeting)and into the future, maybe then you will get more members (and proxies)to side with you and your group, and I am not saying this just for your group, but all the others should do the same if they want to be supported by the majority.......David

Once more with Gusto..........

 

We dont have any plans that are concrete yet, how can we, we havent yet any answers to why things are as they are.

 

To be put simply sh!t happens sometimes despite the best planning of mem and mice, other times youg get sh!t because you've not done the PPPPPP thing!

 

Now it would be simple to say it was all of the former and none of the latter, or vice versa but I suspect that would be a political stance rather than real world where there will be mixes of both.

 

So.......Once we have heard what the answers are and can process that then I suspect that motions from the floor will be formed.

 

Despite everything you said, it does not change the fact that, if a minority sets the direction of the organisation it will be because the vast majority of members, despite heaps of warning dont come to the meetings or provide proxys, not becuase the constitutionally defined amount of members felt that we needed a meeting!

 

An but I then have to ask what do you and your group expect in return for this sacrifice?

Absolutely nothing more than what we we believe we should be getting now, a normalised relationship with CASA where we meet our obligations to each other, regular full and frank communications from the board, a warts and all view of the good the bad and the ugly within RAAus and a plan to fix the bad and the ugly. I personally want the GM/CEO role to act like a GM/CEO and allow the board back to being the final point of decision as an exception rather than the rule.

If what you are asking is, do the minority have an agenda to be asking for the 10,000ft limit to be removed, or the ability to have a turbine engine or multiengine or CTA access, none of those things has ever been discussed within the group and if it was Im sure the answer would be, the board as part of setting overall strategy for RAAus should set those things not us! Are we thinking we will become the board...No definately not, if we need new board members then it will happen exactly as it should as a result of the elections the constitution and by-laws call for not as the result of a GM outcome.

 

Andy, I'm am sure you are an honest and a good guy

Correct, but Im close enough to me to know Im biased! I know words alone mean nothing as youve identified in your previous post, but I can assure you (FWIW) I only want us to be part of a sound national organisation that becuase of good governance and clear management and roles and responsibilities can allow me to do my flying thing free of fear of that being curtailed in any way. Im not a political beast, This (and the AGM constitutional changes) are the first time Ive ever been involved in a political debate at all, I hope it will be the last time as well!

 

Andy

 

 

[Captain]

well get up on your soap box and open up and tell everyone what you and your group intend to do now (before the meeting)and into the future,

David,

 

I'll have a crack at telling you what I intend to do at the meeting.

 

I intend to ensure that the meeting achieves exactly what was stated in the requisition, being:

 

As required by Rule 23 (iii) (a) of the constitution the purpose of the meeting has been stated as being for:

 

1. The Board Executive and Board Members to give an account to the Members of 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.

 

And I will make up my mind on what actions I consider are best for RAA based on the above.

 

But a caviat on that is that this Executive and Board have, in my considered opinion, managed the RAA poorly on a number of matters on which I (for one) intend to question them at the Feb 9th meeting, including but not limited to CASA removing the RAA's Charter, which after all is RAA's sole reason for being in existance and for us being members.

 

Now if you or others can't attend the meeting, that is regretable, but if you can't find someone that you trust with your instructions for the application of your Proxy, well that is a shame and is totally your call.

 

Those are issues associated with a national organisation and the constitution that we have.

 

HOWEVER, if you don't attend and don't choose to arrange your proxy then your defacto position is that you are, in fact, accepting the status quo and you are choosing to allow RAA to continue along its present path with the present Executive, Board Member and systems doing what they have always done ...... or you are relying on the members who do attend or provide a proxy to make the decisions for you. That is your call but I, for one, can't see how any informed member can allow the present situation to continue when these guys have limped from management and governance disaster to disaster for a few years now, the latest being this fiasco with the recruitment of the new GM.

 

If you can't exercise your vote some way then that is unfortunate, but I urge all other members to attend if they can, to hear & evaluate what is said, then respond as they see fit.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Andy and Captain I thankyou for you responses...

 

 

[Spriteah]

For the record I have not be been consulted or new of the letter on the raa web site. I will comment further when in front of my computer.

 

 

[Admin]

I have just received a letter from Middleton, the RAAus Secretary, the same as what is on the RAAus web site together with a Proxy form and a no stamp required envelop to send it back. To me, it can only be seen as electioneering to give Committee Members my proxy due to a one sided letter that does not contain all the facts based on why the meeting was called in the first place...it isn't common decency and is it even legal?

 

I mean, if the Secretary can send out a letter to every single member saying what he wants to say without 100% board approval for any and every General Meeting that can ever be called, by the members under their own constitution, then doesn't this make a complete mockery of our "Association"

 

 

[fly_tornado]

desperate times call for desperate measures! Need I remind you that your RAA fees are at work...

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Let's hope that members outside of this forum that are not aware of what is really going on treat this letter and proxy like the majority do when voting and ignore it.

 

Maybe if what Middo is doing can be classed as illegal those proxies that he receives can be deemed invalid.

 

Time to call in the Feds?

 

 

[Captain]

For the record I have not be been consulted or new of the letter on the raa web site. I will comment further when in front of my computer.

Jim,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

To All RAA Members

 

How can the Secretary send a letter which is soliciting proxies for all Board Members without telling all Board Members?

 

That is bizarre .............. but typical of the way that the Executive operated on a number of issues over recent years, when they then informed the Board if they feel inclined or need a retrospective approval.

 

If Middo was as good at administering RAA as he is at playing the shifty proxy politics around the Feb 9th meeting, perhaps RAA wouldn't be in the mess that it is.

 

And wait until you read Steve R's sickly piece in the next magazine. He welcomes members having a say, he is the great communicator and he looks forward to Feb 9th. Yet we know time after time where he doesn't allow some Board Members to have a say and he does not follow due process at that level.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Captain]

For the record I have not be been consulted or new of the letter on the raa web site. I will comment further when in front of my computer.

Also for RAA Members,

 

What Jim has posted here was also confirmed by John McK in his recent note to the members in his region.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy and Captain I thankyou for you responses...

In retrospect I fired up and probably did nothing to assist you with your problem Sorry about that...... Is there no one from your local area that is going to the Canberra meeting that you can provide a proxy too and who you know? We have always stated that if you cant go then its best you provide a proxy and a briefing on what you want done with your proxy to someone you know. Choosing me or one of the others is a fallback position if you dont have that better option available to you

 

Anyone here from Caboolture that is going that could meet David and discuss the concerns that he has?

 

With regards the technology question, the very first thing that has to happen is that the constitution needs to be changed to make the use of technology a required part of our meeting structure and to address the mechanisms of voting from such technology.

 

Now from my perspective I believe that the high level concept is what should be in the constitution, and the exact details of how, which will change year to year as technology does, should be in the by-laws. Given the rate of change I would prefer to have By-Laws changed which require board endorsement and member notification rather than try and get constitutional change through every time we have technology drive a process change.

 

I would be keen to work with anyone who would like to be involved in crafting and proposing those changes with a view that if we really pull our finger out we might even get it in place for a vote at Natfly (which would infer that it could be in place for this years AGM)........Would be a very positive piece of work for what could be a couple of tough meetings coming up.

 

Is there anyone who would interested in working with us to achieve that?

 

We can start immediately, but for obvious reasons priority at least for me will be the Feb 9th meeting first and foremost

 

So, whose up for a challenge??

 

Andy

 

 

[dodo]

DGL Fox,

 

while I agree with some of your comments, I take issue with the whole "minority" bit. I don't know Andy or David Issacs from a bar of soap (outside this forum). I have become overtime, concerned with what goes on in RA-Aus - my club's aircraft being grounded for a few days a while ago, some odd references in the mag, but nothing substantive, until all the recent issues which clearly require some explanation (failing multiple follow-up audits, inability to provide minutes or financial statements, staffing issues particularly Adam Finn sudden and unexplained departure).

 

So I am concerned. And I put my name to the request for a General Meeting for that reason.

 

I don't know whether I am in a minority or not. I hope not. If I am in a minority, I think we have a problem. I'm not a part of any conspiracy, nor do I know anyone who is.

 

I can't see any other way within our constitution of getting an explanation (yes, I tried contacting board members with varying success, got a lot more info by contacting an EX-board member, which doesn't improve my outlook!)

 

And I have no idea how we can get most or all members to a meeting, physical or electronically. So I can't see how we can get an explanation from the board with you (and many others like you) present without your action.

 

So find someone who you trust who is going. Get them to ring you when a motion is proposed and get your voting intention. Or give them instructions. I believe there are a number or members of known integrity to whom you could give a proxy with instructions. One suggestion might be that you get John McKeown to take your proxy and ask him to vote against any motion that might prejudice further action - ie you want substantive motions to be presented in advance of the Natfly meetings, which would then give you a chance to review this meetings discussion, and decide on the new motions?

 

What I am getting at, as politely as possible, is that you have two choices:

 

1 ignore the issue because it IS difficult when you live in a remote area, let alone half a continent away;

 

2 take what action you reasonably can (get your board member to understand your concerns very clearly, work out how you can use your proxy vote, whatever you can think of!)

 

I think your position is that other members may attend and vote, and are in a position to attend and vote, where it is very difficult for you to do so. The logical outcome of that is none of us should attend and vote!

 

dodo

 

 

[Teckair]

desperate times call for desperate measures! Need I remind you that your RAA fees are at work...

Yes and we have had clowns suggesting the fees should be increased.

 

 

[facthunter]

An influentual board member soliciting proxies. I have seen this done before. Many would feel obligated to retutn it fearing that they might be treated better (curry favour) IF the do go along with the "authority".. Whether this is legal or not. It is just wrong. What's the idea? Get all together and outvote them and send the troublemakers home with nothing? Not happy Alice Nev

 

 

[winsor68]

I have just received a letter from Middleton, the RAAus Secretary, the same as what is on the RAAus web site together with a Proxy form and a no stamp required envelop to send it back.

If anyone else has received one of these please speak up... This is VERY serious if OUR money was used to do this.

 

 

[Brian F]

If anyone else has received one of these please speak up... This is VERY serious if OUR money was used to do this.

I received one today.

 

 

[Captain]

If anyone else has received one of these please speak up... This is VERY serious if OUR money was used to do this.

Spot on. Remember that the main reason for not having the meeting earlier was to "save money".

 

But all is fair, and hang the expense, in Middo's grubby grab for proxies.

 

And the Feb Magazine is on the way at the same time. I know someone who already has it.

 

This is a shocking abuse of power ...... and member's funds.

 

 

[winsor68]

Also IMO of VERY serious concern is the fact that Paul Middleton has posted all of the Board Members Addresses online. Did all the Board Members agree to this? I know that the phone numbers are available on the Ra-Aus website but I personally would feel a bit "odd" about having my physical home address spread about in such a cavalier fashion.

 

I am amazed that someone has said don't underestimate them... You have got to be kidding!!! Surely this is the end of the line?