RAAus General Meeting Called

[Guest airsick]

Bring it on. These two have to be clowns beyond belief to put up absurd notions like that.Such a proposed motion is a veiled attempt to change the constitution and won't even get to a vote.

More to the point it is an attempt to gag those that are following the correct process by circumventing it through underhanded means.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Never underestimate the veracity of the OBC, if they think they can get by underhanded means, they will try it. It will be interesting to see how much support they garner from the members, I am guessing at this late stage not much as they have no good answer to the question of the groundings.

 

 

[ports]

I am guessing at this late stage not much as they have no good answer to the question of the groundings.

Personally, I worry that they will get the support they seek because they give a 'good' answer to the groundings - it was somebody else's fault. Like many, if I hadn't been on these forums I would not have had a clue as to what was happening, at all, so I could quite have quite easily read such an email (which I didn't receive as I am not in WA or QLD) and thought this is something that needs to be supported. As a student pilot, I expect to act safely and with the highest regards for the rules and regulations, including those of RA-Aus. I am deeply concerned that I have little trust that the exec or the whole board have the same opinion of the rules, such as the constitution. I am however relieved that some members of the board clearly do hold the same values, and am glad they are working so hard to improve the organisation.

-Ian

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Has a representative of CASA been invited to explain the groundings?

 

 

[Gentreau]

........

Below is a copy of Myles e-mail. I have removed the recipients addresses, but some were parts of flying groups / clubs with large lists of e-mail contacts at their disposal. .......

So he left the recipients addresses visible ?

 

That means that anyone who received that email could send those same people some contrary information.

 

Just a thought .......

 

 

[Thirsty]

Exactly what I was thinking. I was thinking an email sent to those same people with links to these discussions would be a good move.

 

 

[Teckair]

Never underestimate the veracity of the OBC, if they think they can get by underhanded means, they will try it. It will be interesting to see how much support they garner from the members, I am guessing at this late stage not much as they have no good answer to the question of the groundings.

Their answer to the groundings is it was the Tech Man's fault it remains to seen how many members will accept that as a good answer.

 

 

[Yenn]

I cannot see what is wrong with Myles Breitkrutz's motion. I have asked on this forum for advice on what will be put forward as a motion and received no advice. I will not give a proxy to anyone except to vote on a specific motion. From what has appeared on this forum there is no motion put forward, so any proxy will only give the person voting the all clear to vote however they wish, which will not necessarily be to our advantage.

 

 

[Gentreau]

I believe the problem with his proposal is that he is asking members to support a change to the constitution of the association without following the rules for so doing. The constitution allows for the special meeting to accept motions from the floor and for the decisions of the meeting to be binding. Where does the constitution say that a national referendum is required for any and all decisions ?

 

I'm sure those attending the meeting would love to announce the proposals beforehand, but that can only be done when the full situation is known, when board and executive members have had the chance to explain themselves and their actions or inactions. If the association had been clearly communicating with members, it would be much clearer what motions need to be raised. As it stands the waters are so muddied (and that email simply tries to pour more mud into the water) that it is impossible to know what motions need to be proposed until the meeting is in progress.

 

If you are not personally able to attend the meeting, which has been notified to ALL MEMBERS some two months in advance, then you need to find someone who's judgement you trust. If you choose not to do so, then you must accept the decisions of the meeting.

 

The email reads to me, as the writing of someone scared sh*tless he's going to be castigated and sacked at the meeting, I wonder why he might feel that way ?

 

.

 

 

[Gentreau]

Has a representative of CASA been invited to explain the groundings?

And if not, why not ?

 

.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I cannot see what is wrong with Myles Breitkrutz's motion. I have asked on this forum for advice on what will be put forward as a motion and received no advice. I will not give a proxy to anyone except to vote on a specific motion. From what has appeared on this forum there is no motion put forward, so any proxy will only give the person voting the all clear to vote however they wish, which will not necessarily be to our advantage.

Yenn, I am somewhat surprised you cannot see anything wrong with the motion that is being put by Gavin Thobavin and Miles Breitkrutz.

 

They have both said: …. “I am trying to compile proxy votes to support a motion”: “That only motions that have been presented to the full membership can be voted on at the meeting of 9th February 2013”.

 

There is no requirement in the constitution to only allow ordinary motions on notice at a General Meeting and neither should there be. If that were the case, no ordinary motion could be put from the floor on simple matters of general business on any matter under discussion and no decision could be made by the members in attendance or by proxy. The absurdity of such a proposition should be obvious. The members would virtually have no say in the running of the organisation and you would be unable to put any ordinary motion that was legitimate following any debate. It would stifle the purpose of a general meeting.

 

The motion that Gavin and Miles are proposing is absurd in the extreme, it is circular and self-defeating. They are proposing that no motion from the floor be accepted unless all members have been notified in advance so they can vote on it by proxy. So their own motion will be defeated on the basis of their own motion, because their own motion was NOT on notice to all the members. They don’t want any motions without notice voted on, but expect to gather proxies from members to vote for their motion on which there has been no notice ... and these are members of our Board … May God help us.

 

The other matter that should be glaringly obvious is the illegality of their motion. It is attempting to change the right the constitution gives the members without a special resolution on notice to change the constitution. Such a special resolution would not have a chance in hell of getting past 75% of the members at a meeting called for that purpose. Do you really think the members would accept a clause in the constitution that denies them the right to put an ordinary motion from the floor at a General Meeting?

 

Yenn we all have the right to attend the meeting or not and the right to give our proxy to someone or not. I would think that if you were to give your proxy to someone on the basis of them voting how they see fit, you would only do so with a member you trusted implicitly. Until the last constitutional change at the AGM at Heck Field you did NOT have that right. Prior to the change at Heck field, if you did not attend a General Meeting in person, there was no ability to give a proxy to attend on your behalf to vote on motions from the floor. So now because of the latest changes you have additional rights as a member. If you don’t trust anyone then don’t give your proxy. Giving someone your proxy in the manner I described gives them absolute power to vote as they see fit and there is nothing wrong with that if you choose to give them that power.

 

As for putting motions in advance at a general meeting and voting by proxy on that basis, how could you possibly know all the motions that may arise from discussion before the discussion occurred? Even if you did give ordinary motions 'on notice' and as a result of debate at the meeting a motion 'on notice' was amended, any proxies you held for the original unamended motion would be automatically invalid because the motion on notice had changed.

 

There will NOT be any motions from the floor to dismiss the executive or Board members under rule 17 of the constitution because that would be a denial of natural justice and likely called out of order. That is not to say that the members may put a motion 'on notice' to do just that at the General Meeting at Natfly, and the reason that would be put 'on notice' would be to give them notice to a right of reply under the provisions of natural justice; but that will depend on what comes out of the February General Meeting.

 

The members present could put a motion of 'No Confidence' in the Executive or individual Board members, but it would have no power to force a resignation. If that did occur to any Board member then it may precipitate the Board members voluntary resignation, but that would be a matter for that Board member.

 

There may be motions from the floor directing the Board to carry out certain actions as a result of recent and past failures … who knows … we cannot predict the outcome of discussions on matters the Board has kept from the members until the truth (hopefully) comes out on the day of the meeting.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I cannot see what is wrong with Myles Breitkrutz's motion. I have asked on this forum for advice on what will be put forward as a motion and received no advice. I will not give a proxy to anyone except to vote on a specific motion. From what has appeared on this forum there is no motion put forward, so any proxy will only give the person voting the all clear to vote however they wish, which will not necessarily be to our advantage.

Yenn

 

I could tell people that Im going to put a motion for board member X to be executed at Dawn. I could recieve all the proxies of those that are of a similar mind and off I go.

 

The problem is in doing that I havent given X an opportunity to explain why things are as they are.......for Example X might explain that CASA before the audit, came and saw him unofficially and asked RAAus to voluntarily reliquish the right to license pilots and register planes and they then refused to do that. CASA then in bad faith did Y and Z etc, which while not great in themselves might well leave those at the meeting thinking X didnt do a great job but in reality was handed a posioned challice by CASA and in reality we havent given him the benefit of the doubt. therefore execution is not called for.

 

We wont know really why things are as they are until we have heard from those in power because the comms todate has been IMHO poor and more political than open and honest....groundings are still in place for a chunk of aircraft today...yet the comms would have you believe it was all good weeks ago....

 

But that doesnt help those who like you wont provide a proxy unless they know exactly what people are putting forward....... in which case it will fall back to those at the meeting and those who have provided proxys to make the determination. Not providing your proxy is the same as saying I wont have a say! You may not like that, but its the case until the proxy and or GM voting methodology is changed in our constitution.

 

The motion that Myles and Gavin are wanting to put forward is blatently unconstitutional and as I said before its circular logic, they dont want any motions at the meeting voted on unless the entire membership gets a chance to vote........hang on the entire membership does have a chance to vote, thats what teh proxy solution offers and in any event their motion, they want to put forward without the entire membership having a say in that? if that is what we determine to do then their motion will have been accepted without the entire membership seeing it......Isnt that just as wrong! IMHO we do what the constitution says we have to do until such time as people follow the process to have it changed.

 

Its my personal view, if I were in your position that I would not sign a proxy form and send off until I had spoken to Z and trusted him to do the right thing. In fact if I had a view as to what might happen at the meeting then I may well provide some guidance as to how I would like my proxy voted if those circumstances were to arise, but just remember that guidance in the abscence of any real communications and the need for natural justice to be applied, is just guidance, not an absolute until your proxy holder has heard all that there is to be said and can then vote with as much knowledge as can obtained at that point in time, likely a great deal more than we know right now.....which in my opinion is just another exammple of why things are currently wrong as they are....

 

Andy

 

 

[nomadpete]

Thanks Andy.Well said.

 

Yean:

 

I have no qualms about sending my proxy. This is because I have spent considerable time debating the possible issues which may come up at the GM, with numerous people. My proxy holder has a very good idea of my sentiments about the politics that have been aired on the rumour mills (bearing in mind that these all need to be clarified at he meeting by the members of our board). I fully expect some of the agitation has been blown out of proportio. I equally expect that there will be some genuine issues come to light that will require further debate and tabling of motions. If any of the allegations mentioned in the various forums are true, we shall definately see some action taken by members. Not all the information I have heard has come from the forums. For instance there has been robust debate in our club, over the past year or so. There have been stories shared by members who have had personal experience with some of the "issues" mentioned in these forums. However none of this is as good as getting full and frank answers from our Board or executive. That is what the GM is all about. So I fully trust my proxy holder to carry out my wishes with integrity in regard to votes on any motions tabled at the GM. This is not a lynching party as some detractors fearfully suggest. It is simply members of an association asking for honest open answers from their Board and executive - in a fair, democratic and constitutional manner.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The crazy thing is that the ability to broadcast the meeting to all that are interested and potentially even take votes from those inclined to vote is possible now, but simply isnt in our constitution and as such we have what we have to workl with. If people dont like it then follow the appropriate bouncing ball to change it, or better yet, set usp a constitutuional review committee to try and drag it into this century.

 

That said our office team have to work with more 4 draw filing cabinets that the ATO probably have becuase we still do everything with paper (until we loose it!!) so jumping to latest and greatest in terms of GM broadcasting and voting seems anomolous until we get some technology into our HQ. To me as an IT guy seeing in excess of $1m in the bank and the office team still doing eveything handrolically with all the inefficiencies that entails is just crazy......To me if we take the current deficiencies in the registration files....why on earth wouldnt the RAAus team and the owner of the aircraft be able to share the same documents online and potentially submit missing documents directly to the online file.......this whole current approach where the owner take a photo, prints it on paper send it in the mail is just so far behind the times........ That isnt to say that approach cant be used if the owner/member doesnt have the capability to do those type of things online, but in reality given the approach that Air Services is taking with NAIPS, etc I dont know how you can be a pilot today and not be moderately computer literate....

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

shuffling paper keeps a lot of people busy

 

 

[DWF]

This is the first half of a letter I sent to the WA board member (before I started reading this forum).

 

My views remain largely unchanged.

 

Comments on the RA-Aus Board and proposed General Meeting

 

It has become apparent that the operations of RA-Aus have been dysfunctional for some time with the resignation of two Technical Managers,

 

an Ops Manager (some little time ago) and now the CEO plus the aircraft registration debacle, insurance issues, legal challenges, and delays

 

in updating the constitution, Ops Manual and Technical Manual. No doubt there are other issues of which I, and many other members, am not aware. The Board has been elected by the members (shareholders) to:* formulate policy; * set the budget and strategic direction of the Association;

 

* provide instructions and direction to staff to implement these policies and strategies;

 

* ensure that these policies and instructions are implemented appropriately;

 

* exercise good governance to ensure that:

 

§the objectives of the Association are attained;

 

§the obligations of the Associations are met; and

 

§the Association complies with all applicable rules.(This is probably not a complete list of the duties of the Board but gives an indication of the types of things with which the Board should be dealing.

 

The Board should NOT have to deal with the day to day management and operation of Association business.)

 

Board members are volunteers who give freely of their time and expertise to guide the operations of our Association.

 

Many of the current Board members have only recently been elected and so have inherited most of the problems currently besetting the organisation.

 

There seems to be little point in trying to apportion blame for the problems RAAus is facing as many of those involved are no longer on the Board or staff.

 

What the current Board needs to do is:1 Keep members better informed, 2 Acknowledge the problems currently besetting the Association, 3 Take decisive action to put things back on track; and4 Develop and implement a Strategic Plan to give the Association a future direction

 

(and communicate this to all stakeholders).

 

The CEO and other staff are employed by the Association, through the Board, to implement Board policy and directives and conduct the day to day

 

business of the Association. This is an area that appears to have received insufficient Board attention/supervision in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

[DWF]

This is the second half of my letter to the WA Board member:

 

Comments on the RA-Aus Board and proposed General Meeting

 

The stated purpose of the General Meeting called for 9 Feb 2013 is to have:

 

1. An account of their stewardship of the Association be given to members by the Board Executive and the Board Members.

 

2. The Board to inform members

 

a. How the current state of affairs was arrived at;

 

b. How it plans to ensure RA-Aus is never again so challenged.

 

3. Questions from the floor put to the Board Executive and the Board Members.

 

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

 

 

I voted for the amendments to the Constitution which facilitated the calling of the General Meeting in February; however I am very disappointed

 

with the stated purposes of the meeting. Most of the members of the Association will be unable to attend the meeting due primarily to the tyranny

 

of distance and cost. Stated purpose 4 is "to consider, debate and vote on motions from the floor".

 

Those not at the meeting are denied the opportunity to do this as there are currently not motions proposed and so we cannot vote on it/them

 

even by proxy (unless you are prepared to give carte blanche to someone in the hope that they will vote in the way you would wish).

 

 

It appears to me that the main purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for those with an axe to grind to harangue the current Board.

 

This has already been done to a large extent at the AGM and through letters in the Sport Pilot magazine, etc.

 

I think that the General Meeting as currently proposed is unnecessary and will not achieve anything positive.

 

It will be counterproductive by distracting Board members from the pressing tasks of sorting out the current problems, possibly prompting more

 

Board resignations ("I don't need this aggravation.") and discouraging other suitable candidates from aspiring to Board membership.

 

The Board needs to

 

· Take decisive action now to sort out the problems of the Association;

 

· Appoint a new CEO asap - the prime consideration should be to get a manager who can get things done;

 

· Explain to members as fully as possible what problems and issues are currently besetting the Association

 

(without compromising RAAus business);

 

· Detail how it plans to resolve these problems and issues;

 

(These two items are the same as purpose 1 and 2 of the General Meeting but they need to go to all members,

 

not just those who can attend the meeting. The Board can provide a better response to these items by doing so in writing.

 

The President's response in his letter in the last Sport Pilot was inadequate.)

 

· Prepare a Strategic Plan for the Association covering the next 5-10 years;

 

· Review the Constitution including member consultation;

 

· Publish the draft Ops Manual for member comment then finalise and issue asap;

 

· Review and update the Technical Manual.

 

(This is obviously not an exhaustive list but includes the items that are most pressing.)

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

The first two stated reasons for calling the meeting are very open ended and probably deserve the response they got from the President.

 

What would have helped the debate considerably (and maybe it is not too late to do so now) is to ask for written answers to specific (written)

 

questions about matters concerning members.

 

I have not yet seen on this forum any questions that forum participants propose to put to the Board.

 

Perhaps we should start a new thread "Questions to be put to the RAA Board at 9th Feb General Meeting."

 

I'll start off with a couple:

 

During the routine audit conducted in mmm yyyy CASA identified a number of deficiencies in aircraft registration records.

 

1. What were these deficiencies?

 

2. When did the Board first become aware of these deficiencies?

 

3. Was RAAus given a time by which these deficiencies must be rectified? If so, when was that time?

 

4. What action did the board take to ensure the deficiencies were rectified?

 

5. This action did not rectify the deficiencies in time. Why?

 

etc, etc, etc

 

I am sure that you must have a lot more questions on this and other issues.

 

It would be much better to have answers to them before the GM to save a lot of time at the meeting and so we, the members unable to attend

 

the meeting, would be much better informed on the issues, have a better idea of the motions likely to be put at the meeting and be more

 

comfortable that our proxy would vote according to our wishes.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

David

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gentreau]

David, whether you happen to like it or not, the setup you have is the only one you currently have available to manage your association.

 

You can complain about it all you like, but that doesn't change the constitution as it is and the powers of the GM in February.

 

If you are not able to attend, then give your proxy to someone you trust who will attend.

 

Those are your choices as I undersatnd them.

 

.

 

 

[Powerin]

The Board needs to

· Take decisive action now to sort out the problems of the Association;

 

· Appoint a new CEO asap - the prime consideration should be to get a manager who can get things done;

 

· Explain to members as fully as possible what problems and issues are currently besetting the Association

 

(without compromising RAAus business);

 

· Detail how it plans to resolve these problems and issues;

 

(These two items are the same as purpose 1 and 2 of the General Meeting but they need to go to all members,

 

not just those who can attend the meeting. The Board can provide a better response to these items by doing so in writing.

 

The President's response in his letter in the last Sport Pilot was inadequate.)

 

· Prepare a Strategic Plan for the Association covering the next 5-10 years;

 

· Review the Constitution including member consultation;

 

· Publish the draft Ops Manual for member comment then finalise and issue asap;

 

· Review and update the Technical Manual.

I think we ALL agree with your points above. My question to you is HOW do you propose we resolve these issues if not with a meeting to call the Board to account?

Your points should have been enacted by our Board as a matter of course as part of there duties to members. Despite this:

 

• There appears to have been a lack of decisive action. The failure to comply with CASA audits over the course of a year despite having been given four opportunities to do so is a case in point.
   
   
  
• There have been two CEO/GMs in recent years. Neither appeared to have the qualifications you desire. Can we trust the next appointment to be any better? I hope so.
   
   
  
• You identify that the Board has failed to communicate. I think they have got the message that this is a problem. It doesn't seem to have improved anything.
   
   
  
• Because of the lack of communication we haven't seen any plans to resolve the problems and issues.
   
   
  
• It is the duty of any Board to have a strategic plan in place. Does one exist now? Has one ever existed? How would we know?
   
   
  
• There was a Board elected committee involved in reviewing the constitution. As far as I understand, when the Board members who helped instigate the review resigned from the Board the committee was disbanded and the review was shelved.
   
   
  
• The tech and ops manual were supposed to be updated. I think after a number of years we might be seeing a rough draft of one of the manuals soon?
   
   
  

 

 

You say some of us have an axe to grind. Let me be the first to put my hand up. I think any member who thinks that the Board is not acting in the members' best interests should have an axe to grind. It seems other methods of getting information from the board have failed. If calling a GM and "haranguing" the board is what it takes then so be it.

 

It would be much better to have answers to them before the GM

The need for answers is the very reason the GM was called...sometimes it is the only way. If I come away from the GM with open, honest and believable answers to all of your excellent points I will be happy. Given the previous record of some of the board I am not optimistic, but live in hope.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I can't see the RAA surviving without some sort of dramatic change in the direction. If the RAA can't prove competency in meeting its legal obligations, CASA is going to be forced to audit the pilot register and its going to get very very messy.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

We need more than just answers from the Board at the GM....we also need pointers to a way forward. The GM must also be a meeting of conciliation because without it there is no way forward. The proposal by DWF (David) acknowledges the history, and flawed Executive governance and management of RAAus, but more than that it gives the board a chance to explain itself, in writing, prior to the meeting. The actions and motions that might then flow from such a scenario would, more likely, be proactive - rather than what is more likely to be a negative and reactive Board response.

 

Pete

 

 

[Yenn]

Thanks Andy, youu have made it clearer to me and I will act accordingly.

 

 

[nomadpete]

We need more than just answers from the Board at the GM....we also need pointers to a way forward. The GM must also be a meeting of conciliation because without it there is no way forward. The proposal by DWF (David) acknowledges the history, and flawed Executive governance and management of RAAus, but more than that it gives the board a chance to explain itself, in writing, prior to the meeting. The actions and motions that might then flow from such a scenario would, more likely, be proactive - rather than what is more likely to be a negative and reactive Board response.Pete

Pete,

 

Full agree with you there. BUT -how do we convince the board that it is a good idea? They are clearly aware of the postings on this forum, not to mentions the contact made by members through other avenues. So they are already aware that a significant number of members are in need of open honest answers. How do we convince them that keeping their secret cone of silence is NOT a good way to run RAAus?

 

As noted by others, the GM has rather broad questions. So we risk being fobbed off with politicians whitewash style answers.

 

As also noted , we would have tabled specific questions if only we knew a little more about the true state of affairs, so we could ask the right questions.

 

From the outside we are not in a position to know the sequence of events in each of our 'problems'.

 

So how can we encourage this open communication without attempting to force it at the GM? Even then, what process is open to us to make it happen?

 

 

[Gentreau]

........They are clearly aware of the postings on this forum, not to mentions the contact made by members through other avenues. So they are already aware that a significant number of members are in need of open honest answers. ........

And their response seems to be to circle the wagons around the cupboards to keep the members from finding the skeletons. (sorry for the mixed metaphors)

 

.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Communication includes

 

Advising us what are the board's two year strategic plans, and ten year strategic plans for RAAus. Obvioiusly they would have to formulate these first.

 

Advising us what are the procedures that have been set up for keeping all our RAAus records in accordance with the agreed CASA standards. They've had over a year to do that urgent item.

 

Advising us what progress has been made on that

 

Advising us how many aircraft are presently grounded, and what is the catch up rate of re-registrations

 

Advising us what is the plan for an internal audit of pilot licencing. It would be likely to be a problem as big as registrations - best to fix it now.

 

Advising us what is the present state of our finances, and what is the forecast for this current financial year (should have had one of those last year)

 

Advising us When the constitution review is targetted to be completed.

 

etc, etc, feel free to add to this list for the edification of any wayward board members who may accidentally read this forum