RAAus General Meeting Called

[Pete Greed]

I just fear that the GM could be wasted if the questions are not put to the board prior to the Feb meeting. Surely an avenue for action is via our State Reps.

 

Pete

 

 

[Gentreau]

Pete, I don't know about you, but I generally find that people who are open, honest and have nothing to hide, do not need advance warning of questions in order to respond to them.....

 

.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I just fear that the GM could be wasted if the questions are not put to the board prior to the Feb meeting. Surely an avenue for action is via our State Reps

Pete,I put 34 questions on notice to the Board at the AGM at the President's invitation. The questions were around seven subjects and were very specific.

Whilst I couldn't personally attend the AGM, the answers to my questions were read to the meeting very late, there was virtually no opportunity to challenge the answers due to the fact that the meeting had been running so long that members were starting to leave.

 

The answers were sent to me following the meeting. In my opinion the subject matter and some of the answers were 'sanitised' and at least 12 of my questions were simply not answered. To make matters worse, in his answers the president accused me of conducting a kangaroo court.

 

Given that performance at the AGM, what would be gained by putting the questions on notice, when mine were on notice and principally avoided. The Board will still have to give a better account of my existing questions at the February GM.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

David your frustration is no doubt felt by many on this forum. However we need a statement from the board in response the the many questions being raised prior to the GM. My concern is that the lack of governance process is the cause of the operational issues and their resultant negative impact on RAAus members. The Board needs to understand their role in allowing what is a nothing more than a governance mess to evolve and tell the membership how they are going to address it to ensure that it does not happen in the future. This does not need a GM but the GM would be the appropriate means of communicating a Board response to the membership. Depending on the response the membership will have a clearer understanding of the way forward. I know some of the Board are up to it....but is it a majority?

 

Pete

 

 

[turboplanner]

No they are not Pete, and Governance is NOT the immediate issue; there are several major issues which are personnel related.

 

These are well able to be fixed under the present governance process. What you have been espousing would be a long process given that there are set procedures to be followed, meetings to be convened, notice to be given etc to around 10,000 people. You have to crawl before you can walk, and you have to know which direction to walk in.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Pete

 

I agree with you. If the questions are asked in advance then I dont believe that the board can pull the "Well take this on notice" approach to avoid the question. That said, the questions that will be asked have all been discussed here so I dont see how they can be a great suprise to those that we ask them of.

 

I agree with David that the notion that asking them in advance will mean that we get a better quality response is from ppast experience an unlikely outcome, however it is "best practice" and shows their failings rather than ours.

 

I personally wont be re-covering old ground that was addressed at the AGM (even if poorrly covered) to do so when we have a large amonut of grouund to cover and as others have said, the need to focus on the past enough only to drive the future. I personally believe there is more than sufficient new material, unfortunately, to cover.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[DWF]

I think a series of questions should be compiled and sent to every Board member requesting a response by (say) Friday 1st Feb.

 

The questions should avoid personal references and emotive language.

 

This will:

 

1. Give the Board the opportunity to research and respond fully to the questions.

 

2. Not give the Board the "can't remember" or "Take it on notice" excuse.

 

3. If the Board responds appropriately - gives the members a chance to carefully consider the responses before the meeting and to accept them or ask for clarification.

 

4. If the Board responds appropriately - it should save a lot of time at the GM as many of the questions should have already been answered.

 

5. If the Board does NOT respond appropriately it indicates an unwillingness or inability to deal with the problems and so gives members the grounds to take further action at the GM.

 

6. Provide an opportunity for members to prepare motions to be put to the meeting which can be notified to members who cannot attend the meeting who can then vote by proxy knowing what they are voting on.

 

On reflection, I think that calling the General Meeting was necessary as it acted as a "Heads Up" for members and the Board that some members at least think there are problems within the Association and would like some answers (and something done about the 'problems').

 

If sensible questions are put to the Board and an appropriate response is received the GM could be a non-event.

 

[i am not confident that this will happen.]

 

I hope it does not degenerate into a name-calling match!

 

What would you like the outcome of the GM to be?

 

David

 

 

[Captain]

David your frustration is no doubt felt by many on this forum. However we need a statement from the board in response the the many questions being raised prior to the GM. My concern is that the lack of governance process is the cause of the operational issues and their resultant negative impact on RAAus members. The Board needs to understand their role in allowing what is a nothing more than a governance mess to evolve and tell the membership how they are going to address it to ensure that it does not happen in the future. This does not need a GM but the GM would be the appropriate means of communicating a Board response to the membership. Depending on the response the membership will have a clearer understanding of the way forward. I know some of the Board are up to it....but is it a majority?Pete

Pete,

 

I am in favour of the current process.

 

It will do the Board, and more particularly the Executive, good to face the members and just for the record again (and for DWF's reference), the GM on Feb 9th has been requisitioned by well in excess of a Constitutionally correct number of members.

 

Everyone with whom I have been speaking in preparation for the Feb 9th meeting are well aware of the desire to hear what each Board Member has to say about numerous issues which I regard as critical to the future success of RAA and if any answers are pathetic or unsatisfactory, then those Board Members need to then be afforded natural justice by the meeting.

 

Personally, I can't see how the Treasurer can avoid a Motion of No Confidence at the Feb 9th meeting, but the members in attendance will decide what the Motions will be.

 

I'm sure that the meeting will be recorded, if not video'd, so I'm sure that any interested members who can't attend will be subsequently afforded the opportunity to examine an unsanitised version of what is said at that meeting.

 

Ex-President Runciman has advised that he expects a lynch-mob mentality to prevail on Feb 9th. I have responded to him that I am not aware of anyone who is attending who is planning to take that approach, but I also told him that it would be reasonable to expect that some grounded members, or aircraft importers or aircraft manufacturers ,or disillusioned members, that are personally or financially disadvanted by RAA's loss of their CASA Charter, might be a bit snakey at the Feb 9th meeting.

 

I also told the Ex-President and Board that I would personally do all that I can, from the floor, to keep the meeting civil and considered.

 

But I also told him that if Board Member Apps wants to continue on with his crap about the membership who requisitioned the Feb 9th meeting as being "unthinking, unenlightened and uninformed minority with personal issues to pursue", then I'll be the 1st to go and locate a tree (figuratively speaking of course).

 

As one small item at the Feb 9th meeting, I will be interested to hear Board Members Apps, Thobaven and Brietkreutz speak to, explain and defend their written statements that this meeting is just being called by a bunch of unthinking, uninformed malcontent sh*tstirrers, ex-Board members (who they say actually caused most of the RAA's current problems) and those with a personal agenda wanting to harm the RAA (my paraphrase).

 

But more interesting will be to hear them all explain how their fine management of the Association have resulted in so many breaches of the Constitution and Legislation, along with the well documented failures of management and governance.

 

I predict that there will be no lynchings at the Feb 9th meeting, but the motions from the floor might set the scene, or the process in place, for affirmative action at the Meeting of Members at Natfly. But the membership in attendance will do what they think best at that meeting.

 

But I also almost guarantee you that Item 1 on Feb 9th will be to decide, once and for all, what is the Ex-President's present status after his resignation as Nth Qld Representative.

 

Regards Geoff

 

PS ........... DWF ......... I expect the outcomes of the Feb 9th meeting to be:

 

• I will be able to hear from & evaluate the performance of each & every Board Member.
   
   
  
• I and all other members will be able to gain an appreciation of just how big a mess the RAA is in.
   
   
  
• Each Board Member will hear what the membership in attendance have to say.
   
   
  
• The meeting will afford the membership the 1st opportunity for a long time to hear what the Board have to say on numerous vital issues to the ongoing operation of RAA and to pursue supplemantary questions.
   
   
  
• This meeting will not allow answers to be sanitised and no further discussion permitted (refer to David I's questions on notice to the last AGM which received scant or nil response).
   
   
  
• The Treasurer will stand in all his glory and explain why the audited Financial Report was not presented to the AGM when the report was signed off on Aug 30th.
   
   
  
• The Secretary will stand before the meeting and explain why he overstated the RAA Membership numbers by approx. 30% to the AGM, no less, and then stated to the AGM how "heartening" those numbers are .... which clearly & falsely indicated from him that the RAA was in good condition.
   
   
  
• The membership and the Board will learn 1st hand why the Ex-President was returned to that position based on a verbal discussion between Middo, Runciman and the RAA legal advisor, and a vote of the Board was taken on the basis of that verbal advice (and a wink and a nod). Why I say that the Board might even learn is that as of this weekend, no written legal opinion has yet been provided to them).
   
   
  
• About 5 hours of other vital discussion about the performance of the Board, the wishes of the Membership and the need for communication between our Board and the membership (as well as the "unthinking, unenlightened and uninformed minority with personal issues to pursue") as Board Member Apps described us all.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[dodo]

DWF,

 

I would like an explanation of what has gone on to land us in the s**t. We can't meet our basic obligations under our governing legislation (minutes of an AGM, and provision to members of financial statements for Gods sake!). We have so frustrated our regulator that we can't register aircraft except under direct supervision of a consultant chosen by CASA.

 

So what is going on? Why won't the board tell us why and how we have so badly stuffed up that we can't meet our most basic obligations?

 

So we call a meeting to ask in person - what else can we do, when the board is so unresponsive?

 

And then we listen. We need answers before we can decide on action.

 

I can't see any alternative route that makes sense. Putting up a motion now to direct the board to do x, or to express no confidence in y, makes no sense without information from the board.

 

Given the delay in the meeting, I suspect opinions may have hardened, and prejudice may occur. I think a meeting in late December would probably have provided explanations before frustration hardened opinions.

 

However, I think the best outcome might well be that NO motions are passed at this meeting,and that people think about what they hear, and then,after the meeting, propose motions in advance, and preferably publicly debated before the Natfly meeting. - if those motions are necessary after this meeting. But even that idea of mine is pre-empting what we ask and hear at the February meeting.

 

dodo

 

 

[Riley]

Perhaps a bit of a drift (forgive me my sins) and I'm certainly not posting the attachment as a suggested resolution to the ongoing situation in Fyshwick. Moreso it definately is not directed as a personal slight towards any of the incumbent State reps who are attempting to bring some degree of logic to the Board but, I reckon in this hour of darkness, a bit of levity can't go amiss and it might help to explain the recent curious actions of some board members who seemed to have so much potential. They ain't all bad - they just haven't worked out why they don't like bananas. Apologies offered for the rambling preamble.

 

PRECISION PSYCHOLOGY

 

If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage, hang a banana on a string from the top and then you place a set of stairs under the banana, before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.

 

As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys with cold water.

 

After a while another monkey makes an attempt with same result ... all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

 

Now, put the cold water away.

 

Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.

 

The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs. To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

 

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a new one.

 

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment...... with enthusiasm.

 

Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by the fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked.

 

Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs. Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

 

Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the banana.

 

Why, you ask? Because in their minds...that is the way it has always been!

 

This is how political Parties operate... and why, from time to time:

 

ALL of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME.

 

 

[DWF]

Perhaps a bit of a drift (forgive me my sins) and I'm certainly not posting the attachment as a suggested resolution to the ongoing situation in Fyshwick. Moreso it definately is not directed as a personal slight towards any of the incumbent State reps who are attempting to bring some degree of logic to the Board but, I reckon in this hour of darkness, a bit of levity can't go amiss and it might help to explain the recent curious actions of some board members who seemed to have so much potential. They ain't all bad - they just haven't worked out why they don't like bananas. Apologies offered for the rambling preamble.

PRECISION PSYCHOLOGY

 

If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage, hang a banana on a string from the top and then you place a set of stairs under the banana, before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.

 

As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys with cold water.

 

After a while another monkey makes an attempt with same result ... all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

 

Now, put the cold water away.

 

Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.

 

The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs. To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

 

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a new one.

 

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment...... with enthusiasm.

 

Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by the fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked.

 

Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs. Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

 

Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the banana.

 

Why, you ask? Because in their minds...that is the way it has always been!

 

This is how political Parties operate... and why, from time to time:

 

ALL of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME.

Do we have any replacement monkeys?

 

 

[DWF]

.....

 

• About 5 hours of other vital discussion about the performance of the Board, the wishes of the Membership and the need for communication between our Board and the membership (as well as the "unthinking, unenlightened and uninformed minority with personal issues to pursue") as Board Member Apps described us all.
   
   
  

 

 

 

Yiikes! A 5+ hour General Meeting

 

By the end of that you will have a hunkered down Board with all the barricades up; tired, frustrated members whose humor is somewhat tested and who are likely to undertake an ill advised (in the cold light of day) action.

 

I suspect if the meeting unfolds like that it will end in tears.

 

 

[DWF]

Pete,I put 34 questions on notice to the Board at the AGM at the President's invitation. The questions were around seven subjects and were very specific.

 

....

David

I, for one, have not seen the questions you put to the Board at the AGM or the answers you received from the Board/Executive.

 

Would you be willing to share them with me/us?

 

David

 

 

[dodo]

DavidI, for one, have not seen the questions you put to the Board at the AGM or the answers you received from the Board/Executive.

 

Would you be willing to share them with me/us?

 

David

They were published as part of the AGM minutes: definitely not private, and late but not very informative. On the RA website they are here:

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Minutes-AGM-22-9-2012-Final-Version.pdf

 

And I share your concerns about a long meeting, but I don't forsee short answers, or few questions.

 

As for the board being in bunker mode, I suspect they already are in some cases - check out the the weird and un-constitutional motion suggested by Gavin Theobald and Myles Breitkreuz. Obviously, things are so bad they want to suspend the constitution. That sounds like some weird US disaster movie to me.

 

I think the delay in holding this meeting is likely to result in closed minds rather than open ones, but I think that good sense by those attending may prevail against that. A lot of people are unhappy, but I think most have the sense to listen to both the questions and the answers, and form opinions based on what they hear,

 

dodo

 

 

[Captain]

.....

• About 5 hours of other vital discussion about the performance of the Board, the wishes of the Membership and the need for communication between our Board and the membership (as well as the "unthinking, unenlightened and uninformed minority with personal issues to pursue") as Board Member Apps described us all.
   
   
  

Yiikes! A 5+ hour General Meeting

 

By the end of that you will have a hunkered down Board with all the barricades up; tired, frustrated members whose humor is somewhat tested and who are likely to undertake an ill advised (in the cold light of day) action.

 

I suspect if the meeting unfolds like that it will end in tears.

 

David,

 

The estimate of 5 hrs is purely mine (and it will be a lot more interesting than the last AGM).

 

The meeting will go for as long as the membership in attendance choose for it to go. And that is how it should be.

 

For a start there are 13 Board Members who will probably wish to speak on some matters, & if some of the dead wood choose to respout or defend the tripe that they dished up in their electioneering statements Vs their actual performance then that might be interesting and take some time.

 

If everything is hunky-dory then it'll take no time at all to get to the issues, but if problem after problem need discussion, it will take a while.

 

From the problems that I am aware of, including some that are yet to become public, I would expect that the meeting will go on for a while and some members who haven't been digging for too long will be staggered by the depth and extent of RAA's issues.

 

The membership will and should decide ....... and it will be a good thing for the RAA for the Board and the Executive to be reminded that they are accountable to the membership and the membership will hold them accountable (my prediction).

 

Riley,

 

Fantastic post # 274 and very relevant analogy. I have never understood, until now, why the Ex-President & some Board Members have turned on John McKeown and Jim Tatlock (& some previous Board Members) like they have when John and Jim were just asking reasonable questions and trying to do their jobs as Board Members. Put your analogy together with a long-term culture of Executive secrecy, control and sometimes questionable competence on some key issues, & there you have it.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[David Isaac]

Do we have any replacement monkeys?

Isn't that a significant contributor to our issues at Board level ... "if all you pay is peanuts all you get is monkeys".

Please understand I am not saying our board members are monkeys, I am talking about the principle of ... "you get what you pay for" .

 

If we as an organization are not prepared to reward our board members with some form of compensation, the voluntary work load cannot (perhaps should not) take a level of priority in their lives. For those board members who work hard in their position at proper governance, I commend you. I am not talking about working hard after the fact at fixing problems that have resulted from a lack of proper management and governance in the first place; I refer to those who have genuinely tried to get reform. Regrettably many of them have resigned either under duress or frustration.

 

Hopefully the impetus for reform is obvious to all by now.

 

 

[Cooda]

Hopefully the impetus for reform is obvious to all by now.

As it has been to the AFL, NRL and, most recently, Cricket Australia.

 

Club and committee-based structures can only take you so far. Eventually you have to turn professional.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

. . . If we as an organization are not prepared to reward our board members with some form of compensation, the voluntary work load cannot (perhaps should not) take a level of priority in their lives.

In my view, there seem to be two broad reasons for the current members on the Board to be there. They have a genuine interest in using their experience and expertise in governance and management to the benefit of all members of RA-Aus. And, there are some who get a real kick out of the status they feel being a "Board Member" brings to their life. In a happy circumstance, some Board Members combine both these reasons for being on the Board. In the most unhappy examples it is just the power and the glory. There is one more that perhaps should be added to the list and that is the owner/operators of recreational aviation businesses who value the intelligence (information) that being a Board Member gives them and the ability to influence matters that can affect them. While they should respect the conflict of interest and stand aside in such circumstances examples of when this has happened are so rare that you would be going to find even 5 examples in the last 10 years.

 

At the moment the only basic qualifications you need to be a Board Member are two numbers - a membership number and a Post Code. Those qualifications do nothing to guarantee the level of management and governance capability needed by a business the size of RA-Aus.

 

Personally, I'm not in favour of remunerating Board Members for two reasons. Firstly, I don't want to see a fourth reason to get on the Board to be that it is a "nice little earner" and secondly, if you are remunerated as a Board Member your financial liability for even simple mistakes can become very onerous. There is not enough money available for Board Members to compensate for that level of personal risk.

 

Board Members can be and are remunerated for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. How we might compensate a Board Member for lost income or, e.g., annual leave foregone, is a very difficult issue.

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi Guys,

 

Some comment and clarification on above posts.

 

Reduced Board size - Perhaps a good idea, perhaps not. You guys out there are the Association. You elect a person to represent you. The elected person should represent your interests, if not, vote them out. Currently the representation is State Based. Perhaps it should be post code based, and that is entirely your (the membership) decision. Now, if you reduced the Board size to, say seven members, then in all likelihood, Tasmania, WA and NT would not have a Representative. Would this be satisfactory for members in those states? Once again your decision.

 

In the early days of the Association, (In the old AUF days), voting was totally democratic. That is "One vote, one value". However this gave Queensland absolute power at the time, as they had more votes than the rest of the other states combined. Great for us Queenslanders, but bad news for every other area. This caused a lot of bad blood, so the system was changed and weighted as we have today.

 

If you want change, then you, the Membership, have the power to do this. However please think out the long term ramifications.

 

Representative. - Now I see posts of this qualification, or that qualification to be a Board member. Not in my humble opinion Guys. To me, it does not matter what education or qualification your Board Rep has, providing he/she is there with the primary purpose of representing the local membership. You should not be on the Board for self interest, you should not be on the Board for kudos, and you should not be on the Board for money. You guys want someone on the Board who is independent, a communicator, honest, transparent, their own person/makes up there own mind and who will not toe the "party line" as there should be no "parties" in our Association. What you don't want is everyone the same. You need balance and different opinions. In my opinion, a successful business has an ideas go getter CEO. but this person will bankrupt the business. So as balance, you need a very conservative, and independent CFO (chief financial officer) who can say to his Boss. "Hold up Boss. we cant afford to do that." or "Boss, that wont work because of ......."

 

The Board is there to set policy that the Membership wants. It is the paid management that is paid to implement that policy. It is the management that is paid to have the knowledge and expertise to put systems in place to pass CASA audits. It is the management that does the financial reports, budgets, cost control etc. It is the quality of management that can make or break a business. The Executive is there to oversee the management, not do the work themselves. The Board is there to oversee the Executive, and you guys are there to oversee the Board.

 

Management. - Guys, the quality of the CEO/GM is so vitally important. Recently I read an article how the wrong person in a critical job could totally destroy a very successful business or company. Those with a business background could name names and businesses this has happened to in Australia in recent years, and it has nothing to do with the salary. Some of the greatest failures were caused by CEO's on the highest salaries. Anyway I really liked this USA authors example. He said imagine you are sitting down to a big plate of your favorite ice-cream at your favorite restaurant. Then before you start the Waiter comes around and says. "One moment Sir." He then takes out a small eyedropper and places one drop of highly toxic nuclear waste on top of your ice-cream. In percentage terms the amount of toxic waste is very minor, but no one (With the possible exception of Kiwi) would eat that ice-cream, or even eat at that restaurant again.

 

Expenses. - The President has an expense account, and the Executive are reimbursed for Executive business. The Board expenses are covered to attend Board Meetings, but all other expenses like attending club meetings, going to Natfly or other fly-ins, or things like mobile phone calls etc are not reimbursed.

 

Future. - Everyone, I am very positive, with the right new GM who has ability with systems, finances, budgets, etc. and who can implement policy, will have us back on track in no time. What you people must do is demand openness and transparency from the elected ones so you become aware of issues early, and steps can then be taken for early corrective action.

 

John McK

 

 

[Ausmo]

Management. - Guys, the quality of the CEO/GM is so vitally important. Recently I read an article how the wrong person in a critical job could totally destroy a very successful business or company. Those with a business background could name names and businesses this has happened to in Australia in recent years, and it has nothing to do with the salary. Some of the greatest failures were caused by CEO's on the highest salaries..........

Future. - Everyone, I am very positive, with the right new GM who has ability with systems, finances, budgets, etc. and who can implement policy, will have us back on track in no time. What you people must do is demand openness and transparency from the elected ones so you become aware of issues early, and steps can then be taken for early corrective action.

 

John McK

I've said this before, the most important job for a Board to do is to hire the best CEO/GM they can find and get rid of him/her if they can't do the job. Poor performance or mediocrity should never be tolerated, John is right, it is a cancer, an organisation-killer.

 

Erik

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Hoping the board doesn't vote Myles as President and Gavin as Treasurer, one option that makes the current situation seem not so bad.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I've said this before, the most important job for a Board to do is to hire the best CEO/GM they can find and get rid of him/her if they can't do the job. Poor performance or mediocrity should never be tolerated, John is right, it is a cancer, an organisation-killer.Erik

Well said Erik, and if they get that right, they (the board) look good in the eyes of the members.

 

 

[Admin]

I would like to add that getting the right GM is only a part of the solution...the Committee needs to also stop micro managing and focus on strategic management however that is not going to happen until there are professional people on the Committee that know about how a Committee (or now I will say Board) should perform and their role in the overall future of RAAus i.e. the strategic management of RAAus, and not the operational management which is the GM.

 

Get the right GM without the right Committee/Board and the GM won't last or can't perform, get a Committee/Board that performs properly in the way Boards are suppose to perform without the right GM and the day to day operational management collapses...this is why getting them in sync is the most important in my opinion and that is the BIG challenge we have today, the correct timing. A new GM with the required attributes along with a 'reformat' of the board will lead to our success but one without the other will just prolong our grief. THAT is the challenge, in my opinion

 

 

[cazza]

Hi Guys, (and Gals)Some comments on your post, John

 

 

 

Reduced Board size - Perhaps a good idea, perhaps not. You guys out there are the Association. You elect a person to represent you. The elected person should represent your interests, if not, vote them out. How do the members know whether their interests are being represented? The Board works with such secrecy, that most of the Board don’t even appear to know what the Executive is doing or the rest of the Board if they are not in favor? Currently the representation is State Based. Perhaps it should be post code based, and that is entirely your (the membership) decision. Now, if you reduced the Board size to, say seven members, then in all likelihood, Tasmania, WA and NT would not have a Representative. Would this be satisfactory for members in those states? Once again your decision. There is more at stake here than just picking someone who says they will represent you. Many of the current Board members were the only candidate, so there is no option for members to say, we’d rather have no one than Mr X.

 

 

 

In the early days of the Association, (In the old AUF days), voting was totally democratic. That is "One vote, one value". However this gave Queensland absolute power at the time, as they had more votes than the rest of the other states combined. Great for us Queenslanders, but bad news for every other area. This caused a lot of bad blood, so the system was changed and weighted as we have today.

 

 

 

If you want change, then you, the Membership, have the power to do this. However please think out the long term ramifications. That is what we are doing. If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you always got. If it isn’t working, then something has to change and the members cannot rely on the present structure and way of doing things.

 

 

 

Representative. - Now I see posts of this qualification, or that qualification to be a Board member. Not in my humble opinion Guys. To me, it does not matter what education or qualification your Board Rep has, providing he/she is there with the primary purpose of representing the local membership. You should not be on the Board for self interest, you should not be on the Board for kudos, and you should not be on the Board for money. You guys want someone on the Board who is independent, a communicator, honest, transparent, their own person/makes up there own mind and who will not toe the "party line" as there should be no "parties" in our Association. What you don't want is everyone the same. You need balance and different opinions. Yep and that is exactly what we have now according to the election statements that appeared in the magazine. Many of us had great hopes of the promises made by candidates for election and once they got in, what happened, John? How do you, as a member, know how your Board member is performing. Are they? We have had this similar setup for over 25 years. Perhaps it served us well in the past, but not now. If Board members cannot see that the structure is not working, they aren’t working, they are just going along with what they are told, what is the point of having the same process?

 

 

What we need is to be presented with a range of options from a group who researches how other organisations manage and get members to vote on one that they believe will best suit our organisation. We all, including you, need to be open to other possibilities that you haven’t thought of or considered.

 

The Board is there to set policy that the Membership wants. It is the paid management that is paid to implement that policy. It is the management that is paid to have the knowledge and expertise to put systems in place to pass CASA audits. It is the management that does the financial reports, budgets, cost control etc. It is the quality of management that can make or break a business. The Executive is there to oversee the management, not do the work themselves. The Board is there to oversee the Executive, and you guys are there to oversee the Board. Yep, that is the way it has always been on paper. It is set in stone in the Constitution. The Exec hire the top man. They have always picked the one they think is best. Again, the process that is being used is the culprit and the Board members who allow it are complicit.

 

Management. - Guys, the quality of the CEO/GM is so vitally important. No argument there. Again, there are structural problems with the Board and management that have to be fixed first. For years I tried to get the Board engaged in a sucession planning or at least a process for hiring Senior management and to document policies for performance reviews, etc. So what happened, John? Who is hired and what happens when the management does not carry out Board directions? Nothing. So, again, documentation and a Board that isn’t afraid to take the hard decisions if necessary.

 

Future. - Everyone, I am very positive, with the right new GM who has ability with systems, finances, budgets, etc. and who can implement policy, will have us back on track in no time.

 

Been there, done that. If the structure is not there, if the GM is not accountable, if Board and Exec are not willing to mete out consequences, we will continue down the same path.

 

 

What you people must do is demand openness and transparency from the elected ones so you become aware of issues early, and steps can then be taken for early corrective action. We did, and we thought we were going to get it at the last election. So what happened? Now we are involved in trying to find positive ways forward, and are labled ‘distractors, trouble makers, etc etc. by our own representatives.

 

 

 

John McK Carol Richards

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi Carol,

 

The word Guys, up here in Qld. is gender neutral. It refers to male and female and they. (Those who are not quite sure)

 

Secrecy has been a big problem, and still is. But you can change it. Demand transparency from the elected ones. If you don't get it, you now have the power to get rid of those who don't follow the membership wishes at a GM. You now don't have to wait for the next election. As for someone being the only candidate in a region. Who's fault is that?

 

Carol, you have already answered some of your own questions. You have a special meeting in a couple of weeks. Use it wisely. Ask questions of the Executive and the Board Members. If one were to grossly lie to you, take serious action against them on the spot and boot them off the Board right then. I very much doubt the Natural Justice clause of the Associations Act will cover a deliberate lie by a Director to the Membership. Either way it is up to the Board Member concerned to take legal action to reverse the action taken against them. But what would be the point? The Membership has spoken, and there are no back wages issues.

 

On the Board it is a numbers game. Sometimes you have the numbers to make change, sometimes you don't. For reasons I don't know, it seems to always be the good ones who resign. (You and Don included here)

 

I don't think you and your bunch of trouble makers are distractors. I think you are doing a great thing for the association. - Its a joke Carol.

 

Seriously Guys, (and Girls Carol) This coming meeting will be very positive for the Association. It will show some of the Board Members that they can no longer take the membership for granted, keep them in the dark, and ignore the wishes of the average Member. It will show the Executive and some others that you are not just a winging minority, but a very large group of concerned members. Concerned about some very serious issues. I just suggest to you all, that you use this meeting wisely.

 

John McK