RAAus General Meeting Called

[coljones]

snip snip snipAt 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.

 

snip snip snip

The problem with a democracy is that these qualifications are the only ones that can be prescribed. I look at boards from the big end and the small end of town, from both profit driven and not for profit and I shake my head and wonder how some of the clowns chosen for the boards could ever get out of bed and not tie their shoe laces together.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

John,

 

We all realise that you are one of the very few who are active in trying to get this Board to respect the members by telling them what is going on and seeking for the Executive to do their jobs.

 

However, there are some aspects of your perceptions about the job of a Board Member I'd like to make a contribution towards.

 

As an ordinary member, I personally don't need representation at the Board level. What is it that I might need a Board Member to do for me? If I had a particular dispute with the Administration/Ops/Tech, I would raise the issue through the management hierarchy until I got satisfaction or referred my issue to the Board as a whole for them to determine. That would be a proper procedure. Haranguing one Board Member to sort out the staff for me is not a good management process.

 

What I do want is to be able to renew my membership and aircraft registration easily, quickly and inexpensively.

 

I want the Association to operate within the law and the Constitution.

 

I want costs managed DOWN through smarter online systems and the close attention of management.

 

I want CASA off our backs and comfortable that recreational aviation is being self-administered well.

 

For those things we need intelligent, experienced members running our Association from the top down. For example, I want a Treasurer who really understands financial management, cost control and reporting. I want a Treasurer who can challenge the financial and accounting systems in the business that is RA-Aus not somebody who has to take the Accounts Clerks word for it. I want a Treasurer who can stand toe-to-toe with the external auditors on matters of Generally Accepted Accounting and Auditing Principles. I want a Treasurer who understands the law of contracts and can assess the prudence of the procurement processes used by the management. I want a Treasurer who can test the financial analysis reported by management to the Board and can advise the Board in layman's terms of the salient points.

 

This is not a job for your average member. If that sounds a bit elitist - too bad - that is what we need but do not have. We have close to the opposite of that.

 

I want a Secretary who has heard of and can read and understand the Associations Incorporation Act and ensure compliance. I want a Secretary who knows the difference between 13,000 and 9,000 members. I want a Secretary who has read and understands every word in the Constitution and has sufficient respect for it to ensure all Board Members and Management personnel comply with the letter and spirit of it.

 

I want a President who has the ability to get the best out of the Board that has been elected. Somebody who understands more than command and control and can work in a collegiate fashion to draw ideas from his/her fellow Board Members. I want a President who keeps a continuous flow of information to the members on current important issues. Not one who likes to everything as "Board-in-Confidence". One who utilises 21st Century technology not just technology that's been around since the printing press was invented in the 15th Century.

 

And I don't give a flying phark what their postcode is as long as they are Australian residents. We have National Aviation Laws - why on earth does it matter which state you reside in? A pilot certificate is exactly the same in Tasmania as it is in the NT. And what makes anyone think that less than "one vote one value" can be called democratic? If somebody in Australia didn't tell you where they lived could anyone guess from the way they look, dress, speak or walk?

 

All of the assets of RA-Aus are based where the head (and only) office is. The head office should be located in the centre of Australia based on population densities. It should be cheap to get to and RA-Aus friendly. Canberra is none of those things.

 

So, Members Representative or Management and Governance Committee member?

 

When was the last time a Members Representative acted like a Management and Governance Committee member and insisted on compliance with CASA Safety Directives, the Act and the Constitution and took positive and firm action against Members Representatives that don't?

 

I know which will serve my interests and the interests of all RA-Aus Members best - an experienced senior manager not just a popular flyer in these critical roles.

 

 

[winsor68]

Bloody well said AlfaRomeo... !!!

 

 

[Riley]

AR

 

I reckon your post #291 should form part of the source material for application for membership to RAA! Well said.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Management and Governance Committee member? That's what you've got now AR!

 

They don't represent what the Members want.

 

They decided to get involved with LSA and didn't follow representative procedures.

 

What you see now is the result of appointing people and leaving them to their own devices for YEARS, just so "What I do want is to be able to renew my membership and aircraft registration easily, quickly and inexpensively." which has been echoed by lazy members again and again and again.

 

If there had been competition at election time and an effort put in by Members to seek out people with the skills and expertise you correctly espouse, even as representatives the goals you seek would have been achieved.

 

Best to fix the square pegs in round holes.

 

When I think over the dozens of threads, and maybe thousands of posts, I'm amazed that so few people have addressed the issues faced by RAA - less than 10 issues which need to be fixed quickly, starting with resolving the CASA Audit failures.

 

I'm amazed that so many people can't grasp that there's a simple job to do, which can be done within the existing structure, and in a methodical way.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Management and Governance Committee member? That's what you've got now AR!They don't represent what the Members want.

They decided to get involved with LSA and didn't follow representative procedures.

 

What you see now is the result of appointing people and leaving them to their own devices for YEARS, just so "What I do want is to be able to renew my membership and aircraft registration easily, quickly and inexpensively." which has been echoed by lazy members again and again and again.

 

If there had been competition at election time and an effort put in by Members to seek out people with the skills and expertise you correctly espouse, even as representatives the goals you seek would have been achieved.

 

Best to fix the square pegs in round holes.

 

When I think over the dozens of threads, and maybe thousands of posts, I'm amazed that so few people have addressed the issues faced by RAA - less than 10 issues which need to be fixed quickly, starting with resolving the CASA Audit failures.

 

I'm amazed that so many people can't grasp that there's a simple job to do, which can be done within the existing structure, and in a methodical way.

Turbs

 

What you say is correct our most important subject of discussion on the day will indeed be the audit failures, but lets face it, CASA was trying to get RAAus to understand the seriousness of failure each repeat without success, clearly they got that specifric point across when they moved to progressively ground us...... If theres one thing I can be reasonably confident of its that progress is being made to solve this one significant tactical problem!

 

Whether progreess is as fast as we want or indeed the board want is questionable but as I understand it progress there is defined by CASA setting the throttle position, not our board setting the speed we wish to travel at, and perhaps that in retrospect (and in my case, from the safety of a registration that due luck of time hasnt been interupted allowing me to be more forgiving than those who were unlucky enough to have renewals due in November!) may be best because I suspect (personal opinion) that they would have taken any shortcut or applied however much duct tape, smoke and mirrors they could to hide the issues and get us back on track rather than work to solve the underlying issues that CASA wanted us to address.

 

The culture and underlying issues that meant CASA had to drag out the proverbial club and apply liberally to the RAAus head, that definately needs exploring, our head is fragile and Im not sure it could stand another beating like the last without the organisation being fataly injured!

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

But CAN you be reasonably confident?

 

Where is the transparent information that defines what the issues were, what action was needed to fix them, what action was needed to ensure they ceased, and what the timelines are.

 

I certainly can't, and I'm in direct and formal contact with CASA.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

But CAN you be reasonably confident?Where is the transparent information that defines what the issues were, what action was needed to fix them, what action was needed to ensure they ceased, and what the timelines are.

I certainly can't, and I'm in direct and formal contact with CASA.

Yes (ish) I cant get the info I want from the RAAus board because in general we are the enemy within and the shutters are up, however Lee Ungermann is contactable and I have been discussing the broader issues with him. If CASA control the throttle then to me if you want to know how fast we can go then they are the ones setting that speed. IF, as you say, you want to understand how many people are still without registration and how long that will be for etc, then CASA cant tell us that, only those within the shuttered castle on the hill and they're not speaking to anyone it seems!

 

Andy

 

 

[DWF]

Has anyone tried to invoke Rule 36 of our Association?

 

"36. Inspection of books.

 

The records, books and other documents of the Association shall be open to inspection at a place

 

in the ACT, free of charge, by a Member of the Association on request at any reasonable hour."

 

It seems to me that this entitles any member to arrange to visit the RAAus office and have a look at the documents from CASA relating to the audit (or any other document).

 

It may be worth a try. Stone walling or rejection of the request would be another indication of the position of the Board.

 

In fact it probably is not even a Board decision to provide access - it is in the constitution and so the staff member who has custody of (a copy of) the document is required to make it "open to inspection at a place in the ACT, free of charge, by a Member of the Association on request at any reasonable hour."

 

DWF

 

 

[turboplanner]

If CASA are controlling the throttle Andy, as in moving the goalposts, they have stepped on a mine. However, if they have conducted proper audits against contractual obligations, and found faults, then RAA is required to set the pace in fixing the situation, as in grounding aircraft immediately until they comply. If you are implying there is some sort of sweetheart deal going on along the lines of we'll let you continue to default provided you fix it this fast, they can't do that.

 

RAA have failed audits, and virtually No 1 job at present is to bring RAA back into compliance, not spend months, possibly years trying to create a different RAA structure.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I think Ive been missunderstood, CASA seemingly felt that RAAus werent applying the appropriate horsepower to rectifying deficiencies. To get our attention they applied a proportionate sanction. I dont for one minute think CASA is allowing us to default rather they are spending time and effort (and our money) to assure themselves that from day 1 of the application of the proportional sanction we are compliant with our obligations.In otherwords there is no ability to default at all. The problem is that they are controlling the speed of registrations by putting a contractor in place who is an impossed last check and balance and nothing can occur until he says it can thus they control the speed not us.

 

I dont for one second believe that they have moved the goal post. I believe that others are saying "whats a photo got to do with it" and I think they are missing the point. If our audited processes say that the office staff will stand in the corner on their head for 5 minuted between each renewal then if the process says that then prove that its being done. If its not appropriate to the activity being undertaken then formally change the process, dont just shortcut the whole thing leave the process as it is and ignore that step....

 

Its not rocket science to me.......Thats standard business practise in medium to large organisations or at least any organisation that has ISO accreditation or intends to get or mature within the Capability Maturity Model Index (CMMI)

 

Now logically if we continue with that example one of the options on failing the audit might have been to formally changed the process to remove the standing on your head thing.....but in doing that you have a bunch of records that are still not from a timing perspective compliant as they needed to be at a point in time. In otherwords youve fixed it moving forward but havent fixed the historical deficiencies. I suspect (personal opinion again) that the ability to remove the standing on your head thing in the formal process will be removed once we have it documented that every renewal has a standing on your head thing included at a point in time. At that time our records will be completely IAW our process and any changes wont create any forever deficient records. There are lessons learned at an organisational level beyond just embuggering us by forcing compliance. Having worked in Aerospace organisations for my entire working life I just find it hard to accept that we at an organisational level dont seem to get that! My forecast is that unless we normalise the relationship with CASA that the impossed contractor could well be around for a full cycle of renewals until every aircraft is 100% correct. If the relationship improves and we can show that not only do we comply, but we actually understand why we have to comply then we may be able to remove the contractor before the full cycle completes. Peronally I would be very suprised if that occurs before the new Techman is appointed and CASA get to know him/her and their modus operandi (thats a looking forward statement and carrys no connotations for those in that role in the past!)

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest bluespot]

Do we have any replacement monkeys?

Apes would do just the same - and they are not in short supply - indeed some fight to get into the cage

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Just a couple of comments as RAAus explores a new way forward. The comments are made in the context of bringing our governance and management systems up to a standard befitting an operation the size and diversity of RAAus.

 

It would appear from some of the postings that there is currency to restructure the committee to a more corporate model - a skills based Board with lesser members ( say 4 to 6).

 

A smaller board would bring into question the use of the States and Territories as a source of elected regional representatives.

 

Personally I do not think it matters where our elected board members come from so long as they represent the total membership and have the necessary skills to think strategically, govern responsibly and employ wisely. A published CV at election time should satisfy members on that score.

 

Perhaps the other most pressing issue revolving through the many thousands of posts on this forum is the question of communications with membership. If a regional approach to communications was taken as opposed to a State/Territory conduit via elected representatives, we could bring into play registered Clubs (under an MOA) that could inform the Board and conversely kept members up to date on Board decisions and Board activity. Of course individual membership would be retained and would accommodate those who have little interest in the organisation other than to obtain their flying certificates and register their aircraft.

 

To my mind it is the regional Clubs that hold the future of recreational flying in Australia - it is where the passion, education/training and innovation resides.

 

Clubs that are made up of people, not necessarily with academic qualifications, but with life-skills and experience that are already contributing in a very positive way through their own local affiliations and networks.

 

A formal partnership with RAAus and regional Clubs, would bring benefits on many fronts including a better informed CASA and an improved working relationship with other government agencies.

 

No doubt this concept will challenge those who see the immediate operational problems as all important. However without proper governance the roll out of operations will always be problematic.

 

Pete

 

 

[SOS]

I was just talking with someone today, who is a member of Regional Tourism Board. The State Tourism Board now reuires all appointments to the regional boards to be skills based. In fact, my friend had to go through an interview and selection process to get the gurnsey.

 

Surely the RAA is at least at the professional level of a Regional Tourism Board?

 

 

[webbm]

Good points. I think it's important though to have a local rep for communication to RA-Aus and its Executive. If not as the Board (as positions are not state based under the model above) maybe have a Board Advisory Team, to bat for the members.

 

Either way and whatever happens in the coming months. we desperately need more people to put their hands up to be on the board. Does the average member know what work is involved in being on the board, what kind of situations are faced and the kind of decisions that need to made? Are people not putting their hands up for nomination because they don't know what they're getting into? Should the magazine run a few articles on the life and role of board members, with reruns when it's time for nomination?

 

Cheers.

 

 

[Gentreau]

If you choose to move towards a skills based, smaller board, then perhaps local representation could be provided by creating small state committees who have a route of communication to the board and a remit to listen to and communicate their member's wishes. One advantage would be that members have less distance to travel to meetings, and MAYBE would take more of an interest ....... one can but hope.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

The model for communication both to and from the Board that appeals to me is in two parts.

 

Firstly, for those comfortable with electronic media, a Members Only Forum. This could be very useful for Q&A sessions and feedback to the Board. The second string to the bow would be a multitude of regional committees that feed into State committees who then feed to and from the Board. Where a forum is fine for discussions the Committees could actually undertake the work of RA-Aus as Board or Management sub-committees.

 

But the overriding element for the success of RA-Aus into the future is a competent, forward looking General Manager. If we get the right person in that role, the Board Member's work would be to attend FOUR Board Meetings per year with some preparation before and tidy up after. If we have a high powered GM, we need a high powered Board that the GM genuinely respects. The Board needs to be able to make sound judgements on the performance of the GM and act on that judgement.

 

 

[turboplanner]

For those who might be swayed by some with an agenda to rebuild RAA from an Incorporated Association intro a non profit public Company by guarantee, have a read of this link relating to the Australian Warbirds.

 

There's almost a parallel set of problems in its management, and it shows that it is far more important to get the people right than to manufacture a structure and assume this will fix the issues.

 

Of the two sets of problems in the two different structures I'd hazard a guess that AWAL as a Company is costing its members a heap more than RAA

 

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/505566-australian-warbirds.html

 

.

 

 

[David Isaac]

The structure is only the mechanism. The key is the people, their ability to comply with the law regardless of the structure and their ability to do a proper job of management and governance.

 

Changing the structure will not fix the issues if the people at the top are delinquent or incompetent.

 

Fixing some of the structural issues may assist a proper resolution but is not the key in itself. We appear to have a people problem in the first order.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And that is what has to be addressed. Most of the thousands of posts have missed this key requirement

 

 

[frank marriott]

I hope some of the people (with extreme personal views) read the link provided above by TP and have a rethink before the upcoming meeting. I have seen unproductive outcomes from solicited proxy votes from people giving their mates

 

a proxy with no actual knowledge/interest in the actual outcome.

 

I hope sense prevales and extremes are contained in the interest of the organisation and EVERY member.

 

Threats of court proceedings should be a very last resort as the costs are a real consideration and really achieve very little in the way of a positive outcome -

 

Frank

 

 

[nomadpete]

The structure is only the mechanism. The key is the people, their ability to comply with the law regardless of the structure and their ability to do a proper job of management and governance.Changing the structure will not fix the issues if the people at the top are delinquent or incompetent.

 

Fixing some of the structural issues may assist a proper resolution but is not the key in itself. We appear to have a people problem in the first order.

Couldn't agree more.

 

This brings us plebs back to the original problem - to put it crudely, how do we know which individuals need to be moved on, which are already great assets to be kept, and which are a problem now but can be guided to become great assets.

 

Pete, the concept of using clubs as a main conduit for feedback to the board has great merit because the clubs already represent groups of concerned members. They already represent regional interests. I like that idea.

 

 

[Admin]

Pete, the concept of using clubs as a main conduit for feedback to the board has great merit because the clubs already represent groups of concerned members. They already represent regional interests. I like that idea.

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/flying-clubs-are-you-a-member.47386/

 

 

[Pete Greed]

I would suggest that a sub-set of the national body (RAAus) already exists and does not need to be invented. That sub-set is the regional network of recreational flying clubs and includes hundreds of hard working people many of whom are already RAAus members and who understand the sector and its component parts, People (volunteers) from all walks of life who bring to the community based sector the professional skills that, in the past, has made Australia the great country it is today. What we need is a communications process that works both ways, is well informed at both ends, and delivers for its membership at all levels. The distillation of regional strategic thinking, combined with a Board selected and elected for its knowledge and sector experience, working with a skilled and professional CEO/General Manager and staff, would surely be the ideal As suggested previously participating regional clubs could be established under a Memorandums of Agreement to ensure that harmony is retained.

 

Turbs: as an ex-publican I think we need to discuss this over a beer (or perhaps a red wine). Just a matter of getting the order of things right.

 

 

[Admin]

The model for communication both to and from the Board that appeals to me is in two parts.Firstly, for those comfortable with electronic media, a Members Only Forum. This could be very useful for Q&A sessions and feedback to the Board.

Any RAAus news item that is raised in there will get raised here and discussed anyway, without any strings attached. Do you really think that a Board Member will put their head on the chopping block by saying anything given what RAAus members do to them here and what will happen if a question is asked to a specific board member and they don't reply because of fear of being ridiculed and if they do reply and the answer isn't what the members want to hear then they go into attack mode...man, I have seen it all here before many many many times...you will eventually destroy RAAus even to the point that people won't want to become board members.

We had a great system here several years ago when Lee Ungermann and Techman (Chris Kiehn) were in RAAus. Chris would frequent this site helping out anyone who had questions of a technical nature whether they were RAAus or not which promoted RAAus to the masses. Lee and I would talk nearly every week and we would help each other out with things like I would create a poll to gauge what people thought about specific RAAus issues per his request, and he would give me any news "on the record" and "off the record" that I would post appropriately and start threads without any come back on to RAAus. It was a great system based on respect for each other and what we were both trying to achieve for RAAus at that time. If anyone wanted to know more outside of the discussion they would be steered to their local board member privately...we both had the same objective of doing the best we could for RAAus and this site promoted RAAus in a professional manner to everyone. All this went down hill into the mess we have today because the incoming people didn't have the same respect and things got uglier and uglier. I have a great deal of respect for the way that Lee Ungermann did all he could to communicate to the members and in the way that he did and the way it protected RAAus. The important thing is this was done outside of the RAAus which gave it far more freedom for RAAus members and the RAAus Board