RAAus General Meeting Called

[octave]

it would be good to know who would be interested in standing for a board position when the time comes

 

 

[David Isaac]

What on earth is the great mystery here; if the whole Board or a substantial number resigned, we simply call by-elections, we do what the constitution says. Several have put up their hand to stand if that were to be the case. There is always a contingency plan.

 

The problem is there are so many threads on these problematic issues now it is hard to locate all the previous discussion. For the more recent participants in this forum, may I respectfully suggest you find the various threads and read through all the posts. Apart from being enlightened you will realise this has already been discussed.

 

 

[Robert]

What if the board decides to all resign under the pressure [and I think you can do this]. what are the possibilities then?CASA is not going to run it. maybe the SAAA, {do you want that?]...Just have a contingency plan. Instead of a kill policy.

My last words

Yes it would be madness to leave the ship crewless so I would tread carefully

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yes it would be madness to leave the ship crewless so I would tread carefully

Robert,

I am curious where this concern is coming from ... you wont find anywhere in this forum on any thread where such a notion has been put or supported.

 

The only person who has suggested such an alleged intention was the president in an email to some members.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Robert the exec has bypassed a lot of common sense approaches in their desire to hire a new GM. Job description issued on a Wednesday and applications closed on the Friday of the same week. In many respects, a bad rudder is worse than no rudder.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What if the board decides to all resign under the pressure [and I think you can do this]. what are the possibilities then?CASA is not going to run it. maybe the SAAA, {do you want that?]...Just have a contingency plan. Instead of a kill policy.

My last words

If you go back and read the posts, you'll be reassured on that score by the words of some of the board members; they remain committed to managing RAA in a fair and open way.

 

You'll also read the growth of very strong Member support for these people.

 

 

[Guest Error404]

There have been many many allegations on here about inappropriate actions by what would seem like half or more of the current board members. If they are all true and they all stood down there would not be much of a board left. I still wonder at a high level where this meeting is headed and what might come of it. It would appear that after the meeting there will either be an raaus or there won't be!

 

 

[David Isaac]

There have been many many allegations on here about inappropriate actions by what would seem like half or more of the current board members. If they are all true and they all stood down there would not be much of a board left. I still wonder at a high level where this meeting is headed and what might come of it.

Surely if the allegations are true, then the Board members should be either sanctioned or removed from their position, if that means more than half then so be it, but again, that will be the members decision at this meeting and the Natfly meeting NOT mine alone. If you want to know where this meeting is headed, may I respectfully suggest you attend or send a proxy to keep you informed.

 

It would appear that after the meeting there will either be an raaus or there won't be!

With respect Error404, I do NOT understand this kind of extreme statement.

 

How could the members at a single General Meeting make any decision that could close down RA Aus on the spot. Where is this kind of thinking coming from?

 

The whole purpose of this meeting is to underpin the proper governance and continuation of RA Aus as a organisation. If there needs to be some pain to achieve that then we should all be prepared to bare that pain, otherwise the alternative may mean the non existance of RA Aus as we know it in the future.

 

 

[rankamateur]

What on earth is the great mystery here; if the whole Board or a substantial number resigned, we simply call by-elections, we do what the constitution says. Several have put up their hand to stand if that were to be the case. There is always a contingency plan.

The only part of R A Aus that won't be protected by the constitution should be the parts of the organisation which feel they are not bound by the constitution, and feel they may act outside the constitution without being called to account. They must be members of a different organisation than the the one We are members of, so cut them loose, and lets get on with it.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The group Im part of has discussed this with CASA, not because that is what we seek to do but rather we represent 5% of attendeeds we can only therefore appropriately apply 5% of control. In otherwords if 95% of the other attendees are looking for that outcome then thats where we'll go. Personally I strongly believe that we have insufficient info to form any view, our greatest concern other than the tactical removal of the ability to register aircraft, is the lack of communications to members. If our concerns are true, and they are! how can we know why things are as they are and therefore how can anyone talk of motions to remove anyone at this time?

 

The feeling we got from CASA was they are constantly considering whether RAAus is able to fulfill its Deed of Arrangement obligations. The reality is that the obligations in the main are met by the paid RAAus staff. The lack of a CEO/GM and a Techman is of greater concern than the makeup of the board.

 

Lee Ungermann is still an RAAus member and a s a previous CEO of RAAus he is well aware of the constitution and of the areas of it available to members and board membersw alike in the situation you talk of.

 

If the entire board was to resign then CASA would be more interested in knowing when normal operations would resume than knowing of the exact details of why we are where we are. CASA is interested in safety above all else, we need to know that we can attend to that concern above all else.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Sorry an important point, Our constitution says that if we have 3 board members we have a quorum and therefore a board capable of action. Technically that is all we need and the constitutional and by-law defined mechanisms of filling vacant positions will then be applied as they normally are.

 

In the event that we end up with less than 2 board members then at that meeting we must resolve that problem immediately. In my view we would do that by democratically appointing as many board members as we need to meet the quorum requirements at the meeting with a view that the appointment remain only for as long as it takes to constitutionally define elections and in any event no longer than 60 days.

 

Now, please dont draw from what Ive written above that it is our intent to go down that path IT IS NOT!

 

I provide it so that claims "If we loose them all" then thats it we're F*k'd" can be shown to be wrong. For no other reason!

 

Andy

 

 

[Captain]

Personally I strongly believe that we have insufficient info to form any view, our greatest concern other than the tactical removal of the ability to register aircraft, is the lack of communications to members. If our concerns are true, and they are! how can we know why things are as they are and therefore how can anyone talk of motions to remove anyone at this time?

Further to Andy's post as above, it is also clear that some Board Members, who are doing their jobs and asking for information on problem areas, are being refused access to that data by the Secretary and by this so-called President.

 

So how can the members know the details of what is going on when some Board Members can't find out either.

 

The 1st part of the Feb 9th meeting will almost certainly be a question and answer session, then reviews to sort out what answers are correct.

 

And as of last night, the written legal opinion from Porters Lawyers on the Runciman resignation/reinstatement has still not been provided to all members of the Board. So that needs to be sorted out too.

 

In my opinion there is a lot to be learnt on Feb 9th before the members in attendance have the data that they need to make considered decisions.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Indeed, and a couple of examples that to me astound me.....

 

1) The deed of Arrangement with CASA is our largest and most onerous contract (No great suprise in that, its as you would expect!). There are a number of board members who have never seen it, and are refused access to it.

 

2) The Audit reports for follow on audit s#2, 3 and 4 are not available to some of the board members and have been refused access to some who have specifically asked for it.

 

3) The legal documentation about the litigation that is in progress at present, some board members are unable to access the documentation and are refused access to it.

 

Those actions of exclusion are in direct defiance of:-

 

1) The CASA terms of the deed of Arrangement!

 

2) Good governance principles

 

3) Legislation defining how boards and specifically board membersw/directors must act

 

The bottom line is that there are board members who are actively being refused information that is essential to them being able to fulfill the obligations of the job that normal members elected them to do.

 

But rather than bang on about it here, come to the Canberra meeting, I can guarentee that the items above will be discussed in some detail!

 

Those that are refusing access must clearly not understand their obligations and the sanctions that can be applied. The old risk vs reward formulae doesnt go close to being in balance when you understabnd the risk side of the equation properly!!

 

Andy

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

A slight technical correction to the Board quorum issue. The Act requires a Committee (Board) of a minimum of 3 persons. The Constitution requires 7 Board members present for a quorum.

 

RAA Board members McKeown, Birrell, Tatlock, will not resign and have no reason to resign on 9th Feb. Likewise Mike Smith and Cliff McCann have only been there since last September and are not realistically culpable for the current mess.

 

Let's not dredge up this "what happens if they all go" again? It won't happen.

 

 

[normfox]

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

A concern for me is that a member might vote 'open proxies' on a motion that questions that member's performance, interests or integrity.

 

In other places it is the rule that interested parties abstain from the vote in such situations and this surely must also apply to undirected proxies held by the interested party.

 

It is starting to look like certain of our Board have a curious interpretation of "self interest".

 

eg. How can we ensure integrity of the vote if a motion from the floor challenges the Secretary's mail out?

 

 

[Gibbo]

You do realise that it took a CASA shutdown for the RAA to actively start fixing the plane registration issues. If they come for the pilot registrar it could take a long time to check that everyone with an RAA licence is legally licensed.

Well my Log book makes interesting reading - No Stamps etc from my CFI at the time plus a couple of 'interesting training sessions'. Guess who the CFI was?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Uncle Eugene?

 

 

[Gibbo]

A very UNSUITABLE answer that I can neither confirm or deny. lol

 

 

[crashley]

Have been reading all the post and was wondering who I should give my proxy vote to ( as I cant get to the meeting ) I want pick someone who wants raa to sort out their problems and to be open and represent the needs of us any sugestions

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

I think you need a phone number so you can ring the person and quiz them as to what they would do with your vote. There was a list of names and phone numbers posted earlier by Andy@coffs - you could start with that list.

 

 

[Keith Page]

For me work commitments prevent me attending the meeting on the 09/02/13.

 

At this point I must hasten to mention that I have grave concerns as to the outcome of this meeting. I see Andy@Coffs has written a novel of “whys”, I believe this is not the correct way to approach the situation we should be looking for corrections not just finding problems and asking the “whys.” One does not have to be a rocket scientist to find problems however there is a lot more effort needed to correct the problems why not put the effort into correcting such, hence positive effort required not all this bagging.

 

One for the board members, no one goes about and does something deliberately wrong -- because most of the time when we make a poor decision it is because we did not get enough information and or someone with a hidden agenda wanting to foster their egos and gives us a remanufactured version of events “fibs”.

 

The other point I have noticed -- the comments regarding the board are negative, surely there must be some positives about.

 

Look where RAAus is today not bad, Eh?

 

Yes there are things which can be done better, however that is called improving and we are doings things better every day “advancing.”

 

To me it looks like a hate fest on the board members.

 

My concern is if the mass meeting attendees just antagonise the board members with their “whys” the board may have a mass walk out yes I am worried. What will happen to the *Schools*Manufactures*Importers*and all those who make a living from these little planes, here is a small industry, could be all gone.

 

If there is a mass walk out who will be the caretaker/administrator???

 

I bet it will be someone from CASA and the situation will not be enjoyable “This is what you having and getting.” If you do not like that see you later, bye.

 

OR Worst of Close us down… Then what?

 

Be wise with your questions and egos.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

We are each entitled to our views. My view is that it is not optional that we must meet the legislated requirements of an incorporated association which are purposely set as a bar fairly low so that the local 30 member P&C can meet them.

 

As a multimillion dollar organisation that still today hasn't met the financial obligations of the legisltion, and at least one of the more vocal board members showed here that he was completely clueless as to what the underlying legislation actually was, then yes i want change. However i keep saying and people keep ignoring, there is an obligation specified in the legislation that natural justice must be present in everything we do. Change that requires for example, the treasurer to move on, cant just happen, rather we must ask a bunch of why questions give him the oportunity to explain why he failed to meet the obligations and only when that is done and we can consider the provided reasons, can we talk about what we intend to do as a result. The fact that we haven't talked about the what is not because we havent considered it, but rather that we, unlike the exec and majority of the bord, do feel we must follow the legislation requirments, which for example would require that anything sent out to the entire membership like the secretaries initial response to the calling of the meeting, must allow a right of reply from those calling the meeting if as Paul did, they felt it necessary to provide a Political statement with the notice of meeting........

 

BTW, anyone think the Paul that wrote the first response, and the Paul that wrote the response we got in the mail in the last few days is the same Paul? If he is, then IMHO he's schizophrenic, or more likely the later letter is a letter that was run past the RAAus Lawyer first!

 

Andy the why! Stand by for the what!

 

P.S talk about mass walk out is just B/S we know for fact that wont occur, there are those on the board that clearly can claim that what has happened over the last 12 months is not their fault.....but not the ones that are continuously claiming that today And certainly not those involved in the letter we all got in the last few days!

 

 

[Teckair]

Keith if read the posts leading up to here you will see your concerns are not likely to happen. What we have now is an unacceptable situation the why questions have to be asked as part of the solution to this problem.

 

 

[kaz3g]

<snip> To me it looks like a hate fest on the board members. <snip>

Be wise with your questions and egos.

 

Keith Page

Indeed, Keith, indeed.

 

There has been a huge amount of discussion on this list and elsewhere, some of it informed and some pure speculation like your contribution appears to be.

 

The industry and flying schools have already taken a knock from the grounding of aircraft due to the registration debacle. Members have been unable to fly their aircraft for the same reason.

 

The forthcoming GM gives the Board, but especially the Executive, the opportunity to provide an explanation about this issue and a number of others that threaten RAAus right now. And that explanation will be as much about what steps they propose to take to resolve the issues as any apportionment of blame.

 

But things that have gone seriously wrong, Keith, and a serious, informed approach to their resolution will take us all a lot further than uninformed scaremongering and rumour.

 

I note you are in Rockhampton. Perhaps you have been listening to your local members' dangerously inaccurate propaganda rather than asking those hard questions yourself?

 

Regards

 

kaz

 

 

[dodo]

For me work commitments prevent me attending the meeting on the 09/02/13.At this point I must hasten to mention that I have grave concerns as to the outcome of this meeting. I see Andy@Coffs has written a novel of “whys”, I believe this is not the correct way to approach the situation we should be looking for corrections not just finding problems and asking the “whys.” One does not have to be a rocket scientist to find problems however there is a lot more effort needed to correct the problems why not put the effort into correcting such, hence positive effort required not all this bagging.

One for the board members, no one goes about and does something deliberately wrong -- because most of the time when we make a poor decision it is because we did not get enough information and or someone with a hidden agenda wanting to foster their egos and gives us a remanufactured version of events “fibs”.

 

The other point I have noticed -- the comments regarding the board are negative, surely there must be some positives about.

 

Look where RAAus is today not bad, Eh?

 

Yes there are things which can be done better, however that is called improving and we are doings things better every day “advancing.”

 

To me it looks like a hate fest on the board members.

 

My concern is if the mass meeting attendees just antagonise the board members with their “whys” the board may have a mass walk out yes I am worried. What will happen to the *Schools*Manufactures*Importers*and all those who make a living from these little planes, here is a small industry, could be all gone.

 

If there is a mass walk out who will be the caretaker/administrator???

 

I bet it will be someone from CASA and the situation will not be enjoyable “This is what you having and getting.” If you do not like that see you later, bye.

 

OR Worst of Close us down… Then what?

 

Be wise with your questions and egos.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

As far as the criticisms go - people don't post on an internet forum to praise (or very rarely) - they whinge about what is wrong.

As far as the "why?", I think it is a lot better than just condemning the board for what has gone wrong. Let's ask questions and listen. Then consider the future.

 

As far as the intent of the board members, I have no doubt as to the good intentions of every one of them, and in the one case where I can form a view, I can see the abilities and attributes that person brings to the board. It doesn't mean they get everything right, as we have seen.

 

However, we still can't meet basic requirements (minutes, financial statements, aircraft registration requirements), and we need to address this. Communication to/from the board has been so poor that a meeting seemed a good idea - and still does.

 

I agree with your concerns that hasty action might result, but I hope the board meeting will be more communicative, and the questions and answers more sensible, due to the face to face nature, and the basic good sense of most who attend.

 

As to some of your "ifs", I think RA members are capable of resolving these as they occur. In some of the wilder scenarios - a board resignation for example, I think the constitution provides enough guidance to allow a sensible resolution, but I doubt that will be necessary. One thing I don't believe will happen is that the problems will all be resolved in a single meeting, but I think we can get an idea of the situation, and make a start,

 

dodo