RAAus General Meeting Called

[turboplanner]

Well Win, in my opinion, with a long history of working with Incorporated Associations, he is no longer the North Queensland Board Rep, and no longer the President.

 

In my opinion, acting in either of those positions puts him, and the people who are supporting him in danger of very serious repercussions where, for example, someone has financially suffered by a board decision.

 

However, he and others are maintaining they got a legal opinion.

 

It has to be said that a legal opinion simply reflects what was asked of the lawyer.

 

What this needs is another legal opinion which lays down the sequence of events and what was written and spoken.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well said Riley,

 

I reckon Gavin has walked into a hornet's nest; we have to give the guy a chance to step back and consider what is happening, asses his position and hopefully step forward and make a contribution on behalf of the members. There has to be some good people still in there. We are an association of members, and the elected committee members (Board members) must account for their actions or perhaps lack of actions to those who elected them to that position of representation.

 

I think the GM we have called for February will be interesting, because each Board member must speak and put forward their position as the representative of the members in their areas. I for one, and I suspect the meeting also, will not tolerate an Executive mouth piece on behalf of the total Board.

 

I will also be challenging in the meeting the legitimacy of Mr. Runciman as the current 'President' of RA Aus and challenging his legitimacy as a member of the Board before we even start any formal proceedings.

 

Let us call each Board member to account on the day please, by all means on past alleged behaviour and their individual responses; let us not be guilty of being a lynch mob.

 

 

[dodo]

I wasn't at the AGM, and it is with the wisdom of hindsight that I say this, but as the Treasurers report didn't meet the basic requirements (eg presenting a complete set of financial statements), it would have been a good idea for those that picked upon it to speak against the resolution to accept the report.

 

I am very clear in my own mind that I wouldn't have thought of it at the time, so I am just suggesting that next time that reports shouldn't be automatically accepted (or automatically opposed).

 

dodo

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Riley, I never said Gavin wasn't a nice bloke, I just don't see him as being capable of or willing to standing up the exec, which I think is necessary to initiate change.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Out of all the pages of complaints WHO is actually putting their hand up to stand for election at the next ballot whenever that occurs. As I see it from an observer most positions are filled unopposed.

 

I have (until very recently) been on a board and received complaints about what should happen but the same people would not stand for the committee when the AGM came around - Too much time etc. I hope this is not the case here.

 

Frank

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well Frank, having worked my guts out for members for several years and donating about $60,000.00 in benefits to them, only to get a steady stream of complaints, someone told me the true mark of a leader is the ability to be judged by his peers, and it felt better after that. Complaints are the methods used by many Australians to point out how something might be improved.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I don't mean to comment on what you or anyone else has done in the past (being a relative new member quite frankly it would be wrong for me to do so) I am asking if anyone is prepared to put their hand up for election rather then just point out failings?

 

I am certainly not buying into the argument - just looking here and not seeing anything positive at all.

 

Frank

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Riley, by supporting the Exec and particularly Ex Pres Runciman, Gavin is aligning himself with those who are part of the problem - not part of the solution. He needs to look harder at what he is being fed by the Exec and spit most of it out.

 

 

[SOS]

Would it not be more prudent to "bring the current Board into line" ... rather than replace them with another crew of untried and unknown newbies? My gut feeling is that the alleged shortcomings we have in the Board are due to inexperience and lack of guidance and training ... rather than evil intent. No one intentionality tries to be a bastard (except for a few of my friends). I suggest that the majority of the Board are trying to do the right thing , but are, perhaps, unaware of how. As members, we have a chance in February to commence a process of providing the guidance that is required.

 

 

[Admin]

Out of all the pages of complaints WHO is actually putting their hand up to stand for election at the next ballot whenever that occurs. As I see it from an observer most positions are filled unopposed.I have (until very recently) been on a board and received complaints about what should happen but the same people would not stand for the committee when the AGM came around - Too much time etc. I hope this is not the case here.

 

Frank

Frank, I am very seriously considering standing again however, the current format/makeup (and constitution) of the Committee needs to be fixed as well as just getting new people in there, but I would see it as only being temporary because fixing the Committee will no doubt see a completely different format/makeup then what we have now

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

And I have already stated that I would stand rather than allow a current NSW member to stand unopposed. I would prefer that I didnt have to, but as youve already said, it would be unreasonable to stir the pot so heavily and then not be prepared to take the next necessary steps should members agree with my point of views.

 

However I would much prefer to see the Constitutional Review Commitee re-established with a view as Ian alluded to overhauling the structure and mandate of the committee of Management (Correct term for board while we remain an incorporated Association). Should the CRC recommend that we return to the potentially more appropriate Company limited by Guarentee then they would indeed be a board. Its my view that what we have at present is too large and doesnt achieve effectively the aims set out as to proportional representation. Other than my words here I dont believe Ive ever been represented yet!

 

Just out of interest given that the change from Company limited by Guarentee to Incorporated Association was such a big change that must have involved the members, I struggle to recall it happening and the member consultation at the time (which is not to say it didnt happen just that I dont recall it) Can others remember it occuring?

 

Perhaps I'll see you in the pages of Sport Pilot yet Frank?

 

As to being a political animal........I would guess any aircraft owner is capabale of becoming a political animal, just take away his right to fly and to be able to sell his aircraft and watch the animal come to the front!!!

 

Andy

 

 

[Captain]

Captain,I did come down for the AGM (cost me a bit though). Interesting to see so few on the attendance register ( only 50 odd). I estimate there was about 150 at the meeting . My name is not there and I signed in. I spoke with some mates this pm who were there and they said their names were conspicuous by their absence also, and they all signed the attendance register. One said his mate signed next to him and his name is on the role, but not his. Missing documentation from the AGM.

The treasurers thing is woefull. Incorrect dates, no report. They even said a financial statement and auditor report was presented. How could that be, as there was no signed Auditors report or signed board members report " at the meeting. This is an indicator of more cover up. How can you move ,second and carry an annual financial report when there is not one to be seen.

 

I will have to go over the AGM notes a lot more in the next few days to see how many other errors I can find.

Tiger,

 

Those appear to be serious anomalies in the AGM Minutes of an association such as ours.

 

So our esteemed leaders can't even get the attendance right in the Minutes.

 

What the stuff is going on there?

 

I hope that the members audit that as you have, because if so, that looks like another audit failure is on the cards.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just out of interest given that the change from Company limited by Guarentee to Incorporated Association was such a big change that must have involved the members, I struggle to recall it happening and the member consultation at the time (which is not to say it didnt happen just that I dont recall it) Can others remember it occuring?

As to being a political animal.......

It would be interesting to find out why the people at the time changed the organisation from a Company limited by Guarantee to an Incorporated Association.

 

They must have had a sound reason because this would be a big job.

 

I would agree with that move.

 

What a lot of people are getting confused by is the cocked up RAA Constitution which has led to an unsatisfactory culture, and the present clique driven style where there is poor communication with the owners - the members.

 

All that is required is to end the clique style, abolish the secrecy, set job descriptions for the employees which are reasonable, perhaps reduce the Committee by half, away from parochial roots, take advantage of member skills, and above all else communicate the good, the bad and the ugly with the members.

 

RAA certainly does not need ANY political animals. Politics is not wanted or needed and has been massively counter-productive.

 

I know "political animal" has been used by a number of posters, but really RAA needs people who are good managers, who will actively work as a committee, and who will never forget their primary function is to represent the members.

 

There is a recurring theme from some people with a fixation on small Associations (with small Constitutions and structures) that RAA has grown too big for an Association, and that simply isn't true, it's just a matter of designing the Constitution and structure to operate efficiently.

 

I mentioned previously the Sporting Shooters Association, and a membership from memory of 125,000. Well membership has increased since then to 144,000 - 19,000 more than the last time I mentioned it.

 

One RAA member said they don't do licensing and certification checks, and while that's true, it's just a question of trained staff and processes.

 

However, offsetting that are their huge shooting operations which have to be managed almost daily.

 

For example, in Victoria alone:

 

the Springvale .22 Range operates Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday,

 

Eagle Point Range (which I assume is centrefire) operates Friday, Saturday Sunday and Monday

 

On top of that there will be a shotgun range somewhere, and there will be country venues.

 

Multiply that by about six to get a National total, and bear in mind every one of those ranges requires people to manage, act as safety officers etc on all those days all over the country.

 

So its important not to confuse a correct structure and constitution with setting up a BHP-Billiton.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Mr T, I have to disagree with virtually everything you have said regarding RAAus. Can't comment on Sporting Shooters - might to dangerous to argue with them.

 

RAAus being managed by the Board or the Exec has been a dismal failure. The Board are not just there to serve the members but their primary job is to keep aircraft flying. Failed with a capital F.

 

Trying to run this business with amateurs who are spread from Townsville to Tassie is not a good design. We need an effective professional full time employed management. We need a Board to stay out of the Office and work at the highest level. They should not attempt to manage other than the a general Manager. Ops & Tech managers should report to the GM not the Exec nor the Board.

 

 

[David Isaac]

as far as I can see..the Board are not in the office,,,they also have no expectations (Performance Indicators) set for the GM and Officers..

I fear you are correct CFI, I believe that is the root of the problem.

[boingk]

I'll be there, and I can get as political, jargony and/or irate as everyone deems fit.

 

Maybe I should run for CEO.

 

- boingk

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

How do you feel about job security? The new GM better be pretty careful . . .

 

Robbie Costmeyer (CEO) shown the door;

 

Steve Bell (Tech Manager) shown the door;

 

Adam Finn (Tech Manager) marched out the door;

 

Steve Tizzard (CEO) shown the door (through which he could see his grandchildren frollicking . . . ahhh ... )

 

New GM . . . . anyone want a sweep on how long he/she lasts?

 

 

[Guest john]

To All Interested RAAus Members

 

After the December 2012 magazine was received the other day with the official notice for the forthcoming EGM on 9.2.2013, an email request was sent to the RAAus office a couple of days after requesting that a proxy form be sent to me as no proxy forms were attached to the EGM notice.

 

A response from the RAAus Secretary today indicated that the proxy forms will be sent out to all members in January 2013 .

 

This additional postage cost to so called 13000 members will incurr unecessary expense of our funds, & could have been avoided if the proxy forms had been attached the the EGM notification in the December 2012 magazine, as we have been advised that there is no January 2013 magazine.

 

The RAAus Secretary previously has explained that if the EGM had been held earlier than 9.2.2013, it would have incurred unecessary expense for RAAus & the Board had a fiduciary responsibilty with respect to the RAAus funds.

 

WHAT A LOAD OF BULLXXXX.

 

The majority of us little members have not come down in the last shower.

 

The above details categorically prove that the Executive Board members couldn't care a XXXX about how they squander our fees & charges we pay them & they have to pack up & go the same as the EX CEO.

 

A Company Board member of an icon Australian company once told their Chief Engineer who was pleading for capital funds be set aside for new machinery as the old worn out machinery was getting to the stage of beyond economical repair, & the Chairmans response to the Chief Engineer ( who was also a pilot) was as follows:

 

"KEVIN(who was the Chief Engineer) IT IS EASILY TO SPEND SOMEONE ELSES MONEY"

 

The Chief Engineer resigned soon after in desperation & went up to northern Victoria & purchased a rice farm.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I fear you are correct CFI, I believe that is the root of the problem.

I think I have made similar assertions on several occasions. Five or six experienced Board members able to devote significant time to governance matters and given a reasonable honorarium to do so, would be far more efficient in the long term.

 

It is imperative that KPI's are established for senior staff. The GM's should be developed, ratified and reviewed by the Board. the GM should set those for her staff. Performance should be assessed against those indicators and the results used to determine employment conditions including remuneration.

 

But you need to have a clear mission. You need to have established your goals and objectives. And you need to have translated the last into a work plan. This applies to the Board down. You have to plan if mishaps and worse are to be avoided. It's big business and it needs to be run that way.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Teckair]

the GM should set those for her staff

 

I must have missed something here, has the GM already been chosen? and is the person a female?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Nope but we males traditional assume him, when we really should say him or her, so her alone is no different just I suspect a gentle reminder to not assume anything.

 

Traditionally appointing someone to the role before the closing date is somewhat bad form and I don't believe that would happen...at least not publicly.

 

Andy

 

 

[Teckair]

Nope but we males traditional assume him, when we really should say him or her, so her alone is no different just I suspect a gentle reminder to not assume anything.Traditionally appointing someone to the role before the closing date is somewhat bad form and I don't believe that would happen...at least not publicly.

 

Andy

Oh I get it, a bit like "when god created man she was only joking".

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

Is that why they say..."lifes a bitch"????

 

 

[Guest airsick]

the GM should set those for her staffI must have missed something here, has the GM already been chosen? and is the person a female?

How can we have appointed anyone. The role description hasn't even been developed yet (from Runciman himself during a phone call I had with him). Unless of course that is the plan. Only a couple of days from Christmas and still no detail on the position. Call me cynical but I can't help it is designed so that those with an interest might inadvertently forget about the position by the time any detail is laid out. Once this happens the 'chosen one' will be able to slip into the role with little or no opposition.

 

Of course the lack of this information could be completely innocent but in the absence of any communication how would I know?!?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Just talking to a Savi pilot from Cessnock. From what he said there seems to be a lot of unhappy campers there and most will be going to canberra for the meeting.