Board Member Costs Advice Sought

[turboplanner]

Perhaps he would feel a damned sight less comfortable expaining it to a Magistrate and ASIC!This man does not seem to understand either his legal obligations or his ethical obligations. Matters are rightly kept confidential to the Board as a whole when they involve privacy considerations or contractual terms and the like, but discriminating between Board members is never acceptable.

 

I feel a writ of mandamus coming on and in the meantime can hardly wait for the AGM when special resolutions can be considered.

 

kaz

 

kaz

That doesn't seem a bad path Kaz.

 

 

[Captain]

Keep going Jim. You are 150% in the right.

 

I believe that the key issue is that this (and previous) Executive think that they are above the Board.

 

That is how it has evolved for years and it is the crux of RAA's problems.

 

The proof that the existing system doesn't work is in the litany of errors and failures that have come to a head this year, under Runciman's "leadership".

 

And I suspect that they aren't all fully public yet.

 

This just HAS to be put right on Feb 9th or this Executive will take us down another road to another failure, and who knows what the consequences will be for the members.

 

Please keep chasing the data on that case, Jim, as it has potential to be far worse for members than even the groundings and RAA's inability to process new aircraft registrations.

 

And I say again, I suspect that this dysfunctional Executive and the sycophant Board Members who allow it to happen are also putting at risk the RAA's Directors and Officers Insurance as their actions would surely give the insurer an out in the event of a claim.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[SOS]

To date, I have been supporting the "fixing" of our current Organisation, and its Officers' performance, through re-education, membership direction and perhaps constitutional change. However, recent events are steering me more towards supporting an Executive clean-out and re-start!

 

 

[turboplanner]

To date, I have been supporting the "fixing" of our current Organisation, and its Officers' performance, through re-education, membership direction and perhaps constitutional change. However, recent events are steering me more towards supporting an Executive clean-out and re-start!

The situation is complex SOS.

 

While I don't doubt that a complete spill and restart would not harm RAA, there is strong evidence, ironically from posts on this forum, that two or three current board members do have the interests of members at heart, and could do a great job, but are being beaten into submission.

 

These people are the meat in the sandwich through no fault of their own.

 

So in my opinion members should do everything possible to protect these vocal board members, to encourage them, and to ensure they eventually get the reward of open recognition from all members.

 

 

[Teckair]

The situation is complex SOS.While I don't doubt that a complete spill and restart would not harm RAA, there is strong evidence, ironically from posts on this forum, that two or three current board members do have the interests of members at heart, and could do a great job, but are being beaten into submission.

These people are the meat in the sandwich through no fault of their own.

 

So in my opinion members should do everything possible to protect these vocal board members, to encourage them, and to ensure they eventually get the reward of open recognition from all members.

What SOS said was a clean out of the Executive not the board.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry SOS, I got so excited I misread it.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Starting from scratch without an appropriate organisational structure in place runs the risk of history repeating itself. Whatever the process, it is the elected board members that act on behalf of the members and who have a responsibility to set the strategic direction of the organisation. That is why they are elected. Their other responsibility is to report back to the membership on the collective decisions that are part of a democratic decision-making process. The general meeting called for the 9th of Feb is a formal procedure built into our constitution that ensures that the process of decision making is consistent with good governance. If our governance is found to be wanting then members will have the option to re-organise the Board at the next AGM.

 

Do members (whatever the number) have a clear idea of what the ideal FAAus organisational structure is? If the postings on this site are any indication then the answer is most likely no!

 

New strategic directions and re-vamped governance/management arrangements are critical topics for discussion at the Feb 9th meeting. If positive change is to be made then I believe that independent professional assistance will be required. Such an action would need to be adopted by the board if the proposal was to come from a special general meeting.

 

As an organisation we also need to preserve a degree of dignity and good practice while working through what Turbo has described as a complex situation

 

Pete

 

 

[SOS]

Turbo ... no worries.

 

Pete ... couldn't agree more. There would be nothing worse than a mob trying to put forward all their individual ideas for change at the Feb meeting. Chaos would rule supreme!

 

The best outcome might be a successful resolution that obliged the Association to procure professional services to assist a "committee of appropriate members" to assess and/or re-build the structure and/or constitution of the Association and implement any resultant changes.

 

 

[Thirsty]

Seems to me the structure is ok as it is, not that I'm in any way qualified to know the difference between good and bad structures. In my opinion we have a personnel problem and that should be fairly easy to fix.

 

if we had an executive that acted in accordance with the constitution wouldn't that work ok?

 

 

[SOS]

Unfortunately, a system that permits individuals to allegedly operate outside "good governance" is not an appropriate system.

 

Systems under which multi-million dollar Associations operate, need to be fail-safe.... and not personality-dependent.

 

 

[facthunter]

The "mentality" of the executuve is to close ranks and stare out the danger. I have always called this is a "seige" mentality and I still feel this is the problem. NOT THE STRUCTUREof the organisation..

 

Don't blame the rules if no-one is following the rules.

 

The buck stops with the current executive and the ex CEO. They have been steering this thing for long enough to have had an effect or at least tell us what is going on. Instead things get worse.

 

"Toughing it out " and singling out individuals for 'breaking ranks" is BS. Two elected state reps couldn't accept the way things were and resigned. Signs the "exec" ignored.

 

Now JIM is being singled out for trying to do his job properly. The first BIG fight was with Carol who crossed swords with a rather sexist "CEO" who signed his death warrant as far as I'm concerned when he attacked her as he did. The "THAT WOMAN" saga) , that virtually got rid of Carol, who has worked like a trojan for the RAAus. for years.

 

I must apologise to Maj ( I think it was, or winsor) who was going to run against Steve R. I thought Steve would be the man for the job. Maybe a lot of hope was contained in my view, but many of us expected a lot from Steve.

 

The "loyalty" issue may keep some board members from doing what is necessary. Get professional! This is not an "our GANG" clubhouse in a tree somewhere, where the owner gets to hand pick the members on the basis of being subservient to the leader ( on side always). Nev.

 

 

[Admin]

Nev, it was Steve Runciman that started the Carol drama. I was on the Board at the time and we were discussing the CEO, naturally by email as the CEO could view the Board Forum, something that I tried to stop by having a Board Member ONLY part but got overruled on. So we were discussing issues with the CEO and Runciman passed emails from Carol's input on the subject to the CEO breaking board confidentiality when discussing between ourselves matters pertaining to staff. He even phoned me asking if I thought he had done the wrong thing, at a guess probably to solicit my support for him in passing confidential information on...go figure!

 

Sorry for "off topic"

 

 

[webbm]

The situation is complex SOS.While I don't doubt that a complete spill and restart would not harm RAA, there is strong evidence, ironically from posts on this forum, that two or three current board members do have the interests of members at heart, and could do a great job, but are being beaten into submission.

These people are the meat in the sandwich through no fault of their own.

 

So in my opinion members should do everything possible to protect these vocal board members, to encourage them, and to ensure they eventually get the reward of open recognition from all members.

Wholeheartedly agree. Just keep in mind that if they're not publicly vocal, doesn't mean they aren't great contributors to the Board. I chat with my local rep from time to time. He is new(ish), you don't hear him here, but we gotta keep him on the Board and ensure that the Board will get the best out of him.

Cheers.

 

 

[SOS]

There's two issues here:

 

1. How WE require the Board, Executive and Staff to operate
    
    
   
2. Who WE want to fill the Board, Executive and Staff positions
    
    
   

 

 

I think issue no. 1 has to be resolved, before we worry about no. 2

 

 

[Teckair]

Seems to me the structure is ok as it is, not that I'm in any way qualified to know the difference between good and bad structures. In my opinion we have a personnel problem and that should be fairly easy to fix.if we had an executive that acted in accordance with the constitution wouldn't that work ok?

No, one problem we have is the CEO/GM has not been responsible for the actions of staff like the Tech Manager, The ops manual states the Tech Manager reports to the board this has been shown to not be a success. I would have thought the Tech and Ops managers should be reporting to the CEO/GM who then should be reporting to the board. The CEO/GM should be responsible for what is happening and the buck should stop with him/her. What we have had in the past is a joke and has lead to big inexcusable problems like aircraft being grounded and incorrectly registered, members have been seriously imposed on and it has to stop.

 

 

[Thirsty]

Fair enough but that's a fairly minor change right? In general terms the structure is good right?

 

 

[facthunter]

People like the Tech manager reporting to the board would seem "normal" to me as does the CEO. This doesn't preclude the CEO having some oversight and interaction with him/her at any frequency required. Consider if the opposite applied. It wouldn't make sense. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

Fair enough but that's a fairly minor change right? In general terms the structure is good right?

It might seem like a minor change but if the Tech Manager issue was solved that would be a major result. We wouldn't be talking about this if it wasn't for the groundings. No one would think it was minor if they had bought a Ibis especially if it was for training.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Thirsty: This is a major impediment to the operational structure. Under the current arrangements no one takes responsibility and governance and management are just a merged mess.

 

Pete.

 

 

[Captain]

Dear Tecky, Facty and Thirsty,

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

In any such organisation, I believe that some one individual needs to be in charge and responsible.

 

With the Techman and the GM both reporting to the Board, or more correctly in RAA's case, to the Executive, such a structure allows the amatuer volunteer members of the Executiuve to play alternate favourites for their own benefit and even if that is not the case, both the GM & Techman are presently part of the politics of the Board and Executive and they can also play those politics to the hilt.

 

RAA will never attract a decent GM/CEO if they cannot be responsible and have the authority to "manage".

 

In addition, I believe that an RAA weakness is what they do NOT have in their structure, and I will be raising those issues at the Feb 9th meeting.

 

Regards Ratty

 

Curses ......... beaten to the send button by Pete.

 

 

[facthunter]

You will have to convince me there Geoff. The board is elected , The rest are employed. By whom, if it is not the board, or part of it? relying a lot on the GM in some cases. I believe the GM objected to the board's authority and the fact he wasn't automatically part of the supreme governing body. The only real power of the members comes from their ability to elect the board who ( technically) reflect their wishes. The day to day business of running the offfice relies on the GM/CEO but he is bound by policy and by instruction from the board. He/she is appointed ( and removed) by the board ultimately The tail cannot wag the dog. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Im with Captain..... There is only one person I want reporting to the board and that is the boss employee (whatever we call him/her) any other mixture gives the board a requirement for governance and management together. We all know that when things are going wrong Governance gets the big Heave Ho and everyone focuses on Management, which then leads to confussion abouts whose job solving the Screwup reallty is......Perhaps if it was that clear with previous CEO's we may not have the issues we have today!

 

Let the Boss emplyee focus on Management. To be honest this is really only a small business and there are not a large number of employees nor a complicated hierarchy. If we get the right Boss they will manage the small group and still have plenty of hours left in the day to improve and focus the organsiation.

 

If we get the right Boss and the board mistakenly feel they can play management then they are likely to get a fair belting, appropriately, from the Boss and told to stop meddling where they have no right to do so.

 

I dont undetrstand what could be simpler than saying "Boss, you are responsible for day to day management of all the staff...No exceptions!"....anything else will require a compliacted list of exceptions that imho are simply not required.

 

In large business its quite normal for professional employees to have multiple lines of reporting. For example most Management Accountants will have a direct report with the business manager that manages the line of business that they are employed in and a dotted line back through the CFO into central finance. Similarly most Engineers will have a direct report into the line of business manager they work for as well as a dotted line report to the chief engineer for governance and Product Assurance reasons. Same approach with the Techman, He/She can be operational managed by the Boss but still have dotted line reporting to the President and or CASA if such complicated structures are truely required, however my first suggestion would be to KISS, dont complicate it if it doenst need to be! RAAus is not big business!!

 

Andy

 

P.S in all that Ive written it was assumed that people understood that the board ultimatley has the right of Veto in everything that happens within the place. However that in a well run organisation should be a rarely exercised exception rather than the rule. The Boss Employee should only be doing those things that enact the strategy that the board require and if the relationship between boss and board is healthy the board will already know the bullet point summary of how the Boss intends to turn the strategy into practical reality.

 

 

[Captain]

You will have to convince me there Geoff. The board is elected , The rest are employed. By whom, if it is not the board, or part of it? relying a lot on the GM in some cases. I believe the GM objected to the board's authority and the fact he wasn't automatically part of the supreme governing body. The only real power of the members comes from their ability to elect the board who ( technically) reflect their wishes. The day to day business of running the offfice relies on the GM/CEO but he is bound by policy and by instruction from the board. He/she is appointed ( and removed) by the board ultimately The tail cannot wag the dog. Nev

I'm not proposing that Nev.

 

My recommendation is that the CEO/GM be at the peak of the reporting (& responsibility) pyramid for all staff and consultants.

 

The GM would then report to the Board and take policy direction from them (and not filtered through the Executive).

 

This would, of course, need a more rigid structure of Board Meetings, but as I have proposed in another thread, that could vary based on the magnitude of issues, but I suspect would need to be face-to-face each 3 to 4 months and electronic meetings monthly.

 

One of the issues that RAA must have is monthly formal reporting to the Board by the President, Secretary, Treasurer & CEO/GM (and any of his support staff as needed by issues). I suspect that this is similar to the structure that John G tried to bring in & which got his throat cut by the establishment on the Board.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't agree with that either.( I'm responding to Andy here Geoff.) How do the members get their views represented and acted upon in your structure? Do you just want to reduce board power because they haven't acted well in this instance? It would be wrong to respond to any situation based on one particular outcome that may be an unusual circumstance. Where is your line of responsibility back to the members ?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Nev

 

I think its very clear, Members thoughts and views should be considered and embodied in strategy. Strategy here isnt some airy fairy thing like a mission statement that is so high level that at times how yot get from there to actions isnt at all clear. The strategy Im talking is of a very practical level.

 

for example:-

 

1) RAAus signed a Deed of Agreement with CASA. The Deed Schedule has a series of obligations and actions for RAAus this year. Boss, enact those obligations and report back to the board within X weeks with an implementation plan and report monthly status against the plan.

 

2) RAAus members made it very clear at the last GM that the level of communications from the board and employees is suboptimal. Propose a technology based alternate that can enable communications to the entire membership within X days of an event occuring.

 

3) RAAus members at the last GM made it clear that while our Website is appropriately pretty it is functionally barren. Make all forms capable of online submission with automated workflow built into the system to speed up response times and improve our accuracy of systems.

 

Anyway they are incomplete ideas but just wanted people to know these are strategy items at a level that is real and practical not some high level stuff that to most will mean nothing!

 

Andy