Board Member Costs Advice Sought

[terryc]

Jim, your a breath of fresh air. Please follow through with what you've started no matter how hard it gets. [within your capacity ] You have my total support. When I read this thread and others, I don't see the disconnect that others see, it appears to me that we are all singing from the same song sheet with only minor differences in detail. Thanks again Jim.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Can Andy and or David provide an estimate of the number of people who are likely to attend Canberra next month? perhaps a quick poll?

 

Then Jim can notify the Association that an alternate venue will be required.

 

kaz

 

 

[terryc]

If I could offer an opinion at this point of the discussion it would be this, My life experiences would suggest that steve runciman is not a manageable personality an as such does not have flexability and leadership skills to utilise for the benefit of the board. What skills he does have appear to be used in bullying and stand over tactics. If my understanding is correct he has no place as our president or on the board. His two off siders although lead by him are no better. I don't doubt all three of them believe they have done nothing wrong but what they fail to see is this type of leadership is something belonging in the 1930s. It's time we made a great big jump into the 21 century. Their inability to change with the times and adopt a more professional and open style of management means they must go and soon. The rest of the board can be judged at election time. Their performance may well shine with the removal of these bullies. Their failure to provide Jim Tatlock with documents he requires to carry out his role has for me signed their death warrant.

 

 

[bernieh]

Ladies and Gents. I have found this current conversation one of the best I have read on this forum. I believe the board needs a complete makeover. Currently we have 13 members that are not working on a common cause. I have asked about a business plan but have received no answer yet. There used to be one but I think it's been parked and not followed of recent times. I have offered to take in on but with so much I find you get no feedback if others have no interest in the topic you wish to discuss. This is a problem with not having regular face to face meetings. Currently the Exec are also acting as GM/CEO, even before the CEO left I think they were part of the day to day decissions which was a huge mistake but that may have been caused because we didn't have good manager.I also agree that the exec are servants of the board however that is not every board members view. My understanding is the office bearers take on extra work because they want to assist the board to a higher level. They can also make 'urgent' decisions which are time contrained however this is not how it's running at the moment.

 

Another issue I see is that people make their way to the board without any real governance experience. I don't see this as a problem if the member 'wants to learn' but what I am finding in some conversations they just think they know best. At times I suspect the constitution and code of conduct have not been read or if so not understood.

 

All I can honestly say to the members of this forum is unless the current dynamic of the board is changed then we will see no change to the board and in my honest opinion it is currently disfuctional. If some of the comments via email and forums to which I am privy to between board members that I will not publish here were exchanged at my workplace you would be sacked within a week.

 

Regards and hoping for a future for the RAA and a good one at that.

 

Jim Tatlock.

Jim.. If I had not already given my proxy vote to a Qld rep who appears to be on the same track as you it would be yours... Good luck....Bernieh

 

 

[fly_tornado]

My feeling is that Steve is going to run the RAA into the ground by the time he gives up "representing" the best interests of the members. At least Mr. Tizzard had the self awareness to realize that the game was up.

 

 

[Captain]

What building are they using for the meeting and how many people will it hold?Alan.

Alan,

 

I wrote to the Board a week or two ago urging them to select a more suitable venue than the Office, as I know of a number of members who are travelling a long way and spending a lot of money to attend on Feb 9th, and I advised the Board that they can expect members to get very heated if they all can't be fitted in to the meeting room.

 

SR wrote back to say that this was being given consideration.

 

I concede that it will be difficult to develop an accurate estimate of attendees in advance, but I guarantee that it will be a lot more than 100.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Spriteah]

Geoff the poll on the other thread will hopefully give us some idea as to the amount of members that will attend. Hopefully then a suitable venue can be source within a few minutes of walking.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

 

 

[turboplanner]

Added to that poll are any club-loads

 

 

[tvaner]

ladies and Gents,As a new board member I have recently been asking to be provided with paperwork of issues. I cannot enter into the details of some of the issues as they do fall into the confidential side of things and others don't.

Now what I am asking here is what do the membership on this site want? Are you happy that all the board get a copy of full documentation of all important issues we are dealing with?

 

The reason I am asking is that I have been denied at this stage to receive some documentation becuase of the size. However, the bigger the documentation normally the bigger the issue and the great need for independant evaluation from board members.

 

Oh, addon, obviously the cost of providing board members this information is your money. Jim

Jim, You got my vote at the last election and all that you have been doing since being installed into the role has vindicated my choice. You continue to have my 100% support.

 

Just remember, when swimming upstream against the flow you might get a few knocks from the dead fish going with the flow. Keep at it mate. You are obviously making a few people very nervous.

 

Please add me to your list for email updates should you decide to go that way.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Jim,

 

Anyone with the temerity to stand up for fair process, transparency and integrity will always have my confidence. Well done and thanks.

 

 

[joeyo68]

Jim,

 

Although I am fairly new to the RAA scene, I appreciate you fighting to improve RAA for all of us. Dont let the few bad eggs get the better of you.

 

You have my 100% support.

 

Joe.

 

 

[Captain]

Before I do that I will post this: A reply from the president after I asked for information. The indescretions was informing the Vic members that we were debating if a motion could come from the floor at the Feb 9 meeting.Guys,

 

Let it also be noted that, given Mr Tatlocks recent indescretion on posting board business information on a public website, I, as President, would not feel comfortable furnishing Mr Tatlock with confidential information concerning a legal matter involving RA-Aus.

 

Regards,

 

Steve Runciman

 

Makes it very hard to work for the betterment of the RAA if you cannot even get access to the documents. I will say that after thinking about it Steve Runciman said I can visit Canberra and view them. However from what I understand it would take weeks for me to have a forensic look and I cannot take that time. However if I have a copy I can spend an hour a night.

 

Jim

Jim,

 

Imagine the consequences of this if the legal advice on SR's resignation and reinstatement doesn't come back in unequivocal terms in his and the Secretary's favour ............ and based on what I have seen from other legal opinions, I can't see how it can.

 

We would, hypothetically, have someone who is not on the Board urging Board Members not to provide key data to a properly elected Board Member.

 

Methinks a hole is being dug here, and not by or for you.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Cooda]

From clause 20 of the Constitution

 

(viii) All acts done by any Board Meeting or Board Member shall, notwithstanding that it be

afterwards discovered that there was some defect in the appointment or election of any

 

Board or Board Member and such Board or Board Member was disqualified, be as valid as

 

if every person had been duly elected and duly qualified.

[Thx1137]

Before I do that I will post this: A reply from the president after I asked for information. The indescretions was informing the Vic members that we were debating if a motion could come from the floor at the Feb 9 meeting.Guys,

 

Let it also be noted that, given Mr Tatlocks recent indescretion on posting board business information on a public website, I, as President, would not feel comfortable furnishing Mr Tatlock with confidential information concerning a legal matter involving RA-Aus.

 

Regards,

 

Steve Runciman

 

Makes it very hard to work for the betterment of the RAA if you cannot even get access to the documents. I will say that after thinking about it Steve Runciman said I can visit Canberra and view them. However from what I understand it would take weeks for me to have a forensic look and I cannot take that time. However if I have a copy I can spend an hour a night.

 

Jim

If SR truly believes a board member has acted improperly then I am sure there are processes to be followed. Hindering a duly elected member from performing their function without due process is not something to be tolerated.

 

I will certainly make sure someone gets my proxy.

 

 

[Captain]

From clause 20 of the Constitution

Thanks Cooda. Good pick-up.

 

But I reckon there would be a stink (& considerable legal argument) if it were to be claimed that this Clause 20 (viii) refers to a reappointment to the top job, if that reappointment were to be based on faulty verbal advice to & from the Secretary (if that were to be finally found to be the case) which might then all be contrary to the Constitution.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[kaz3g]

From clause 20 of the Constitution

specifically refers to a defect discovered "afterwards"... The defect in Mr Runciman's position has been very clearly pointed out for several weeks.

 

In legal terms, he has well and truly been out on notice in my view

 

kaz

 

 

[Cooda]

kaz

 

I suspect the Board is operating with an alternative view.

 

 

[kaz3g]

kazI suspect the Board is operating with an alternative view.

i think I know where they read their legal opinions.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

i think I know where they read their legal opinions.

same place they get it from......

 

 

[David Isaac]

kazI suspect the Board is operating with an alternative view.

Profoundly obvious ... LOL

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Cooda,

 

Rule 20 (viii) seems quite bizarre to me. You would have to wonder who dreamed up this Rule. It is not taken from the Model Rules in the Regs. I have no idea what the author had in mind would be good about having such a rule on our books.

 

For example, imagine a candidate did a deal with a friend who was on the staff of RA-Aus and between them they cooked an election so that the candidate got elected. Rule 20 (viii) would seem to say that anything done by that person in the capacity as Board Member would be binding on RA-Aus. Even after it had been found out and the Board Member disqualified.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Alfa, I found a lot of clauses like that in the Constitution - all designed to frustrate the democratic process and allow one or more to control the Association. The doctoring of what should have been a democratic Constitution may have occurred at the outset or long ago, but tracing those changes, finding out when they occurred and finding out who was occupying committee/executive positions at the time could be illuminating.

 

Certainly what you are referring to could hardly have been accidental.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Has anyone worked out how to 'cook' an election? it would not be hard

 

 

[turboplanner]

Are there scrutineers or independent witnesses at the envelope opening? Do the envelopes go into a sealed box before closing date?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

OK i had i good think about this some time ago.

 

If you are in the 'know' and been around for some time and have good idea of who votes and does not it could be easy.

 

The voting forms are just printed out on normal paper. no water marks, not numbered, no signatures of someone in control of the election.

 

All you have to do is print some up along with envolopes, fill out enough to swing it your way. Mail them off with the membership numbers of those that haven't voted over the previous elections and chances are they won't vote in this one. and there you go.

 

If two role up with the same number then it could easily be written off as a member that got his number wrong.