Board Member Costs Advice Sought

[Cooda]

The By Laws are your friend

 

BY-LAW No. 1

ELECTIONS

 

1. The calling of nominations shall be arranged by the Association’s central office.

 

2. A closing date, and hour of the day, shall be set for nominations for all elections.

 

Nominations must be received in writing at the Association's office prior to the close of

 

nominations and may be sent by facsimile or mail or hand delivered. Any

 

correspondence relating to a nomination, or any nomination, received after the closing

 

hour and date, shall not be considered or entered into.

 

3. The printing and the issue of ballot papers shall be arranged by the Association's Office.

 

4. All ballot papers shall be validated before counting.

 

5. The counting of votes shall be conducted by staff at the Association's office under the

 

supervision of the Chief Executive Director (CEO). At least one independent person who

 

shall be of good repute, and who is not a member of the Association, shall be employed

 

for the time being, to witness the counting of ballots. Such person shall sign a

 

declaration to the effect that they were a witness to the count.

 

6. Scrutineers may attend the count, but shall not participate in the actual counting of votes.

 

7. All votes shall be by written ballot.

 

8. A closing date and hour of the day, shall be set for the return of ballot papers. Ballot

 

papers must be received at the Association's office prior to the time and day set for

 

closure of returns. Ballots received after the closure shall not be counted.

 

9. In the event of an equality of votes, the CEO shall resolve the issue by drawing of lots

 

witnessed by the independent person(s).

Note the error in By Law 1.5 - there is no position of Chief Executive "Director".

 

ditto in clause 13 (ii) (a) and (b) of the Constitution, there is reference to an "Executive Director" being advised of the names of the newly elected members prior to the AGM. Again, there is no such position identified in the Constitution.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

The term Executive Director was used until Lee Ungermann asked if he could use the title CEO. Nobody outside RA-Aus knew what an Executive Director was and everyone, everywhere immediately understood what a CEO is with the possible exception of the last incumbent. I very much doubt that any of those changes to the Constitution went to a vote by the Members.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm sure virtually anyone in serious business knew what an Executive Director was, and it is never confused with a part of line management.

 

 

[Teckair]

The term Executive Director was used until Lee Ungermann asked if he could use the title CEO. Nobody outside RA-Aus knew what an Executive Director was and everyone, everywhere immediately understood what a CEO is with the possible exception of the last incumbent. I very much doubt that any of those changes to the Constitution went to a vote by the Members.

The way I remember it Paul Middleton was the first CEO which started when Lee Ungermann started as the Ops manager.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Rather than pushing the roundabout of structural modelling, or fine tuning of org charts, I think it is rather more important to focus the Feb meeting on the first, most fundamental priority -

 

1. Establish specific events where person/s have actually broken our rules (spelled out in the constitution)

 

2. Bring about appropriate consequences to those individuals identified as having broken our rules (as the rules stand now).

 

Only after that has occurred, will we be in a position to make the important revisions of the constitution, and of the org structure.

 

Only then will the communication channels down to the members start to open as they should.

 

Only then will the members be able to see which of our quieter board members are not part of the problem.

 

We should not expect to 'fix' all our woes in the one meeting. Just look after the first step of the rebirth of RAAus.

 

This will require a couple of specifically targetted questiions to be tabled at the meeting, followed by specific requests to be actioned by the board.

 

No matter how hard you try to prevent it, there will always be individuals who make their success by breaking the rules, or by bullying. At this time we just need to take a stand against those who may lack the integrity to do their jobs properly.

 

Just my opinion, don't take it too seriously.

 

 

[coljones]

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.

NRMA operates under a multi-million dollar Association structure and appears to me to be even less accountable and subject to membership review or censure now than it was under under Jim Millner, Nick Whitlam or Ross Turnbull (a very black period).

While I believe that preferential voting ensures that the board members are supported by a majority it is probably time for proportional representation to ensure we get some diversity on the board to minimise the influence of cliques.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

NRMA operates under a multi-million dollar Association structure and appears to me to be even less accountable and subject to membership review or censure now than it was under under Jim Millner, Nick Whitlam or Ross Turnbull (a very black period).While I believe that preferential voting ensures that the board members are supported by a majority it is probably time for proportional representation to ensure we get some diversity on the board to minimise the influence of cliques.

Thats what we have today isn't it?

 

the problem is, if 1/2 the board are there as a result of a non contested election then that speaks volumes as to general member apathy doesn't it?

 

As people have said before its hard to have a sensible vote if all you know about a candidate is the 1/3 page thats in the magazine. Further if only a single candidate comes forward and the membership is annoyed with that members past board performance but no one else stands, then they will be elected unopposed. We need good alternates. And this obviously isn't point at you Col, you are among the very few members who are blameless As you've stood as an alternate a number of times And lost in my opinion because of apathy and inertia, a problem that is still an issue today i'm sure

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

Uncontested reps appear to be a concern but you can elect someone who promises all sorts of good things and does an about face with bad personality change once "in power". The more interest WE take in electing our reps the better the outcome will be. That's a non specific "motherhood" statement that is true.

 

Our level of voting participation is very low. It's a bad look and gives legitimacy to the view that no-one really cares as long as you get to fly.

 

No one can write rules expecting them to cover all situations. Some situations are not anticipated. If a group pretty much ignore the rules you are still nowhere.

 

The less complex they are the better. Clear line of command (and responsibility that goes with it) and know what your policies are and don't go against them. If they are not appropriate change them but do it transparently with the right amount of input from the membership. That way we have direction and purpose.Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

Uncontested reps appear to be a concern but you can elect someone who promises all sorts of good things and does an about face with bad personality change once "in power". The more interest WE take in electing our reps the better the outcome will be. That's a non specific "motherhood" statement that is true.Our level of voting participation is very low. It's a bad look and gives legitimacy to the view that no-one really cares as long as you get to fly.

No one can write rules expecting them to cover all situations. Some situations are not anticipated. If a group pretty much ignore the rules you are still nowhere.

 

The less complex they are the better. Clear line of command (and responsibility that goes with it) and know what your policies are and don't go against them. If they are not appropriate change them but do it transparently with the right amount of input from the membership. That way we have direction and purpose.Nev

Thanks, Nev. That's what I was trying to say.

 

The rules should be relatively simple, but they must have teeth. There will be no responsibility taken unless there are consequenses for poor behaviour.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Thanks, Nev. That's what I was trying to say.The rules should be relatively simple, but they must have teeth. There will be no responsibility taken unless there are consequences for poor behaviour.

There are rules and consequences for bad behaviour. It's covered under the section that deals with disciplining of members. The board can discipline anyone it wants to for the type of behaviour this board has exhibited over the last twelve months (and before). So, who wants to ask the board to discipline themselves?

 

Now I've finished my sarcastic post - can anyone else see some fundamental problems with the constitutions approach to discipline?!?!

 

 

[nomadpete]

There are rules and consequences for bad behaviour. It's covered under the section that deals with disciplining of members. The board can discipline anyone it wants to for the type of behaviour this board has exhibited over the last twelve months (and before). So, who wants to ask the board to discipline themselves?Now I've finished my sarcastic post - can anyone else see some fundamental problems with the constitutions approach to discipline?!?!

No, it all looks good to me. The board DOES have a system in place.......

 

 

[turboplanner]

CASA have advised they are checking 200 pages relating to the audits of RAA I requested under FoI, and have requested an extension to February 1, which I have agreed to.