9th Feb Meeting feedback

[DGL Fox]

He has another 1.5 years to go as he got elected to the Committee, by default, last year

Well we are stuck with him for a while, so it looks like we will all have to put the knives away and try and work with the guy and his team. I think now it's time to move on and stop the fighting and bitching and work with the team we have, for better or worse.. the more we fight the more that we are pulling the whole association down into the mud...IMHO it's time that we move on and give these guys a second chance !!!!!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

No we have to keep the knife to the throat, as the Sicilians say.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Well we are stuck with him for a while, so it looks like we will all have to put the knives away and try and work with the guy and his team. I think now it's time to move on and stop the fighting and bitching and work with the team we have, for better or worse.. the more we fight the more that we are pulling the whole association down into the mud...IMHO it's time that we move on and give these guys a second chance !!!!!

If it was only a SECOND chance, that would suggest there has been only ONE balls up then wouldn't it?

 

 

[DGL Fox]

If it was only a SECOND chance, that would suggest there has been only ONE balls up then wouldn't it?

Well we all know there were multiple mistakes but what are we going to do..keep on complaining and whinging about the past, we can't change that now but we can help form the future and it has to be with the current exec group until the next lot of elections...so let's get on with it...

David

 

 

[dodo]

Well we all know there were multiple mistakes but what are we going to do..keep on complaining and whinging about the past, we can't change that now but we can help form the future and it has to be with the current exec group until the next lot of elections...so let's get on with it...David

It's not about firing anyone. It's about RA being dysfunctional.

Aircraft rego, governance, communications, good financial management. Affordable flying.

 

I think if the a showdown had occurred at Saturdays meeting, it would have looked like a power struggle to many members. We would certainly have lost some very good members, and we might have lost some good people on the board.

 

Now that we (the membership generally) have more information (gained at the expense and effort of an EGM!), I think we may get some considered proposals at the Natfly meeting - and if they are on notice, we might get a more considered debate than we have had recently.

 

I think the membership that attended got a better idea of both the challenges the board faces and how they deal with them, and also of the dysfunctional aspects of the board.

 

I think the board were surprised that Saturdays meeting wasn't just a lynch mob, and I think they did listen to some extent. Whether they understood what the concerns were, I am not so sure. I think they are in denial (to some extent) about the registration debacle, and I don't think they understand what the communication problem is, but I think they accept that there is a communication problem and I think they see the need for administrative reform.

 

I think the membership that attended got a better idea of both the challenges the board faces and how they deal with them, and also of the dysfunctional aspects of the board.

 

And if it becomes clear the current board can't run the organisation, then a motion to that effect (or whatever) can always be made in time for the Natfly meeting or the AGM.

 

So I think I am halfway between DGLFox and some of the more hardline dissenters (if they will forgive the description),

 

dodo

 

 

[rankamateur]

Multiple incompetancies in any other multi million dollar organisation would, when discovered, would lead to censure or dismissal, this lot get away with a "gee we made a mistake, we'll try and do better" time and time and time again, first to CASA and now to the members. It just isn't right, it is like leaving a drunk behind the wheel after a failed RBT.

 

 

[cherk]

No we have to keep the knife to the throat, as the Sicilians say.

and they would tell you that you ONLY use a SHARP knife on a friend!! ,

 

 

[Powerin]

David I demanded to see a copy of the written legal opinion if it was obtained using member's funds, but nothing was produced. If that opinion is not clear cut in fanour of SR's reinstatement, then I suspect that it is clear that Jason Parkinson was acting for the Exec & Board on the SR resignation matter, as he didn't say a peep about that ..... yet he spoke at length to the meeting on other legal issues.

Perhaps some legal minds might like to correct me if I'm wrong here....

 

As far as I can see it doesn't really matter what the legal advice to SR says (if it exists) and there is no point in trying to get a copy of it. It is a legal opinion, not a legal judgement. SR has acted on that opinion and has remained President. We have seen at least one legal opinion on this forum that says SR's resignation should stand. Which opinion is correct? Only a judge can say.

 

Even if you were to get a copy of the legal advice and it DID say that SR could remain President, we don't have to abide by that advice. However, as the President made clear at the meeting, it would have to be challenged in court. Obviously SR got that little nugget of advice from our RAAus lawyer as well.

 

If we don't want to take court action (and I don't think it's worth it) then we either dismiss SR at the next meeting at Natfly or vote him out at the next election.

 

 

[dodo]

Perhaps some legal minds might like to correct me if I'm wrong here....As far as I can see it doesn't really matter what the legal advice to SR says (if it exists) and there is no point in trying to get a copy of it. It is a legal opinion, not a legal judgement. SR has acted on that opinion and has remained President. We have seen at least one legal opinion on this forum that says SR's resignation should stand. Which opinion is correct? Only a judge can say.

 

Even if you were to get a copy of the legal advice and it DID say that SR could remain President, we don't have to abide by that advice. However, as the President made clear at the meeting, it would have to be challenged in court. Obviously SR got that little nugget of advice from our RAAus lawyer as well.

 

If we don't want to take court action (and I don't think it's worth it) then we either dismiss SR at the next meeting at Natfly or vote him out at the next election.

Dead right! On all points!

You wouldn't wave your legal advice in court (the judge would see it as usurping his opinion, I think).

 

I don't understand why Steve Runciman wouldn't table his legal advice. Not doing so made him look shifty and arrogant.

 

He could have put the issue to bed, but he chose not to.

 

dodo

 

 

[peterg]

Dead right! On all points!You wouldn't wave your legal advice in court (the judge would see it as usurping his opinion, I think).

I don't understand why Steve Runciman wouldn't table his legal advice. Not doing so made him look shifty and arrogant.

 

He could have put the issue to bed, but he chose not to.

 

dodo

I suspect the legal advice said something like "if they don't like it they can challenge it".

His position will be challenged in the Court. He is an unsuitable person for both the role and the Board - not smart and no special skills. He has driven some ripper members off the Board and I have dealt with him and found him lacking in commercial skills. Further, I advised him Tizzard was not the right person for the job early in 2012 - his reply was something like other people have told me that. He failed to act until, I suspect, CASA told him to.

 

As for Middleton ...

 

 

[dodo]

I suspect the legal advice said something like "if they don't like it they can challenge it".

I thought it was probably ambiguous, with lots of "ifs". In which case he could still have tabled it, pointed out the board thought it meant he should stay, and then calmly pointed out the only way a definitive answer could be provided was by a court.

 

And that wouldn't have looked shifty or arrogant,but just a reasonable man trying to settle a complicated matter in a reasonable way.

 

So I still don't get it, unless he was just angry at being challenged, and therefore became stubborn.

 

dodo

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

In my previous post #88 I may have given the impression that the person I gave my proxy to wasted it. In no way do I feel it was wasted by the person I gave it to, but meant that proxy's in general may have been a waste of time. I have PM'd that person personally to apologise for not making myself clear enough and to thank him for his efforts.

 

Kev

 

 

[DWF]

OK

 

It seems to me that not a lot was achieved at the meeting to getting our problems fixed.

 

We all (or at least many of us) know that there are serious problems with the administration and governance of our Association.

 

We have even been able to fairly clearly define most (some?) of them.

 

The only group that can do anything about the problems is the Board and Executive;

 

We, the members, cannot do anything directly to fix the problems, except lean on the Board.

 

The Executive/Board have acknowledged that there may "be some problems" and they "may have made some mistakes" and "we will try harder next time" but, as far as I can ascertain, they have not set any goals or made any promises to fix any of the problems.

 

I would like the Board to devise and publish a plan which:

 

1. Lists each problem

 

2. Lists a solution to each problem

 

3. Says what they are going to do about implementing the solution to each problem

 

4. Gives a timeline for the solution of each problem.

 

If they can't do that then the members should prepare the plan and instruct the Board to implement it.

 

DWF

 

.

 

 

[DWF]

The next General Meeting will be at Natfly on Sat 30th March. That is in 45 days.

 

If my interpretation of the constitution is correct any notices of motion(s) to be presented at the GM need to be advised to members at least 14 days before the meeting. If you allow 7 days for the printing and dissemination of the notice that means we have about 24 days to get the motions sorted out and sent to members. [i know that motions can be put from the floor of the meeting but if you want all members to be given an opportunity to vote on an issue they need to know what it will be.] If such a notice is to be included in the next edition of the magazine it is probably almost too late already.

 

DWF

 

.

 

 

[Captain]

It should be added that the manner in which the Membership in attendance conducted themselves on Feb 9th clearly demonstated that the email circulated in Gavin Thobaven's name in WA, and the similar Breitkreutz email in Qld ..... and more particularly the garbage email from South Australia circulated in Geoff Hennig's name were patent scaremongering CRAP that were clearly aimed at securing proxies based on false, misleading & fancifull information.

 

All three should be ashamed of themselves on that issue.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You can't underestimate how much progress has been made, for the RAA exec to take the unprecedented step of begging for proxy votes prior to a meeting. That's never happened before.

 

The End of the Beginning?

 

 

[Markdun]

I left the meeting at lunch pretty confident that it was going nowhere, and pretty depressed about the future of flying; went flying on Sunday (surprised no one called in at Lake George); and have spent today in the ACT Supreme Court on an unrelated matter...so I haven't added my two bobs worth.

 

It seemed to me that people forget that the ONLY power of a GM is to remove a board member. All resolutions/no-confidence votes are only recommendations...the board can ignore them. On SR's legitimacy as president, it seems to me from reading the tea leaves of what was said at the meeting that his position is 'voidable' as opposed to being 'void ab initio' to use admin law terms. In other words while the board's decision to 'reinstate' him may be beyond their power, it stands until a court overturns it. If it was 'void ab initio' he would not be president even if he and the board thinks he is. I think this is correct in law. It was disappointing that the meeting did not resolve this issue by a motion to remove him on the basis that he may be the president. Whether you agree or not, this would have reslolved the issue. But then it may have then gone into issues about the validity of proxies, bias etc. Messy.

 

On the rego issue, and I know a lot of you don't agree with me on this, I am now more convinced than ever that the RAA is going in the wrong direction....it seems to becoming nothing more than a privatised CASA clone. From my quick look at the CASA audits, there appears to be no issues about planes affecting the innocent public or other aviators...more about protecting adults from themselves and compliance with stupid rules, yes, stupid rules. People, including CASA seem to think RAA reg is a certificate of compliance with the CAOs and Tech Manual, & an airworthiness cert. If you want that, then you should stay in GA. We even had the outrageous suggestion at the meeting that people should be inspected and get RAA approval before beginning to build an aircraft 'just like the SAAA'. The intention of the AUF was that we fly low weight aircraft at slow speeds that reduce the risk to third parties, but otherwise the risk and responsibility is on the occupants of the plane. The so called CASA audits, also delve into policy, suggesting for example, that pilots certificates should have an endorsement for spectacles or not. But there is no evidence pilots are not wearing spectacles, nor evidence of crashes because they are not...just another unnecessary rule. I cannot see how supplying photos of your plane's rego markings, or the cockpit warnings, will make the planes safer, or protect people who are not occupants. I cannot see how it prevents non-compliance. Examples of where the stupid rules should be abolished. But my reading of the meeting is that we have had a huge influx of 'GA refugees', who are used to the cotton-wool of over-regulation in GA and who want others to take responsibility (it has RAA reg so it must be compliant and is airworthy; I have an endorsement for 'x' so I must be able to fly that sort of plane etc etc). I accept planes used to instruct and which take children on board should be treated differently. I think that given the direction the RAA is going we are going to see a big increase in aircraft and pilots operating outside the regulatory environment (ie illegally) just like 30 years ago. The RAA may have been tardy in responding to the audits, but not in 'ensuring compliance' but in pushing back to CASA and changing the Op & Tech manuals. We also need to point out that CASA has a conflict of interest in 'auditing' competing bodies such as RAA, and that despite the non-compliance people have not been injured or killed as a result of the non-compliance...a good indicator that they are rubbish rules.

 

Sorry for the rant....a bit depressed about the future. Cheers, Mark

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I would like the Board to devise and publish a plan

.

The board has a plan? It must be a secret plan cause I never heard of it.

 

I think if the exec and the board was capable of planning we would have a plan. Alas they can't pickup on the budget missing licence fees for 3000 pilots. Now it looks like there is a $300k shortfall in the budget and the treasurer is not aware of it.

 

 

[webbm]

I came away from the meeting thinking it was an effective shake up. The board got the message the "she'll be right, business as usual" attitude is not acceptable. Hopefully there will be good outcomes from the current Board Meeting and the Board will have progress to report at Natfly...

 

 

[David Isaac]

Short note:

 

The Treasurer has resigned at the Board meeting and Michael Apps is acting Treasurer.

 

 

[rankamateur]

In my previous post #88 I may have given the impression that the person I gave my proxy to wasted it. In no way do I feel it was wasted by the person I gave it to, but meant that proxy's in general may have been a waste of time. I have PM'd that person personally to apologise for not making myself clear enough and to thank him for his efforts.Kev

Very important comment you make Kev, I gave my proxy to a person at the pointy end of trying to reform our association, and I was very concerned about the waste of all of our proxies, but I don't doubt for a momment that he would have used the proxies he held if he believed it was appropriate, I never considered that he would have taken my comment as personal criticism. Certainly no personal criticism was intended!

 

 

[David Isaac]

Another short note:

 

There was nothing controversial moved that needed anyone to use the extra weight of proxies.

 

Proxies are NOT wasted by being held and that notion is absurd in the extreme.

 

For the record I know we were outnumbered so to use our proxies in a controversial motion in which we had reasonable certainty of losing would have been counter productive.

 

Besides, any highly controversial motion put that denied procedural fairness, would only leave us open to legal challenge. We are trying to rebuild the organization, not destroy it.

 

Slowly slowly catch a monkey ...

 

 

[rankamateur]

David, My initial concern about this was resolved back on page three David, I didn't have any previous experience with the counting of proxies, hence my concern about waste was just a misunderstanding about meeting process.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The simple reality with regard to proxys is, if you need 51% to get something across the line and you hold 4 and the opposition hold 6 (by virtue of the Middleton Letter) then if you go ahead with the vote of say "No Confidence" and it gets defeated then the meeting records the outcome in effect as a vote of confidence, which is assuredly not what we wanted!

 

The fact that The treasurer has resigned from the executive posititon and has returned to the general board is a good outcome that it seems would not have occured but for this meeting. That in my opinion was absolutely needed, but is small comfort compared to what might have been.......

 

Its a long way short of enough, but the facts stand we didnt have the numbers. 2 of the 3 motions were significant and we will test for progress at Natfly. If it becomes clear that business as usual is applied and the motions have been ignored then I guess we go back to do whatever we can to try and change things. Its my view, and tell me if you disagree, but with 2 significant motions passed that are relatively transforming in nature, ifthe team continue as we have then I think we will turn off a chunk of the thinking members because we havent given the current board a go. There will be those among you that are strongly of a view that change is needed, but you are a minority and there are a far greater number that need to be shown new proof before they will commit. Equally there are a significant number that are unmoved in their support of the status quo.

 

In fact, beings as Im a glass half full guy, Im going to offer to assist in the transformation. That does 2 things, I hope it shows Im not interested in destruction only, and then I hope it means that transformational changes have a greater chance of success and at the end of teh day I only want what is good for the organisation and I want that more than I want the current guys gone.

 

Do I think we were shafted, Oh yes, without a doubt, but in war the victor gets to write the history and in real life there is no guarentee of fair play! Could I fight it, yes, but that would require me to put a personal stake in legal action and to be honest the team and I have done enough with regards to spending our own money to change things. If its important to you then put up the $ to get a ticket at the table.... and understand that the oposition get to fight us with the associations money, not their own!!!

 

If you feel agrieved then hold on to that feeling, and if at Natfly we are shown that the implementation of those 2 significant motions are in effect being ignored then help me set a significant pace of change. The only way that can be done is by YOU selling the need for change to your fellow aviators in YOUR area. Its a numbers game and while we went very close to having the numbers we didnt quite get there. How close? well if 25% of you who provided proxys were able to secure 1 more from among your friends then we would have romped home.

 

With regard the 2 motions, the one about membership skills register is one that should be knocked over pretty fast, but the other to my mind is a significant and long term body of work, They can not possibly have anywhere close to complete done by Natfly, but the early preplanning on a long project such as definition of scope, work breakdown structure, definition of responsibilities and creation of a timeline should be well underway. To succeed in performing the motion actions there will likely be significant change required to the constitution. The next real opportunity to do that is at the AGM around the september timeline, and after that at the 2014 Natfly, or a requisitioned GM prior if one is needed.

 

Andy

 

 

[Gibbo]

Short note:The Treasurer has resigned at the Board meeting and Michael Apps is acting Treasurer.

Are you sure it wasn't the Pope?