9th Feb Meeting feedback

[fly_tornado]

Yes!

 

 

[Rocketing]

NO! In each of the motions a VERY clear majority was reached in favour of the motion. Those with proxies that wanted to overturn the result could then have done so but seeing that the vote had the result required by the holder of the proxy there was no need to count them. The motions were carried. THAT IS DEMOCRACY. First across the line!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

They werent counted in that we know the board held proxys were greater than the "opposition" and it was very clear thatt not all present were on the side of the opponents

 

That said Middos letter was clearly a breach of natural justice and as such if the count from the floor was close only then were the board going to revert to proxys. Not requiring to use proxys meant that the question of legality doesnt get a means to be tested.....

 

Proxys were not a waste of time, and having now provided a means for the board to put their side of the story, then at Natfly there had better be significant progress towards planing and executing the plan around the motions accepted yesterday.

 

We had the potential to get down and dirty yesterday but given that we would probably have lost and to the looser never go the spoils, and there was a potential to try and make the meeting have a positive outcome, which was achieved, then i cant see that given the cards dealt we could have achieved something better

 

In talking 1 on 1 with the president it was clear they expected us to bring a portable gallows and our intent was death and destruction 1st, a plan for what happens then not clearly present. We are not vikings who merely rape and pillage and destroy. Yesterday we showed that to be the case. While at the same time showing that we are serious that a repeat will not be acceptable to the membership and that the apparent dissregard for legislated requirements are not acceptable and that people who hold office where they have no capacity to deliver the requirements need to move on and do that for the organisation which they are able. I hope at todays board meeting the treasurer starts that process..... But that is not guarenteed.

 

Andy ( from Canberra airport)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

NO! In each of the motions a VERY clear majority was reached in favour of the motion. Those with proxies that wanted to overturn the result could then have done so but seeing that the vote had the result required by the holder of the proxy there was no need to count them. The motions were carried. THAT IS DEMOCRACY. First across the line!

I dont see it that way, the reality is that proxys were not held in equal amounts and you only needed Middo to vote against and vote his block( many many hundreds) and it would not have necessarily been the outcome that the meeting wanted.

 

Anyway, its all mute(moot even !) at this point.

 

Andy

 

 

[dodo]

Were our proxies a total waste of time then, if they were not counted when the motions were passed? How is this democracy?

Interestingly, this was asked when the first motion was put.

 

There was some confused discussion, and the chair asked for a show of hands.

 

dodo

 

 

[Guest Challenger3102]

Moot :-)

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Sounds like an expensive step forward assuming the board decides to move forward.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So are the 40ish all of this type I am wondering? if not any idea of what the others are?David

 

P.S Looking at some of these posts I am glad I didn't spend the time and money driving down to Canberra from Brisbane, doesn't sound like a lot was achieved.

David

 

No, they are not all Ibis. If you read the 1st 70ish pages of the CASA audit reports now posted up on the raa new section of the website you will get an answer to your question. I recall that there are about 5-6 aircraft mentioned but i think some of those have now been solved and others such as the Ibis appear to be as far away from a solution as you can get ( my opinion not to be read as fact cause i sure don't know the entire story)but read the pages its certainly eye opening and will only take about an hour.

 

Andy

 

 

[Vev]

I feel the meeting ended with an attitude of lets try and work together and that some of the previous posts here doesn't really reflect the true 'feeling' that was present at the meeting at the end. I suppose it is just the nature of communicating in writing compared to have been there.

Hi Rocketing,

 

Many thanks for reporting your thoughts on the outcome.

 

Whilst I didn't attend the meeting, I have been, like most, very interested in seeing how all of this would end. Over the past months members have had the chance to make their concerns heard and yesterday formally register their disappointment and desires to move our association forward into a better place.

 

I read a President Lincoln speech the other day and he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand" ... whist he was talking about much lofter issues than good governance of the RAA, it still ,never the less, remains truism for all groups, parties and associations.

 

I think the members have now arrived at a fork in the road, that is, we can bring down the house and start again, as some have suggested, or we can rebuild the one we have. I'm in the later camp of rebuilding and working with what we had started 30 years ago and make it better.

 

I think its time to be constructive and do all that we can to help and encourage those that have genuinely steeped up to the plate to rebuild.... it's easy to be critical and find fault but this is of low value input, the enduring value comes from positive input and support.

 

Your reported view of "lets try and work together" is just what we all need now ... lets hope that all, if not most, can work to that ethos for here on out and make OUR association the best it can be.

 

Cheers'

 

Vev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Unfortunately, the old saying is that the chain is only as strong as its weakest link rings true here. You have Uncle Eugene on the purse strings not making the slightest effort to understand where the RAA spends its money and the board holding him in this position for political reasons

 

The revenue is far short of where it should be, $925k expected versus the $616k reported.

 

So how did we get down to ~3300 per 6 months, that's well short of the 5000+ that are supposed to pay their licences?

 

Could the RAA actually be in a massive free fall of pilots not renewing their subscriptions and the board not know it?

 

 

[kaz3g]

So are the 40ish all of this type I am wondering? if not any idea of what the others are?David

 

P.S Looking at some of these posts I am glad I didn't spend the time and money driving down to Canberra from Brisbane, doesn't sound like a lot was achieved.

Read the audit reports, especially the last 25 pages or so and very particularly the last 5.

 

A number of aircraft are grounded for issues that can be rectified but means a move to 19 or ELSA so cannot be used fir training. A number of common types have been mentioned ...Savannah, Seamax, Lightwing, to name a few...and I think there are more surprises in store for those who haven't been following the issues carefully.

 

Unfortunately, the reason a lot more could not be achieved was precisely because a great many members took the view that they wouldn't spend the time and money to make the trip to be heard or think about their proxies rather than just handing them to Middo in our reply paid envelopes.

 

In a nutshell, if you cant read between the lines, we didnt have the numbers to do more yesterday. We couldn't have pushed major changes anyway because we respect the rules and understand the natural justice requirements in them that demand both notice and an opportunity for a response before sanctions can be applied. The decisions to include propaganda supporting the Executive, by inference if not in fact, in both the magazine and in the late mail out and denying the reformists the same opportunity says to me that such an ethical approach was not part of the Executives considerations. They had their lawyer there (paid with your money), their proxies there (obtained at your expense), and were there (accommodation and airfares paid by you).

 

Of the 160 members present (at probably an average individual cost of $500 each) there were quite a few supporters of the Exec; not all were critics or, at least, sufficiently critical to want to see major changes.

 

Michael Apps spoke about the malaise that follows apathy amongst an organisation's members and that, IMHO, is what has allowed RAAus to get to this point. The great majority of members simply aren't interested in good governance, democratic process, natural justice, ultruism in their representatives, professional management of the organisation, the welfare of the staff, or anything much more than being able to fly the aircraft that is important to them. And, when something does go wrong that affects them, its someone else's fault? It's almost a reflection of Australian attitudes to government generally.

 

So, if we at least achieved, as the Board members all individually stated, a greater recognition of the issues as the menbership sees them and an understanding that we need to work together in a more informed and cooperative manner, then I think it has been worthwhile. If the Executive now understands they must not see themselves as other than a part of the Board and that they are accountable to the membership, it will have been very worthwhile.

 

Kaz

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The "apathy" is a direct result of the boards program of self protection, get the members disinterested in the running of the RAA and they have free reign. The RAA does next to nothing to promote recreational aviation.

 

My guess is the "apathy" has a lot to do with rising cost of recreational aviation. Looking at the revenues of the RAA reported at the meeting, I am guessing people that just aren't flying any more aren't renewing their licences.

 

 

[webbm]

An RA-Aus Board meeting is today, so I look forward to hearing the outcomes of that meeting, which would be a good indication of the effectiveness of the General Meeting.

 

Just on the proxy issue, it was discussed and agreed that a vote of hands would be taken first and then proxies would be used if needed (ie the vote was close enough to warrant it). This was a commonsense approach as evident when there was a vote and it was actually close enough to actually count the hands - and it took a while (but in the end, when it came time for "those against" to put up their hands, much fewer people did). I'm sure if someone there had enough proxies and wanted them counted, because it would have influenced the vote, then they would have spoken up. But in the end, just about every motion proposed was voted overwhelmingly for or against.

 

It was good to see members also talking one on one with Board Members. I noticed one Board Member in particular go up to people who raised various concerns to have one on one chats with them.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Did anyone get a copy of the financial statement at the meeting? If so, I wouldn't mind having a look & compare with previous.

 

Thanks

 

Sue

 

 

[DGL Fox]

So after the hundreds of threads about we need to get rid of this person and that person, nothing happened, except a general attitude from the board that we will do better...mmmm... probably because we all under estimated the support that they had and because everyone had to watch their P&Q's with the meeting being recorded and the legal eagle watching listening to what is said to whom and what was said to them..

 

So the ship has now been righted and is now sailing on an even keel again...woopieeeeeeee

 

David

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I am guessing that there are a few out there who have seen what happened to the aircraft side of RAA and are not waiting around for the audit of memberships/pilot certificates. If you don't have to be a member, there's not much incentive now to remain one. When I see the figures for the preceding 6 months I may be able to quantify that assumption.

 

Sue

 

 

[rankamateur]

NO! In each of the motions a VERY clear majority was reached in favour of the motion. Those with proxies that wanted to overturn the result could then have done so but seeing that the vote had the result required by the holder of the proxy there was no need to count them. The motions were carried. THAT IS DEMOCRACY. First across the line!

Thanks, I understand.

 

 

[Gentreau]

....Just on the proxy issue, it was discussed and agreed that a vote of hands would be taken first and then proxies would be used if needed (ie the vote was close enough to warrant it). .....

Well that makes sense, if you're sitting on a load of proxies, the legality of which might be challenged if you excercised them, you would of course avoid using them if at all possible.....

 

.

 

 

[damkia]

...Just on the proxy issue, it was discussed and agreed that a vote of hands would be taken first and then proxies would be used if needed (ie the vote was close enough to warrant it). This was a commonsense approach as evident when there was a vote and it was actually close enough to actually count the hands - and it took a while (but in the end, when it came time for "those against" to put up their hands, much fewer people did). I'm sure if someone there had enough proxies and wanted them counted, because it would have influenced the vote, then they would have spoken up. But in the end, just about every motion proposed was voted overwhelmingly for or against.It was good to see members also talking one on one with Board Members. I noticed one Board Member in particular go up to people who raised various concerns to have one on one chats with them.

 

Cheers.

Not the way it probably should have been done, when one person carrying 20 proxy votes has as much weight as one person without support from the other side of the voting coin.

Given the distances and travel/access concerns of the meeting in general, all possible allowances should have been made for those who could not be there in person by counting the proxy votes on every voting point. A "visible" majority would not be an accurate way of assessing this given the actual membership was a considerable multiple of the number of members present, with little regard for the numbers of proxies held by members present. This is clearly a disservice to those who submitted proxies to the meeting.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I am guessing that there are a few out there who have seen what happened to the aircraft side of RAA and are not waiting around for the audit of memberships/pilot certificates. If you don't have to be a member, there's not much incentive now to remain one. When I see the figures for the preceding 6 months I may be able to quantify that assumption. Sue

My theory on the RAA is that in the late 90's and early 2000's everyone's wealth was going up up and away thanks to a buoyant property and share market. Ten years later and that situation has reversed sup funds are struggling and cost of living has catching up with high asset values.

 

Flying @ $150-200 per hour just doesn't look as affordable as it used to. You might hold onto your RAA cert for a while and go through the hoops of BFRs for a while but if you are only flying to keep your cert you will start to wonder "Why am I bothering?" Especially, if you are paying $10k a year in insurance and rent for owning an aircraft.

 

The RAA exec is in a situation to address this issue but lets face it the are barely functional and more interested in holding power than moving the RAA forward. Another ten years from now most of the current RAA members will have retired from flying for one or other reasons. Who knows where the RAA will be?

 

What I do know is we members actually scared the exec into some sort of action and that is a positive achievement.

 

 

[webbm]

Not the way it probably should have been done, when one person carrying 20 proxy votes has as much weight as one person without support from the other side of the voting coin.Given the distances and travel/access concerns of the meeting in general, all possible allowances should have been made for those who could not be there in person by counting the proxy votes on every voting point. A "visible" majority would not be an accurate way of assessing this given the actual membership was a considerable multiple of the number of members present, with little regard for the numbers of proxies held by members present. This is clearly a disservice to those who submitted proxies to the meeting.

Agree mate, but we would have spent all day counting votes and not actually talking, so there has to be some commonsense balance applied. In the end, no one objected to using that system and someone mentioned that it was how it is done in law. Maybe for the next meeting, those with proxies could hold up a card issued by RA-Aus that has their proxy count on it.

 

 

[Teckair]

Kaz said... The great majority of members simply aren't interested in good governance, democratic process, natural justice, ultruism in their representatives, professional management of the organisation, the welfare of the staff, or anything much more than being able to fly the aircraft that is important to them. And, when something does go wrong that affects them, its someone else's fault? It's almost a reflection of Australian attitudes to government generally.

 

So true!

 

 

[kaz3g]

Agree mate, but we would have spent all day counting votes and not actually talking, so there has to be some commonsense balance applied. In the end, no one objected to using that system and someone mentioned that it was how it is done in law. Maybe for the next meeting, those with proxies could hold up a card issued by RA-Aus that has their proxy count on it.

The usual process is a show of hands. In the event there is dissent, then votes are counted.

 

Unfortunately, on the day the majority of members appeared to be insufficiently interested in the issues to act on them or just gave their proxies without investigating them or genuinely supported and agreed with the manner in which the Board has acted. Nevertheless, the tree that is the current Executive and its supporters on the Board has been well and truly shaken and the roots are now loosened. If a strong wind comes up at Natfly or the AGM, it could well fall over!

 

Alternatively, if nurtured and properly tended, it can grow stronger (I was going to add "fertilised" but there are some who might take that the wrong way )

 

kaz

 

kaz

 

 

[rankamateur]

Kaz, I still think it needs a good grafting if we can find the right wood.

 

 

[greybeard]

Seems to me that if you don't like what's happening you stick your hand up at the next election and get on the committee or find someone who is sticking their hand up that you support.

 

It takes a lot more effort to change things from the floor of a general meeting than it does from the committee/executive room.