9th Feb Meeting feedback

[fly_tornado]

We definitely need to find someone to represent Tasmania

 

 

[Admin]

My take on the meeting was that is was a meeting of spin and no doubt there could be no other way it could have gone. The meeting was in Canberra therefore it would only be expected that it would have been filled with most of the locals, the die hard Middleton supporters, and the lessor percentage of NSW members and others making up an even smaller percentage. My daughter this week has been doing Statistics at School and with me helping her with her homework, has hammered home the importance of how the sample data is taken to what the outcome is likely to be.

 

From the outset, it was at many times on this site by the posters that it was not to be a witch hunt and the meeting ended up being just that, not a witch hunt at all even though the many posts made by users here contained many elements of improprieties and more. To bring up any of these in this type of forum would, in my opinion, just be a form of character assassination but the meeting's objectives were achieved in that it has put the Committee on notice that the members ARE now watching...the members will not accept a decision, or I should say lack of decision, made by the Treasurer that has cost the membership, you and me, say around $60,000 and has put RAAus currently in a financial loss position...yes Howie, that was a "deficit" $32k

 

However with all the above said, I still can't believe what I was told that "unofficial" Committee meetings were held just prior to the meeting and 3 Committee Members were purposely precluded from that meeting. After the group decided they wanted one of the 3 to also attend, they were going to send a car to pick him up but again not the other 2. This in itself again reflects very badly on the Exec but to start bringing these types of things up at this meeting would again run the risk of denigrating the meeting into a witch hunt.

 

There were two great things that the meeting provided me...

 

1. That a complete review will be undertaken into the structure and operations of the RAAus Committee and Management...if the outcome of this is found to have been manipulated in any way then no doubt there will be issues for the Committee brought on them by the members

 

2. I had a great opportunity to talk to many forumites and get some great feedback for this site...feedback that I hope to implement in due course

 

Finally I would like to say thanks to Kaz and Peter Gilmour for assisting me in the costs of going up there (petrol etc)...Peter and I left Melbourne, went to Shepparton to pick Kaz up and drove up on the Friday afternoon, and to Andy@Coffs for the spare bed in his motel room.

 

I do believe the Committee has now been put on notice by the members...finally, and what happens from here will always be known as their inappropriate actions as having caused the awakening of a sleeping giant

 

 

[kaz3g]

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

Hi Sue

 

I fear you are probably correct but I also think there has been a significant loss of revenue form October onwards due the registration fiasco.

 

Apparently Eugene approved an arrangement whereby full 12 month renewals were given from the day on which the renewal finally occurred...often 6 weeks or so after they were due...so that income from registrations will be down about 10% for the half year.

 

I gather he did this without Board authority or consideration as to the legality of doing a renewal which is actually a new registration application because the previous registration had lapsed.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Chird65]

My take on the meeting was the executive do not understand that we wanted to know;

 

1st What went wrong;

 

2nd Why it went wrong;

 

3rd What has been/ will be done to fix the issue.

 

After this they did not seem to get the idea that we do not expect them to do the tasks (Saying we all worked hard) but rather we want them to employ the right people, set their role description then audit and rectify any issues as they arrive.

 

It was clear that the registration issues were long standing and were not just one employees fault.

 

Clearly our treasurer is not a CPA. Nor has any accounting professional set up the accounts. If as testified, the surplus is to cover an unknown liability from operations, then the balance sheet should recognise this. The misunderstanding that the 12month registration starting from the approval date will affect revenue by the 6 odd weeks delay was disappointing.

 

The motions put were appropriate for a membership who want improvements from our board and the statement that the exec are the servants of the board who in turn were servants to the membership was a salient point.

 

My final hope was that the board and the exec talk today as a team not as a them and us. That they understand the need to keep the membership informed. But the final point is they have til Natfly to show a change of direction.

 

Chris

 

 

[rankamateur]

If the board are still having selective "partial" board meetings by the time of Natfly, natural justice must dictate that the members are having a job done on them by the old boys club and the axe must come out to give the board a good pruning!

 

 

[Allegro2000]

All,

 

You may think we are in trouble and the discussion certainly points to that, however the Warbirds Association is currently in greater trouble. They have two executives, the President and the remainder of the Committee. There appears to be a major issue over CASA certification, the Pres feels they are being taken to the cleaners whilst the Committee is of the opinion that it can be successfully resolved. It all looks a bit nasty; I hope those guns in their aircraft are non operable.

 

In our case when is the next election?

 

Allegro 2000

 

 

[cooperplace]

any news about what happened at the meeting?

Hi Ian, thanks for correcting the typo in my original message.

Peter

 

 

[nomadpete]

webbm said "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."

 

Well, maybe things are improving - if we "hear" any (real) communication from the board/exec about their steps they are now taking to pur proper processes and behaviour in place.

 

But so far I don't share the enthusiasm of some. It seems that our Board were still playing secretive games as mentioned by Admin:-

 

" "unofficial" Committee meetings were held just prior to the meeting and 3 Committee Members were purposely precluded..."

 

so I, for one, don't see any liklihood of the necessary changes actually coming to pass. For my money, that one act has shown that our Board intend to do 'business as usual'.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

 

 

I fear you are probably correct but I also think there has been a significant loss of revenue form October onwards due the registration fiasco.

 

 

 

Apparently Eugene approved an arrangement whereby full 12 month renewals were given from the day on which the renewal finally occurred...often 6 weeks or so after they were due...so that income from registrations will be down about 10% for the half year.

 

 

 

I gather he did this without Board authority or consideration as to the legality of doing a renewal which is actually a new registration application because the previous registration had lapsed.

 

 

 

Kaz

 

 

Our plane was grounded for just over 8 weeks (a 2 day delay on our end getting photos), just over 16% of the year. Given that 2012 aircraft rego amounted to $421,691 this loss of income will tell, particularly as most aircraft registrations fall due at this time of year. We did get a full 12 months from the day of authorisation, but didn't know about it until the letter arrived 5 days later - so 9 weeks of no flying a factory built with a CFI. Some aircraft have not been renewed, so I guess 15% loss of income for the year = $63,000 approx.

 

 

 

I would not be surprised if aircraft registration will have to rise in the next year to offset this loss. Perhaps going up from $130 to $150 for a 2 seater.

 

 

 

Some discount for the loss of use was about the only way to placate the masses though. He should have, at least, allowed the Board to debate the pros & cons before authorising this (if indeed he had not run this past them & legal opinion).

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

[damkia]

Our plane was grounded for just over 8 weeks (a 2 day delay on our end getting photos), just over 16% of the year. Given that 2012 aircraft rego amounted to $421,691 this loss of income will tell, particularly as most aircraft registrations fall due at this time of year. We did get a full 12 months from the day of authorisation, but didn't know about it until the letter arrived 5 days later - so 9 weeks of no flying a factory built with a CFI. Some aircraft have not been renewed, so I guess 15% loss of income for the year = $63,000 approx.

I would not be surprised if aircraft registration will have to rise in the next year to offset this loss. Perhaps going up from $130 to $150 for a 2 seater.

 

Some discount for the loss of use was about the only way to placate the masses though. He should have, at least, allowed the Board to debate the pros & cons before authorising this (if indeed he had not run this past them & legal opinion).

 

Sue

Surely they could make up this "deficit" by using some of the $1 million or so they have stashed.

Poor management of the issue by the RA-Aus head office is no reason for the members to have to pay for the loss of income though higher premiums, especially as it will hopefully be a "one off" event.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Sue said: Some discount for the loss of use was about the only way to placate the masses though. He should have, at least, allowed the Board to debate the pros & cons before authorising this (if indeed he had not run this past them & legal opinion).

 

Hi again, Sue

 

I think they should have renewed the registration for 12 months from the date of renewal but discounted the fee to account for the time out of the air. That way, the registration (retrospectively) did not lapse and no claim could be made that a new registration application was required.

 

And I think the Executive needs to understand that they can't arbitrarily take actions involving expenditure in excess of their Authority from the Board. or someone might just take action to hold them individually liable for the amount involved.

 

kaz

 

 

[Powerin]

My take on the meeting was that I saw a board that had been overwhelmed by events in the last year(s) and to some extent have acted like rabbits in the headlights not knowing which way to turn.

 

There were some speakers that said the rapid growth of the RAAus is to blame. I accept this to some extent, but more to point it has been the failure of the Board, over many years, to "grow" with the organisation and put plans and procedures in place to manage that growth. This is not necessarily the entire fault of the current Board members, but they have been left with the aftermath when it all eventually blew up in their faces. They have suddenly found that they have nothing in place to manage the mess that they now find themselves in. They are flailing about in the water and realising they forgot to check for holes in their sinking ship. I think a lot of the questionable things we have seen recently from the board are not necessarily from evil intent, but rather from desperate attempts to defend themselves while they try to hurriedly get things fixed.

 

We seem to have a board doing things because that's the way they have always been done (as per the monkeys in a cage story in another thread). As long as things were going smoothly there was no need to change. The Board blindly trusted their Tech Manager and CEO were doing the job (as you do in a small "club") and never bothered to really check because the organisation was growing, pilots were getting their certificates, there was a wonderful amount of planes getting registered and the bank balance was growing. The membership blindly trusted that the Board was doing its job and never really bothered to check because we got our certificates and our planes got registered and the organisation wasn't going broke. So we just voted in anybody that wanted to do the job.

 

Until now.

 

We threw the Board a lifeline at this meeting and I think they were grateful for it. We have watered the tree, but we need to keep a close eye on it to see if it still needs pruning (excuse the mixed metaphors).

 

I have to say that the excuses from Middo about his wildly innaccurate membership figures and from Eugene about his missing financials at the AGM were so lame that they might even be true. Again, the secretary and treasurer have never had to face this level of scrutiny before and don't have the procedures in place to have even the simplest information at hand. The number of RAAus members is such a basic measure of our organisation's health that it should be reported to the executive on a monthly or weekly basis. The fact that Eugene couldn't supply us with a basic financial figure (aircraft registrations) when several of us in the audience did have those figures at our fingertips was embarrassing to say the least.

 

I'd like to thank the reform team and others involved for their work, especially "The Rat" whose motion about reviewing and reforming the Board gave them something to hang their hats on and work towards.

 

 

[damkia]

I have to say that the excuses from Middo about his wildly innaccurate membership figures and from Eugene about his missing financials at the AGM were so lame that they might even be true. Again, the secretary and treasurer have never had to face this level of scrutiny before and don't have the procedures in place to have even the simplest information at hand. The number of RAAus members is such a basic measure of our organisation's health that it should be reported to the executive on a monthly or weekly basis. The fact that Eugene couldn't supply us with a basic financial figure (aircraft registrations) when several of us in the audience did have those figures at our fingertips was embarrassing to say the least.

Submit a "Question with notice" to the Secretary 6-8 weeks prior to the AGM, signed by 10-15 members for an EXACT summary of financials and membership to be provided at the AGM. Demand that the Secretary post the "Question" in full and unedited in the magazine and on the website, allowing for a minimum of four weeks for public perusal. There should be no "rabbit eyes" at the AGM as the Exec and Board will KNOW to expect that question.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

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

There was some promising young timber at the meeting.

 

 

[Powerin]

Submit a "Question with notice" to the Secretary 6-8 weeks prior to the AGM, signed by 10-15 members for an EXACT summary of financials and membership to be provided at the AGM. Demand that the Secretary post the "Question" in full and unedited in the magazine and on the website, allowing for a minimum of four weeks for public perusal. There should be no "rabbit eyes" at the AGM as the Exec and Board will KNOW to expect that question.

The thing is we shouldn't have to. Any secretary or treasurer worth their salt should provide that anyway shouldn't they? Also, to be prepared for any meeting a secretary should have at least a couple year's worth of minutes from previous meetings, and the treasurer several years of financials ready to answer questions should they arise.

The six monthly financial summary shown to us yesterday should have been provided to us all in paper form as well as on the screen. A good treasurer would have been on his feet pointing to things on the screen and explaining what those figures meant.

 

The figure that eluded Eugene yesterday, I think, was the total income from aircraft registrations last financial year. If he had just looked at the document he posted onto the RAAus website for all to see just a couple days ago he would have been able to tell us that it was $421,691 and the previous year was $368,089. From memory the figure flashed up on the screen for the first 6 months of this year was around $165,000 (??...anybody remember?). So rego income for the first half of the year is only 39% of last year's, rather than the ~50% you might expect.

 

Why? Probably because of the grounded aircraft I would think. But the treasurer wasn't even in possession of last years figures, let alone having an explanation of the big difference!

 

 

[Guest Challenger3102]

so 9 weeks of no flying a factory built with a CFI. Some aircraft have not been renewed, so I guess 15% loss of income for the year = $63,000 approx.

Hi Sue, If you were going to put the same emphasis on your own financial scrutiny as you have on the RA-Aus you would realise that you have lost $63,000 of revenue and not actually income.

 

Your figures equate to $150 per hour for 7 hours a day for 7 hours a week at 441 hours in a month not including time out for the 100 hourlies in the month of which there would be four of. I'd buy a fleet tomorrow if i thought those figures were possible!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I don't think Eugene cares about the RAA bugdet in any way at all, not having the slightest interest in answering questions is always the clue to this condition. SR probably has some sort of dirt on him and is forcing him to be treasurer.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

 

 

Your figures equate to $150 per hour for 7 hours a day for 7 hours a week at 441 hours in a month not including time out for the 100 hourlies in the month of which there would be four of. I'd buy a fleet tomorrow if i thought those figures were possible!

 

 

Sorry Challenger - I think I wasn't clear enough - these were figures for RAAus, not my personal income. The guy who would really be hurting is the CFI who can't train students in the grounded aircraft.

 

 

 

What I was pointing out was, it was probably typical of grounded aircraft - 8 weeks out of action all for a photograph of two placards. RAAus missed out on 16% of our normal fee for registration. Extrapolate that out to a year ... over 3,000+ aircraft ... some that have / will be, grounded for months, or gave up, it all being too hard or expensive to comply, and factory imports that can't be registered, and those that will pass the system on time. I came up with 15% as a guestimate

 

 

 

Sue

 

(Gosh I wish I made that much out of one plane!!!)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I did some back of an envelope analysis last week quite independent of Sue and i worked out the loss to be circa $70k so i don't see a problem with Sue's analysis. The missing cost is that of Mr Neville P, the extra contractor, who we haven't yet factored in, nor the cost just in registration for 40 that we don't know how to register at all, which is small beer when compared to the litigation risk of that same 40 IMHO. To do that multiply 40'by the average resale value of an average 2.5yr old LSA aircraft... Equals big bickies!

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Challenger3102]

Well that makes sense. I saw your "still grounded" and figured that you were adding up the losses !

 

 

[Powerin]

I have a question. There were questions at the meeting regarding how big the RAAus "nest egg" of money is and whether it could be put to better use. The reply from the treasurer and others was that this was being kept for a rainy day, maybe to fight for improved privileges etc. It was very strongly argued that we also needed to keep funds to pay for any potential legal action.

 

My question is: is this wise? As much as you like to think legal action is about justice, it also tends to be about how much money can be won from the defendant. Wouldn't an organisation with $millions in the bank be a far more attractive target for litigation than one with $1000s?

 

 

[webbm]

We were also asked not to talk about it... ;)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

If the board are serious about Geoff's motion, and I'm certainly prepared to give them the benefit of time to show they are, then a commercial risk subcommittee would have to consider exactly that question as a matter of doing their job!

 

In the meantime, if you think it needs to be considered, or have an assurance provided that it has been, then write to them and if they heard us as they say they did yesterday when specific complaints of no response to board correspondence was aired a number of times, and see what they say.

 

While cash i suppose is an attractive asset to go after, any asset that can be liquidated is also attractive so what ever the draw down was spent on is just as vulnerable unless its of fixed life and is consumed over time....

 

Andy

 

 

[slartibartfast]

We were also asked not to talk about it... ;)

And especially not to post on a forum about it. The lawyer was emphatic about the importance of staying schtum.

 

Forgot to mention another funny moment.

 

Some asked a question including the phrase "while the CEO was asleep at the wheel".

 

Steve Tizzard's voice was heard to call from the back "objection!".

 

Someone else yelled out "overruled!".

 

 

[cooperplace]

We were also asked not to talk about it... ;)

about what exactly????