9th Feb Meeting feedback

[Guest Andys@coffs]

about what exactly????

I draw your attention to the RAAus website news subsection, specifically a post here http://www.raa.asn.au/2012/10/legal-matter/

Andy

 

 

[Powerin]

My question was about a hypothetical organisation keeping funds in reserve to defend hypothetical litigation.

 

RAAus's financial status is a matter of public record and it's relationship to the question I asked is purely coincidental.

 

 

[Powerin]

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!".

That was gold

 

 

[fly_tornado]

There could also be some disgruntled #24 owners looking for compensation for being forced onto #19 limitations. CASA haven't signed off on everthing yet.

 

 

[DWF]

Can anyone provide the exact wording of the motions passed at the meeting?

 

Or do we have to wait until the minutes are published?

 

Has anyone set any goals or targets to be achieved by, say, Natfly?

 

Maybe we will see some set at the Board meeting today.

 

DWF

 

.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

I attended the meeting and do believe it was worth while. i particularly thought kaz, don, david spoke very well among many other members who I didnt know. There were a good number of people in attendance who supported the group calling the meeting and it was great to hear the difficult questions being asked by disgruntled members from all over the room. I agree with kaz that the board proxy form in the magazine was a cheat on thier behalf but no doubt shows they felt threatened by the upcomming meeting and were preparing themselves.

 

speaking of being threatened there were also a few vocal exec supporters who came across as being embarressed by the questions and comments from the floor, at one point stating that the regos are going through and the problems are sorted so why are we here at the meeting. almost saying how dare we question these fine people.

 

The man who looked to be the presidents personal lawyer/assistant got quite irate when a member asked about the security of our equity which i thought was a fair enough question considering we had been told about being lucky in that we have insurance then later told about saving for a rainy day. I saw first hand the standover, dictating style of the president (denying anyone else the opportunity of chairing the meeting, insisting he has the legal advice that his resignation was withdrawn legally. but not prducing the advice unless taken to court. His response to so many questions or comments was just to go on to the next person) All the while making a big effort to be seen to be giving everyone thier say like the true and fair man he is.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

I dont have exact wordings but it was all recorded. The first motion was that the execs explanation of the first two of SRs items be voted on by membership. i think the idea behind the motion was to stop sr skipping to the next item on his agenda before we were happy with his explanations which is what he was doing.

 

 

[damkia]

Regarding the prez's status, has anyone thought about seeking a legal "discovery" of said documents?

 

This would effectively call his bluff by forcing his legal team to provide said documents, or surrendering his position. Are there any legal people here that would do it (or know someone that may do it) pro bono? AFAIK it is only a legal letter cc'ed to a judge (Local Magistrate) requesting documents as a precursor to a formal legal challenge.

 

The purpose is to ensure that both sides have access to all documents. Basically that is all members are after.

 

 

[coljones]

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

snip

 

>>

I can't spell Schtum

 

The lawyer was talking about the matter before the courts. At no time did he raise issues about the reserves.

 

RAA has no idea why the reserves have been built up nor a policy on how they should be drawn down.

 

The liquid assets are in the order of $150 per member and have been built up over a number of years. There is a cord of complaint that says we pay too much but there is also a cord that says we don't understand our potential liabilities.

 

RAA is debt free and could in a short time, including sale and lease back of the office, get our hands on in excess of $2 million.

 

While our very own strip would be nice, I don't see universal benefit as no matter where you put a strip, the vast majority of members would be well out of reach despite a burning desire to go there. We could buy Denmark Airstrip, we could buy Eugene's place, Alice Springs would be good (avoids D space), Top of Qld, Middos place perhaps or in the Barossa - we would be arguing til I really do become methusalah.

 

RAA doesn't have a policy of free cash and reserves and we seem to be just collecting money and spending it and thanking our lucky stars that GA boys are coming over and membership is booming.

 

I suspect that Eugene still doesn't understand money but hopefully SR and a few on the Board are starting to get it.

 

I don't have a view on the level of cash RAA should hold but I do know do a bit of forward planning on put an adequacy figure on it.

 

 

[Powerin]

Regarding the prez's status, has anyone thought about seeking a legal "discovery" of said documents?This would effectively call his bluff by forcing his legal team to provide said documents, or surrendering his position. Are there any legal people here that would do it (or know someone that may do it) pro bono? AFAIK it is only a legal letter cc'ed to a judge (Local Magistrate) requesting documents as a precursor to a formal legal challenge.

 

The purpose is to ensure that both sides have access to all documents. Basically that is all members are after.

It really doesn't matter. The guidelines for associations are clear...solve your internal disputes yourselves or take them to court. The only legal opinion that matters in the end is the judge's.

Having said that, there was nothing to stop the President standing aside in the name of fairness or integrity.

 

Our constitution is also quite clear that the President shall chair all meetings....unless he/she is not there. The president was quite within his rights to stick to his guns and remain as chairman. This is an example of a constitutional rule that probably seemed like a good idea at the time of writing, but is found wanting when things don't go to plan. The answer is to learn from the experience and change the constitution.

 

 

[coljones]

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?

It wouldn't be about cash in the bank - that might suit someone who wanted to buy us , asset strip us, mortgage us to the hilt and then walk away with a swag of cash.

In the case of litigation they would probably sue us anyway just to get our carcase and anyone else's onto the barbecue plate. They would also sue the guy with $1000, have his lawyer clean him out and have him bankrupted.

 

To a certain extent, to have a stash of cash would be good for PR because it might indicate to the person suing that we (or their lawyers) would run them into the ground if they took us on. It is possible for BHP to stare down recalcitrent farmers over mining rights because they have a bigger pot of money at their disposal.

 

 

[damkia]

It wouldn't be about cash in the bank - that might suit someone who wanted to buy us , asset strip us, mortgage us to the hilt and then walk away with a swag of cash.In the case of litigation they would probably sue us anyway just to get our carcase and anyone else's onto the barbecue plate. They would also sue the guy with $1000, have his lawyer clean him out and have him bankrupted.

 

To a certain extent, to have a stash of cash would be good for PR because it might indicate to the person suing that we (or their lawyers) would run them into the ground if they took us on. It is possible for BHP to stare down recalcitrent farmers over mining rights because they have a bigger pot of money at their disposal.

Having said all that it is worth noting that if the organisation is sued, then if there is insurance to cover such possibilities held by the organisation, it would be the insurance company that pays. This would be where the Directors Insurance and Liability Insurance of a company would come into play to insulate the organisation against financial loss as a result of legal action against the organisation.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Am I the only one that feels cheated by the reported results of the meeting? I can't help the feeling that my Proxy was wasted. This was a perfect opportunity to force the board/executive into action and only two fairly nondescript motions were passed. (With promises that "we will do better")

 

Why were the board not given clear motions along the lines of:

 

Treasurer to have all financial reports up to date and complying with legislative requirements in 30 days.

 

SR to provide written legal advice and brief regarding re-appointment within 30 days.

 

Board to include ALL board members with all material required to perform their functions as per legal requirements.

 

RAAus to employ staff/volunteers required to complete all NCN's issued by CASA within 30 days.

 

These may be not the actual motions put, but I hope you see where I am going with this. With actual instructions from the membership as to what is expected of them, the members have the opportunity to remove the "dead wood" at the AGM if they fail to perform.

 

Surely even the supporters of the Board couldn't object to clear directives and the possibility of member sanctions if they fail to do their job.

 

I think we have missed the chance of this by just allowing them to say something along the lines of "we did the best we could but will try harder" and leave them to, hopefully, do the right thing. It should be obvious to all that they need guidance.

 

If they still havn't improved by Temora what then? start the process all over again?

 

Kev

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi All

 

Just a quick post to clear up some misconception, like post 58

 

"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 likelihood 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'.

 

No Board members were "purposely precluded" from a Board meeting. There was a meeting on the Friday, but it was not an official Board meeting. All the Board were invited to attend. I chose not to attend.

 

On a positive note. The first day of the Board meeting was very positive.

 

John McK

 

 

[metalman]

As a side note, and because I couldn't attend but wanted to, it would be great to get some sort of online system for broadcasting these meetings, even the Temora one ,if there's money in the bank and the board can blow thousands on mail outs ( I thought it was in Feb to save money ?????) surely the money is there to setup a web cast !

 

Just a thought , and after reading all the posts I'd be really be surprised if anything changes, I guess we will have to wait for election times,,,,,,,,,,you gonna run Maj Millard??? I reckon you'll get a vote or two!!!

 

 

[webbm]

My question was about a hypothetical organisation keeping funds in reserve to defend hypothetical litigation.RAAus's financial status is a matter of public record and it's relationship to the question I asked is purely coincidental.

Don't take my post personally. I was commenting to the hyperthical situation of someone talking about finances and litigants on in the one post. Any inference that it was related to your post is purely coincidental.

Cheers.

 

 

[turboplanner]

As a side note, and because I couldn't attend but wanted to, it would be great to get some sort of online system for broadcasting these meetings, even the Temora one ,if there's money in the bank and the board can blow thousands on mail outs ( I thought it was in Feb to save money ?????) surely the money is there to setup a web cast !Just a thought , and after reading all the posts I'd be really be surprised if anything changes, I guess we will have to wait for election times,,,,,,,,,,you gonna run Maj Millard??? I reckon you'll get a vote or two!!!

He'd have to lose weight for a start.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Folks,

 

I have a quite a few comments on the meeting to put this forum, but have a few commitments to get out of the way first, so please forgive me for a late contribution.

 

I will initially say the meeting was very robust (I nearly lost it at the beginning). There were some shameful antics, some significant admissions and embarrassments, there was a valid reason for no controversial motions (more on that), the meeting outcome was as positive as was possible and the accountability process is now measured and starts and the expectations are clear (to the Board).

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

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

I am quite disappointed that we're stuck with the same executive. It was amazing how much support they had, considering their poor performance. The meeting seemed to overlook blatant fibs and breaking of the rules. Will we ever see the legal advice underpinning SR's reappointment?

The chairman of the new Constitutional Revue Committee couldn't seem to see the lawyer/members sitting right in front of him. I came away unimpressed by the board, but hopeful for the longer term. There is some talent amoung the members; let's hope they stand at the next election.

 

If it wasn't for this forum and a few dedicated people the membership would be still in the dark, and the ship would be lurching from one crisis to the next.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I am glad that the exec stayed on. If they just walked away saying "it's too hard/not our fault" it would have been over too quickly, that would have been the smart thing to do. They are now in for a long period of scrutiny from CASA. CASA know that the only way to get this exec moving is too shut down the RAA.

 

More sleepless nights ahead for some...

 

 

[Captain]

Am I the only one that feels cheated by the reported results of the meeting? I can't help the feeling that my Proxy was wasted. This was a perfect opportunity to force the board/executive into action and only two fairly nondescript motions were passed. (With promises that "we will do better")Why were the board not given clear motions along the lines of:

 

Treasurer to have all financial reports up to date and complying with legislative requirements in 30 days.

 

SR to provide written legal advice and brief regarding re-appointment within 30 days.

 

Board to include ALL board members with all material required to perform their functions as per legal requirements.

 

RAAus to employ staff/volunteers required to complete all NCN's issued by CASA within 30 days.

 

These may be not the actual motions put, but I hope you see where I am going with this. With actual instructions from the membership as to what is expected of them, the members have the opportunity to remove the "dead wood" at the AGM if they fail to perform.

 

Surely even the supporters of the Board couldn't object to clear directives and the possibility of member sanctions if they fail to do their job.

 

I think we have missed the chance of this by just allowing them to say something along the lines of "we did the best we could but will try harder" and leave them to, hopefully, do the right thing. It should be obvious to all that they need guidance.

 

If they still havn't improved by Temora what then? start the process all over again?

 

Kev

Kev,

 

If the members responded to the Secretary's letter, and his apparent invitation to send him their proxies, in the way that I believe that they did, then it was difficult or impossible to institute radical change last Saturday.

 

In the initial skirmish at the meeting about the President's position and his Chairmanship of the meeting, Steve Runciman basically told the meeting that he WILL remain as President unless & until the matter is challenged in Court. So he is insisting on putting the membership and RAA to additional legal expense on that matter. A copy of the RAA's written legal advice, which the Executive say they have received, but many Board Members had not seen, is essential to see where we go from here on that issue. (I hate the concept of members with the best interest of RAA at heart having to take their own organisation to Court, but if it has to be done, then perhaps it has to be done).

 

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 favour 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.

 

Late in the meeting it was made very clear to the Board that unless substantial and meaningful progress is made by Natfly on the issues discussed and/or moved on Feb 9th, then Motions of No-Confidence are foreshadowed at that March 30th General Meeting of RAA.

 

I will PM you with a some other background and will wait for David I's post on the meeting before posting more.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[DGL Fox]

So when does SR and the rest come up for re election?

 

David

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

1/2 the board comes up for election each year. I recall (but might be wong) that its around the September timeline.

 

Andy

 

 

[Admin]

So when does SR and the rest come up for re election?David

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

 

 

[peterg]

I have a few comments on the General Meeting held on 9 February 2013.

 

Middleton’s Letter to Members – I found it disturbing that the Secretary took it upon himself to send a letter to all members requesting proxies without giving those who requisitioned the meeting the opportunity to also make a statement and request proxies. This is particularly serious since the Board and Executive’s performance was a major part of the agenda and likely to be voted on.

 

The letter was carefully crafted and possibly not the work of the Secretary but had the effect of getting Middleton a large number of proxies such that if a vote was taken, he and his group would have a significant influence on the outcome.

 

Jason Parkinson – the attendance by the organisation’s legal representative was unusual. I am not clear who he was representing – the Board, the Executive, the Members or indeed, Steve Runciman. If member’s funds are to be used to have a legal representative available to instruct should not those who requisitioned the meeting have funds for similar services made available to them? If Mr Parkinson is the organisation’s legal representative, is it proper that he represent a part of the organisation that may be in conflict with another part? This is perhaps a question for an ethics committee.

 

Steve Runciman’s Resignation – Steve acknowledged that he had resigned as both a member representative and Board Member so the question is simply whether or not the Board has the power to reinstate him. The Constitution is reasonably clear about how member representatives are to be elected. In my opinion, the Board has acted beyond its power. Steve said he had legal advice that his reinstatement was OK but would not table the advice. I asked a number of Board Members if they had seen the advice. The only one to answer in the affirmative was Eugene Reid.

 

The Board – it seemed clear that the Board is dysfunctional, divided, lacks appropriate skills and is often not provided with essential information by the Executive. The Executive also lacks the appropriate skills to provide adequate governance for an organisation the size of RA-Aus. Middleton and Reid have been involved RA-Aus for a long time and have been a constant feature as the organisation lurches from tragedy to tragedy.

 

The Casa Report – the Safety Alert at the end of the CASA report says it all – poor governance. It has been ongoing since the 2009 audit and Middleton and Reid have been part of the governance group. They should both resign. However, it seems they will not. They (and Runciman) want the membership to believe that they acknowledge the problems and even though they have been in the governance group while problems continued to escalate, we should trust them to fix them. I think not.