Suggesting a new model for RAAus

[Mick]

Recently I was discussing concerns about how RAAus is being run with a fellow member and I made a comment on my thoughts that we need a proper corporate management board, the members of which should have relevant experience in such roles. My mate made a comment that such a structure is unlikely due to the nature of RAAus and the perceived need for representation from all parts of the country. This got me to thinking about how do we overcome the differences between area representation and board members selected on merit, qualifications and experience.

 

It occurred to me that a variation of a system I have seen in place might be the answer. Here in Gladstone Qld, the airport is owned by the local regional council, but last year it was corporatised and is now run as a seperate entity to the council. The council ( an elected body ) advertised for, interviewed and appointed a board of people based on their corporate knowledge and experience, who now oversee the management and determine future strategic planning, but the airport is still owned by the council.

 

My thought is that maybe a new model for RAAus could be for the members to elect a committee in the same way as we do now with a regional basis. This committee is then tasked to select a corporate board, based on merit & relevant experience. This corporate board is then responsible for the role of overseeing the future direction of RAAus, and acting as a board should, allowing management to manage, and staff to look after the day to day runnings of the organisation.

 

The elected committee would only need to meet during the process of appointing an initial corporate board, and again if / when changes to the corporate board are required. Maybe also an annual meeting to assess the corporate board's performance. I think with this system the need for frequent elections would be less and possibly terms for the elected committee could be made longer.

 

Obviously employing a board in this manner would incur costs, but I believe an increase in costs in this manner would be a worthwhile investment in our future as an organisation.

 

So that's my thought, just putting it out there to see what others may think. Happy to hear others thoughts on how this might work or if it can be refined. Maybe some will think it's crazy, but the first step toward sorting the future of RAAus is to come up with a better model than the one we have now and have so badly outgrown.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

In my opinion, a comprehensive analysis and overhaul of the entire organisation is required in order to address the current issues.

 

This needs to start by having a complete and clear set of objectives for the organisation. Yes, RAAus currently has a set of objectives. However, I believe that the current list should be reviewed and overhauled.

 

As I see it, RAAus has 2 roles; that of promoting Recreational Aviation in Australia, and that of carrying out the CASA delegated functions assigned to it. I shall coin the terms "Promotional" and "Regulatory" when referring to these functions.

 

Consequently, I believe that RAAus should have 2 Divisions; Promotional and Regulatory (or whatever names are decided upon).

 

Given the legal obligations and responsibilities associated with the Regulatory Division, I believe that this Division should be manned with permanent salaried staff, with an appropriate structure relevant to the role. This would include but is not limited to Operational, Airworthiness, Administrative, Quality Assurance and Safety staff, who are all appropriately qualified and experienced and who are paid accordingly, perhaps using the CASA pay scales as a basis. If CASA want to delegate responsibilities to RAAus without providing any cost benefit to RAAus members, then perhaps RAAus could make a case for being granted an amount from the CASA budget, equivalent to the cost of CASA maintaining responsibility for those functions.

 

A lot of what is done now by RAAus would come under the banner of Promotion. As we have now, many of the positions in the Promotion Division would be voluntary. We would still have regional reps etc., but the aim of the Promotional Division would be exactly that, promotion. This would include the role of representation of initiatives to CASA.

 

A complete business plan for the future of RAAus needs to be drafted, and a skilled Project Manager needs to be available to implement the required change. Without a defined plan and a clear strategy for moving ahead, we will continue to struggle. Lets not keep sticking our fingers in the dyke, lets determine how to fix it once and for all. Lets use some of those cash reserves to do it properly.

 

Personally, I would appreciate seeing the current plan and strategy for achieving a mature and successful organisation. Can we get the Board to make their strategy available to members? If after these last few months of heartache there is no long term plan for the future of our organisation or any processes identified to manage change, we are simply sticking our fingers in the dyke, waiting for the whole thing to collapse.

 

I know we have new management who are doing their utmost to address the problems. I am sure they will have everyone's support in their endeavours. However, the survivability of our organisation will be determined by those at the top. We need them to step up and drive the required change.

 

 

[johnm]

I'm a retracking record .............. but under the regulatory division the first thing that would be an immediate benefit to members would be to get rid of annual airplane registrations (lets stamp out tedium)

 

If the organisation needs revenue lets devise another way (like 'hot potatoe' or spin the bottle - etc) - not by creating mountains of annual paper work - as is the current system

 

 

[turboplanner]

Mick, I don't think local representation is critical in these days of instant communications; I work very efficiently with my colleagues in Indiana, Tennessee and Illinois addressing issues central to the day's work, and I'd have to say we haven't seen much good come out of local representation within RAA.

 

I don't think you need decentralised representation, I think you need to find the best professional representation, and within the thousands of members that's only a matter of looking.

 

Our Council has the same corporatised board you are suggesting, to manage it's market, an icon where the city was once described as "The Market City" with 800 stalls, and has managed to get it down to about 140 stalls and facing a slow death. If you think about it, in setting up something like this you are handing your control over to someone else, and with something so specialised as aviation, I wouldn't be doing that.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy changed its governance structure from regional to a board elected from all members on their merits about 12 years ago. It has since doubled its membership and greatly expanded services to members, which involved greatly expanding its permanent support staff. The AusIMM has the same challenge that RAAus faces in servicing members (12,000 for AusIMM) across Australia, with some international. The key to success is the governance structure - get that right and a good board of experienced managers and directors will make all the things that we need happen.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I might add that a board needs to meet regularly face to face. Every two months is ok when things are running smoothly but monthly is necessary in challenging times like the RAAus finds itself in. Travel and accommodation costs for say 12 board members at $1000 each is $12,000 per month times say 10 months is $120,000 per year. Money well spent, but our membership would have to be mature enough to understand the need for it.

 

 

[Admin]

For years now I have promoted the model of having a 7 to 9 member board. For example in a 7 member board, 4 members with one each from Qld/NT, NSW, Vic/Tas, SA/WA and say 3 members elected not from geographic region but rather "titled" positions of say Finance, HR, and Marketing. ALL members vote for ALL candidates Australia wide and in the case of the "Titled" positions, they are elected on their demonstrated ability of knowledge in that titled area. You could go to 8 members with the 8th position also being titled under "Legal" or a 9th position breaking up the geographic regions by one more.

 

The only way to do this and jump start RAAus is to declare ALL positions on the RAAus Committee as vacant and an election held for all new members under this framework. We would then have a clean slate in which to build a great RAAus using a good mix of aviation centric representatives covering large regions along with professional representation in appropriate business disciplines.

 

What could also then happen is each of the Geographic reps would form sub regional (non board) representatives and as a team would hook up each month to discuss not only Australia wide elements or RAAus but with also sub regional issues.

 

What is stopping this...2 things...the constitution and the current incumbents and that is a chicken and egg as the current incumbents won't support a constitutional change that will effectively see themselves dumped from the Committee.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

All board members should be members of the Australian Institute of Company Directors or should be willing to undertake the governance training and professional development to become members within 12 months of election.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It has been my experience that if board members are elected on their merits, the regional representation will take care of itself. If a region misses out on representation one year, they will correct it at the next election. This assumes board terms are limited, say three years with one third retiring each year.

 

However the new governance model is structured, it must be he result of extensive consultation with the membership so that members own the outcome of the review.

 

 

[Mick]

Mick, I don't think local representation is critical in these days of instant communications................. and I'd have to say we haven't seen much good come out of local representation within RAA.

I agree Turbs, but some seem fixated on this concept.

 

I really think we just need a professional, qualified and experienced board regardless of where they are based. I like Ian's concept of having specific roles for some positions on the board as long as the person is appointed to the role based on qualification, not just because the other board members think they would be OK.

 

 

[damkia]

For years now I have promoted the model of having a 7 to 9 member board. For example in a 7 member board, 4 members with one each from Qld/NT, NSW, Vic/Tas, SA/WA and say 3 members elected not to geographic region but rather "titled" positions of say Finance, HR, and Marketing. ALL members vote for ALL candidates Australia wide and in the case of the "Titled" positions, they are elected on their demonstrated ability of knowledge in that titled area. You could go to 8 members with the 8th position also being titled under "Legal" or a 9th position breaking up the geographic regions by one more.The only way to do this and jump start RAAus is to declare ALL positions on the RAAus Committee as vacant and an election held for all new members under this framework. We would then have a clean slate in which to build a great RAAus using a good mix of aviation centric representatives covering large regions along with professional representation in appropriate business disciplines.

 

What could also then happen is each of the Geographic reps would form sub regional (non board) representatives and as a team would hook up each month to discuss not only Australia wide elements or RAAus but with also sub regional issues.

 

What is stopping this...2 things...the constitution and the current incumbents and that is a chicken and egg as the current incumbents won't support a constitutional change that will effectively see themselves dumped from the Committee.

What is also needed is the position of "Chairman" whose roll is oversight/governance of the organisation, similar to the Governor General's relationship to the Australian Government system. Has the ability to break serious internal disputes, but otherwise keeps out of the picture. This would stop fiefdoms occurring such that have recently occurred.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I like the idea of a mix of elected and appointed board members. 4-5 Elected members, voted by in a similar process as today (ie state/location/area based), another 4 appointed members (people with professional skills). The board would be responsible for the reviewing/selecting of candidates for appointed positions, which would be retified by members at the AGM.

 

I wouldn't go as far of labelling each appointed position a particular role such as HR, or Marketing etc

 

The board positions may need to be a paid position (part-time) to attract quality candidates, no different to company directors etc.

 

I also agree on all board members undergoing compulsory governance training.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

In my opinion, a Board is in place to develop strategies, define policies and provide governance to ensure the organisation meets its operational, administrative and financial objectives.

 

It is then up to the organisations management and its relevant committees and working groups to implement the strategies and policies handed down by the Board. As usual, the actual legwork of drafting proposed organisational strategies and policies may be delegated to management by the Board, but approval will come from the Board.

 

The Board requires members with specialised knowledge. At the least, there should be someone with an intricate knowledge of the regulatory framework within which we operate with experience in the ways and means of compliance. There should also be someone with exceptional knowledge of administering such an organisation. Also, someone with exceptional knowledge of financial control of such an organisation as well as someone with substantial experience in promoting such an organisation. Also, there should be someone on the Board with vast experience of managing change within a large organisation. Finally, there should be someone on the Board with an intricate knowledge of Recreational Aviation.

 

Armed with these attributes, we should end up with a Board that has the skills and experience to provide the organisation with the direction we need to recover the situation and get the organisation to where it should be.

 

With a suitable organisational structure having been determined by the Board, along with the strategies and policies that need to be implemented, the management and committees can then get on with the hard work of implementing the Boards strategies and policies.

 

The regional reps discussed here are not Board level, they are committee level. The Board needs specialist skills. The skills may not be aviation related. We don't need pilots on the Board, we need specialists in the required fields.