The divide between north and south Queensland

[Guest Maj Millard]

People like the idea of a 'local' rep, but someone in Townsville is hardly local for someone in Mt Isa. And Cairns and Mackay are further apart than any two places in Victoria. Apart from that feel good factor, I can't see it makes a difference where address is hardly a qualification for an effective Board member.

Have to disagree there TK58........all board rep contact details are published in the RAA mag each month, so any member, be it in Cairns or Mt Isa or where-ever, has the opportunity to easily contact their area representive. Personally I have done a lot of work in Western North Qld over the years, so I already know many pilots out that way, and they know of me. Additionally,as a board member I would make my Email address known to all for easy and quick communication. Distance really isn't much of a hurdle these days wherever you are, with modern Internet communications..................Maj....

 

 

[eightyknots]

Distance really isn't much of a hurdle these days wherever you are, with modern Internet communications..................Maj....

Distance really isn't much of a hurdle these days wherever you are, when you own a Lightwing..................

 

 

[TK58]

Have to disagree there TK58........all board rep contact details are published in the RAA mag each month, so any member, be it in Cairns or Mt Isa or where-ever, has the opportunity to easily contact their area representive. Personally I have done a lot of work in Western North Qld over the years, so I already know many pilots out that way, and they know of me. Additionally,as a board member I would make my Email address known to all for easy and quick communication. Distance really isn't much of a hurdle these days wherever you are, with modern Internet communications..................Maj....

That's my point. It doesn't matter so much these days where the rep is based.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Groundhog day: Better to stop fighting and address the basic problems with RA, (a) getting people to stand, (b) getting people to vote for them before it's all too late.

 

And with resignations coming through © Putting together a fast game plan to address major issues

 

 

[Bryon]

It appears to me that Maj has thrown his hat into the ring for FNQ

 

If that is the case........I vote for Maj

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Nominations for NQ rep closed 4pm 31 July 2013 - nothing on the RAA website - do we have an election? Maj Millard elected unopposed? Anyone know?

 

Sue

 

 

[Yenn]

Seeing the candidates write up in a recent election I think it is time we did away with area reps and got to be able to pick those we think will do the best job.

 

Sometimes we could get poor candidates in one area and good ones in another. Then a poor and a good get elected, wouldn't it be better to get all good reps?

 

 

[coljones]

Hi MajYou are correct we do need a geographical balance regarding the rep to member ratio. We must have ourselves protected from all the future situations which are not on the horizon at the moment.

Queensland is big, a lot of people do not realize how much of Qld is above Mackay the area above Mackay is a lot bigger than Victoria.

 

I can just imagine the roar and it will not be from the zoo if all the decisions are made for us from Victoria.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

I don't know why we persist with 3 from SE Qld when the pop does not support the no of reps in SE Qld. As to size, there is only one rep in WA. I wouldn't say that NSW has been well served by the NSW reps but they haven't served RAA well either.

 

I think RAA has been poorly served by the arguments about the location of representatives when everyone should be focussing on the quality of reps no matter where they come from.

 

 

[coljones]

Seeing the candidates write up in a recent election I think it is time we did away with area reps and got to be able to pick those we think will do the best job.Sometimes we could get poor candidates in one area and good ones in another. Then a poor and a good get elected, wouldn't it be better to get all good reps?

What is poor to you might be the bee's knees to another.

 

Given some of the smart arses we have seen at the big end of town and their manipulation of the companies that they are involved in, I'm not sure I want anyone who has NOT had experience in the advocacy and not for profit area. But current and past directors of NRMA will not be getting my vote (along with the NSW ALP administrative committee and their mates.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

. . . we do need a geographical balance regarding the rep to member ratio. . . .Queensland is big, a lot of people do not realize how much of Qld is above Mackay the area above Mackay is a lot bigger than Victoria. . . .

Keith, I know you would be disappointed if I went all quiet and didn't help you with this issue. So, rather than risk your ire by keeping quiet, I'll do as you bid and offer a few comments that I hope you find helpful.

 

The big issues here are fair democratic principles and a Board with the capability to keep us out of the crap we are currently in up to our eyeballs.

 

In a truly democratic organisation the "rep to member ratio" would be the same for all regions - that is the vote of every member is exactly the same. This feature of a representative democracy is usually framed as "one vote one value." When you don't have that, as was the case I believe in the Sunshine State for many years, you have a gerrymander - not invented by Joh but very successfully adopted by him I'm told by my banana bending cousins. We do not have one vote one value in RA-Aus because of the distortion of NQ, NT and Tassie and to a lesser extent in SA and WA. In each of the smaller (member numbers) regions a handful of members elect a Board Rep (or don't bother to vote and the sole candidate is elected unopposed no matter how unsuited they might be to operate at Board level).

 

When our "founding fathers" set out to allow for all sorts of things like jam tin and string communications and small-minded, parochial, xenophobic members from big states and low potential Island dwellers they came up with a system that has not served us well. Look what the Apple Isle has put on the Board for the last 25 years or so. This is the Board Rep who gave his mate Tizzard the CEO job after sacking a high potential CEO in Robbie Costemeyer.

 

In NSW/ACT the ratio is about 1,000 members per Board Rep from NSW/ACT. You tell me what the ratio would be for NQ or NT or Tassie. Considering the bulk of the membership is resident in SQ, NSW/ACT/VIC the "geographical balance" is way out of wack.

 

But, jump into the 21st Century for a bit and consider the fact that we are not Queenslanders, Sand Gropers, etc. but Australians. We have one CASA and one set of air laws - not one for each state or region. We have the same issues whether you live in Albany WA or Cooktown Qld., Maitland NSW or Maitland SA. States and regions have no bearing on anything. The only value state boundaries have any more is to make football and cricket games a bit more interesting.

 

The most important thing about the people we put into the top tier of policy making in RA-Aus is the quality of their qualifications, experience and the skills and judgement they possess, the effort they are prepared to bring to the task and their integrity and ethical principles. Their Postcode adds exactly nothing to their capability to run RA-Aus.

 

A member from Victoria who is an experienced company law barrister is surely better suited to be Board Secretary than a mechanic from North Queensland. It is really is that simple.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

It appears to me that Maj has thrown his hat into the ring for FNQIf that is the case........I vote for Maj

Bryon, If Maj was standing for Technical Director, I'd go along with you. From what I have read on here of his aviation maintenance experience and knowledge he'd definitely be the man. But, what we need on the Board are people with skills and experience of Board level management. No question Maj is a good bloke, an experienced pilot and a skilled aviation engineer but that doesn't necessarily set him up to be successful at Board Level.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall Maj supporting the concept that it is OK for Board Members to ignore the Constitution if the feel the need to. If you or I wanted to do something contrary to what the Constitution dictates then we'd have to go through the process of developing an amendment to the Constitution and getting 75% of the voting membership to agree to the change.

 

What is the point of having a Constitution if Board Members feel it doesn't apply to them? And why would you elect a person to the Board if they declare that the Constitution only applies to them when it suits them?

 

 

[eightyknots]

The most important thing about the people we put into the top tier of policy making in RA-Aus is the quality of their qualifications, experience and the skills and judgement they possess, the effort they are prepared to bring to the task and their integrity and ethical principles. Their Postcode adds exactly nothing to their capability to run RA-Aus.

A member from Victoria who is an experienced company law barrister is surely better suited to be Board Secretary than a mechanic from North Queensland. It is really is that simple.

The issue may be summed up as follows:

 

A barrister from Victoria may be blinkered by legal strictures and his/her sideways vision blocked by the locks of a legal wig. On the other hand, the mechanic from North Queensland may have an enormous amount of common sense, a practical and pragmatic attitude to getting things done and see RAA matters from a member-on-the-ground's perspective rather than from the rarified atmosphere of the corridors from marble-floored legal offices, far removed from the real world.

 

We had such a legal person as PM of Australia for three years. Did Australia advance during the three years of her Prime Ministership?

 

 

[facthunter]

The consideration of which state someone came from seems remote from having a good job done on the board. We are probably required to have state reps under the constitution. State borders have actually nothing to do with anything because as has been stated all the rules are the same . The authority is the same. The planes we fly will be identical. the Rego numbers do not distinguish anything to do with a state authority. IF you have an accident somewhere the state boundary will affect which police do the investigation. Reps coming from large distances affect the cost of attendance but we cop that.

 

So state boundaries are not an issue. If we follow where the most members are( Direct numbers representation) we will get a lot in the most population dense states. . There is no need to overservice/ overrepresent these areas either for much the same reasons, but it leads us to the remote areas which clearly would be difficult to provide personal contact of any significance at a reasonable cost.

 

Some regard could be given to having a designated, central aerodrome for parts of Australia on the basis of access of members. If most of the QLD reps are from SEQ the north is a continent away.

 

Any how the trend is to numerically reduce the board numbers and as I read it to try to get higher "quality " reps on the board rather than area defined. Today it is just as easy to contact someone in Darwin as Sydney for me and this will only get better with technology. There could be a "perception " that certain places are not considered, but I can't see that as being a reality. Remote areas have access and transport problems for anyone living there. Having an aeroplane has real benefits for those who live there. In the 60's most wheat/sheep farmers had a Cessna in the shed. Nev

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

The issue may be summed up as follows:A barrister from Victoria may be blinkered by legal strictures and his/her sideways vision blocked by the locks of a legal wig. On the other hand, the mechanic from North Queensland may have an enormous amount of common sense, a practical and pragmatic attitude to getting things done and see RAA matters from a member-on-the-ground's perspective rather than from the rarified atmosphere of the corridors from marble-floored legal offices, far removed from the real world.

 

We had such a legal person as PM of Australia for three years. Did Australia advance during the three years of her Prime Ministership?

80kts,

So much of that I agree with. My biggest disagreement with KRudd is that I won't get to vote against her and see all her chickens come home to roost.

 

Your argument is essentially that we need diversity and of course I agree with that. All lawyers and accountants would be as bad as having 80% CFIs. Having two of our Board with knowledge that keeps us legally compliant within legal strictures would not be a bad thing compared with the ignorance that has got us into the mess we are in now.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Is anyone happy with area based reps?

 

 

[facthunter]

ft, It's not the main issue at the moment is it? You might say it is "older" influences in a changing world, and try to make rules to cover every eventuality. Like the president can only be there for three consecutive years or such. Rules MAY help and they may cause a problem. Non of us are clairvoyant, so I suggest we get the BEST of those people offering and get on with it. Try not to lose this general manager. (And what a job he has got).

 

I thank all who have put up their hand as no one goes in there to ruin the show. There have obviously been conflict of interests and there may have been some hidden agendas or some lack of confidence. I'm not confident that there won't be more that we won't like in the pipeline, but we will see. One thing seems to be evident . That the extra "requirements" will deter many from flying over time. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Bryon, If Maj was standing for Technical Director, I'd go along with you. From what I have read on here of his aviation maintenance experience and knowledge he'd definitely be the man.

What a stunning example of satirical commentary! Humor makes the world go around!

 

 

[Oscar]

Is anyone happy with area based reps?

No.

 

There is no valid reason to elect Board members based on geographical boundaries, when the core administration tasks demanded of RAA are entirely uninfluenced by regional concerns. I strongly support the idea of having 'regional representatives' to promote the Association to regional authorities and interests, but the management of RAA needs to be in response to skill/expertise needs - not location.

 

 

[coljones]

No.There is no valid reason to elect Board members based on geographical boundaries, when the core administration tasks demanded of RAA are entirely uninfluenced by regional concerns. I strongly support the idea of having 'regional representatives' to promote the Association to regional authorities and interests, but the management of RAA needs to be in response to skill/expertise needs - not location.

The requirements of globality should be met by the professional management - the CEO and his team - this is fundamental to any good organisation.

 

The purpose of the board is to bring strategic input to the table along with some well honed skills in setting the course for organisations like RAA.

 

In some major not for profits and charities the board representation is made up of people who can bring technical skills but also people who can connect, with politicians and donors and people who can advocate the organisations position. Much business is done through the mates network - tendering is for mugs - like governments.

 

That doesn't and shouldn't mean that there should be no flyers nor, indeed, area reps but it appears that the area reps have not served RAA well. They certainly don't appear to have been out there working out what the rank and file want from their organisation. In that way the current board appears to not be the model that it should.

 

Democracy - what a bastard but much better than a theocracy or a dictatorship of mates.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Area reps can be branch chairs, involved in organising local events, but have no place on the board, for the reasons given above.

 

 

[coljones]

Area reps can be branch chairs, involved in organising local events, but have no place on the board, for the reasons given above.

that would imply a regional structure which does not exist, and if it did would probably be a dog's breakfast.

 

 

[Oscar]

It seems to me that there are several different issues here that need to be looked at separately and then perhaps re-examined to see if there is a mechanism whereby they can be melded.

 

The first issue is meeting the administrative requirements placed on RAA. The organisation needs to - indeed must - meet mandated standards of compliance with various 'operational' requirements. While that is largely a mechanistic function to be performed by the professional staff ( CEO, Tech Manager, Ops. Manager, SMS manager etc.) it is very much a Board responsibility to provide a level of oversight, support and strategic planning: ensuring KPIs are met, apportioning RAA resources as needed to deal with situations as they arise. To do this effectively the Board needs people with appropriate expertise to at the very least fully comprehend the nature of the tasks, even if not chapter and verse of the actual requirements down to the last sub-part of every paragraph.

 

The second issue is surely the amorphous phrase 'good governance'. That covers such things as adherence to the Rules for the Association, financial control, effective long-range strategic planning for the development of the organisation etc.

 

The third, as I see it, can be loosely termed 'representation' of the objectives of the Association. I would lump in here such things as promotion of RAA members' interests at the regional and local level, defence against actions by regional / local authorities/interest groups that are antipathetic to our activity etc.

 

The first two issues are best addressed by having the Board elected on the basis of the need for a range of skills and experience - none of which, in our ambit, are in any way divided by location nor considerations of 'democracy' (other than, perhaps, the implicit 'democracy' of ensuring that the Board itself maintains a good balance of skills and experience, so it does not become 'technocrat-heavy', or 'accountant-heavy' or some fundamental imbalance of that sort. ) Selection of Board members based on regional affiliation simply does not make any coherent sense.

 

Conversely, the third issue does require regional representation - it can't work effectively without it. Such 'regional representatives' don't, I believe, need to be office-holders of the Association, but could and should form a channel of information between the association and the regional / local communities from which they are drawn, and in reverse, a channel of information upwards to the Board of matters that affect regions. They would hold status as 'spokespeople' for the Association at the regional / local level, and by election from the region, be people that regional members choose as their representative.

 

 

[turboplanner]

May be a silly question but can anyone tell me where or how The divide is worked out between north and south Qld in reference to the board delegatesThanks David

This was the simple question.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Democracy - what a bastard but much better than a theocracy or a dictatorship of mates.

Didn't Winston Churchill say (after losing the election only a month or two after Britain won the war): "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

 

[Oscar]

Didn't Winston Churchill say (after losing the election only a month or two after Britain won the war): "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

There is NO requirement for 'democracy' in the operation of RAA in regard to compliance with the CASA requirements. The requirements are spelled out in the CAR's and exemptions thereto. How RAA manages its own affairs is entirely irrelevant to the compliance issues.

 

'Democracy' is a somewhat nebulous concept at the best of times. In theory, it means that more than 50% of the 'population' is in favour of a law that bonds the remaining less than 50% of the population. There is NO element of 'democracy' in, for instance, the approved MTOW for an aircraft for it to be registered as approved for 'X' MTOW vs. 'Y' MTOW.

 

We will NOT be allowed to deviate from the compliance requirements which we have to meet because we do not agree with them on a 'democratically'-expressed basis. It is critically important that RAA members realise this fact and install a Board that acts to ensure we operate to meet the compliance requirements.

 

HOW the RAA manages its own affairs, is convincingly arguable as being based on 'democratic' principles. HOWEVER - how RAA manages compliance, has absolutely nothing relevant to or keystoned on 'democratic' principles. If these entirely variant concepts can be bought into alignment, then it would be a paradigm example of a 'democratic' organisation meeting its compliance requirements. In the real world, what do members want: to be able to keep flying their aircraft, or to belonging to an organisation that epitomises the democratic principle?

 

Yes, Winston Churchill (of cursed memory) did make that statement. Rather later, a far more enduring rock-and-roll band suggested that 'you can't always get what you want.' Both maxims will go down in history. Which one will you admit as relevant, if you can't fly your RAA - registered aircraft in the future in the conditions you believed them to be compliant? This is NOT a rhetorical question- ask the owners of Pipistrel, Pacific, Morgan etc. aircraft.