The divide between north and south Queensland

[eightyknots]

'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.

More importantly it is "the more than 50% of the eligible voters who bother to cast their votes that bonds the remaining membership that could well number considerably higher than 50%, depending on the level of voter participation."

 

 

[turboplanner]

You make a good point Eighty; before you can do ANYTHING you have to get people to vote.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Any ideas why the majority of RAA members never vote?

 

 

[dazza 38]

Any ideas why the majority of RAA members never vote?

IMO it was because being a RAA member was a necessary evil. By that I mean, they had to be members to have the privilege hold a RAA cert. They couldn't be bothered voting. I was like that once. These days with all the current problems, I am thinking that more members will vote. Maybe 20 percent as a guess.

 

 

[Oscar]

OK, let's get down to basics here.

 

The concept of democracy is reliant on the expression of the will of 'the population'. If less than the entirety of 'the population' casts a vote - that is an implicit expression that the issue under consideration is NOT sufficiently important for that membership of 'the population' to be concerned enough to register their opinion.

 

If a relatively small percentage of RAA membership can, to be blunt, be buggered to vote -that is an expression that the issue(s) under consideration are not important to them. Let me take this further: a vast majority of members of RAA could not give a flying, fur-lined continental f@@k about 'democracy' - what they want is to be able to continue to fly their aircraft with minimal or no frustration of that objective. They want to be able to pay their annual fees, submit their documentation as required, and be able to continue to fly hither and yon in their aircraft, in perpetuity. I am one of those.

 

In the last 12 months, the peaceful pursuit of flying legally hither and yon has been rent asunder for many members because of the failure of RAA to manage its compliance requirements. The management structure has failed us. That management structure has been in the main, 'democratically' elected and it has NOT served the members well.

 

So- it has to be asked - what is the majority will? To have an organisation that palpably demonstrates 'democratic''principles - or to have an organisation that works to ensure that its members can continue to use their aircraft as they wished? (and that they have invested considerable amount of money to own?) Do you as an aircraft owner approach your aircraft before every flight feeling good about the fact that you can take off knowing that a 'democratic' organisation is behind that activity? Would you be happy to say: 'Well, I can't use this aircraft today because it isn't legal, but that's ok because the organisation that I rely on to keep me legal is NOT compliant with the requirement for my flight, but more importantly it IS democratic?

 

 

[eightyknots]

OK, let's get down to basics here....

 

So- it has to be asked - what is the majority will? To have an organisation that palpably demonstrates 'democratic''principles - or to have an organisation that works to ensure that its members can continue to use their aircraft as they wished? (and that they have invested considerable amount of money to own?) Do you as an aircraft owner approach your aircraft before every flight feeling good about the fact that you can take off knowing that a 'democratic' organisation is behind that activity? Would you be happy to say: 'Well, I can't use this aircraft today because it isn't legal, but that's ok because the organisation that I rely on to keep me legal is NOT compliant with the requirement for my flight, but more importantly it IS democratic?

I am concerned by the way this argument is going Oscar. Adolf Hitler said similar things in the 1930s and, in a relatively short space of time, he dispensed with democracy (the German parliament) and built an organisation that worked very well ....with Adolf as its supreme ruler.

 

I believe that it is imperative that democracy always continue to underpin an organisation like the RA-Aus. Nevertheless, what is badly needed is that members show a far greater interest in its affairs. A minimum 80% voter turnout should be an overriding goal!

 

 

[Oscar]

You completely misunderstand my point and confuse the necessity to ensure compliance with CASA regulations with RAA governance.

 

The compliance regulations are NOT generated by 'democratic principles' - any more than the speed limits on the roads you drive on or the electricity bill you pay are. Do you campaign against the imposition of tread depth limits on your tyres because they were not 'democratically' decided? Is that, in your opinion, an example of a dictatorial abrogation of democratic principle? - or do you just buy new tyres when your old ones are no longer legal and grumble under your breath?

 

Save me the 'Hitler' arguments. We HAVE to be compliant, to keep flying. Your argument is not with the form of RAA management appointment, but with the government that supports the compliance rules we have to operate under. The number of aircraft currently not allowed to fly is a definitive statement of the failure of a 'democratically' elected Board determined on regional representation divides to maintain compliance. I want to see a 'democratically' elected Board that can manage our compliance issues - not one that simply reinforces a completely spurious regional representational ideal.

 

And, for what it is worth: I have a number of (naturalised and proud Australian) friends who were electors of Hitler under the democratic rules then in force. Why? - because Hitler was the choice between starving for lack of employment or a more obviously 'liberal' opposition'. They didn't vote for Hitler because they wanted a bloody maniac dictator, they voted because they wanted to keep on living. Before you play the 'Hitler' card, understand the situation of Germany in the 1930's. It is an insult of monumental proportions to compare the situation we are faced with the RAA management to the situation that enabled Hitler to ascend to power and you should be truly ashamed to have invoked any such parallel.

 

 

[coljones]

Oscar,

 

the members are the owners of RAA - how should the board of RAA be appointed?

 

CASA is an external body over which we have no power BUT they have delegated to RAA the privileges of administering some of the laws.

 

How RAA does that will influence CASA in the privileges that they allow RAA to exercise (and which we as members might enjoy).

 

The staff of RAA are employees of RAA, not of CASA.

 

At the top, the board of RAA appoints the managers, they are not appointed by CASA.

 

The board is responsible for oversighting the outcomes the staff works toward and achieve (and also who they upset as they do it)

 

The members of RAA elect the board. I think that is called democracy.

 

How we elect the board is also our business - that is also democracy.

 

No-one is talking about how to elect CASA (that is also democracy but that is done via the government)

 

Cheers

 

 

[eightyknots]

Before you play the 'Hitler' card, understand the situation of Germany in the 1930's. It is an insult of monumental proportions to compare the situation we are faced with the RAA management to the situation that enabled Hitler to ascend to power and you should be truly ashamed to have invoked any such parallel.

Oscar, it is not helpful to say I am "play[ing] the 'Hitler' card" which in itself is pejorative and emotive language. All I did was to point out the stark choice you wrote in your post and the demonstrable parallel in Hitler's Germany. The relevant portion of your post appears below and all readers of your post can see that you wanted to "get down to basics" and you clearly painted an either/or situation.

 

I have reproduced the relevant portion of that post which contrasted:

 

"democracatic principles" with an "organisation that works to ensure that its members can continue to use their aircraft as they wished".

 

Like yourself, Hitler also made this an either/or choice in the 1930s: i.e. a Reichstag operating on "democratic principles" or a "government that works to ensure that people continue to eat and be employed as they wished".

 

OK, let's get down to basics here.....

 

So- it has to be asked - what is the majority will? To have an organisation that palpably demonstrates 'democratic''principles - or to have an organisation that works to ensure that its members can continue to use their aircraft as they wished?

The scale and extent between the RA-Aus and Hitler's Germany is obviously not the same: that is the nature of mere parallels. But, I have seen the parallel and drawn other Forumites' attention to this and I need not be ashamed for this.

 

I, for one, do not see this stark choice in the way you have put it. Conversely, I would like democracy to remain in the RA-Aus! To really enhance democracy, there needs to be a concerted effort to get as many members to cast a vote (I have already written about this vital matter in one of my posts above).

 

Hopefully, the membership will wisely choose people who will deal well with -and effectively lobby- the government/CASA on issues that are dear to the RA-Aus membership. It is imperative that a functional board (dare I say, a united board!?) is elected that can represent members in a business-like manner. While there is a perceived (or real) internal division, the government/CASA is not going to take as much notice of the RA-Aus.

 

Once again, I urge all Forumites and their non-Forumite, RA-Aus friends to choose well and cast a vote. A strong, democratically elected, non-self serving Board is the best asset the RA-Aus can have.

 

 

[Oscar]

Col - I am not suggesting by any means the abolition of member voting for the Board - although it seems that historically, relatively few members seem to actually participate in that activity, which may or may not tell a story in itself of the relative importance of 'participative democracy' vs. 'get on with the job that needs to be done' for many members.

 

What I am arguing for is a fundamental shift in the basis of the composition of the Board away from selection of regional representatives to selection of candidates to fill Board positions with nominated responsibilities. Let us say, for example, the Board were determined to require a number of Committee area responsibilities: Technical, Financial, Safety, Governance, Operations, Public Profile.

 

Candidates could list their areas of expertise and nominate for one (or more) 'Committee area/s'. Those Committee areas are filled according to the votes received, e.g. if say the Technical Committee is determined to require three members, then the three candidates with the most votes, fill those slots.

 

Some candidates will bring to the RAA Board expertise in more than one area - e.g. the same candidate might be extremely valuable to both Technical and Operations. Once a candidate is elected to the Board in any area, then filling positions on other Committees - to ensure a complete Board membership - should be automatically contested by those NOT already elected - since the Board will de facto gain the added value of having more people with knowledge in a Committee area than that Committee is required to have. That way, we get all bases covered - and probably, some bases more than covered.

 

If someone can show how regional representation on the Board provides a better organisational management outcome for members, I'm prepared to listen attentively.

 

As for 'electing' CASA - from where did that come? CASA is no more 'elected' than is the ATO...

 

 

[Oscar]

80 kts - I did NOT say that you cannot have an effective organisation only if 'democracy' is removed - that is your entirely emotive construct on my question. I suggest you google 'Godwin's Law' in relation to bringing Hitler into ANY debate.

 

What I asked is very simply: what is the demonstrated majority will of members showing? By the very low reported percentage of members actually bothering to vote, yet paying their annual dues, I believe the answer is crystal clear: the majority of members are not sufficiently concerned about participating in the democratic process offered to them to determine the composition of their Board. However, they are, in effect, voting with their wallets in regard to trying to keep on flying.

 

Is there ANY member of the current Board who received the votes of more than 50% of the membership?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Its my belief that jumping up and down about voting percentages counts for nothing.......Its also my view that the percentage will be a function of stability.......Had there been an election when RAAus announced no more registrations to be processed and we aren't sure when or if we will be allowed to restart then voter participation may well have been close to 100%...would that be a good thing? I suggest not....I suspect that a bunch of folk who had no understanding of how or why we ended up where we ended up would suddenly start to vote and those that are following why and when and how and therefore who may have a clue as to what is needed to fix things will be very diluted in the voter outcome....

 

Don't believe me.....look at what Middo did in the Feb 9th meeting when he ( or the lawyer most likely) wrote that alarmist piece of tripe that went out with the proxy vote forms....All that happened is Middo got a bunch of clueless people to get involved at the 11th hour......which then allowed the Australian conservative approach to no change to take place.....

 

Its not a trick that can be played everytime however!

 

Andy

 

P.S above is my opinion and isn't written to be understood as fact....like always check for yourselves

 

 

[eightyknots]

80 kts - I did NOT say that you cannot have an effective organisation only if 'democracy' is removed - that is your entirely emotive construct on my question. I suggest you google 'Godwin's Law' in relation to bringing Hitler into ANY debate.

No, but you made it an either/or situation (implied by the word OR), i.e., "democracy" OR "an organisation that works...."

 

That is where the parallel was identified, Godwin's Law, Murphy's Law, or otherwise.

 

80 kts - I did NOT say that you cannot have an effective organisation only if 'democracy' is removed - that is your entirely emotive construct on my question.

I did not construct anything. What I did was to expose your either/or proposition. On the other hand, I took a decided position, i.e., that a democracy should remain in the RA-Aus.

 

What I asked is very simply: what is the demonstrated majority will of members showing? By the very low reported percentage of members actually bothering to vote, yet paying their annual dues, I believe the answer is crystal clear: the majority of members are not sufficiently concerned about participating in the democratic process offered to them to determine the composition of their Board. However, they are, in effect, voting with their wallets in regard to trying to keep on flying.

You may recall that I was the first to point this bit you have written in bold (about the lack of democratic support from the members) in this thread. Refer to post # 51. I am glad that you agree with me in bold writing, Oscar.

 

 

[DWF]

I suspect (and I don't think I am the only one who does so) that the only reason the majority of RAAus members are in fact members of RAAus is because to is the only acceptable (legal) alternative to GA if you want to build and/or fly ultralight aircraft.

 

Give this 'fact (assertion?)' it is hardly surprising that this majority have little interest in how the organisation is run or who runs it, as long as everything is going along smoothly.

 

Very few of the decisions to be made by the Board or functions of RAAus are geographically based (i.e. they do not affect only one particular area/location but apply to all members).

 

It therefore seems to me that there is very little rational for the selection of Board members to be geographically based - apart from the parochial concern that members in one area feel that members in another area have too much influence on the Board.

 

I feel that the Board should be skill based with its members elected/selected on their qualifications to run an organisation such as ours. I also think that at least some Board members should be completely independent so their decisions are made in the best interests of the objectives of RAAus. I am not saying that current or past Board members put their own interests ahead of those of the association but transparency and good governance suggest that at least some independent Directors on Board is desirable. I don't think the Aero Club management committee model works any more for RAAus!

 

RAAus is now a two headed beast. One part provides services to and regulates (in part) the operations of ultralight aircraft pilots and builders and (should) operate on business lines. The other part is still the association which sets the objectives of the organisation, advocates for members, promotes recreational aviation and provides member services such as the magazine and fly-ins. The difference between these two functions needs to be recognised and the organisation (re)structured to meet the needs of both functions.

 

To my mind the structure of RAAus should be something like this:

 

• An independent, skills based Board of 5 or 7 Directors.
   
   
  
• A General Manager/CEO who operates under the direction, guidance and supervision of the Board to provide all the technical, operational, financial and other business functions of the association.
   
   
  
• An advisory committee of elected (or nominated) members that set the mission and objective of the association and who provide recommendations and advice to the Board on appropriate matters and who, through the President, promote and advocate on behalf of the association. Members of this committee would be selected on skills, interests and ability rather than geographical location.
   
   
  
• The advisory committee can/should be supported by sub-committees dealing with particular functions or areas of expertise and made up of interested and appropriately qualified members and possibly outside advisers.
   
   
  

 

 

One thing that disappoints me with RAAus is that, despite there being regional Board members and apart from helping to run 3 fly-ins, it provides very little, if anything, in the way of regional or local social or educational events, almost no communication about what is happening at HQ and what the burning issues are, etc. Some of these should probably be driven by local members but I think the organisation could do a lot more to encourage and facilitate such events.

 

DWF

 

 

[Oscar]

DWF - thanks for an excellent summary of the realities. I believe that you have expressed succinctly the real position in the following:

 

I suspect (and I don't think I am the only one who does so) that the only reason the majority of RAAus members are in fact members of RAAus is because to is the only acceptable (legal) alternative to GA if you want to build and/or fly ultralight aircraft.Give this 'fact (assertion?)' it is hardly surprising that this majority have little interest in how the organisation is run or who runs it, as long as everything is going along smoothly.

Despite the somewhat fervent assertions of some members of this forum, the fact that RAA is (at least ostensibly) a 'democratic' organisation, that is, by the evidence of the low voter turn-out, NOT a matter of concern to a majority of members. I'll go further here, and suggest that, should an alternative mechanism for delivering compliance with all of the regulations and rules we have to abide by and that is an acceptable alternative by CASA exist, RAA could find itself in a situation of bleeding members.

 

Let us imagine for a moment that a commercial entity existed, that offered for a lower annual cost than RAA membership, a service that CASA approved as ensuring compliance with all 'technical' matters affecting RAA members: registration, operations etc. As an aircraft owner / pilot, you supply the information that is required (as you do to RAA now), this commercial entity processes that information and issues, by dint of a performance contract with and audit by CASA, your registration, Pilot Certificate etc. You have the choice of belonging to RAA, with the ability to exercise a 'democratic' vote on how RAA is managed, or using the commercial service that offers a performance guarantee: results or your money back?

 

If such an alternative existed - extrapolating from the number of RAA members who can be bothered to vote for the Board - what would you expect the RAA membership to be? The answer to that would provide a realistic measure of the value placed on having a 'democratic' organisation vs. a dependable service.

 

Fantasy? No, I don't think so. There are many examples of competitive 'democratic' organisations vs. commercial entities to show that, when it comes down to the hard facts, 'democracy' is valued emotively but performance is valued more highly. Look at the relative size of Credit Unions ( 'democratic' organisations) vs. the major banks. Absolutely nobody would accuse the major banks of even the faintest whiff of 'democratic' principles in their operation.

 

The reality is that almost none of the issues that affect the flying of RAA-class aircraft can be in the slightest degree affected by 'democratic' principles. We cannot vote to say, increase the MTOW of our aircraft. Even if 99.99% of members voted in favour of increased access to airspace, that is no more than an expression of desire, it would have no effect.

 

RAA members wishing to exercise a democratic principle to change things that affect our ambit of operation by majority consent need to be looking at exercising their democratic desires not within RAA but at the government that runs the organisation (CASA) that makes the rules we have to abide under. Other groups have realised this fact: look at the religious, sporting etc. groups that have a presence in the Parliaments that make the rules under which they have to operate. RAA could be a fine focus organisation for promoting our interests - and the expression of those interests ought to be driven by democratic principles.

 

As you have stated so very well:

 

RAAus is now a two headed beast. One part provides services to and regulates (in part) the operations of ultralight aircraft pilots and builders and (should) operate on business lines. The other part is still the association which sets the objectives of the organisation, advocates for members, promotes recreational aviation and provides member services such as the magazine and fly-ins.

IF RAA can be all things to all members AND maintain a democratic basis for its existence - brilliant. However, it is blindingly (and painfully) obvious that it has, thus far, not managed to hold up both ends of the log despite its ostensibly democratic nature. It is not beyond comprehension that, with adjustments, both heads could operate successfully. That would be the best outcome.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

f_t asked the question "Any ideas why the majority of RAA members never vote?"

 

My guess is that RA-Aus members, in the past at least, have not participated in their democracy simply because of the usual Australian cultural reasons . . . ignorance and apathy.

 

The worry is that the ignorance might just have been contrived by the Board to keep the apathy alive and growing. Mushroom cultivation techniques can be very effective. You could certainly believe that contrived ignorance was their strategy by the way they burred up if ever asked a question about wtf they were doing to RA-Aus. That they had to be brought kicking and screaming "witch hunt, pitchforks . . . etc." to Queanbeyan to account for their unholy mess speaks for itself. And then after giving all the assurances sought at Queanbeyan they delivered on none and four months later the mess was simply deeper and smelling even more organic. Respect for CASA's legal requirements nowhere in evidence.

 

But, the apathy would have existed regardless of what the Board does or fails to do as is evidenced by the current half-Board elections. Following the worst period ever experienced by RA-Aus (thanks Middleton, Runciman and Reid), members could still not be bothered to stand for election to the Board or even vote in the election where there was more than one candidate. All but NSW/ACT representatives were "elected" unopposed. Whoever wins in NSW will, after the exercise of preferences, have been elected by as few as 300 members. So, stretching the arithmetic logic a little you could say that half the Board was elected by 300 out of 10,000 members, i.e. 3% of the membership. 97% apathetic?No wonder the previous Boards have felt that they were a law unto themselves. Some have been on the Board for decades and have an awful record but keep backing up for another term and we return them unopposed.

 

Seems in the past we have got the Board Members we deserve. Thank goodness (active members) we have some new blood coming on to the Board in September who have promised good governance as their minimum.

 

Even if RA-Aus gets out of the current quagmire, in short time it will simply fall back into the bog unless there is a fundamental shift in the culture of RA-Aus members. "I just want to go flying" has surely proved to be unsustainable? It is remarkably like "She'll be right". How many CFI's impress on their students that it is important to take an interest in what's going on in Fyshwick? How many CFIs identify students with strong high level management experience and suggest they consider running for the Board? Instead we end up with 80% CFIs on the Board all who have a vested interest in RA-Aus being successful but also with a perceived conflict of interest on almost every matter that the Board considers.

 

Democracy is the best form of government? I don't think so. You have to remember that half the population have below average intelligence! And a lot of the other half lack our common sense.

 

I was persuaded by my old dad that a benevolent dictatorship is a far superior form of government but then you run into the "Power Corrupts" syndrome and we're back to an ordinary crap democracy.

 

 

[DWF]

I have had some more thoughts on my post #64 above regarding the RAAus restructure and have moved to the more appropriate 'RAAus organisational restructure' thread ....

 

I think Alpha's post above has some valid points.

 

To misquote an old saying "The price of Good Governance is constant vigilance".

 

DWF