Committee Members Resignations

[rankamateur]

SoEveryone seen Ed's post on the RAAus website tonight??

 

Anyone want to tell me what the chances of that decision being fully board endorsed before being made is........No...don't bother I'm sure they get to endorse it after the fact........

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/06/safety-training-compliance-coordinator-appointed/

 

Andy

Isn't this the position our Mr Tizzard was promoting himself for at the time he stood down?

 

 

[kaz3g]

A leader either takes everyone along with her as she forges a chosen direction, or she goes it alone and risks drowning in the morass with no help at hand...seems to apply to RAoz presidents, too.

 

Very disappointed at this development. Doesn't bode well for any sort of consensus into the future.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Oscar]

Perhaps you can prove that the current state boundary considerations HAVE caused problems. I can't and I don't quite understand what your last sentence means. It's quite likely that state boundaries had to be taken into account when the show was first incorporated, and that would be imposed on it.I would agree that there would be few state specific problems, but apart from having a hypothetical situation where most of the high intelligence and skills existed in some states and not others, and we were therefore compelled to accept inferior candidates by the restrictive rules. How would you like to argue THAT case? nev

Oops: I meant to say: that Board membership dictated by State boundaries has in any event furthered the specific interests of State members...

 

I'd love to see the restructuring proposal, but the RAA website doesn't accept my login. Why, I don't know. My membership is current, and I do know how to spell my surname (as on the card) and also my birth year. However, it did take several months to receive my new membership card...

 

As for arguing the case - the whole regional boundary idea simply does not allow members to match candidates with skill requirements. If, for example the obvious outstanding candidate for the 'financial management' advisory role on the Board isn't in your regional area - you can't vote for her or him. Major corporations do not select Board members based on regional limitations,; unless there is an obvious advantage for regional representation over selection for 'best fit', why do we persist with that model?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The RAA at its finest! No wonder Myles had to resign

 

SoEveryone seen Ed's post on the RAAus website tonight??

 

Anyone want to tell me what the chances of that decision being fully board endorsed before being made is........No...don't bother I'm sure they get to endorse it after the fact........

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/06/safety-training-compliance-coordinator-appointed/

 

Andy

[facthunter]

Powerin, Structurally it is a representative body and answerable to its members who vote for a change if they are not happy. . What you propose is an entirely different creature. . How would it reflect the wishes (collectively) of the members? I must confess I don't know the thrust of your question and what you are proposing? We have no say in what CASA does . Do we want a mini version of that? Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

.......I'd love to see the restructuring proposal, but the RAA website doesn't accept my login. Why, I don't know. My membership is current, and I do know how to spell my surname (as on the card) and also my birth year. However, it did take several months to receive my new membership card...

membership number is totally numeric including any leading zero?

 

I couldn't get it to work for me initially because I always thought the leading zero was a capital O

 

Andy

 

 

[damkia]

A leader either takes everyone along with her as she forges a chosen direction, or she goes it alone and risks drowning in the morass with no help at hand...Kaz

...or the more "neutral" version:

A leader either takes everyone along with them as they forge a chosen direction, or they go it alone and risk drowning in the morass with no help at hand.

 

 

[coljones]

I have just got my June Sport Pilot

 

Iit contains the Dec 2012 6 month financials. unfortunately it doesn't include the budget (targets) nor the prior year figures. The only thing we can tell is that RAA lost $34,330 in the prior 6 months.

 

I don't have a problem spending money but it would be nice to know that they are spending it in the right areas.

 

Cheers

 

 

[coljones]

Stopping to think about it, what actual advantage do we get from having proportional representation (or for that matter ANY representation) in RAAus?In an organisation that is required by CASA to certify pilots and register aircraft in compliance with the law how much input can the general membership of any particular state actually have? Can any state's members gain any advantage (or be put at a disadvantage) in such things as funding through their state members? What do RAAus actually spend money on other than compliance and administration (and legal costs)?

RAA is a many headed organisation but in short it has both a regulatory role and a representative/advocacy role. it is also a democratic organisation where members attitude should count, even the 2 members out at Barniewallop.

 

In a corporate model, like BHP, if you don't like what is happening you can sell your shares. In a corporate model, like BHP, the board selects the candidates and by and large the herd will follow the recommendation (or sell their shares) or get rolled by the corporate funds. There have been individual shareholders who were prepared to give BHP stick but invariably got rolled (I think his name was Shepard).

 

In an organisation like RAA we are the owners, but more in the way of stakeholders. we can't sell our shares.

 

Because we represent and advocate for ALL members we need some proportionality to ensure that their aspirations can be met. Not everyone or every small group can be represented, though.

 

Choosing a board based on pure business acumen may well deliver the board to a bunch of cold, hard hearted technocrats who regard the advocacy, tech advisory and other cost centeres as an unfortunate embuggerances getting in the way of a perfect life.

 

The RAA exec needs to be bigger to spread the load and provide policy - the Chief executive (by whatever name) needs to be allowed to manage and the Board needs to provide over view of the exec. and input represent the members and approve the policy.

 

I am not sure if we need to move away from an ACT NFP model as it is just a wrapper, not much different to the other wrappers on offer.

 

 

[TK58]

Anything I have known of Myles , he is a decent bloke. Nev

I have no reason to disagree with your view of Myles, however being a 'decent bloke' is not a sufficient qualification for being on the Board of a multi-million dollar organisation that has significant regulatory obligations. Neither is enthusiasm, passion or willingness to step up and do the work. They're all good to have, but capability and experience also are required. And that's the challenge for RAAus. Board elections are essentially a popularity contest in each region with very few participants despite the large membership. That's no way to get a skilled and capable Board.

 

 

[Powerin]

Powerin, Structurally it is a representative body and answerable to its members who vote for a change if they are not happy. . What you propose is an entirely different creature. . How would it reflect the wishes (collectively) of the members? I must confess I don't know the thrust of your question and what you are proposing? We have no say in what CASA does . Do we want a mini version of that? Nev

Sigh....I knew I should have qualified my questions. It must be the way I ask questions that people think I have an agenda.

I was proposing nothing and there was no thrust. I was simply seeking answers that I genuinely didn't know and hoped that people wiser than me (such as you Nev) might enlighten me, and perhaps cause others to think about the answers. I'm like you Nev, a fact hunter. I often hunt by asking questions.

 

Thanks Col for your insights. I guess in a nutshell I'm asking what wishes of the membership can RAAus fulfil, or actually do anything about, given the legal and regulatory role they have? By extension I'm also asking if the whole idea of "membership" is an anachronism? Does it serve any purpose in today's RAAus? I'm not advocating any particular model. Just asking if what we have serves us best and do we honestly have any say in what RAAus can do. Your opinions?

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Bit of thread drift going on here . . .

 

Happy to argue organisation structures in a new thread but we were talking here about a member of the Board Exec resigning "to pursue other opportunities" and then, miraculously, bobbing up the next day in a tailor-made "job-for-the-boys". His resignation announcement carefully separated from the gift of a new job by just one sleep.

 

And we have a brand spanking new President setting a breathtaking precedent of a job for a mate on the strength of his sole discretion:

 

"This is a position created by myself and i take full and absolute responsibility for the appointment."

 

Are we all comfortable with that?

 

- unilateral decision, no need for anyone else's input?

 

- no need to be in the Budget,

 

- no need to be approved within authority limits previously set by the Board?

 

Or, should we expect the President to be working within the Constitution, budget, authority limits, involving the full Board and upholding due process?

 

Ed's predecessor was not troubled by such niceties but even he never went quite this far off beam, did he?

 

Should we remind Ed that he is a member of a Board and that the Board has rules that apply to even him?

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

. . . Iit contains the Dec 2012 6 month financials.

That by direction in the Constitution (Rule 15 (iv)) were due to be published on 30 January 2012! Only 4 months late.

 

The only thing we can tell is that RAA lost $34,330 in the prior 6 months.

Due to poor accrual accounting practice, the first 6 months does not include its fair share of investment interest income. This fact was exposed at the EGM on Feb 9th.

 

 

[winsor68]

You have to be objective about this Ross/Patrick: What's the point of being on the board, if not to change things for the better, being on the board to satisfy your ego or to protect your friend's interests isn't really good enough?

Strongly agree...

 

 

[pilotjames]

Oscar, in post 20 has hit the nail on the head. This is the future way forward for RAA with about 6 to 8 board members having a number (more than the current 2) face to face meetings per year.

 

Bring it on.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Six would be about right - enough to get a difference of opinions, not enough to harbour cliques.

 

Representation for all members is the key now, we're well into the electronic age, and the day of eyeball to eyeball communications, while still around in the older generation, is receding.

 

A good way to ensure local regions are not disadvantaged however is to conduct meetings of this smaller board on a rotational bonus so they can get an earful from the locals and see for themselves.

 

As we know, the Constitution is still a dog's breakfast, but can easily be changed at General Meetings. Debates through the year and an annual decision can be easily handled; I certainly wouldn't go back down the track of having a separate committee playing around with it behind closed doors - you only have to look at what we've got now to knock that on the head.

 

Also, as we have just found out, the board members have not been aware of some of their day to day obligations under the CASA deed of Agreement. When that chicken comes home to roost, you will see a different board of management.

 

 

[damkia]

Oscar (#20) makes a very valid point about ignoring geographic location. This I would have thought originated from the amalgamation of old clubs into the new RA-Aus and is more of a historical quirk than any real benefit.

 

One would have to think that a council faced with a national body on its case could be swayed more than having a "bunch of disgruntled flyers" popping up at a council meeting.

 

Six would be about right - enough to get a difference of opinions, not enough to harbour cliques.

Seven is a good number as it will guarantee a result on every vote, and still give less opportunity for blocs.

 

Suggested roles:

 

CEO

 

Secretary

 

Treasurer

 

Registrations

 

Training

 

Tech Officer

 

Compliance monitoring (CASA liaison)

 

A suggestion for two observers from general rank and file to be present during board meetings (no discussions with board members during meeting) "Keep the bastards honest"

 

 

[Oscar]

Oscar, in post 20 has hit the nail on the head. This is the future way forward for RAA with about 6 to 8 board members having a number (more than the current 2) face to face meetings per year.Bring it on.

PJ, thanks for the vote of confidence!. Please note that I am very much IN favour of having representatives elected on a regional basis who have a primary responsibility for and focus on 'regional' issues: vociferous, enthusiastic representatives who will monitor their regional authoritiers etc. for decisions that impact members (such as airfield closures) and take the fight to them at every opportunity. People who can promote the cause of RAA-class aircraft wherever an opportunity presents itself; people who are of the community and know the community, who cannot be dismissed by such authorities as 'foreigners'. People who will organise the sort of noise factor that will make local / regional authorities understand that their actions will result in a reaction in their community that they cannot, or would be most unwise, to ignore etc.

 

However, the Board itself needs the best concentration of management skills that can be assembled and I believe that these need to be specifically identified, documented, and nominated within the Constitution. Members should be free to vote for the best candidates for these nominated positions without being hobbled by regional boundaries in their voting. Those elected Board members would then be automatically on 'expert committees' of the Board with responsibilities for specific areas of operation of the organisation.

 

RAA communications and administrative systems need urgent and comprehensive upgrade: see the GM's article in the June Sport Pilot for the reaction of someone coming into this organisation who discovers what he (or she) has by way of resources to handle the task ahead. The combination of teleconferencing for the Board plus a much-enhanced members' information area on the web-site that is properly organised by topics with a decent search capability (not just a 'news stream' area) would go a long way to helping out here. However, behind that is the extremely desperate need to develop a comprehensive business process management system that replaces at least some of the load of manual processing of administrative matters so that our administrators have the time to manage the 'exceptions' properly, not be swamped in routine paperwork.

 

All of this will NOT be cheap and it may be necessary to seek a specific Member's levy to accomplish it; I for one can readily appreciate that this would be a small portion of the likely increase in operating costs for my aircraft if RAA were to fold and be subsumed by CASA.

 

 

[turboplanner]

After having to look much closer at RAA in recent times, I think you've probably covered the essentials Oscar.

 

My conclusion is the biggest problem has been empire building, and a clique culture, which you'll find from time to time in a few organizations. usually the clique disperses, other times members disperse it, and the organization marches forward again.

 

In any organization you are electing your peers, so you will get some of the professional people you are talking about, some who get their ambitions mixed up with their capabilities, and some who are just good at talking crap, but don't do anything.

 

The organization can work extremely well if the second two categories leave the first one alone to get on with the job; it can work well if everyone leaves just the President to get the job done, but on rare occasions you get a group of people who are all in synch, and they are the best.

 

Just relying on elections to throw up good people doesn't work, especially if candidates are unopposed. To do what you want to do Oscar requires multiple candidates to meet the democratic right of someone to stand, and clear campaign presentations so you know the best person to vote for, and actually voting. So the task is to break down the apathy among RAA members to the point where they stand and vote.

 

 

[facthunter]

My recollection is that the % who vote is abysmal in the RAAus. Also leaving the president,or whoever it is to do anything "critical" and finalise it alone is a bad idea. In any important negotiation you always have two and keep signed records of the meeting otherwise "deals" can be done. It's called accountability and you must always have it. Having known policy direction for guidance stops people going off at a tangent, too.

 

Sometimes a region may have ONE person nominating who everyone thinks is a great bloke who will do a great job and no-one wants to run against him/her. This was the situation with Runciman who carried great expectations.

 

Regarding the "STATE' representatives. Whilst I agree that it may not be as important as qualifications of candidates, being a national democratic body the incorporations document may be required to address state rep capability. Nev

 

 

[damkia]

Just relying on elections to throw up good people doesn't work, especially if candidates are unopposed. To do what you want to do Oscar requires multiple candidates to meet the democratic right of someone to stand, and clear campaign presentations so you know the best person to vote for, and actually voting. So the task is to break down the apathy among RAA members to the point where they stand and vote.

In the absence of any qualified individuals within the organisation to accept the roles, it would seem that external appointments should be considered for Board positions, appointed by an interim independent HR management team ("Talent acquisition" phase) until such time as all positions are covered by people with known and demonstrated competencies in their area of expertise within the Board. It is clearly not good enough to let someone "have a go at it" by virtue of being the only person nominated at an election.

 

The side benefit of this fresh blood would be to short circuit the lack of competence, infighting, and bloc building that has plagued the RA-Aus in recent times.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just at the moment with the issues going, I don't see the problems relating to specialised skills - you can always bring in consultants for that.

 

However basic housekeeping work has been ignored.

 

Like actually asking yourself

 

"How come we show a magazine income, but I can't see a cost?"

 

"How come I haven't been shown the CASA Sport Pilot handbook which SHOWS me what my duties are?

 

A few sessions of that would produce an ongoing change.

 

In my experience, to produce a total culture change over a couple of years doesn't take a lot, just some leadership and about 15% changes in procedures.

 

 

[facthunter]

You could be well looking at a" one-off" period of OLD GUARD vested interests, rapid growth and lot's of change. I find if difficult to believe we can't find the necessary qualified people in our ranks. If you change the pilot factor in the board you don't have assurance of protecting members interests. Be like having a Company (BSA) with NO people on the board of management who rode a motorcycle. You have to preserve the ESSENCE/SPIRIT/SOUL of the organisation. Don't GIVE it away to people who only balance the books. It's about FLYING..as cheaply and simply with safety as possible. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well they'd be smart if BSA was all they had to ride.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You could be well looking at a" one-off" period of OLD GUARD vested interests, rapid growth and lot's of change. I find if difficult to believe we can't find the necessary qualified people in our ranks. If you change the pilot factor in the board you don't have assurance of protecting members interests. Be like having a Company (BSA) with NO people on the board of management who rode a motorcycle. You have to preserve the ESSENCE/SPIRIT/SOUL of the organisation. Don't GIVE it away to people who only balance the books. It's about FLYING..as cheaply and simply with safety as possible. Nev

I agree Nev,

 

I still can't believe that I seem to be one of only two people to buy the Annual Reports from the ACT Department of Justice, but I can assure you that the accounts as they are presented are simpler than my tax return (which does involve more than one business).

 

Of that, there's some laziness in not aligning critical sectors like advertising, the magazine as I mentioned, and Natfly so the costs/incomes/profits were clear, and there's a widening Bermuda triangle where costs for "things" amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

Now, I wouldn't do it, but I bet plenty of people here would question their wife if several hundred thousand dollars disappeared out of the bank every year and she just said it was "expenses".

 

With a slight adjustment of the postings, and some supervision by the General Manager, we would be able to see where the subscription money was going, and the members (because these are important issues), could decide if changes to those expenses are needed.

 

If all the office staff were fully occupied, an accountant could be hired for a short time to reset the system, and from then there may well be a reduced workload.

 

I agree about the essence part Nev