RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[flyhi]

I just reread your post turbs and if the train was at break neck speed then it must have left the station some time ago. Why the bloody hell were we not told. Why put the cfi's in such a position. If you are at a loss and don't know what to do get out of the bloody way for someone who does. It's not rocket science.Call in the big guns, all hands on deck and all that. Four hours with a couple of competent lay people [or a paid consultant] and map out a strategic plan to meet your targets. Don't do what has been done before and bubble along and fail. The problem has only grown big because of incompedence. My advice to Ed and the board is GET HELP.

"Incompedence"

 

I thought we got rid of that when Mr Tzzzz departed

 

 

[cherk]

quote{

 

"RAAus has been aware of the need for inventing a SMS, for over two years (maybe many more than two) but due to lack of consensus by the board nothing has been done. And it looked like nothing was continuing to be done in spite of all the board's deliberations. " (end quote) }

 

I'm a simpleton!....I know , so that's OK (with me) ; How-ever if the RAA deed of agreement with CASA , 'REQUIRES' an SMS Officer,

 

why the Bl**dy hell does it need a consensus from a disfunctional board of representatives. As I said .....I'm a simpleton!

 

Seems to me it's as 'they' say .....it's a no-brainer !!

 

So tell me why?...............(please.......keep it simple)

 

 

[Spriteah]

After all the instability of the past couple of years the board still cannot make the distinction between governance and management. If our own health was as bad as RAAus we would go to the doctor.....the board needs professional help instead of the so called management remedies often promoted on this forum.Without proper governance starting with a strategic plan and performance based management, this organisation will lurch from disaster to disaster. Lets get back to basics, learn from the mistakes of the past and make some real investments in restructuring for the future.

There must be ordinary members, such as myself, that are in despair of a way out of this mess. Lets concentrate on bedding the board into its real role.....as a starting point

 

Pete

Well said and spot on in my opinion.

 

 

[Spriteah]

quote{"RAAus has been aware of the need for inventing a SMS, for over two years (maybe many more than two) but due to lack of consensus by the board nothing has been done. And it looked like nothing was continuing to be done in spite of all the board's deliberations. " (end quote) }

I'm a simpleton!....I know , so that's OK (with me) ; How-ever if the RAA deed of agreement with CASA , 'REQUIRES' an SMS Officer,

 

why the Bl**dy hell does it need a consensus from a disfunctional board of representatives. As I said .....I'm a simpleton!

 

Seems to me it's as 'they' say .....it's a no-brainer !!

 

So tell me why?...............(please.......keep it simple)

Ian, the deed does not mention a requirement for and SMS officer. It does refer to a safety managent system be in place.

 

Jim.

 

 

[cherk]

Ian, the deed does not mention a requirement for and SMS officer. It does refer to a safety managent system be in place.Jim.

........Oh! Thanks Jim .

 

OK so why does the 'sms' as required need a consensus of the 'board' to implement the fore-mentioned sms?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo. Before I answer this question lets get some honesty going. For the information of the others reading this Turbo has asked questions or made comments related to a particular post made by Ed to the Board members forum. So Turbo knows the answers before asking the questions and I presume is attempting (hoping) that myself or John mislead this forum so we can be discredited. That is the only reason I can explain your actions and questioning. I presume you and Ed are friends or at least close in some manner. Perhaps a member of a Facebook lounge. I'm not one to lie.The appointment of a Safety/Training manager was on Ed's wish list yes. Did he have my unanimous support to ignore protocol and the constitution absolutely not. Does he now have my support. No.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

I'm not a friend of Ed's

 

I'm not close to Ed

 

I did not get my information from any Facebook lounge

 

I have not suggested you are lying

 

And for TerryC's information, I was not attempting to lead this thread into a direction to suit some unstated, but disappointing purposes.

 

There has been a comment made to me by a credible source, that Ed Herring would only take on the Presidency under certain specific conditions, wrote them out and asked for agreement or disagreement from each board member and that activation of an SMS, or words to that effect, and the appointment of the SMS Manager, or words to that effect, was specifically mentioned as one of those conditions, and that the board members gave a unanimous "Yes" approval.

 

So, yes, if I took the word of my source, I would know the answer to the question, and I could have made a statement based on that, but I wanted to be sure.

 

The reason the answer is so important, is that if the board members answered "yes", then that was a board vote and can be seen to be a board vote, and the interminable discussion that the President wasn't acting in accordance with the Constitution goes away, the basis for your Censure motion.

 

By answering truthfully, board members are not discredited at all, I'm sure they just didn't understand what they did.

 

I'm not saying my source is correct and it was a unanimous decision, I'm just asking for an open confirmation of Yes, or No to settle everyone down.

 

 

[turboplanner]

On the 10th of February 2013 at the board meeting I raised the issue with the full board. I was told by Steve Runciman that RAA has a SMS in place and that we need to improve it but it is not urgent. This role was given to Zane of Op's with a close out date of December this year (from memory). It is fair to say after this I don't think any of the board present believe there is any urgency which is now being pushed onto us.On the 11th of April Steve Runciman posted that we had not met 3 of 5 requirements in the deed. After what had been said in the board meeting this came out of left field.

 

So let’s look at the situation today:

 

You have said:

 

“The deed of agreement requires a Safety management System to be in place”

 

My research shows the same

 

This is confirmed by the following CASA document:

 

http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/casa_sport_aviation_handbook.pdf

 

The document spells out board member obligations:

 

Under "Checklist for Board Members during their term” it directs them among other things to:

 

·

 

• Monitor the organization's state of compliance (for example in terms of Registration compliance)
   
   
  
• Ensure the Organization's SMS framework is current and up to date (4a)
   
   
  

 

 

You’re saying that Steve Runciman told you there was an SMS in place, but CASA is saying your obligation was to check that the RAA’s SMS was current, and it would have become obvious that there was nothing there but a few papers, and a shell which was sent out to all FTF’s only Tuesday.

 

You can’t miss seeing when an SMS is in place in an organization – the Safety Management System format is fairly standard across Corporate and Government organizations, with fluoro clothing in dangerous areas, warning signs, inductions required before using the premises, sign offs etc.

 

So regardless of what someone might have said, or what he was interpreted as saying, the hard fact is that the RAA Safety Management System is in the process of very hurried construction, and can only be described as in place when all RAA FTF’s Safety Management and Risk Management Manuals are printed and Procedures in place.

 

And this is some time off even now.

 

The RAA Board Member obligation mentioned in the above “flysafe” linked document was required at the very least at the time that document was printed, which was June 2010 – three years ago.

 

So we have been in breach of the deed of Agreement for at least three years.

 

I quoted the other board member obligation spelled out in that document – “to monitor the organization’s state of compliance”, for a reason.

 

We are now familiar with the CASA Sanction process, where RAA received a CASA Audit notice relating to non-conforming registrations; how that appears not to have been complied with, and RAA received a second Audit and report; how that appears not to have been complied with, and RAA received a third Audit and report; how that appears not to have been complied with; and how RAA received a fourth Audit report and some serious sanctions which have seen hundreds of registrations delayed, some people’s aircraft under a cloud, but now no ongoing aircraft are being registered non compliant.

 

All through that process by the way, as the above document spells out, board members had the direct responsibility to be checking compliance.

 

Having moved RAA from non compliance to compliance through what seems to be a fair and transparent process, I’ve been told that CASA, who had been reminding RAA of the SMS obligation under the Deed of Agreement, apparently repeatedly, for some years, informed the President in a meeting that they would be sanctioning the Association for non compliance with the deed (by not having an active Safety Management System or the Manager required for that system), and they would be imposing a Sanction in the form of a $60,000 reduction in their payment under the deed.

 

I’ve been told that the President explained the conditions under which he took office, that he could assure them on the spot he would put the SMS in place, would employ a manager, and had one in mind, that this was considered satisfactory by CASA and the Sanction has not gone ahead.

 

Please take this as I’ve written it – hearsay which might not be accurate, but it certainly is consistent with the process CASA followed to get registrations into compliance, we now know that CASA have raised the issue of fatalities with RAA, and it would not be surprising after being screwed around through four audits, that they would go straight to sanctions this time around.

 

As for any justification for board members arguing against employing a Safety Management System manager, anyone who reads the FTF Manual shell can see that there is a day to day management requirement of considerable proportions in helping FTF’s, but more importantly in auditing and compliance functions.

 

However the board members don’t have any option, the Manager should have been appointed when the SMS was mandated by CASA and we know that was at least three years ago.

 

This CASA link calls up ICAO Document 9859http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101001

 

This link to ICAO 9859, calls up a Manager - http://www2.icao.int/en/ism/Guidance Materials/SMM_3rd_Ed_Advance_R4_19Oct12_clean.pdf

 

On Page 168, Table A SMS Element says:

 

Establish a key person/officer responsible for the administration and maintenance of the SMS

 

On Page 177, Appendix 1 there is a sample Job Description for a Safety Manager

 

In the light of this, how is it going to look if the board members pass a Censure Motion on the President?

 

More importantly how do you think CASA, on hearing this, will respond?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Turbs

 

My understanding is that the censure motion is not based on the appointment of the safety and compliance person, it is based on the manner of the appointment.

 

It is one thing for Board members to give a general undertaking to support the appointment of a person yet to be nominated and selected after a proper process, as you suggest, and another quite different to agreeing to what actually occurred. That is what is people like me are concerned about and that is why Jim and John McK have a grievance of such proportion that they feel compelled to act.

 

Now stop harassing my Victorian Rep who, along with John McK has been willing to engage directly with us and provide information about the failings that have led us all to the present debacle. He has backed up his assertions with copies of his communications to Runciman and Middo. How about your informant opens up, too? Seems fair to me.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

No, I think I'll just let the chips fall where they may.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Folks,

 

Please don't let this degenerate into personal attacks. We are here because we want to be allowed to continue our aviating. We are here to debate the issues. Please do it with respect to all. I welcome everone's contributions and research which goes a long way toward filling the information vacuum that has been clouding our ability to judge what and why things are being done.

 

1. Due process does matter

 

2. Results matter

 

3. If these conflict, then we absolutely must have transparent communication - and the lack of it has created a lot of ill will.

 

Without proper press releases, we are forced to wait to see where 'the chips fall' and that irks us when we are certain that time is of the essence.

 

Peter T

 

 

[Keith Page]

I'm not a friend of Ed'sI'm not close to Ed

I did not get my information from any Facebook lounge

 

I have not suggested you are lying

 

And for TerryC's information, I was not attempting to lead this thread into a direction to suit some unstated, but disappointing purposes.

 

There has been a comment made to me by a credible source, that Ed Herring would only take on the Presidency under certain specific conditions, wrote them out and asked for agreement or disagreement from each board member and that activation of an SMS, or words to that effect, and the appointment of the SMS Manager, or words to that effect, was specifically mentioned as one of those conditions, and that the board members gave a unanimous "Yes" approval.

 

So, yes, if I took the word of my source, I would know the answer to the question, and I could have made a statement based on that, but I wanted to be sure.

 

The reason the answer is so important, is that if the board members answered "yes", then that was a board vote and can be seen to be a board vote, and the interminable discussion that the President wasn't acting in accordance with the Constitution goes away, the basis for your Censure motion.

 

By answering truthfully, board members are not discredited at all, I'm sure they just didn't understand what they did.

 

I'm not saying my source is correct and it was a unanimous decision, I'm just asking for an open confirmation of Yes, or No to settle everyone down.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Good Morning Turbo

 

It is a breath of fresh air ---- you are doing some research to what is happening.

 

There are people who are up and running with urban myths I think we are past that as most of the time the myths are not true.Turbo your credible source is 100%

 

"" was specifically mentioned as one of those conditions"" now they reneg on the deal.

 

Turbo, blind Freddy will be able to see the YES/No. Not hard you know.

 

There is one more chapter "the email" Lee Ungerman sent to Ed Herring regarding what had to happen and when, that email was then sent on to all board members so what I can interpret from that * board members no not read all emails * "or"that information is kept from us.

 

I am aware of its existance however have not seem it. I will look further. Home for a while back from work.

 

Ed Herring will need to be treated with some respect and courtesy or we will loose him. I hate to think what the next chapter will be:-

 

""I do not want an "adminestrator" or a pile of "bush barristers" running RAAus."" Boys and Girls your choice.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I had another long chat about this with Mike Smith last evening, most specifically to get his take on the contents of some of the Board forum communications that appear to have been instrumental in giving Ed the idea that he should proceed in this manner.

 

As Mike described one long paragraph that was contained in a letter to the Board from Ed, at or about the time of Ed's appointment, I started to realise how this has all come about. I asked Mike if he could cut and paste that paragraph to me and he (in retrospect quite correctly) declined, however he was quite happy to discuss it.

 

I urge all members who have had a voice on this forum to contact their Rep and ask to hear about that paragraph because if you consider it from the perspective of the reader its meaning could appear quite different from the perspective of the writer, and I'm now confident that Ed didn't mean it to be taken in any way other than how he wrote it. At the time I believe that Ed was making it quite clear that he would not accept the position (President) unless it was agreed that a SMS was put in place NOW and that someone was to manage it. He went on to say "we must do this now" or very similar words. And Ed went on to say that he would NOT consider accepting the position of Pres unless he had the full support of the Board.

 

It would appear quite reasonable that the Board members took the requirement for full support at face value "of course you have our full support Ed", but it now seems to me that Ed would certainly have meant their full support for establishing the SMS and the STCC position created to manage it. And with my now having gained some further understanding about the position that we (RAAus) are in, and the very severe problems that we face, there's good reason for me to now believe that this was Ed's stance.

 

The reason I think my above interpretation is correct is because otherwise Ed would NOT sensibly have accepted the President position because of the very dire personal consequences on NOT having the SMS in position NOW (and which could affect all Board members, not just the President) - and that whole mess hasn't been sufficiently aired for the understanding of all in this thread. It has to do with the ongoing legal action(s) being made against RAAus and CASA stemming from fatalities a while ago. Everyone is being very tight-lipped on the forum about it, and perhaps understandably so, so I urge each one of you to phone your Rep and get the full story from them. And while I'm on that subject I was absolutely astounded yesterday to be on the phone to one of the sometimes heated posters on this forum, and when I suggested they ask their Rep, they responded "I wouldn't know who it is nor how to get in touch with him, they're all that bloody useless". Well I'm sure you'd all agree it's not the Rep's job to go around and introduce himself to every member in his electorate, it's YOUR job to keep the Rep informed of how you want him to Represent you, he needs to know your views so he can pass them on to the rest of the Board. So - your Rep's contacts are listed on the Contact Page at RAAus.

 

Back to the Mike Smith conversation - This whole discontent with Ed quite clearly has nothing to do with whether the SMS should be installed or whether we needed an STCC, both of them are imperatives, and should have been in place years ago. And until we are fully compliant every Board member is potentially at risk of personal loss from litigation and the Association could lose everything (I just read from our Balance Sheet that our current assets exceed $2.5m of which $1.75m is cash-in-bank).

 

So - the discontent comes down to whether Ed did it the right way or not. In fact I'd take it a step further, given that we're talking about a man who has been of very valuable service to the Association and also that we don't have anyone with the experience to replace him ... so we need to look at what's good for the Association ... so perhaps it should be down to whether Ed believed he was doing it the right way. The key words are in the letter Ed wrote to the Board and I now believe it was like this -

 

(The emphasis is mine) - The Board agreed unanimously when Ed wrote that he would only accept the position if the Board understood and agreed that we MUST do this. But the Board read it as he would only accept the position if WE must do this. I do remember specifically from the conversation with Mike that Ed's paragraph began "Please consider the following carefully before ... ticking the box (Mike wasn't sure whether that was figuratively or literally) ... we must employ a person .... to manage the SMS" The previous is from my memory and some hasty notes I made during the conversation, so it's very close if not exact.

 

Either way the creation of and management of the SMS had to be done and we MUST move on, we don't have another person of Ed's calibre to replace him, we'd be fools in CASA's eyes at this critical time if we lose him and the Exec is elected by the Board each year at the AGM, so Ed will be re-considered based on merit in just three months time.

 

So, like turboplanner, I'm taking a U turn on my position in this matter. Mike Smith's last question for me was "how did I want him to proceed". He was asking specifically in terms of our other Rep's censure motion, and had asked several others the same question earlier. He had also had an hour's conversation with Ed the previous evening. Mike's own feeling was that Ed has been invaluable to RAAus but Mike was still disappointed, and did interpret the letter "WE must act now". Having given it a lot of thought, and also taking into account my displeasure and that of the forumites here also, I still felt that Ed, knowing the consequences of not doing so, meant it "we MUST act now". I pointed out to Mike that the censure wasn't a sacking, it was a 'Notice of Disapproval' but Mike said it amounted to the same thing, Ed would resign instantly because he was adamant that he didn't do anything against proper procedure. That further confirmed my belief that Ed said "we MUST act now". So I asked Mike whether he thought Ed would be likely to act unilaterally in the future and Mike said he was absolutely certain that Ed would not, that this whole experience has gutted him because he was sure he was doing the right thing, and it seems he believed he was also doing it the right way.

 

There are no grey areas, we must either support Ed or not. Considering that Ed will be acutely aware that his further actions will inevitably be under close scrutiny, my request to Mike was that he convey to the Board my full support of Ed and my belief that RAAus needs to move on and address the very considerable workload that has accrued through the inaction of previous Executives.

 

One good aspect to have come out of all the turmoil over the last few months is that a far higher percentage of the membership are now paying attention to the wheels that permit our sport to operate, and that's been sorely lacking for many years, many of us are probably just as culpable as the previous slack Execs.

 

Phone your Rep today, ask him/her to fill in the gaps for you, tell him/her the position you want them to take regarding Ed, and consider offering help. There are probably tasks that we ordinary members could assist with.

 

 

[Chird65]

Re Post 287.

 

So Ed will not do it this way again. Good.

 

How will this be officially recorded for future reference?

 

• have a censure motion.
   
   
  
• talk to and against that motion.
   
   
  
• Vote
   
   
  

 

 

Ed has the right of response, he should explain how it came about, he should supply the evidence and his understanding and motivations.

 

Importantly, those for and against should also explain their evidence, understanding and motivations.

 

After the vote, if it is carried another motion on, if any, consequence. This follows the correct path for motions as well.

 

If it is not carried or is carried, then a new motion to what are the current Emergency powers.

 

Oh yeah no dummy spits.

 

Chris

 

 

[nomadpete]

Just a little tangent about the SMS requirement - I note that GFA implemented theirs in 2009 and it, along with other stuff which we would find very useful at times of turmoil are all on the 'members' area of their website:

 

• ADMIN 0001 Articles of Association (23)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0002 GFA Strategic Plan (17)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0003 Board Regulations (25)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0004 Board Resolutions (18)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0005 MOSP 1 (32)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0007 Privacy Policy (10)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0008 Member Protection Policy (20)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0009 Anti-Doping Rules (9)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0010 Meeting Guidelines (13)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0011 Expense Guidelines (12)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0012 Membership Fees 2013/2014 (20)
   
   
   
  
• ADMIN 0013 Safety Management System (6)
   
   
  

 

 

 

If we had this, half of these arguments would never have been needed. Wouldn't it be nice for RAAus to take a leaf out of their book?

 

 

[Spriteah]

Ian it doesn't need a consensus. It's a gimme. We implement it to CASA satisfaction or we might be uncompliant with the Deed. The issue is how we implement it. Can an individual just decide I'll do it this way (my way) at significant cost outside their authority and select an implementer who might or might not have the required skill set to be effective. Or do they follow protocol and discuss the matter with a collective board who are appointed for that exact reason. Then if required conduct a vote to choose a preferred majority direction.

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

There's not much in this thread that is clear at all. There's mention of a so called email detailing the agreement between board members. There's posts about due process and the way it was ignored. There's even snippets from the board forums with info about earlier discussions on this topic. We have seen minutes from board meetings that discuss the SMS and safety officer role. We've seen how the board was notified of events after they were publicly announced. I don't know what the hell the truth is to be honest but there is one thing I do know.

 

While ever we have a dysfunctional board that operates like this we are screwed. Does anyone honestly think that, rightly or wrongly, one board member acting in such a manner is conducive to good board relationships? Sure, we might be better off in the short term because we reacted to some external force applying pressure to us but in the longer term what is going to happen? One board member has unilaterally acted without consultation with the rest of the board. It's in black and white (grammatical errors included) on the website - "This is a position created by myself and i take full and absolute responsibility for the appointment." Ed no longer has the full trust of his peers, is that really a good way for a president to be?

 

There are so many simple things that could have been done to avoid this mess. For a start making a joint announcement saying that Myles has stepped down from his board position to take on a paid role would go along way to making the public perception of his resignation much more palatable. Even simply stating to the board via email what he was about to do would make Ed's actions much more transparent.

 

As it stands, the announcements on the RA-Aus website lend themselves to conspiracy theories about jobs for the boys, etc. Ed's actions (or lack thereof) with respect to communicating the decision to board members make him difficult to trust. We heard the board stand up in February and, on countless occasions, make mention of the fact that they've made mistakes and they are learning from them. There was a lot of discussion around communication, transparency, governance, etc. and yet here we are today discussing these very same topics.

 

To me Ed's mistake is simply another one to add to the list and in itself is not really a big deal. What is a huge deal to me is that no one really is learning. Our board is making fundamental errors, one after another, that are doing nothing to advance our cause. There is as much infighting, secrecy and withholding of information today as there was prior to the February general meeting.

 

There's massive problems in RA-Aus and Ed's actions are merely symptomatic of these. The culture is pathetic. Some board members think they can act in contravention of the laws, regulations and rules that govern us if their excuse for doing so is worthy of such an indiscretion.

 

The truth is this. None of us, not a single one is above the law, above the regulations, above the rules, etc. Not a single one of us has the authority to make decisions regarding the future of our association without going through the proper channels. The sad truth is that our board consists of a bunch of people that in some instances are lazy, some instances are egotistical, some instances are simply out of their depth. This has led to a situation where decisions have been made in a knee jerk manner that have gotten a lot of people offside, members and board members alike.

 

It's time we took a good long hard look at ourselves and begin (in earnest) a process of change. Our association is one that operates in an unusual manner and we should work to rectify this. We should move towards the conventional wisdom that is proven to work. We should draw on the experiences of professional bodies such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors. We should take lessons from regulatory bodies other than CASA like the ASX. Sure, we are not overseen by them but they have some good solid guidelines on things like governance that we could learn a thing or two from.

 

In short, we have to start acting like an association that is capable of managing the risks and responsibilities that we face. It's time for board members to stop being reactive, stop undermining other board members, stop taking on the role of management by hiring and firing people, stop getting in the way in the general and just start being professional.

 

We have 10,000 members and if we fail to maintain the privileges of these 10,000 members they will eventually walk away. If we fail to act professionally and simply lurch from disaster to the next (like we are currently doing) they will eventually walk away. Nothing in this thread demonstrates that level of professionalism to me.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I didn't like the way the appointment was done. I had expressed my views in an earlier post. Ethics are important, putting yourself outside looking in and asking if this seems right. It doesn't to me. Put yourself in the shoes of existing staff, volunteers, members. There may have been people who could have filled the position immediately under an Expression of Interest, with their position backfilled by a temp until a proper job description and performance criteria was established and due process for recruitment undertaken. Putting someone into a position without due process gives that person a huge advantage to be appointed to the permanent position and was a favoured way of getting around the rules in regulated employers like local governments.

 

In my industry we have certain "required" positions, however several roles may be discharged by one person. RAAus could have nominated the two Tech/Ops managers as SMS compliance reps for their respective areas (which I suspect is already in their job description), and if the job is too much, engaged assistants to help with the day-to-day work. Just appointing an Officer and having a Plan doesn't guarantee compliance, as I have experienced many times in my job.

 

I was hoping for the bright new dawn of openness and ethical behaviour. Ahh well, there's always tomorrow.

 

Sue

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

...Nothing in this thread demonstrates that level of professionalism to me.

I quite agree, and that's the problem.

 

Yes we have to start improving by using all the methods you describe and a lot more besides, but we also have to start somewhere and that, like it or not, means starting with what we have. Unless people like you with far more Corporate skills and knowledge are willing and able to stand up NOW and get on the Board (and you can't this time around since nominations have closed) and provide that extra level of capability, we have to support those we have and help them to learn what they need to know.

 

It's all very well broadcasting what needs to be done but not much help unless you also provide the practical solution rather than just the theory.

 

Yes, we do need to be in the position you envisage for us, but unfortunately we also have the big chasm of where we are now compared with where that place is, to manoeuvre our way across first.

 

What I said before doesn't seek to condone anything, and as I understand it Ed has well and truly got the message.

 

My position now is to move on and help get the Association back on its feet and running smoothly, and I now encourage all members to unite and do the same.

 

However if your position means campaigning to get rid of Ed, then by all means do so, but if you do please be absolutely certain beforehand, that you have all the answers for how we will proceed from there onward.

 

EDIT - And I'm talking about the membership asking their Rep to NOT support the censure motion. As for the Myles 'appointment' I believe that should be rescinded immediately and replaced with him in a temporary position of compiling the information and documentation for the STC so that the STCC, when employed by the GM, will have a head start. To that end I think there should be an immediate advertisement published for the position of STCC to seek EoIs.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I quite agree, and that's the problem.Yes we have to start improving by using all the methods you describe and a lot more besides, but we also have to start somewhere and that, like it or not, means starting with what we have. Unless people like you with far more Corporate skills and knowledge are willing and able to stand up NOW and get on the Board (and you can't this time around since nominations have closed)

I already have nominated. See my post here - http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raa-2013-general-elections-for-board.61062/#post-289036

 

And my 'formal' election statement here -

 

slarti EDIT: link removed until I can get a serious security misconfiguration addressed on the RAA website.

 

Michael - have you got another link to your statement which isn't in the uploads area?

 

OK - RAA website fixed. Here's your link back:

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Michael-Monck-statement.pdf

 

(you'll have to login to see the latter document) - no you won't (by design).

 

It's all very well broadcasting what needs to be done but not much help unless you also provide the practical solution rather than just the theory.

If elected then I will. In the meantime I have been talking to various board members along the way offering some guidance and input based on my knowledge and experience (keeping in mind I provide advice to boards in a range of business environments, my clients have included BHP, Telstra, NRMA, Clean Energy Council and so on). I've even provided input to the discussion on a new org structure which was forwarded to RA-Aus management a couple of weeks ago and sent to some board members just this morning (I'd attach it here but it exceeds the file size limit).

 

I'm not gunning for the removal of Ed but I do support a censure motion as it means there is some accountability coming into the board. It is, however, important to note that a censure motion is not a motion for dismissal. I'm not gunning for Myles either, he could very well be the correct person for the job but how do we know? What I am looking for is an association that can manage its affairs in a manner consistent with the expectations of members, regulators and any other relevant stakeholders. I haven't seen this in years and I am not seeing any positive movements towards this now.

 

Cheers,

 

Mick.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Perhaps its timely to revisit a previous post:

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/head-in-the-clouds.27943/page-3#post-170630

 

If RAA is about to be over-run (even if not by a horde of Zulus), then I could understand the need to cut through bureaucracy and act decisively to save the day. There are no memorials to committees.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I already have nominated. See my post here - http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raa-2013-general-elections-for-board.61062/#post-289036And my 'formal' election statement here - *removed by slarti*

 

(you'll have to login to see the latter document).

Sorry Michael, I lose track of who's who sometimes, and that's excellent that you're standing, your skills will be invaluable, thank you!

 

Two points -

 

The link you posted actually circumvents the Members RAAus login and takes anyone through the portal, so there's a security issue there that needs addressing.

 

Addressing now - slarti

 

In your election statement you say - "CASA has taken the unprecedented step of restricting our association’s ability to operate", that's only unprecedented in regard of RAAus, it's standard CASA procedure otherwise. "Get your house in order or take a holiday until it is" has always been their normal modus.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Sorry Michael, I lose track of who's who sometimes, and that's excellent that you're standing, your skills will be invaluable, thank you!Two points -

 

The link you posted actually circumvents the Members RAAus login and takes anyone through the portal, so there's a security issue there that needs addressing.

 

In your election statement you say - "CASA has taken the unprecedented step of restricting our association’s ability to operate", that's only unprecedented in regard of RAAus, it's standard CASA procedure otherwise. "Get your house in order or take a holiday until it is" has always been their normal modus.

You are right! It brings to mind the old saying - We're not happy until you're not happy...

 

 

[nomadpete]

Through each of the disasters of RAAus I have struggled to understand what is happening and why it is happening. This has been entirely caused by individuals failing to advise me, as a member, of their intentions, of our obligations, and of the outside pressures that have been brought to bear. For instance: had Ed advised us that he felt he had 100% approval from the board to act as he felt in a particular situation, then we should be aware of this radical departure from normal process way before he actually applied it. And any misunderstanding by the board/members could be cleared up. The fact that board members report different recollections about the meeting where Ed laid down his requirements, shows that the board comminication itself needs vast improvements. Did the minutes not mention the exact words? Do we get to read them?

 

Much of the debate is fuelled by speculation which could be moderated by direct information from those who are making the decisions. That complaint is not just about Ed. There have been plenty of times when board members should have publicised their personal position on issues. Due to the lack of official information, I Emailed Board members and asked the following questions:

 

“... For instance, we, as members deserve to be advised of the consequences and the plans (I hope there are plans) to integrate this new employee into the RAAus structure: -

 

Is Myles appointment definitely temporary?

 

What are the expected costs to us,

 

What are the plans to ensure that the Constitution Reform Committee continues?

 

What is happening to the treasurer's position?

 

Can we expect correct treasurer's reports on time, given the problems filling the role?

 

When will we see a job description for the STCC? So we know what his duties are.

 

Will his contact details be presented on the RAAus website?

 

When can we expect the STCC to publish his plan to improve our safety?

 

When can we expect the position of STCC to be advertised?

 

Will a recruitment agency be involved?

 

What is the chance of the board/exec releasing answers to issues or developments such as these, by a broadcast email newsletter to members?”

 

I have received a reply from Myles which helps us to understand the picture as he sees it. With his permission, I offer it now as a step toward better communication:

 

“Hello Peter,

 

Your email was forwarded to myself for comment to you direct. As you know I was treasurer and on the executive, I was also in Canberra at the recent meeting, also on the constitution rewrite committee.

 

I can say that Ed had notified his intentions some weeks before being voted in as president with 100% majority to the electing board members, I can also say that the position of STCC is not new and has been known for about 9 years and is a requirement of part 149 of the new regulations being implemented later this year.

 

It has been a requirement of our deed of agreement for some time and became urgent for us to secure the money from CASA and to comply with the deed of agreement before 30/6/13.

 

The reason it became urgent was because previous boards never acted on the requirement, and as we are a democracy, when the motion’s put and it gets voted down, the vote is respected. The exec at the on 3/6/13 had no choice but to act in an emergency capacity under the constitution, also there was no way of filling the position in 3 weeks by recruiting.

 

I have the qualifications to fill the position, " jobs for the boys" far from it, I am a flyer too, I don't want to be grounded with all the other

 

members under CASA's repatriation while they work out a system to allow us to fly legally again. My resignation occurred on Tuesday 4/6/13 at 13.58 hours and I held up my flight home because I left it to the last minute. I didn't want to resign as board member and treasurer but realized I could serve the members better and keep them flying if I did, also I only had 35 minutes to get to the airport and board my flight home.

 

The costs incurred have been all mine to date as I'm working on the deed requirements from home and implementing SMS's to FTF's with the help from the Operations department as well as setting up a Safety Seminar calendar. I was employed in the coal mining industry in engineering until the 5/6/13, there is no way that RA-Aus could ever come within a bulls roar of my former salary.

 

I am not on the board any more and its up to them to let you know of consequences, I can assure you there is severe consequences if we don't. The plans I have, and I do hope I can post them to members if the board members get off their hands and support Ed in keep RA-Aus operating. However, my plans are to implement the SMS across the organization, set up safety learning seminars across Australia, register RA-Aus as an RTO to comply with industry legislation, have an internal audit team accredited to prevent a recurrence of the registration fiasco and set up maintenance accredited training for members.

 

All this has to be implemented before the end of September and this was the intended duration of appointment, its then up to your board as its up to them to allow my program to be posted. As for cost, I've been working on this since the 5/6/13 at no cost to RA-Aus and so far some of the board hasn't supported this position, however the cost to September will be far less than hosting a board meeting.

 

As for the constitution rewrite, I will help and continue but to comply with board direction another board member should step up to the plate and the budget forecast was finalized by me last week with a warning of a deficit, again another board member task.

 

Peter, I want to keep flying, that's why I put my hand up and hope I have answered some of your questions, the rest is up to your board getting behind Ed to make this work.

 

Cheers Myles”

 

 

[dodo]

You are right! It brings to mind the old saying - We're not happy until you're not happy...

Or "The aircraft is not safe to fly until it has a sticker saying this aircraft is not safe to fly"

 

 

[facthunter]

Nothing I have said would lead to the need for Ed to resign. Clearly there has been considerable MISUNDERSTANDING of what was intended by certain statements.

 

The SMS clearly has to be actioned and should have been long ago. perhaps some explanation of why can come in the future.

 

IF ED takes a censure ( which relates to actions that HE himself stated) "His decision alone etc "as NO confidence which it is NOT, then that would indeed be unfortunate, and his resignation totally unnecessary and literally" not called for".

 

If MIKE thinks they are the same he is wrong. There is no place for being thin skinned in this game. The explanation of what ED (obviously) thought was the effect of the "agreement" was not what at least some of the board thought it did. It shouldn't take long for well intentioned people to sort that out,( and have a few drinks afterwards)

 

As I've said before the rules must be applied and SEEN to be applied, and we work as a team and communicate as much as possible. When have I heard that before?\ Nev