RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[drifterdriver]

I've already stuck my hand up but I'm not sure what.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

What area DD ?................Maj...

 

 

[Captain]

Did you stick your hand up as a board member ??

A pretty weak argument Madge.

 

It is ridiculous for you to press the old chestnut that only those that stand for the Board are worthy to comment here and elsewhere. That was tried at the Feb 9th EGM too.

 

Equally as ridiculous as a President demanding a 70% approval in advance from an elected Board to give him carte blanche over coming months.

 

And if you, Keith and robinsm are bored with this thread, and with the President's latest requirement of his Board, then we should certainly stop discussing what is going on? What nonsense.

 

I had high hopes for Ed, but no matter how noble his intentions, such a requirement by he (and apparently supported by you) is not good governance and is not in the best interests of this member's organisation.

 

While you and a few others are bored, the fact is that you couldn't make up this crap as part of a story line in the NES, yet it is happening in our RAA.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well Andys been calling half the shots on this very vocal post, and I was just wondering if he was prepared to put his foot where his mouth was..

 

And in fact I couldn't agree with you more that we should certainly stop discussing what's going on.......this threads done like a dinner as I see it.!!.......................Maj...

 

 

[dodo]

this thread is getting exceptionally boring and is going in circles. If you really want to help- the organisation survive, stop trying to play "I am better than you" and criticising everyone. We have elected these people to govern the organisation, so let them govern. If you guys are so bl...dy good, then why have you not put your hands up to assist and run for office.I agree we have some problems but instead of drowning the situation in fertilizer, how about stepping back and letting our elected reps try and do something.

I am over this sh..t, either put up and help, or shut up and let the executive do their job.

We are all over this ordure

 

If you guys are so bl...dy good, then why have you not put your hands up to assist and run for office.

To those who say you must earn your right to an opinion by standing for the board, I suggest the following:

- explain why you don't listen to those who have stood for the board.

 

- explain why you can comment when you haven't stood for the board

 

- explain to those who volunteered their effort last November where you were? I spent a week in the office as a volunteer. Where were you?

 

If the board- or the executive -had done their job, we would not be in this mess.

 

dodo

 

 

[airangel]

Here Hear, After all, a huge 117 people polled! What is our membership

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I have asked five members about the situation in the last week or so. None of them is aware of any of it, none reads this forum, they just fly. They don't know there is an election coming up. I would say there are 9,500 or so similar members. If it isn't in Sport Pilot they will not be aware of it. That is not a criticism of them. When you join an organisation you assume and expect that it just hums along in the background supporting its members.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

What area DD ?................Maj...

SQ

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have asked five members about the situation in the last week or so. None of them is aware of any of it, none reads this forum, they just fly. They don't know there is an election coming up. I would say there are 9,500 or so similar members. If it isn't in Sport Pilot they will not be aware of it. That is not a criticism of them. When you join an organisation you assume and expect that it just hums along in the background supporting its members.

And that is the appalling truth about this Association - a self-administering body where 9500 people don't want to do their job.

 

Those 9500 people are relying on pure luck.

 

 

[Admin]

Spot on robinism........plus it makes extremely boring reading.....and Ian is trying to sell this site right now ?, good luck Ian..!!...................Maj...

The sale was withdrawn

 

 

[drifterdriver]

SQ

I should clarify it was many years ago.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

We are all over this ordure

To those who say you must earn your right to an opinion by standing for the board, I suggest the following:

 

- explain why you don't listen to those who have stood for the board.

 

- explain why you can comment when you haven't stood for the board.

 

 

 

dodo

 

 

 

 

 

Well in a nutshell..."talks cheap...but it takes money to buy whiskey !"..........and whiskey has been in short supply round here lately ........... Maj...

[Captain]

It is perhaps interesting (and I hope not too boring for Ed's supporters) that as of this morning the vote on this poll was 50/50 and that is exactly what has been the Board vote on these matters.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The sale was withdrawn

Well at least there was one piece of good news in this thread.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I've been pretty busy this week due to work and have sporadically read through this and other threads trying to keep up and I'm a little disappointed that we moved on from good solid debate to who has the bigger appendage...

 

That said, there's a few things that are worth noting from my perspective. It's also worth noting that this is only my opinion.

 

Firstly, to those who are saying put up or shut up I won't validate whether I agree with this view or not but I will say that I have done this repeatedly over the last few months. When I first became aware of the problems that RA-Aus faced I contacted the board and management and offered assistance. It probably helps to provide a little context around my offer and what I could do to help. I run a firm that provides advice to other firms, yep, I'm a dirty rotten consultant. One of the areas that I work in involves compliance with regulatory requirements. At the time that we faced a removal of our registration privileges I was working with a well known electricity distributor who was facing some significant troubles with the energy regulator due to a substantial number of breaches. In a period of around 4 months they had managed to rack up some 350 odd breaches of law. This was a situation that was not unlike that which RA-Aus was facing. In the following period of around 3 months we reduced the number of breaches to a few per month and these were non-significant ones. Furthermore, during this time we improved service delivery to customers. This was all happening when I made my offer to RA-Aus. It might sound arrogant but I am good at what I do and I get paid very well for it. My offer to RA-Aus was to do this at no cost to them. The board and management never followed up on my offer despite me reiterating it several times.

 

Here we are almost half a year later and we have, by my estimate, more than 700 aircraft that are awaiting registration. I am happy to stand corrected on this number but in the absence of better information I will stick with it. With a total fleet of around 3500 aircraft this means that roughly one in five aircraft are grounded. Furthermore, we are not yet in front of the eight ball in terms of reducing the backlog. On 18 June there was an update posted that said RA-Aus registered 58 aircraft in the preceding week. At 3500 aircraft the average number of aircraft renewals will be around 67 per week. We're still nine aircraft per week off stopping the problem from getting worse and even further away from eliminating the problem. What's more, a later update on 21 June noted that we have registered only 34 aircraft in a week. Clearly the performance of RA-Aus is not consistent.

 

Secondly, on the issue of the STCC appointment. I've been made aware this week that a board resolution was passed in 2009 in relation to financial authorities. No resolution has been passed since this time that has covered the same topic (again, if this is wrong then please let me know). This resolution limited the financial authority of the CEO to $2000, the Treasurer to $5000 and the executive to $10,000. Beyond this the entire board should be consulted. I can only work on Ed's words in his announcement where he stated that "this was a position by myself and i (sic) take full and absolute responsibility for the appointment". So it is clear that he acted without board consent and yet I am sure this position would cost more than the $10000 that the entire executive can approve. Something has gone astray here and it worries me that the rules can be broken so easily. I understand the analogy of the train coming but no one has shown me the train yet so I'm still not convinced that it exists. I also understand why Ed might feel he was backed in to a corner but I don't take that as justification for breaking some clear rules on how we manage our affairs (and to be clear I'm not looking for his head either).

 

I've nominated for the board because I am passionate about RA-Aus. I am selfish in that I want to protect my ability to fly in future and perhaps even extend the privileges available to me as a pilot certificate holder. I am worried that continual bad management, board dysfunction and systemic failures within our organisation are threatening this. I was lucky enough to have a meal with an ex-CEO of Taco Bell in America once and he told me a story about some changes that he led. He mentioned that there were a bunch of people that he had to fire and I asked him how he felt about firing good people. He pointed out to me that what I meant by good people was actually nice people and that nice people aren't always good people. If they aren't doing something that benefits the organisation then as far as the organisation is concerned they aren't good people. When you stop and think that we have a bunch of well intentioned people that are doing bad things for our association it's a little easier to see that they are not good for us and that the time for change has come.

 

We really need to get some good solid foundations in place to ensure the future of RA-Aus. Others have rightly pointed out that the operational things also need attention and I believe that under Mark Clayton we can get some good results there too. Until we get a good board AND good management though, we are going to be chasing our tails. We need good governance coupled with good management, that's the only way we can ever move forward.

 

Take a look at who is nominating for the board in the upcoming election and ask yourself this - which one of these candidates can provide RA-Aus with the skills and expertise required to make sure we, as pilots and aircraft owners, will be allowed to fly for years to come. And when you've answered that, vote for that person.

 

Voting is the only way many of us can really put up or shut up. So while people here are saying many things including put up or shut up the only real way any of us can justify our loud voices and constant criticism is to vote. If you don't vote then you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining. We have a real opportunity to shape the future of RA-Aus in the upcoming elections. Don't waste that opportunity...

 

Cheers,

 

Michael Monck

 

(running for NSW for those who don't already know)

 

 

[DWF]

....He pointed out to me that what I meant by good people was actually nice people and that nice people aren't always good people. If they aren't doing something that benefits the organisation then as far as the organisation is concerned they aren't good people. When you stop and think that we have a bunch of well intentioned people that are doing bad things for our association it's a little easier to see that they are not good for us and that the time for change has come.

.....

There is an old adage that says: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

 

DWF

 

 

[turboplanner]

The result of this extensive argument on theory is going to decided by how quickly CASA reacts and how deeply CASA reacts, and the regular contact may not be deciding that.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You might be jumping the gun there a bit Michael; you comment that a board resolution passed in 2009 in relation to financial authorities might or might not be correct, however:

 

The President's agreement with CASA has not yet been ratified by the board at this time - that's what this brawl is all about.

 

If it is ratified and if there was some resolution back then it doesn't appear to have been carried through to the lawful extent required to change the Constitution which currently says:

 

"Board may exercise all of the powers of the Association", if you then go back towards the beginning of the costitution, you'll see references to raising and spending money.

 

I then looked at the By-Laws and found no changes there.

 

However, the "List of Standing Minutes at Incorporation, Minute No 2 is headed "Financial Delegations" and refers to page 17

 

Page 17 says: "Page left intentionally blank"

 

What I did find in the By-Laws was VERY significant and very topical though.

 

By-Law 10 under the heading "Duty Statement - Board Member" is in conflict with and has omissions from CASA requirements, and needs to be corrected urgently.

 

This could be seen as another reason why some board members could be unaware of their full duties, but that's now out in the open.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

You might be jumping the gun there a bit Michael; you comment that a board resolution passed in 2009 in relation to financial authorities might or might not be correct, however:The President's agreement with CASA has not yet been ratified by the board at this time - that's what this brawl is all about.

 

If it is ratified and if there was some resolution back then it doesn't appear to have been carried through to the lawful extent required to change the Constitution which currently says:

 

"Board may exercise all of the powers of the Association", if you then go back towards the beginning of the costitution, you'll see references to raising and spending money.

 

I then looked at the By-Laws and found no changes there.

 

However, the "List of Standing Minutes at Incorporation, Minute No 2 is headed "Financial Delegations" and refers to page 17

 

Page 17 says: "Page left intentionally blank"

 

What I did find in the By-Laws was VERY significant and very topical though.

 

By-Law 10 under the heading "Duty Statement - Board Member" is in conflict with and has omissions from CASA requirements, and needs to be corrected urgently.

 

This could be seen as another reason why some board members could be unaware of their full duties, but that's now out in the open.

I think I might be missing your point here. It kind of seems that you are suggesting Ed's actions are ok if they are not ratified?

 

And the standing minutes are there but are silent on the anything but the CEO and Office Manager:

 

Subject to any standing delegations authorised by the Treasurer, the limit of expenditure of RA-Aus funds by way of a cheque signed by the CEO or the Office Supervisor, and one of the RA-Aus office staff shall not exceed $2000.00, unless authorised by the Treasurer, the Executive or the Board.

 

While it is yet another example of how a simple administrative task such as taking a board resolution and putting into a financial delegations document, making a by-law, or some other policy document has been ignored it doesn't change the fact that the delegations have been set. And if I can track them down with a few questions then the board should also be aware of them before taking any action unilateral or otherwise.

 

And I will remain silent on the Duty Statement as I am still not aware of what is contained in current the Deed of Agreement. It seems that you are more informed on that topic than me and many others at them moment...

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

You might be jumping the gun there a bit Michael; you comment that a board resolution passed in 2009 in relation to financial authorities might or might not be correct . . .

No question about might or might not - we all understand that the Board holds the power to expend Members' Funds and, by Board Resolution in Feb 2009, the Board established authority limits exactly as Mick describes them.

Note, the Resolution is a formal Board decision, a decision of the Board.

 

Now look again at what the Constitution (Rules) says about what the Exec can and can't do. The words in Rule 11 (iv) make it crystal clear that the Exec cannot act contrary " . . . to any decisions of the Board . . . "

 

Turbo, selectively quoting a few words from Rule 11 (iv) that give powers without also quoting the restraints the same sentence imposes does not enhance your argument.

 

Even if it were not just Ed acting alone, which he said he was, but the Executive acting in concert, they cannot act contrary to Board decisions. They cannot exceed their Board delegated authority.

 

Chances are Ed was not aware he was exceeding his authority as, chances are, he hasn't got a sound understanding of the Constitution, the Rules by which he must operate. It is not a procedure guide it is the law of RA-Aus. To consciously act contrary to the Rules should earn sanction. If you asked Ed tonight he would tell you he still believes he did not act contrary to the Rules. Clearly, he still does not understand the Constitution.

 

The President's agreement with CASA has not yet been ratified by the board at this time - that's what this brawl is all about. If it is ratified and if there was some resolution back then it doesn't appear to have been carried through to the lawful extent required to change the Constitution which currently says:

The Board has the right to delegate its authority to commit Members' Funds. It does not require an amendment to the Constitution nor a By-Law - just a formal decision of the Board. That decision is then recorded in the RA-Aus Administration Manual for all to see and comply with. The office staff would have no basis on which to pay the STCC as the position was not created lawfully.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I've been pretty busy this week due to work and have sporadically read through this and other threads trying to keep up and I'm a little disappointed that we moved on from good solid debate to who has the bigger appendage...That said, there's a few things that are worth noting from my perspective. It's also worth noting that this is only my opinion.

 

Firstly, to those who are saying put up or shut up I won't validate whether I agree with this view or not but I will say that I have done this repeatedly over the last few months. When I first became aware of the problems that RA-Aus faced I contacted the board and management and offered assistance. It probably helps to provide a little context around my offer and what I could do to help. I run a firm that provides advice to other firms, yep, I'm a dirty rotten consultant. One of the areas that I work in involves compliance with regulatory requirements. At the time that we faced a removal of our registration privileges I was working with a well known electricity distributor who was facing some significant troubles with the energy regulator due to a substantial number of breaches. In a period of around 4 months they had managed to rack up some 350 odd breaches of law. This was a situation that was not unlike that which RA-Aus was facing. In the following period of around 3 months we reduced the number of breaches to a few per month and these were non-significant ones. Furthermore, during this time we improved service delivery to customers. This was all happening when I made my offer to RA-Aus. It might sound arrogant but I am good at what I do and I get paid very well for it. My offer to RA-Aus was to do this at no cost to them. The board and management never followed up on my offer despite me reiterating it several times.

 

Here we are almost half a year later and we have, by my estimate, more than 700 aircraft that are awaiting registration. I am happy to stand corrected on this number but in the absence of better information I will stick with it. With a total fleet of around 3500 aircraft this means that roughly one in five aircraft are grounded. Furthermore, we are not yet in front of the eight ball in terms of reducing the backlog. On 18 June there was an update posted that said RA-Aus registered 58 aircraft in the preceding week. At 3500 aircraft the average number of aircraft renewals will be around 67 per week. We're still nine aircraft per week off stopping the problem from getting worse and even further away from eliminating the problem. What's more, a later update on 21 June noted that we have registered only 34 aircraft in a week. Clearly the performance of RA-Aus is not consistent.

 

Secondly, on the issue of the STCC appointment. I've been made aware this week that a board resolution was passed in 2009 in relation to financial authorities. No resolution has been passed since this time that has covered the same topic (again, if this is wrong then please let me know). This resolution limited the financial authority of the CEO to $2000, the Treasurer to $5000 and the executive to $10,000. Beyond this the entire board should be consulted. I can only work on Ed's words in his announcement where he stated that "this was a position by myself and i (sic) take full and absolute responsibility for the appointment". So it is clear that he acted without board consent and yet I am sure this position would cost more than the $10000 that the entire executive can approve. Something has gone astray here and it worries me that the rules can be broken so easily. I understand the analogy of the train coming but no one has shown me the train yet so I'm still not convinced that it exists. I also understand why Ed might feel he was backed in to a corner but I don't take that as justification for breaking some clear rules on how we manage our affairs (and to be clear I'm not looking for his head either).

 

I've nominated for the board because I am passionate about RA-Aus. I am selfish in that I want to protect my ability to fly in future and perhaps even extend the privileges available to me as a pilot certificate holder. I am worried that continual bad management, board dysfunction and systemic failures within our organisation are threatening this. I was lucky enough to have a meal with an ex-CEO of Taco Bell in America once and he told me a story about some changes that he led. He mentioned that there were a bunch of people that he had to fire and I asked him how he felt about firing good people. He pointed out to me that what I meant by good people was actually nice people and that nice people aren't always good people. If they aren't doing something that benefits the organisation then as far as the organisation is concerned they aren't good people. When you stop and think that we have a bunch of well intentioned people that are doing bad things for our association it's a little easier to see that they are not good for us and that the time for change has come.

 

We really need to get some good solid foundations in place to ensure the future of RA-Aus. Others have rightly pointed out that the operational things also need attention and I believe that under Mark Clayton we can get some good results there too. Until we get a good board AND good management though, we are going to be chasing our tails. We need good governance coupled with good management, that's the only way we can ever move forward.

 

Take a look at who is nominating for the board in the upcoming election and ask yourself this - which one of these candidates can provide RA-Aus with the skills and expertise required to make sure we, as pilots and aircraft owners, will be allowed to fly for years to come. And when you've answered that, vote for that person.

 

Voting is the only way many of us can really put up or shut up. So while people here are saying many things including put up or shut up the only real way any of us can justify our loud voices and constant criticism is to vote. If you don't vote then you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining. We have a real opportunity to shape the future of RA-Aus in the upcoming elections. Don't waste that opportunity...

 

Cheers,

 

Michael Monck

 

(running for NSW for those who don't already know)

Airsick, I am happy you have nominated for the board, and I wish you well in your venture. We have however seen a constant stream of board electees who seem to come on board thinking, or convinced they are the one who has the answers, and the abilitys to change things forever. Some are still on the board , others lasted only weeks, or in some cases only days...

 

The board is a consortium, and must be a united, joint team-effort, with each member offering his best expertise, and effort, toward the combined success of the board as a whole.

 

Politics and egos must go out the door first up, as a successfull working board has no place for these. The current problems we are having with the board have a lot to do with politics and egos, and little to do with combined team efforts. Ed, as the teams current captain took the effort on board, and had attempted to tackle one of our most serious problems...the lack of a SMS that would please the regulator. He had tacked the problem to the best of his ability at the time, and the previously promised support from his 'team' evaporated after the fact. Our current board has not worked jointly as a team, and they must to achieve anything.

 

They have all let politics and egos get in the way of them doing their duties , and for that they all deserve to be replaced as they have failed, both individually and as a team. I have also nominated for the board, but I wish to be a part of a working successfull team. I have no interest in individual egos, and much less in playing politics with our sport.......................Maj...

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Maj, please tell us what you mean by "politics" - I think we all understand "egos" = what people have who don't agree with your way of looking at things?

 

I hear this "politics" all the time that we are being killed by "politics" but I honestly don't understand what it is in this context.

 

Perhaps the Board Members who said they would back Ed presumed that Ed would not want backing for anything illegal or contrary to our Rules and definitely not for anything that would involve "jobs for the boys" because they (and Ed) had sworn at the Queanbeyan EGM would never happen again.

 

Should they have put those provisos into their pledge of loyalty or were they entitled to believe they were a given?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Alfa, I do not feel I should need to attempt to teach you what 'politics' is, and I feel that if you don't know by now you've probably got some problems ahead...!! As I see it, it is an individual or individuals combining to support, or not support, another individual, for their own purpose (whatever that may be) against what they know to be the correct direction that they should take, or support. IE: they are not doing what they need to be doing, in preference to supporting something else for there own gain or advantage = playing politics !!........................Maj.......

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Surely their can be good politics and bad politics? Not all politics is bad?

 

So, if I were a Liberal voter, I would see Julia Gillard and her mates as "playing politics" but if I were a Labor voter only Tony Abbot and his lot would be playing politics?

 

Individuals working together is often described as teamwork and usually seen to be a good thing.

 

Maj, do you honestly believe that the people who are complaining about the appalling management and god awful governance we have witnessed bring RA-Aus to its knees are just "playing politics"? Do you really think that there is "no case to answer", "nothing to see here, move along"?

 

That no matter how badly RA-Aus is run we should just turn the other cheek, look the other way?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think I might be missing your point here. It kind of seems that you are suggesting Ed's actions are ok if they are not ratified?And the standing minutes are there but are silent on the anything but the CEO and Office Manager:

 

Subject to any standing delegations authorised by the Treasurer, the limit of expenditure of RA-Aus funds by way of a cheque signed by the CEO or the Office Supervisor, and one of the RA-Aus office staff shall not exceed $2000.00, unless authorised by the Treasurer, the Executive or the Board.

 

While it is yet another example of how a simple administrative task such as taking a board resolution and putting into a financial delegations document, making a by-law, or some other policy document has been ignored it doesn't change the fact that the delegations have been set. And if I can track them down with a few questions then the board should also be aware of them before taking any action unilateral or otherwise.

 

And I will remain silent on the Duty Statement as I am still not aware of what is contained in current the Deed of Agreement. It seems that you are more informed on that topic than me and many others at them moment...

 

Correct, you are missing the point.