RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[Keith Page]

It appears that the powers that be at CASA were not going to accept anyone else but Myles for this position, so it appears Ed may not have had much choice in the matter, and I doubt that this was a decision he took on his lonesome by the way. So it would appear any argument you may all have over this decision is with CASA, not our elected officials......................... .Maj...

Maj.

You said no choice we call it "No wriggle room" then one is stuck we must abide forth with.

 

The rattle I am getting from my grape vine which I do trust ..you are "correct" with zero tollerence. Yes no plus or minus there. you are on the money.

 

The CASA bit "yes"no tollerence again Maj.

 

When I get out of this work mode I will research more.

 

For the time being it is still good on ya " Ed." Has was cornereded.

 

Ed did well.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Keith Page]

I can only suggest you all stop jumping the gun... (Or would it be a fishing rod for poor Mr Herring).Wait until you get the FULL story before making certain comments. All I will add to this is that Mr Herring is by far the single best person for the job, and RAAus may as well pack up shop if he goes. He is acting in the best interests of RAAus, which is far more than what some other people are doing (and this includes some people on this forum.). Time to give it a rest and put the pitchforks/harpoons away for a few weeks.

Here here here

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Turbo, I presume after reading this post again you might be refering to me? Did Ed post on our forum that he would do it his way? Yes he did. It was an interesting comment to say the least. For clarification I called him and had a lengthy conversation with him. I offered my full support if he guaranteed to be honest, not secretive and keep the board in the loop. He agreed. I do not believe he kept his word and has acted in a manner not acceptable.

 

The first I new about the position being created as with the majority of the board members was after it appeared on the website. It was also in an email which had arrived that afternoon but I had not read it before I started to receive calls from concerned members. Was timing an issue? Well Im not sure but Myles resigned before the position was announced. The board were not consult or informed in that period.

 

Would CASA want us to ignore our constitution? I doubt it. Could the board have made a decision in 24-48 hours. Of course we could. Are the board against the creation of the position? I'm not, some are, in fact several believe we should be utilising CASA's safety resources which I also believe needs to be explored.

 

Some of the comments out there are miles (excuse the pun) from accurate. I intend to release all my emails to the members as soon as this issue is resolved so from my perspective you will get the full story as I know it (I'm sure there is lots that has occured that I don't know).

 

Major, Did CASA insist this position be created? You seem to know more than myself and all the other board members I have spoken to. Please be candid with your source as you may be able to assist the board. Was the deed of agreement in jeapody? I have not received clear indication from those that attended the meeting to answer that question. I can say that on the 10th of February I as the new person to the board asked that exact question in relation to our compliance with implementing a Safety Management System. I was informed that RA Aus has a SMS in place and it is not of concern. We are just working on implementing a more thorough system.

 

If anyone feels they need clarification on any matter you can always call me. 0403 22 8986. Or direct email jim.tatlock at bigpond dot com

 

 

[Spriteah]

Addon: My phone is flat so I cannot respond to calls at the min unless you call 0352738419 until 6pm....(at work) Jim

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks Jim,

 

If he outlined that a condition of standing for President was that he would make executive decisions and you confirmed YES, as he says all board members did, then in my opinion that's an automatic vote from you for every one of those decisions.

 

Pulling those decisions to pieces afterwards when you had all endorsed his Presidential style is not on in my opinion.

 

I don't see anything wrong in the way board members voted for his Presidential style, and there will only be a short period before he and his appointee will be reviewed anyway, and its no worse than having an Administrator appointed for a period.

 

It's not the way the Constitution intended the process to be, but given the way you guys are effectively automatically voting, I don't see the Constitutional issue that others have.

 

Ed says he made this decision AT a meeting with CASA where they said RAA was in breech of the deed, so whatever the interminable discussions over the previous year or so, without any reference to the members, if they hit him with that, and if that meant a shortfall of $60,000.00 in the Grant to RAA, and if that decision at that time resolved all of that and there was a freshly resigned available person, and that action bought some time to review the decision in three months time, I would have made the same decision.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

If he outlined that a condition of standing for President was that he would make executive decisions and you confirmed YES, as he says all board members did, then in my opinion that's an automatic vote from you for every one of those decisions.

Pulling those decisions to pieces afterwards when you had all endorsed his Presidential style is not on in my opinion.

If this is one of the bits of the slowly emerging story I'm totally flabbergasted. It's more like the power-play methods of Putin and Medvedev than those of a democratic organisation in Australia.

 

Have the entire Board seriously given away their right to having a say on further matters, in favour of all decisions being made autonomously by the new President? Personally, I doubt it - but if they have, is that permitted? Why have the Reps on the Board at all, in that case?

 

And if the Board members have given away their right to discussion on all (or any) matters, including safety matters, how can one person's solo decision-making possibly satisfy the requirements of CASA's guide to self-administration?

 

Sport Aviation Self-Administration Handbook

 

.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Remember that's only my opinion at this stage, and Jim is yet to reply, and Ed isn't forthcoming on this forum.

 

 

[Spriteah]

The board did not do as suggested by Turbo. Ed had no more authority than any other president has in the past. Perhaps Ed thought he did but that was misguided. Please ladies and gents I urge you to call you local representative and ask did they give Ed anymore powers than previously appointed presidents.

 

Again as stated if and I say if as this has not been said to me or the majority of other board members CASA did put the acid so to speak on Ed he should have stated he has to consult and will return with an answer in a short period of time.

 

Jim.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

The power of a collective decision is the collective part.Middo ringing around board members one at a time, and presumably in order of those they know will rubberstamp first down to those that might ask questions and never getting to those that might reject, until they have 50% of them accepting the position is a complete missuse of the intent behind board decisions..."

Telstra provide a simple conference call service, which I have used for years. What's stopping our reps from doing this? Real discussion, quickly. A ten-minute discussion amoung the Board might have avoided this outcry.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

The board did not do as suggested by Turbo. Ed had no more authority than any other president has in the past. Perhaps Ed thought he did but that was misguided. Please ladies and gents I urge you to call you local representative and ask did they give Ed anymore powers than previously appointed presidents.Again as stated if and I say if as this has not been said to me or the majority of other board members CASA did put the acid so to speak on Ed he should have stated he has to consult and will return with an answer in a short period of time.

 

Jim.

As requested I just called the two remaining S Qld Reps to try and get some clarification on this. John McKeown is away sailing for a few months and can only be emailed at present. Mike Smith was happy to have a very candid and comprehensive discussion about it. The short version is that Ed agreed to the President's appointment only if he was assured of the 'full support' of the Board. Mike said that the Board did assure of him of that but that it was never suggested that he be empowered to do anything which was not according to the appropriate due process.

 

Mike feels that Ed may have misinterpreted the situation given that Mike is the Manager of a largish organisation and is used to being able to say what goes.

 

Mike also confirmed that Ed did not mention to him the creation of the new STCC position, or Myles' appointment to it, prior to either being done.

 

In support of Ed, Mike felt that Ed was probably under a lot of undue pressure, having taken time off his full-time work to visit Canberra for two days during which the workload was significant. The meeting with CASA was extra to the planned duties requiring Ed to stay an extra day and Mike says that Ed told him on the phone later that there had been pressure put on him to get this appointment in position immediately or it was suggested that the CASA grant could/would be withheld.

 

Effectively it would appear that Ed did the right thing the wrong way.

 

As for Myles getting the job, that appears to be another matter. It would seem to be confirmed that Myles did resign from the SQ Rep position after he himself suggested that he be given the paid STCC position instead. This meant that it was a fait accomplis and it would seem quite improper that the position was not advertised and consideration given to others who might have been equally suited to the job. Ed made much of the point that Myles was available right now to fill the position.

 

EDIT - I've sent the link of this post to Mike Smith to allow him the opportunity to correct anything I have said, if he sees a need. Mike doesn't post here but I'll post any remarks he has.

 

 

[Oscar]

Ok, some more light on the situation. However, it raises some fairly serious questions, and it may be useful to try to separate the 'how it was done issue' - on which there seems to be pretty clear-cut evidence that the operational rules for the organisation were not met - from the 'why did it happen this way?' issue, from which important lessons may be learned.

 

Did CASA resort to such a threat merely because someone had a bad hair day, or was it brought up from frustration that nothing had been done? ( Comment aside: - was it sprung on Ed Herring because he was a new President?)

 

Who in RAA knew of the requirement to address the issue, for how long, and what action had they previously taken to address it? Since apparently it is considered sufficiently serious by CASA that they could / would / might withhold funding, surely action should have been initiated once the seriousness was appreciated. Unless this is a sudden new development, that would have allowed proper time for full Board consideration, funding appropriation to be put in place, a job description and selection criteria to be established and candidates sought.

 

In short - were people fiddling while Rome burned? And if so - why?

 

 

[facthunter]

When does supporting a president mean giving him Cart Blanche?. I don't think you could do that without abrogating your board responsibility. There must be some misunderstanding there somewhere. Again we are given insufficient information and all will be OK if we just shut up, and trust people. I will be the first person to give credit where it's due, when it's due. A bit of genuine good news would be nice, and I still can't see that proper process is happening, and that is the one thing we must have. Lack of it has got us where we are now. Nev

 

 

[oracle1]

When does supporting a president mean giving him Cart Blanche?. I don't think you could do that without abrogating your board responsibility.

Hear Hear This ones a hanging offence plain and simple

 

If this matter is not resolved then First payment of Salary is receipt of fraudulent monies

 

Go ahead show us how really inept you are! I hear the Victorian Fraud Squad is on a roll with investigating incorporated associations with corrupt (RED) heads

 

 

[terryc]

Over the last three days this thread has pricked,prodded, pushed, pulled, twisted and milked little bits of information and pasted together a scenario which is getting somewhere near the truth as I see it. For all of those who complain and wail about the process used there is an easier answer, force your board to communicate. Then you can be released from your pain. Modern management systems know this and behave appropriately. In no possible way I can think of is Ed Herring's approach acceptable.

 

 

[airangel]

Over the last three days this thread has pricked,prodded, pushed, pulled, twisted and milked little bits of information and pasted together a scenario which is getting somewhere near the truth as I see it. For all of those who complain and wail about the process used there is an easier answer, force your board to communicate. Then you can be released from your pain. Modern management systems know this and behave appropriately. In no possible way I can think of is Ed Herring's approach acceptable.

Hear Hear This ones a hanging offence plain and simpleIf this matter is not resolved then First payment of Salary is receipt of fraudulent monies

 

Go ahead show us how really inept you are! I hear the Victorian Fraud Squad is on a roll with investigating incorporated associations with corrupt (RED) heads

[Ignition]

How much would it have cost to advertise for the STCC position with the recruitment agency?

 

What time frame would the recruitment agency take to find someone?

 

How urgent and important is the position in relation to the survival of RAAus?

 

Which board members are against the STCC position?

 

Which board members are against someone suitably qualified and available immediately getting that position temporarily until such time as a review of performance, discussion and appropriate action by the board can be taken?

 

Which board members are against Myles in particular getting that position temporarily?

 

Some of the answers appear to already be in this thread. Namely pressure placed on Ed to get this position filled immediately as per Head in the clouds post #110 above. So it can be assumed the answer to question 3 is 'Immediately required'. You could base the other questions from that key statement.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. A person had to be found quickly . Myles will hold the position until September, then he and others can reapply for the position. Ed's decision has saved us losing $60 000 in funding from CASA. And September isn't that far away.

 

In a ideal world, it would have been nice to go through the recruitment process, but in this case time was against us.

 

 

[airangel]

Ok lets get rid of this man too. regardless that many think he his taking action,dont forget that you guys voted in the reps you have now. Who hear is prepared to take his job and perform to your exacting requirements AND get the job done that you have demanded. Lots of criticism here but no one seems to have a solution. It would appear that whoever has this role gets to have many critics regardless of how good or bad they are. You ask why at times there is not enough communication. Every time there is there is a barrage of uninformed criticism. Lets try and measure on the end result unless you want to step into the ring

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I hope Myles retains this position, regardless of how it was managed. I hope he gets the support he needs from CFI's, and schools. I hope he is able to show us something soon with respect to a plan, a charter, something concrete that we can point at and say 'there', look, positive steps being taken to adress a problem we all know exists.

 

I want to know how the position is going to be implemented, in a real sence. What powers will he have, how can/will he exersize them? But most importantly, how the hell can WE ALL BLOODY WELL HELP HIM!!!!...

 

I have some ideas I would LOVE to see implemented, that I believe would improve standards and over all safety 'culture' within the RAA and light aviation in general.

 

I would love nothing more than to see a concrete ' description' of how this position will be weilded..And the sooner the better...Perhaps if we heard something along those lines we could encourage positive discussion and ideas that will actually help safety.

 

But for GOD sake, please dont throw the baby out with the bath water!!!!!

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Thanks Jim,If he outlined that a condition of standing for President was that he would make executive decisions and you confirmed YES, as he says all board members did, then in my opinion that's an automatic vote from you for every one of those decisions.

Pulling those decisions to pieces afterwards when you had all endorsed his Presidential style is not on in my opinion.

 

I don't see anything wrong in the way board members voted for his Presidential style, and there will only be a short period before he and his appointee will be reviewed anyway, and its no worse than having an Administrator appointed for a period.

 

It's not the way the Constitution intended the process to be, but given the way you guys are effectively automatically voting, I don't see the Constitutional issue that others have.

 

Ed says he made this decision AT a meeting with CASA where they said RAA was in breech of the deed, so whatever the interminable discussions over the previous year or so, without any reference to the members, if they hit him with that, and if that meant a shortfall of $60,000.00 in the Grant to RAA, and if that decision at that time resolved all of that and there was a freshly resigned available person, and that action bought some time to review the decision in three months time, I would have made the same decision.

I give my support as it appears that the regulator has required a condition met immedaitely and to have a person that has supported RAA as a board member and recently treasurer and has accepted this new role can only be good and positive for RAA and the membership. It seems the new role will require time that will prevent performing the other roles so a desision was made to resign from them and allow some others with the necessary time and experience to step up. Lets see where this and the regulators comments and feedback take RAA. Just my view as a member who wants to see RAA as a safe aviation membership. Regards Mike

 

 

[terryc]

Ok lets get rid of this man too. regardless that many think he his taking action,dont forget that you guys voted in the reps you have now. Who hear is prepared to take his job and perform to your exacting requirements AND get the job done that you have demanded. Lots of criticism here but no one seems to have a solution. It would appear that whoever has this role gets to have many critics regardless of how good or bad they are. You ask why at times there is not enough communication. Every time there is there is a barrage of uninformed criticism. Lets try and measure on the end result unless you want to step into the ring

"

Nobody, not one has suggested we get rid of this man, some who know him have said he's the man for the job." Everybody" wants him to take action, that's the job he's taken on but take action with all due regard to proper processes. It could and should have involved all the board and taken one day longer maybe.

 

It would appear that a resignation a few days before would suggest the plan was at least a couple of days old. The criticism is about the process not the appointment. Your comment would suggest you think this job is above criticism, it's not, proper scrutiny is both good and healthy. The end does not justify the means, not now not ever. I'm pleased to inform you that just this type of discussion has motivated some to put their hands up and be counted and that's a good thing. When you take on a position in an organization dealing with other peoples money and affairs you have a responsibility to communicate to them how your looking after them, that's not too hard. I don't think he should be drawn and quartered but he does need to be reminded of his responsibility. If you reread most the posts in this thread you'll find that yes most people do have the answer you have just missed it.

 

One other point i would make, if you read the statement on raa website you can see that Ed expected his actions would receive some criticism,

 

 

[Guest nunans]

Hi Chirds65The modern day world is letting us down. I work in an industry where everything must be correct and it is dying quickly because of political correctness/transparent.

With this transparent thing it is relevant in the ideal world, however when you are looking down a barrel of a gun there is no time to be politicaly correct, one must do something on the spot.

 

AND We must step in behind the fixer and help fix the situation after the event not find where the actions were wrong, one poor sole has to stand out in the front he is the one who cops the brunt of the impact.

 

Ed.. needs some kindness and help he had to make that decision in a jiff.

 

In the mean time keep arguing.

 

I will just wait and help Ed when I get the call.

 

Reagrds,

 

Keith Page

If Raaus was a privately owned enterprise where our president owned us and all our aircraft etc then I would agree with you that its eds place to call the shots as he sees fit as fast as he wants to call them, however this isnt private enterprise so we have to do our best with the constitution we have.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Mike Smith sent a short response to my post #110 -

 

Hi Alan,

 

Thank you for giving me the link to your post and the opportunity to respond. I think you have summarised our conversation quite well and I don't wish to make any changes. There is one typo where you have put my name instead of Ed's in relation to being a manager, but other readers will probably work that out fairly quickly. Do you think that other people will realise the last paragraph is your comments and not a quote from me?

 

There is certainly many facets to this situation. The forum comments certainly get the flames leaping.

 

Regards

 

Mike Smith

 

 

[turboplanner]

The issue on this one is that Ed says the other board members are going to move a motion of no confidence against him, and he doesn't have the numbers.

 

I wonder what those board members thought they were voting on when Ed laid out the terms under which he would take on the Presidency; how often have you been asked to commit to a vote in writing AFTER a unanimous vote for a position?

 

So they appear to have a perfect opportunity to once again squeeze out the new guy.

 

Were CASA serious? Well they should have been, given the elevated fatality rate.

 

However the action will be taking place once again out of the control of the members who have been having this worthwhile discussion.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Yes Turbs. Well can't a few more folks in the other States take on board Jim's request and phone their Reps and discuss this with them as I did? Mike Smith indicated to me he had no intention of censuring Ed for his inappropriate action this time but would certainly be making it known that he didn't approve of his methods and that due process must be followed in the future.

 

I don't think that even the more heated commenters here really want Ed thrown out for his hasty action this time, I read all this as more a venting of steam.

 

If more of the Reps could start to read the Governing Bodies threads as a matter of course then they'd get a far better understanding of the groundswell I would think, because while a lot of folks have their say here I don't think all that many of them actually speak to their local Rep in person or on the phone.

 

This morning I did suggest to Mike Smith that he and the other Reps might benefit from reading this part of the forum on a regular basis.