RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[bernieh]

As an RAA member though a bit isolated from the mainstream of events I find the content of the forum to be quite unsettling.. Is the Sun really falling?? It seems the long time policy of poor communication and "keepem in the dark and feedem on mushroom food" has got us to the situation we are in, now where everything is anecdotal and no one is sure of anything... With the communication facilities available in this modern age it would seem RAA should be updating members of events as they happen and thereby quell speculation and rumour.....Dysfunctional come to mind when I think about the management style... I don't personally have the expertise , education, or knowledge of constitutional matters, and am not able to do more than read the forums, try to form a viewpoint, and hope that when the time for elections comes I can make the right choices...............B

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is politics unfolding as politics often does.

 

It seems they have all given each other a fright, and it may well be that the Constitution will be followed more closely from now on.

 

But who would have thought that the gang who ignored it for so long and did their thing in the dark would be the ones crying for the Constitution to be adhered to.

 

There has to be some humour in that!

 

 

[Captain]

This is politics unfolding as politics often does.It seems they have all given each other a fright, and it may well be that the Constitution will be followed more closely from now on.

But who would have thought that the gang who ignored it for so long and did their thing in the dark would be the ones crying for the Constitution to be adhered to.

 

There has to be some humour in that!

No it's not "politics" Tubb, it's "due process" that is the issue.

 

Ed should have bought time with CASA to put this thru the Board.

 

If approved, albeit quickly, by the Board, this and any staff appointment should have been handled by the GM.

 

The GM could have been given authority to appoint rather than recruit to this position if time or cost of recruitment was an issue.

 

Is Brietkreutz the best candidate? I'll leave that to others, but I do not believe that he deserves an appointment by the President, particularly IF the position does not turn out to have a line responsibility to and via the GM. I also worry about potential personal closeness between Breitkreutz and Ungermann and it will be intolerable if that direct line works outside of the line responsibilities within the RAA's staff structure.

 

Ed's method of working on this and several staff issues last week is pretty much the same as SR was criticised for. In summary, he has acted more like a CEO than a President and after the numerous issues discussed at the Feb 9th EGM, Ed has been naïve in continuing down that path, IMHO. The only slack I'll cut for him is that he may have been well intentioned (same like SR), .................... but AGAIN, due process, good management and sound governance have been trashed within RAA.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Spriteah]

But who would have thought that the gang who ignored it for so long and did their thing in the dark would be the ones crying for the Constitution to be adhered to.

 

There has to be some humour in that!

 

Turbo, That's a hand grenade comment. There are new board members that are 'crying for the Constitution to be adhered to'. And perhaps the gang you refer to are moving with the times. I hope so.

 

Regards,

 

Jim.

 

 

[facthunter]

Hang in Jim. There has to be an end to this. The majority of posters get the issue. Do it the right way in practice and in appearance, then all will be fine. Good intentions are not enough if the thing can unwind. IF CASA ( And WHO are we talking about because CASA is a lot of people) REQUIRED an action that ignored Proper process within our organisation, THAT would be regrettable. Don't people have the essential basic knowledge of proper process, or do they think it's not needed? That it's some kind of luxury for the sophisticates? Do we just keep repeating the same mistakes? Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

It seems like so much of the heartache could have been avoided with a few better decisions, and a little more open communication. For example, the news on the RA-Aus site could have read like this:

 

Following a meeting with CASA, it was established that funding worth over $60000 would be withdrawn in a short space of time, if a new position of STCC was not created, which aims to do XXXX and shall be measured by XXXX....A teleconference was immediately organised for RA-Aus committee members, and the majority agreed that it was necessary to act very quickly on this matter. One member of the committee has the requisite skills and experience for this role, and has volunteered. Feedback was sought from the General Manager on the position and potential for the committee member fulfilling the role, and the General Manager indicated that this was acceptable on the proviso that the position be considered interim only, until such time as a formal and independent recruitment process be completed. This was subject to vote by the committee and accepted. Due to a conflict of interest, the committee member will step down and resign his position etc etc

Forgive the language as I am neither a publicist nor perfectly familiar with the way committees at this level work. However, I can't see that it would take more than an extra day or two to do this, and no one would feel that they were being deceived. Maybe some on the committee wouldn't have agreed, maybe they would have argued, dragged their feet, and the funding ended up taken away. But at least there would have been open communication, and elected representatives would been given the opportunity to do what they were elected for.

 

 

[facthunter]

Not interested in speculating too far... BUT.. If the funding would be withdrawn unless something "unusual/ abnormal was done THAT is weird. Phone conferencing has been around for along time ( as has been stated). You only need a majority of the board to vote but that shouldn't be taken as only contacting the ones you know will be for it. Anyone being over ruled doesn't mean self immolation or resignation is needed either. There is no requirement to be right all the time. Any member of a committee can disagree with the chairman's ruling at any time. You move a motion to disagree and a vote is taken. IF carried, the motion is effective immediately and in no way would it be taken as a motion of no confidence, which is an entirely different matter. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Hang in Jim. There has to be an end to this. The majority of posters get the issue. Do it the right way in practice and in appearance, then all will be fine. Good intentions are not enough if the thing can unwind. IF CASA ( And WHO are we talking about because CASA is a lot of people) REQUIRED an action that ignored Proper process within our organisation, THAT would be regrettable. Don't people have the essential basic knowledge of proper process, or do they think it's not needed? That it's some kind of luxury for the sophisticates? Do we just keep repeating the same mistakes? Nev

I'd be very dubious that CASA would - or even could - require an action that ignored proper process, but it appears that CASA had reached the end of its tether with the inaction on addressing these issues. As I have said earlier - the way it was handled was not good (and possibly illegitimate in view of RAA organisational mechanism requirements), but the fact that it apparently had to be handled as a matter of extreme urgency is, in my view, worse. Sheeting this matter home to only Ed Herring / Myles is ignoring the broader picture and that is one RAA members should question very rigorously.

 

 

[turboplanner]

But who would have thought that the gang who ignored it for so long and did their thing in the dark would be the ones crying for the Constitution to be adhered to.There has to be some humour in that!

Turbo, That's a hand grenade comment. There are new board members that are 'crying for the Constitution to be adhered to'. And perhaps the gang you refer to are moving with the times. I hope so.

 

Regards,

 

Jim.

Yes, sorry Jim, I should have been more careful, of course the new board members are not in that group.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Right lets cut the crap. This was not an emergency. The Safety Management System was adopted by Board vote at the February 2012 Board Meeting - yes 2012. The previous CEO did not get anything done on it after its adoption because as he said "other priorities" prevented him from doing anything on the SMS.

 

This standard of performance although unacceptable was backed to the hilt by Ed, Runciman and Middo, to name a few.

 

The Board have been in breach of the CASA Deed of Agreement for the best part of 12 months if not longer. The cut off for having done something is, iirc, 30 June. No doubt Ed was up against it to make a bold impression on CASA in two weeks. However, let's NOT make CASA the villain here. They have been incredibly reasonable all along considering RA-Aus's poor performance. There is no way that CASA would encourage RA-Aus to act contrary to principles of good governance.

 

The Deed of Agreement with CASA specifically prohibits acting contrary to the principle of good governance and sound administration. It also prohibits RA-Aus from breaking the Law - not that that is necessary.

 

Why did Ed act without even informing a member of the Executive? Because he knew he did not have the numbers on the Board to get it through - especially if you include the nepotism aspect of Myles's gift.

 

Ed's action is a concrete vote of no confidence in his fellow Board Members - if they now return the "compliment" he can hardly expect otherwise.

 

Nobody wants to see Ed leave the Board or the Presidency - I couldn't have said that about his predecessor. Ed has the personality and industriousness and aviation knowledge that RA-Aus desperately needs. The censure motion is unfortunate but it is clearly needed to get the message across that Ed was appointed Chairman of the Board not benevolent dictator of RA-Aus whatever he thinks the deal was.

 

I believe that if Ed had gone to the Board with a proposal to create the position of STCC he would have got it approved. I doubt he would have got the grubby deal to appoint Myles approved because the Board is a bit sensitive to failures of jobs-for-the-boys in the recent past. And they are aware after the Queanbeyan EGM that the members will not tolerate that sort of crap any longer. The Boar dwill be held to account!

 

 

[facthunter]

In these circumstances how would it be interpreted IF the board didn't buy into the decision? This HAD to look like something that needed oversight. It's that big.

 

It is completely reasonable that a candidate for presidency of RAAus would want some assurance that the board wouldn't undermine him, but what seems to be being said is that HE took that as an authority for unilateral (board free) action.? Is that the view? nev

 

 

[Ignition]

Why did Ed act without even informing a member of the Executive? Because he knew he did not have the numbers on the Board to get it through - especially if you include the nepotism aspect of Myles's gift.

Ed's action is a concrete vote of no confidence in his fellow Board Members - if they now return the "compliment" he can hardly expect otherwise.

 

I believe that if Ed had gone to the Board with a proposal to create the position of STCC he would have got it approved. I doubt he would have got the grubby deal to appoint Myles approved because the Board is a bit sensitive to failures of jobs-for-the-boys in the recent past. And they are aware after the Queanbeyan EGM that the members will not tolerate that sort of crap any longer. The Boar dwill be held to account!

Hang on, You say he knew he did not have numbers on the board to get it through, but then say you believe he would have gotten it approved. Which is it gonna be?

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Hang on, You say he knew he did not have numbers on the board to get it through, but then say you believe he would have gotten it approved. Which is it gonna be?

Fair call Ig - there is an inconsistency there that deserves an explanation. The (my) problem has something to do with the old saying that words were invented to disguise our true meaning.

 

What I should have said is that Ed believed he'd never get his proposal approved by the Board.

 

It is my belief that he actually would have got it up. This is based a bit on 20:20 hindsight - the commentary from Board Members, since the announcement, that they are not opposed to the creation of the STCC position.

 

But by the same method, I have not heard any come out and say that appointing a long serving Board member and current member of the Executive into the role would be a good look. Especially when Myles suggested himself while he was still a member of the Board and the Executive.

 

Surely nobody currently thinks that the jobs-for-the-boys approach is still a good recruitment strategy? That in itself is a damning commentary on the judgement exercised in this instance by Ed and Myles.

 

 

[Ed Herring]

Fair call Ig - there is an inconsistency there that deserves an explanation. The (my) problem has something to do with the old saying that words were invented to disguise our true meaning.What I should have said is that Ed believed he'd never get his proposal approved by the Board.

 

It is my belief that he actually would have got it up. This is based a bit on 20:20 hindsight - the commentary from Board Members, since the announcement, that they are not opposed to the creation of the STCC position.

 

But by the same method, I have not heard any come out and say that appointing a long serving Board member and current member of the Executive into the role would be a good look. Especially when Myles suggested himself while he was still a member of the Board and the Executive.

 

Surely nobody currently thinks that the jobs-for-the-boys approach is still a good recruitment strategy? That in itself is a damning commentary on the judgement exercised in this instance by Ed and Myles.

Hi All

 

This may come as a complete surprise to some but here is my first post in a long time. I simply need to set one thing straight regarding the STCC appointment. Steve Runciman had been trying to create the position for many months because as President he knew it was essential I was one of the few that supported him. The Board would not support us. For the Board to now say that they are now not opposed to the appointment is positive and its a great shame that they needed to be guided into it in the way they have. The constitution clearly states that in an emergency the Executive can act on such matters. The board was very well aware that the only way I would take on the role of President was if they supported me totally on these issues that I spelt out before them. At the time of the vote I got 100% support. Some are now retracting that support to suit their own agendas. There are obviously members who do not consider the issue to be an emergency but we can draw a parallel any time two Lawyers are in a room with the same degrees and opposite views. My decisions are based on the fact that I work in an industry that would not exist without compliance so I understand the importance to our future as without a concentrated effort in safety and compliance we simply will not exist in our current form in the near future. Importantly CASA see the recent action as positive steps forward.

 

Regards

 

Ed

 

 

[John G]

Ed, as a Previous President; Let me tell you that you are are TOTALLY out of line. No matter what excuses you may wish to proffer. CASA does not own our organization! Nor should they dictate how we run our organization. Your decision is wrong on so many levels I am left totally appalled. I am happy to enter into full discussion of your illegal and detrimental decision and the effect it will have on OUR organization.

 

Ed, Unfortunately you chose the one individual that has caused RA-Aus irreparably harm for the position and the manner in which you tried to bring this about leaves me to question your motives and that of those that advised you.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Bugger me Ed, hidden agendas? I respect much of what youve done in the past but you've overstepped the boundaries by a long shot this time around. Its no surprise that they're "retracting support".

 

As I mentioned in my email to the board regarding this latest self inflicted catastrophe to befall our organisation...

 

"I am so very, very thankful that my term expired and I am in no way connected with this latest appointment as you all are (either through action or inaction) and I will therefore not have to face the consequences as you all will."

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ed

 

Justifying this action as an emergency infers that had you not acted as you did then the opportunity for a different outcome would have been lost. Is that a true statement, if you hadnt unilaterally decided as you did CASA would have immediately and irrovocably changed our payment?

 

If that is true then I pressume you told them that in acting as you have you are outside the constitution. I would be amazed if CASA made you do that when the deed of arrangemnt usually has the clause that you must always act within the law. Acting outside the constitution technically isn't outside legislature but it is outside RAAus laws.

 

Trying to justify that you had a free pass on the constitution by virtue of that being the terms attached to your nomination is absurd. How can you possibly think that you can remove the right to due process and fiduciary responsibilities from our elected representatives. The only people who can do that are the membership through constitutional reform, and that is a reform that you'll get when hell freezes over!

 

Which part of follow the proper and due process did you miss as discussion points in February?

 

Now we are in a position where something that may well have been good is completely overshadowed and tainted by the way it came to be!

 

With regard to the CASA payment. Not doing what you did came with a $60k cost, doing what you did cane with a $200k(ish) cost per annum. If it does do something to address the high levels of fatalities then good, but that is yet to be seen. From a purely financial perspective in isolation of all else, the $60k reduction would have been less painful

 

Andy

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Ed, given what's been posted on here by ordinary members despairing about the malfunctioning of the Board Executive, do you think it might have been worthwhile having one more go at checking with the full Board on a telephone conference so that the creation of the STCC position could have been done within, shall we say, more conventional processes?

 

Can you really claim that the Executive acted in an emergency when one member of the Executive learned of Myles's appointment from reading your announcement on the RA-Aus website?

 

Do you intend to use this "crash or crash through process"again? My way or the highway?

 

Do you think it is a good precedent for the President of RA-Aus to set - that you don't have to comply with the Rules if you are pressed for time?

 

Also, can you see how appalling Myles's appointment looks to the ordinary members fed up with the nepotism of the past and the havoc that jobs-for-the-boys has wrought on RA-Aus? I'm sure it looked like a good idea at the time to appoint Steve Tizzard without advertising the CEO job but look how that turned out.

 

Can you see that the great majority of the outcry has to do with you usurping the Board and going back for a retro approval the same as Runciman/Middo used to do? Very few are criticising the creation of the STCC position but most are shocked by the way you went about it.

 

The criticism relating to Myles's appointment is mainly not directed at Myles personally. If any Board Member had been gifted that job it would have smelled as bad. However, the fact that Myles suggested that he resign and be given the job entitles some severe criticism to go his way, personally.

 

The overriding issue is a question of judgement and there are plenty who would give you a score of 0/10 for judgement on this one.

 

Seems the message of the EGM on 9th February to you and from you has been flushed. At the EGM you told us all that there'd be no more bullsh!t and that things would be done properly in the future. Well, this not my idea of "properly".

 

If the Board does not consider and vote normally on the creation of the STCC position and undo the appointment of Myles to the STCC position, you will be feeding the call for another EGM.

 

If the ordinary members have to go to the considerable expense of time and money for another EGM I can guarantee the restraint shown by the members who paid there own way to Queanbeyan will be notably absent.

 

And before Middo gets any cute ideas about using RA-Aus resources and members funds to try and save his ar$e again he will cop an injunction preventing him from doing it and sending him a personal bill for the last one.

 

Not happy, Ed.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Seems weird to me that there was enough time to notify Myles, discuss the impending changes, have him resign, post a message to the website to that effect, allow a day to pass, offer Myles the paid position, have him accept it, post another message to the website and make the whole thing a fait accompli and yet there was not enough time to let board members know of the decision. This was premeditated between at least two parties and others were actively kept out of the loop.

 

Emergency or not (and without any evidence to the contrary I think not) the acts of our president and recently departed treasurer are not convincing me that this is all above board...

 

 

[Guest john]

Ed has stated in his memo today that he had to act as a matter of urgency to create this position which has been on the table for several months. If that is so, then in view of the unconstitutional way with which Ed went about this procedure, & to prevent any further unnecessary harm to RAA, lets now see if he has the same will & fortitude to urgently cancel the appointment forthwith before the Board members pass a vote of no confidence in the President or pass a resolution to rescind this appointment at the next Board meeting which both proposed procedures will not be necessary if Ed acts in the meantime as detailed above in this memo.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

So do we now need a new treasurer (again) because of this appointment? That'll make two in the space of a week.

 

All I hope is that we don't recycle an old one.

 

 

[kaz3g]

It seems like so much of the heartache could have been avoided with a few better decisions, and a little more open communication...

Oh, so true, Bandit 12. I am desperately disappointed and disillusioned by this action taken by Ed and supported by Myles.

 

Well-intentioned, I am sure. Under pressure, no doubt. But for goodness sake this is not their private club (or Middo's), it is OUR organisation and we put a lot of money into it to keep it going. All we want is for our elected representatives to do their job which is to ensure the RAAus prospers under good governance.

 

I'm sorry, Ed, but I think, whether you realised it or not:

 

• you allowed ego to overrule caution and decided you would use this as an opportunity to demonstrate that you are a "can do" President;
   
   
  
• you (and Myles) acted unethically by purporting to implement a decision where there was a clear conflict of interest involving at least one of you;
   
   
  
• you (and Myles) breached your duty as a fiduciary in both equity and under the common law;
   
   
  
• you exceeded your financial delegation by entering into a contract with Myles that will cost the organisation at least $40k per quarter to comply with;
   
   
  
• you totally compromised your new GM whose job it is to employ and manage staff; and
   
   
  
• you let down all of us who were pinning our hopes on you and believed you would bring not just "transparency" to decision-making, but good process in compliance with the Consitution as well.
   
   
  

 

 

How do you reconcile your appointment of a STCC whose role it is to enforce the rules when you made that appointment it in a way that was to my way of thinking a blatant breach of the rules?

 

I don't believe that the urgency was so great, Ed, that due process could be just thrown out the window. I don't believe that you couldn't have called a telephone conference with all Board members between speaking to Myles about the prospect of him vacating the Board, his resgination being announced, and the announcement of his new appointment.

 

Did you seek your GM's input to the decision, Ed? Did you seek wise counsel first and at least obtain that measure of support for it? Did you stop just a few minutes and think about the perceptions that your actions might give rise to? Did you really believe you could bind your Board to agree with whatever you decided as best? Really?

 

I have to tell you Ed, I support the stated intent behind your actions 100%. I'm not sure that it should be a RAAus position as I think compliance is the role of CASA; they are trained for it and their officers have statutory immunity. I just can't accept the way it was done.

 

Was nothing learned at the EGM?

 

kaz

 

.

 

 

[pbugg]

I am appalled about the process Ed, The position may have been necessary, perhaps not. I understand the matter has been on the board agenda for perhaps years?

 

to pull the Emergency Powers argument to get your own way is a dictatorship, and your style of leadership has no place in the RA-Aus.

 

I totally agree with John G on this one.

 

 

[Tiger]

I have been very quiet up here in my burrow, not posting anything. It was great to see the resignation of our North Qld representative and I felt that we might be onto a good thing with the new President in Ed Herring.

 

This was very soon blown out of the water with his latest announcement this last week about the resignation of Myles Brietkrutz and how he had created the position of Safety Officer. Looking through the threads it appears that this should have been done a long time ago but our previous presif=dent did not ensure it was acted upon. Ed has now done this - however he did not get the approval of the board first to create the position and as he says, acted unilaterally. Our President cannot act unilaterally with our money to create whatever positions he feels. Next week it will be x, the following week y and so forth until we are broke. What is the real costing for this position, $100,000 a year, $200,000 a year. In business I would assume the real cost would be about $200,000 per year. We have empowered the executive to approve expenditure up to certain figures. At Queanbeyan the treasurer and board could not tell us what this approval amount was. I have since found out it is in the vacinity of $10,000 and anything over that must have prior board approval, not retrospective approval.

 

To say it was urgent, cods wallop, they board has been dioscussing it for over twelve months and CASA had a presentation to RAA on it in February 2012. Plenty of time.

 

Why not a phone hook up with the board members if it was urgent, any business with good governance does this. No Ed wanted to big note himself and go it alone breaking our Constitution, the rules of our association and bringing the position of President into disrepute. If any board member condones this action, then they too are complicit in the breaches and they also bring RAA into disrepute.

 

Under our Constitution members who bring our Association into disrepute may have to face the members and show cause why their membership should not be terminated.

 

Also to then unilaterally appoint one of their own Executive to the position without board authority userps the authority given to the GM and smack of jobs-for-the boys.

 

Someone said, what about another EGM. It looks like that is how us members will have to resolve it, if the Board members do no make the problem go away post haste by voting to overthrow these decisions.

 

Personally I think the position of Safety Officer is a good idea, but the method of how it was created, the person appointed and the process used STINKS and takes all authority away from current and future board members, as we now have a dictorial style of management in place.

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

I offer Ed Herring my full and unwavering support in these desperate times. I only wish that the people on this Forum who spend so much time bashing Board Members, Presidents, and RA-Aus in general, would instead direct their obvious passion in a positive and useful way eg 'What can we do to help" instead of posting on some Forum that is full of Keyboard Warriors hiding behind aforementioned Keyboards, that overshadow the good contributors and contributions on this site. So many negative people that offer a lot of pi$$ and wind, but no real solutions.