RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[REastwood]

Yet the Board were not informed of this appointment until after the event.

At the time of the vote I got 100% support.

Maybe the board was informed that Ed was going to take action, maybe Ed made it clear to them what needed to be done, maybe Ed was sick of all the procrastination and whinging, maybe CASA was about to stop payment of the $60,000 immediately, maybe Ed could have done it differently, maybe if we were all in the same position, with the same knowledge and same desire to get thing fixed we would make the same decision. Then again maybe not. I'm not a board member or the President nor am I usually on the end of emotional tirades from people who were not there. I know I am not prepared, nor am I in a position, to become a board member or President, so I do not feel I can comment one way or another as to whether the action taken was right or wrong. All I can say is that it was a bold decision and process and time will tell if it was the right way to go about it.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Maybe......maybe.......maybe.......maybe.......maybe.......maybe.......

I'm not taking the mickey - you're dead right RE. It's all a lot of ridiculous maybes and most certainly needn't be, Ed responded here yesterday and has been asked to explain himself further but so far he hasn't obliged. Maybe we just have to wait longer and maybe he'll do so, or maybe he won't. But as I see it the longer there's silence the worse the mood is likely to become. I really don't think this one is a "stone-wall and it'll go away" situation.

 

...... so I do not feel I can comment one way or another ....

Oh yes, you certainly can, it's your organisation as much as anyone's, you pay your annual fees don't you? There are plenty of folk who don't have the time, resources or capability to serve on the Board and there's no need for every member to have to do so. No-one is forced to put their hand up for election but the last few years have been a mighty good lesson for the member-electorate to be a lot more discerning about those that do, and only vote for the ones who are both capable and have their egos under control.

 

 

[Admin]

I don't post much any more and have taken more of a "developer" role and leave the content admin up to the moderators however as "Ian" I also have a right to be able to have an opinion without risk of being ridiculed for having it, the same as every one of you.

 

Firstly let me say that I have been privy to many different email chains from various sources, of which naturally I won't name, and content in a small renegade facebook group and having seen all of this I congratulate Ed for "acting" on what was needed...but like many of you I also disagree in the method, and as such have spoken to Ed on this, and this is what basically is the main point you are all saying.

 

Yes, he could have done things differently and Yes possibly if he had the time again he may have done things differently but what is done is done and irrespective of the method, RAAus will immediately benefit of $60k and most importantly CASA has been kept away from our door (and they were about to knock), and they will also be able to announce a great achievement that RAAus has done at a conference next week. To me this is the start of managing CASA...sometimes you have to feed an animal to keep them as a pet.

 

As I said, the main point in this thread is really that members disagree in the method...that is the crux of it, and also as I said, if Ed had the time again he may have done things differently now being more the wiser BUT, I give Ed top marks for having the guts, the absolute guts to come on here and say something knowing of the potential ridicule by the membership that he would get...to me that is a leader. He made the decision and not only us but he too has to wear the consequences of it, right or wrong and not one of us can say that they have never made a wrong decision although we may have made it with the right intentions. That is what I would like to say..."INTENTIONS" I say that in doing what Ed has done I can see absolutely NO maliciousness intent and only an expressed desire to benefit RAAus and its membership...that is what I see. This is so different to the "intentions" we have been seeing over the last x number of years at RAAus with many board members NOT putting RAAus first and foremost for the members and they are the ones that should be ridiculed and not ridiculing someone that has good intent, methodology aside. No point crying over spilt milk when a lesson has been learnt.

 

So how do we get out of this? Perhaps Ed could recommend to the board that they make this position only till September and in the mean time proceed with board approval to advertise and engage a suitable person for the role. Naturally Myles could apply and so to can many others but in the mean time CASA goes away happy, and well away from our door, we have time to continue resolving the registration issues, we have an extra $60k that we were not going to get, a resolution that has been dragging on for years has come to a head and above all we have all learnt a lesson so we can get on with getting things done where RAAus will come out a much stronger and better entity for us all.

 

Now in regards to 2 users mentioning that RAAus should have their own forums...naturally I will always try and protect this site but can you imagine all the threads and posts of this Governing Bodies forum on the RAAus web site...that's what you would get. What you have shown to Ed, just in this thread that when a board member has the guts to say something, it would be an absolute disaster for that board member and RAAus. When they don't make comment, or provide a sanitised comment, you would all go on the war path of keeping the membership in the dark. Board members would be committing suicide in saying something and all you would get would be the same types of threads and posts that are in this Governing Bodies forum. Have a look at them and ask yourself would you like to be on the receiving end of all that and be forced into saying something and then ridiculed again...I think not...if RAAus does start a forum, and I know how much cost and darn hard work goes into running one and then you only get ridiculed for it as you are always in a position of Damned if you do, and Damned if you don't...well I can say, I have loads of popcorn ready, sitting back to watch a disaster unfold for RAAus. I have said many times that perhaps there could be a MoU between RAAus and this site which can help to promote RAAus whilst at the same time allowing for comment utilising the infrastructure that has been built up here.

 

Finally, the main reason I have chosen to comment is that I am absolutely disgusted to see a user of this site, an RAAus member, being attacked by a few for simply having an opinion different to yours...it is his right to have an opinion the same as it is your right to also have an opinion but it is NO PERSON'S right to attack another person for having a different opinion. I don't moderate, delete or edit posts without the approval of the four moderators however if I was still a moderator I would have deleted several posts in this thread...I am ashamed that this site that gives you the freedom to say your opinion, how you feel about something, makes you think that you can attack a person for having a different opinion to yours...PLEASE, I beg you, wake up to yourself and realise that we are all RAAus members, we all love flying our aircraft, we all may have different opinions right or wrong, different from our own and if they are, simply do not comment in a manner that attacks another human being who also has the same rights as you

 

Thank you

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Hi Ian.

 

Its nice to see you posting but I think we will have to disagree in the ends justifying the means.

 

Nick

 

 

[turboplanner]

Several posters here have called Ed’s decision illegal, wrong etc. but most seem to agree that a Safety regime is required. Some have argued that Ed was wrong because it wasn’t urgent.

 

So rather than join in yesterday’s emotional debate I stepped back and took an overview.

 

Jim Tatlock correctly took me to task yesterday for including him in the group of board members who have ignored the Constitution, pointing out he was one of the new members. I apologised to him for this mistake.

 

I’d like to point out that Ed also is one of the new members, not one of those who have habitually frustrated the members.

 

However, I have always advocated working in accordance with an Incorporated Association constitution rather than using it as a loose guideline, which is a fairly common activity in Australia.

 

Among the posts are some referring to “directors” and other aspects related to a Board of Directors. These are not relevant because RAA is not a Pty Ltd company.

 

About four groups have been actively trying to change RAA into a Pty Ltd company with sweet sounding enticements, but no framework or substance disclosed, so now would be a good time to look at Ed’s decision if he was Managing Director of Recreational Aviation Australia Pty Ltd.

 

There would simply have been a press release by the MD stating that in response to CASA requirements a safety regime had been established and that Myles had been appointed to oversee it. You would not have needed to be consulted, would not have had a vote and really would be none the wiser as to costs and details until it affected you.

 

However you have a lot more control within RAA Inc.

 

So let’s first address the issue of whether Ed acted outside his powers; I’ve extracted the following clause from the Constitution, which you can download from the RAA website and check for yourself.

 

I’ve typed each section between commas on a separate line to emphasise the commas.

 

Recreational Aviation Australia, Inc. Constitution, Part III, II, (iv) Powers of the Board

 

"The President, Secretary and Treasurer shall form the Executive of the Association and

 

shall be responsible for all matters relating to the affairs of the Association whenever the Board is not meeting and,

 

subject to any decisions of the Board, shall make all the decisions necessary in relation to the Association's business and

 

shall act in the case of emergency.”

 

The clause does not specify whether decisions must be made collectively or severally, so that is optional

 

It does not specify any form of voting, so that is optional

 

Therefore it gives any Executive member, according to line two the right to make decisions on all matters between board meetings.

 

Line four gives him more power; it means that with the exception of decisions made by the board on some matters, the Executive is empowered to make ALL the decisions.

 

And finally in line six is a vague authority to act in an emergency.

 

So Ed has not contravened the constitution, as so many of you are arguing, and there is no requirement for an emergency before Ed can act, as others of you are arguing.

 

Some of you may remember that two years ago I pointed out that in the long dim past some clique has obviously inserted this power clause into the Constitution to serve their own purposes. The drafting is extremely poor.

 

I recommended that the first action of members and any new board members should be to:

 

(a) Get rid of this clause, which would then allow full democratic operation

 

(b) Get rid of all reference to Board and Board Member, and replace that with Committee and Committee member to remove the confusion with Pty Ltd

 

Boards of Directors etc.

 

A Constitution Reform Committee was formed, but the plot was lost and these changes were not made.

 

Ed is entitled to act under this clause if he wishes, because it is the Rule of the Association and is not out of order.

 

So a lot of people have a lot of apologising to do.

 

There is no point at all in trying to argue that the Executive should consult the board members while this clause is there, because it says the opposite.

 

The big benefit of the Association’s Incorporation is that if you don’t like this clause, if you don’t like the Executive making decisions without consulting the board members, you are only one single Meeting away from removing that clause, provided you comply with the Constitution in terms of prior notice, voting numbers etc.

 

This is a very short term decision – just out to September it’s not the same as Tizzard’s job and the Myles appointment is for about 90 days, by which there will either be a policy on the ground or he will be toast.

 

Someone announced that CASA doesn’t tell us what to do. Big Words, but there is a Deed of Agreement which RAA must comply with.

 

Was there any urgency for Ed’s decision?

 

Independent of this, I was looking at the elevated level of silly fatalities, many which indicate poor training, and found the duty of care obligation seemed to end with instructors and CFI’s (quite a frightening prospect for any CFI/FI).

 

I came to the conclusion, completely unaware of any board discussion on safety that there was a missing link – compliance and enforcement within the RAA structure which was overseeing the standards and responsibilities of the instructors who were turning loose certificate pilots, but then assuming they no longer held any responsibility. I have posted on that on this forum, and I do see immediate action required.

 

From many of yesterday’s comments I’m not alone in that aspect.

 

Returning to the urgency of any decision, we’ve learned this week that Steve Runciman had recognised the urgency a year ago, and while fellow members were dying, board members, I presume some of the ones loudly complaining now, were finding ways to delay any corrective action.

 

This should have been a major debate within the Association – all members – and many skilled people could have contributed skills from industrial compliance experience etc., but how many of the board members contacted the people they represented and told them there was a safety discussion?

 

So let’s look at a few facts:

 

·There has been an elevated number of pilot/passenger fatalities, quite a few of these pointing to training/currency.

 

·The Goulburn crash case has been settled, and “settled” means that RAA and CASA while not admitting they were negligent, did not prove they weren’t either. A safety regime sends out a message that things are different this week.

 

·The Association’s Insurer refused to renew his policy – not exactly a minor matter. It will be critical to work with the new insurer to minimise his risk, and a safety regime will immediately give him confidence that this is under way.

 

·The four CASA audits have resulted in a huge backlog of registrations, but CASA’s actions have discovered overweight aircraft, and non-compliant aircraft, and the process they have insisted on and which RAA is adhering to is ensuring none of these get back into the air unless they are brought into compliance. A safety regime will give CASA and the Minister more confidence that any future anomalies will be picked up faster, or avoided.

 

·The story that CASA believe RAA is in breach of its Deed of Arrangement and reduced or threatened to reduce the Grant payment by $60,000 is checkable and provable.

 

After the fiasco of ignoring three CASA Audits, and as a result putting hundreds of pilots and owners in a parlous situation I would have thought all board members would have acted with utmost urgency, but here we see that they sat and fiddled and frustrated the previous President and well as the current one. A safety regime takes the heat out of this, and if it is quickly workable, CASA can relax and will not have to apply sanctions like they did with aircraft registrations, and if it is effective we will see fatalities reduce; that in itself is urgent.

 

Various people have speculated on the long term future with the extreme being Dafydd Llewellyn’s well written siren call that the end is nigh and those who can pass the medical and register their aircraft VH should come to CASA. This you will realise leaves a few thousand people out of flying.

 

I think RAA is at a crisis point of a sort, but I believe it can weather the CASA audit fallout with some smart management.

 

What it doesn’t have the resources for is a big string of multimillion dollar claims. This decision is the beginning of the journey to ensure this is managed, and one of the key decisions for long term survival and growth of the Association as we know it.

 

Why would I do a 180 degree and support ED?

 

1.It was the first sign I have seen in recent years of decisive action to make what is a critical survival decision.

 

2.He announced it when he made it, and that is a first sign of a new board transparency.

 

As a political animal, I’ve been watching the poll since the thread started.

 

Right through yesterday’s passionate statements, some would say lynching preparations the vote barely moved; it didn’t support the rhetoric. It might have gone up about 3%, but that in no way created a mandate to move a vote of no confidence in the President. In fact it would not even have got a mandate to change the constitution.

 

To some extent we are all wasting our time here because Ed’s future will be decided by board members, however, I would ask you all to read carefully what I’ve written, and give it some thought.

 

 

[Captain]

Nice post Alan,

 

Where is "emergency" defined?

 

I don't think the outrage is about the position being created.

 

I think that most outrage is about the "way" that it was done, the "bad look" that it gives, and the "vibe" of it all.

 

"It's all about the vibe of the thing" as Dennis Denuto so famously said.

 

I do not accept that this couldn't have been handled via a quick Board vote and therefore no need for an "Executive Decision", and after what was discussed at the Feb 9th EGM, it is staggering that ED would handle this in the way that he did.

 

Do you think that it showed wise judgement and sets the tone for a sound & visionary Presidential future for the next couple of years for the Association, that will restore good governance to RAA and stop the dysfunction of this Board? And this all happened soon after the membership read the riot act to this Board at the Feb EGM, when they were described as "dysfunctional" tens of times by tens of members on that day, and in response we all heard "we got it wrong", "we'll get it right" & "we won't do it again" many times from them in response.

 

I can fully understand ED only taking on the Presidency if he had support from 100% of the other Board Members, but that does not, and should not, confer this "guaranteed approvals in advance and in retrospect" thinking that the last couple of Presidents have thought to be their rite.

 

It's the process that is the issue and it's the vibe that is wrong.

 

I have corresponded with at least 2 Board Members who learnt of all this from the RAA News section on the website. Yet Myles had time to resign and be appointed over a day or 2 in the middle of this so called "Emergency".

 

Wonder when will be the next "Emergency"?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

Emergency is not defined so is also meaningless. the clause should have been deleted when we debated it.

 

Given the years of frustration at being kept out of decisions and being kept in the dark, I can quite understand the feeling, but Ed has (a) fixed up someone else's mess and more importantly (b) done what had to be done quickly.

 

I've personally been able to rationalise the separation of the old working in secret and jobs for the boys with the necessity of moving smartly with this one.

 

The point I make is get mad with the people who left the clause in - you have to delete the clause, then the incumbent has a benchmark he has to follow.

 

 

[Captain]

I've personally been able to rationalise the separation of the old working in secret and jobs for the boys with the necessity of moving smartly with this one.

Thanks Alan,

 

I had high hopes for Ed, but was withholding my judgement, however am now having a lot of trouble differentiating between the "old working in secret and jobs for the boys" that you mentioned and this new example of working in secret, of executive decisions, and of jobs for the boys. Both may have been well intentioned, but surely it is just "the boys" that are different?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yeah but you aren't as quick on the uptake, or as worldly as I am.

 

Fix the clause and the behaviour culture is erased.

 

Alternatively we could ask him to refrain from using the clause please, make sure the old guard who are now so outraged have their vote please, and give him a 357 magnum.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I'm having troubles with the authorisation of expenditure in excess of approved amounts. It also troubles me that the board weren't even informed let alone consulted until the deed was done. And I struggle with the interpretation of the clause being that the individuals can act on their own, I think it's pretty clear that the executive is empowered by that clause and not those that form it. And when one of that executive is benefiting financially from such a decision I think it is pretty clear that a broader audience should be entertained before committing to a decision.

 

I also can't help but think that something is wrong when they partially justify such expenditure with the excuse that we would miss out on $60k of income from CASA. Aren't we spending more than this to fill the position? Something still doesn't smell right to me...

 

 

[Captain]

Yeah but you aren't as quick on the uptake, or as worldly as I am.

I know. That has always been my problem. Please keep helping me.

 

Perhaps you should take me to dinner in Lygon St next time & set me straight.

 

 

[turboplanner]

re: #185 Airsick

 

The board were discussing it and procrastinating it and delaying it for over a year, and clearly not conveying any of this to you though.

 

I agree the $60,000 is petty cash compared to the public liability alternative, which could without some quick compliance/training/enforcement action accelerate into tens of millions.

 

That's what we all should be debating; we should know how many cashes and what lessons to avoid repeats and claims like the Goulburn case

 

 

[turboplanner]

I know. That has always been my problem. Please keep helping me.Perhaps you should take me to dinner in Lygon St next time & set me straight.

Someone gave you a funny!!!! They don't realise I would be paying for the meal, the room, the Grange, and would receive a bill for "being available to receive information"

 

 

[cherk]

Someone gave you a funny!!!! They don't realise I would be paying for the meal, the room, the Grange, and would receive a bill for "being available to receive information"

 

Turbo, I'll put my hand up!! You supply the rest............ I'll shout the Grange!

 

 

[Captain]

Someone gave you a funny!!!! They don't realise I would be paying for the meal, the room, the Grange, and would receive a bill for "being available to receive information"

That's OK. It's an "Emergency" so anything goes ................................................................................ (and the cost will almost cover the mints that you knocked off from my place).

 

 

[turboplanner]

No it won't, Ahlot and I got more than you thought; the knives and forks have been wonderful for camping all over the world.

 

EOFY Sale: Minties, slight rodentical perfume, by the kg, cheap

 

 

[ahlocks]

As much as it pains my funny bone to have to do this.... serious thread you mob.

 

 

[cherk]

As much as it pains my funny bone to have to do this.... serious thread you mob.

 

..........................................

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

I'm known as one of the most anally-retentive and safety concious pilots at my local airfield. I'm the one who's Daily is nearly very well so. But anyway, you're welcome to personally insult my flying skills, as generally I find that such things say more about the insulter than the insultee.Happy Flying :)

SAJF, due to my poor communication skills you have read an insult of your flying skills that was not intended and, as a low hour pilot myself, I would have no authority to offer.

 

I was trying to suggest that if, in aviation matters, you were happy to ignore rules and good process as you seem to be in business administration, then you would in fact be an unsafe pilot and I choose not to fly with unsafe pilots.

 

I fully accept your assertions that you are a safe pilot and I will be much more careful in future not to make such obscure comments which can so easily offend.

 

Now to the question of whether you have the right to hold a view contrary on the question of Ed's creation of the STCC role and gifting the job to the person in the Executive who came up with the idea.

 

You, unquestionably, have every right to hold any opinion with which you choose to be identified.

 

The purpose of this forum, as I understand it, is to air all sides of an argument and that is extremely healthy. This is achieved by:

 

• exchanging facts in support of your argument or in contravention of an alternative view;
   
   
  
• tie the facts and logic together to establish a sound, well argued position;
   
   
  
• have those with other facts challenge the facts supporting your argument;
   
   
  
• have those who see a flaw in your logic, challenge the apparent fallacy;
   
   
  
• respond to those challenges of fact and logic with either agreement or a contrary position
   
   
  

 

 

This process produces more than just an opinion - with good faith, it will get us to a useful end point.

 

If somebody has a different position to yours and challenges your facts and logic it is not intellectual bullying. It is not insulting and it is not bickering. It is engaging in the mentally stimulating process of argument which should see us all finish up at the same point - if we are prepared to put our faith in fact and logic not just the cult of personality - but he's a good bloke and good people do good things and good people don't make mistakes. I'm sure you can see the fallacy in that logic.

 

When somebody on this forum puts a a point of view and the next 25 posters show that view up as just an opinion with no factual or logical support, it might look like bullying but in fact it is just a process to get to the correct position. If you don't want to engage in an argument - just state a position and walk away - that's up to you. But if others say things you disagree with then you are free to challenge their facts and logic and persuade them with other facts and correct logic that they have a flaw in their argument and that your position is the correct one.

 

Absolutely nothing is achieved from bickering -yes it is / no it isn't.

 

Putting blind faith in a person, no matter how high my regard for that person, is not my way of determining what makes sense. Thinking through a position, gathering facts and testing logic is.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Turbs,

 

You have conviced me. I was not aware of those clauses in our constitution. So it appears that our constitution allows Ed's method. It is remiss of me to condemn without checking our rules first. I had never doubted the need for a safety officer, but felt betrayed by the way it was done. Now I am ready to accept Ed's action as not transgressing our house rules, but I am still not reassured that his methods show leadership toward a new RAAus which acts with good integrity. Lack of transparency and lack of open consultation clouds the outsider's view of things. And please note that members should NOT be considered "outsiders". Please treat us, the members, (and others such as staff or board) with more respect. I though that we had made that clear enough back in Feb.

 

Ed, Please accept my apology for my strong comments ( in previous posts) regarding your perceived lack of following our constitution. I was unaware of those clauses. You could have referred us to those clauses in your 'Press release' if you wished to avoid some of the criticism. Yet another communication failure. If we accuse you of giving us more of the "same old" that we used to get, then you must accept responsibility for failing to honour a commitment to open transparent communication with the members.

 

So, please give us the full story. You have not yet fully explained all the causes, expected costs and possible consequences (good and bad - a cost/benefit analysis) of the appointment. Nor have you explained what you have previously exchanged with the board on the issue. Nor have you shown us the scope of Myles' expected contribution to our safety. Nor have you explained why the position had to be salaried at this early stage when Myles could have taken up the role temporarily on a volunteer basis whilst the job description was formulated. So, again I ask, please include us members in the information loop. Allow us the opportunity to offer our input or services. We still need to understand how it all came about, why it couldn't wait a day or two, and how you saw your method as being the "best all round" answer to a festering problem, when you probably knew that it would be a contentious move.

 

We still await more information on the new "Air Safety Roadmap". Your urgent action creating the position and instantly appointing Myles, should result in urgent action by this new employee.

 

Peter T

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

SAJF, due to my poor communication skills you have read an insult of your flying skills that was not intended and, as a low hour pilot myself, I would have no authority to offer.I was trying to suggest that if, in aviation matters, you were happy to ignore rules and good process as you seem to be in business administration, then you would in fact be an unsafe pilot and I choose not to fly with unsafe pilots.

 

I fully accept your assertions that you are a safe pilot and I will be much more careful in future not to make such obscure comments which can so easily offend.

 

Now to the question of whether you have the right to hold a view contrary on the question of Ed's creation of the STCC role and gifting the job to the person in the Executive who came up with the idea.

 

You, unquestionably, have every right to hold any opinion with which you choose to be identified.

 

The purpose of this forum, as I understand it, is to air all sides of an argument and that is extremely healthy. This is achieved by:

 

• exchanging facts in support of your argument or in contravention of an alternative view;
   
   
  
• tie the facts and logic together to establish a sound, well argued position;
   
   
  
• have those with other facts challenge the facts supporting your argument;
   
   
  
• have those who see a flaw in your logic, challenge the apparent fallacy;
   
   
  
• respond to those challenges of fact and logic with either agreement or a contrary position
   
   
  

 

 

This process produces more than just an opinion - with good faith, it will get us to a useful end point.

 

If somebody has a different position to yours and challenges your facts and logic it is not intellectual bullying. It is not insulting and it is not bickering. It is engaging in the mentally stimulating process of argument which should see us all finish up at the same point - if we are prepared to put our faith in fact and logic not just the cult of personality - but he's a good bloke and good people do good things and good people don't make mistakes. I'm sure you can see the fallacy in that logic.

 

When somebody on this forum puts a a point of view and the next 25 posters show that view up as just an opinion with no factual or logical support, it might look like bullying but in fact it is just a process to get to the correct position. If you don't want to engage in an argument - just state a position and walk away - that's up to you. But if others say things you disagree with then you are free to challenge their facts and logic and persuade them with other facts and correct logic that they have a flaw in their argument and that your position is the correct one.

 

Absolutely nothing is achieved from bickering -yes it is / no it isn't.

 

Putting blind faith in a person, no matter how high my regard for that person, is not my way of determining what makes sense. Thinking through a position, gathering facts and testing logic is.

Thanks for that. Those who know me, know that I am quite a reasonable person, in person. I can and do make mistakes when posting online forums, for instance once I gravely insulted a valued member on here (flyerme) by asking a question which I should have worded very differently. I apologised publicy to him, and that was the end of it. And i'll still land at his strip when I actually start my Navs. (whether or not he shoots me down is up to him haha). For the benefit of CASA, AFP etc IM JOKING about the shooting down thing

 

This issue is obviously very important to a lot of people, as it should be. One of the most compelling reasons for me to have faith in Ed Herring is my own dealings with him. I know what he does for a living, I know how he operates. Yes, as has been suggested, we've shared a few wines. So my personal experience is such that I do indeed trust him and do indeed have pretty much blind faith in him - and that's because I KNOW him. Obviously not everyone can know him like I do, so I can understand how some(many) may have different views on this. For me, if Ed tells me this action was needed for RA-Aus, then I beleieve him. It's that simple for me.

 

And in closing, I understand a large number of posts directed toward me are quite negative. I'm fortunate enough to have been around Forums since before the Internet (think Dialup to BBS's) so with any insults or such behaviour toward me, it no longer bothers me or causes me distress, but rather I prefer to use it as a learning tool, to see if i've been stupid with a post and caused offence, such that I try not to make the same mistake again.

 

Safe flying everyone

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

My plans? Stick to the rules, act in a professional, business and culturally accepted manner, don't tell lies, do what you promise, How is that for starters?If the present board are incapable of achieving any of the above , my opinion is they should stand aside for someone who promises to do so. SAJabiruflyrer, what do you think?

I think that's exactly right! We know there are members of the board that need to go. In this case, as TurboPlanner has explained, there actually has been no breaking of the rules. Unfortunately, stick a dozen Forum Members or a dozen Lawyers in the same room and ask em the same question.... well you know.... that's human nature

 

Safe flying :)

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

Oh, I forgot to ask,SA Jabiruflyer, what have you done to make a difference besides publicly declaring your unyielding love for ED no matter what he decides to do?

u

I've so far written several letters of support to the Board, the ex-President, and the Staff, thanking them for their time, their efforts and their dedication. I've pleaded with them not to let it get too personal and to ignore any personal attacks. and while we're asking, I didnt ask for any publicity but I fixed a technical problem with an RA-Aus device used by a staff member, and I did it as a donation to RA-Aus, saving a coupla hundred dollars. It may not be much, but it all helps, and it was something positive I myself could do.

 

Safe Flying :)

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

nomadpete,

 

Don't be too convinced of Turbos argument without having another read of those clauses of the Constitution. I am not a lawyer but I think the plain English reading of those clauses could never get you to Turbo's position.

 

For example, the Executive is defined as a group of three people who can act "in concert" not individually as servants of the Board. Ed stated publicly that he acted alone. As such, it is not an act of the Executive just the President. The President, on his own, has no powers under the Constitution other than to Chair all meetings and act as the Spokesperson for the Association (Rule 14A). Even as spokesperson for the Association, he would only be able to communicate what has been approved by the Board or, between Board Meetings, what has been approved by the Executive.

 

The Executive is the servant of the Board not its master - a point the Executive led by Steve Runciman could never get their minds around. The Executive should at all times be acting as they would expect the Board would want them to act. Ed has as much said that he did what he did in spite of the balance of opinion on the Board. This is the polar opposite of what an Executive with integrity should do.

 

All powers in RA-Aus are invested by the Constitution (Rules) in the elected representatives acting in concert as the Board. The Board delegates those powers by a Board Resolution to individuals including the Treasurer, the Executive, the General Manager and the Administration Manager. Note the President does not have such a delegation. Their are proscribed limits to those delegations. The individuals who exercise those delegated powers must not exceed their proscribed limits. If they do, they are acting Ultra Vires (beyond their powers). The doctrine of Ultra Vires requires that if, for example you had a delegated authority to commit for expenditure up to $5,000 and you authorised the commitment of $15,000 then the last $10,000 comes out of your private pocket because you have no authority to pick it out of RA-Aus's pocket.

 

Ed, acting alone, had no authority to commit RA-Aus to an expenditure in the tens of thousands of dollars. He is exposing himself to Ultra Vires if Myles is paid a single cent.

 

Ed claiming to have "carte blanche" approval to do anything is a logical nonsense. A number of Board Members have already repudiated the concept - not gone back on their word but made it clear that they never gave Ed their Board vote to spend any way he chose to. No President with any regard to Board integrity would even ask for such a thing. Any Board Member with an eye to their fiduciary duty would never give such a thing. All of this adds up to the denial of natural justice of members. Any member who feels they should get a crack at the job gifted to Myles could logically mount a legal claim to have been denied natural justice under s50 of the Associations Incorporation Act.

 

So, what we took the Board to Queanbeyan to explain to them was that dysfunction had to cease. They promised it would and yet what do we get - even worse dysfunction than we have ever seen before.

 

 

[dodo]

Well,

 

after all that, I looked back at my early posts,

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raa-safety-training-compliance-coordinator-appointed.63796/#post-296613 and

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raa-safety-training-compliance-coordinator-appointed.63796/#post-296620

 

and I still do not understand why we have an emergency that justifies some odd arrangement where the treasurer resigns from the board one day and is hired as an employee the next, before the board is informed of the arrangement. And the membership is merely told it was a matter of urgency, and no further explanation has been provided by RA-Aus.

 

Call me less than worldly all you want, but it still looks terrible to me,

 

dodo