Censure Motion against RA-Aus President

[JohnMcK]

Hi all I have proposed the following Censor motion against RA-Aus President Ed Herring

 

Motion. - RA-Aus President Ed Herring is to be censored for his recent action in unilaterally, and without any involvement of the full board, and total disregard for our Constitution and rules, made a new salaried staff position, and committed the Association to an un-budgeted financial commitment that he, or the Executive had no power to make. Further, against good judgement and perceived nepotism he appointed the previous Treasurer to the new position.

 

Moved: John McKeown

 

Seconded: Jim Tatlock

 

We all belong as individual members of RA-Aus. We are, or are suppose to be a democratic body with elected regional representatives. I am one such elected Director, or Board Member, representing the members in SE Qld.

 

I have put in my past election statements that I stand for Honesty, Openness, Transparency, and ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

Sadly this once great Association has been brought to its knees over the last few years, and there is no doubt in my mind of the cause. The cause, was and continues to be that attitude displayed above, together with excessive secrecy. There are some who will be violently opposed to me for informing the general membership what they have a right to know. They will use the term "dirty linen", "wrong timing", and "not with CASA watching" to cement their argument. They may very well be right, but I must call it as I personally see it. But to me you can only do bad things in secret. Openness and honesty provides the much needed checks and balance required by society.

 

It is with great distress that I find myself writing this at a time we most need stability, but to do nothing now, will only create far worse issues for us later.

 

Below is an edited post I have made on the RA-Aus Board Forum in support of that motion.

 

"Hi All,

 

First my apologies for the delay with this. After a recent boating accident I find myself in a Turkish Hospital partly paralysed down my left side and until now I only had email access and no web access on my mini iPad.

 

I proposed this motion as this was no "error of judgement" that all of us make from time to time, but a considered, blatant and wilful violation of our Constitution and rules. Ed was advised by Rod and others, I believe, to do it properly. This could have been easily done with an emergency vote on the matter. Only a simple majority was needed and it could have been done in a day or so. As for the appointment itself, this also could have been done in a day as a temporary or interim appointment. There is also no need now, or in the future, as Ed has stated, to to go through the long and costly service of an employment service for the employment of our Managers. Only the CEO appointment needs this more formal process.

 

Ed has stated that we all must agree to do it "His Was". This is Dictator stuff, and our rules and constitution just do not allow for this to occur legally. If all of you want to be "yes" men and rubber stamp everything the new President asks or demands, that is OK by me, provided you follow our Constitution and rules and vote formally and correctly, even if you all just tick yes as demanded.

 

I would also have no issue with a one person "Elected Dictator" running RA-Aus, provided the Constitution was changed by the Membership to reflect this in a formal and legal manner.

 

Let us not forget, that our current problems can be traced back to similar actions by former President Reid and his executive, where out of expediency and nepotism, they appointed a totally inappropriate person to the position of our CEO without prior Board consultation or approval. ST is a lovely guy, and I understand he is highly qualified in Ops, but he was an absolute disaster for us as our CEO. Couple this with the secrecy and and lack of information to the Board from the Reid and Runciman executive where they ran the show with a minimum of full Board involvement or dissemination of information. (As an example, Reid and Cabin ran the show for some two years without an approved budget, and for the life of me I can not comprehend how the Board under Runciman were not informed by the Ex for a full five days about our fourth audit failure, and the CASA withdrawal of registration authority. To say nothing of our staff being told to lie to the members about our registration issues)

 

Might I remind you gentlemen, that we are a democratic aviation association, and each of us is elected, or should be, to represent the interests of the members of our particular region, and we are individually responsible to the members in our region. If you so choose to be total "yes" men to the President of the day because he demands it, then you should say so in your election statement.

 

But this matter goes well beyond that. As I have stated previously this action was a considered and a blatant violation of our Constitution and our rules. A society, Association or even a Country has rules that must be abided by or you have anarchy. If the rules are restrictive, or stupid then change them. I also acknowledge that all things in life are not black and white, and there are many shades of grey. But in my moral code there are some things to me that are pure black and white. When this occurs I feel duty bound to speak out. This action by President Herring is one such an occasion. His action cannot be condoned or let slide. A censor motion must be actioned

 

Ed has stated if he doesn't get his way he will resign from all positions. My view is never give in to threats of this nature. If that is his choice, then so be it. We have some capable people on the Board who could see us through on a temporary basis until September. As I said previously, if the Memberships wants one man rule, I will support it, but currently we have an elected Board that is paramount, and it is not only there by Constitutional rule but to also to provide checks and balance to the Executive actions.

 

My other concern is this attitude of Ed's shows "form" I feel this will not be the end of Ed ignoring or defying our rules to get things done "his way", and I believe we will see more of this from him in the future, if we do nothing now.(To curb this tendency) Also remember it was Ed, who was the prime mover for the massive pay increase to our past (non performing) CEO, and he also pushed for, and achieved large increases in salaries to the Managers, (perhaps deserved) but without any trade off's in efficiencies whatsoever. It was also Ed who was charged to look into a problem, which directly relates to this current matter. What has been done?

 

(Note. In Ed's defence here there appeared more pressing issues at the time, and our accidents hadn't spiked at the time)

 

Even if this new position was so critically important to CASA at this very moment, Ed could have told CASA he will immediately recommend an urgent Board vote, and proceed lawfully. Ungerman, being a past CEO knows RA-Aus procedure and would accept this.

 

My view is it is a bureaucratic move by CASA on us, using our recent spike in accidents, without any evidence to the contrary. The average Government bureaucrat tends to empire building, and using the "Safety" or "national security" word seems to be able to achieve these goals with no checks or balance. (Look at the Iraq War)

 

My personal attitude would have been to be totally open with CASA and show them the causes of the recent fatalities. It may just be a statistical spike, as the information I have to hand would suggest, or it may be from some deep underling problem we have. Whatever the cause, we must be totally open, honest and transparent to CASA and our Members about our accidents. I would have asked CASA to come in and show us where we were going wrong, and get them to recommend a course of action. If they said "Training Manager" (Actual part Ops Job) then I would tell them we just can not afford the added expense of a special Training Manager at this time, but could when we resolve our other problems. I would ask them to allow us more access to their current training staff. Many of our clubs are currently doing this. If told we must have our own person right now, I would ask for full CASA funding. Alternatively, if this was denied I would go political. I would go to the Director the Government, the Opposition and the media and show what we are achieving with a pittance from CASA, (around $100K /year) and when we need this vital "safety" facility CASA will not fund it or allow us more access to their safety person, and I would make it known they are even withdrawing the level funding from us at a critical financial time for us.

 

(Because we have failed to meet the requirements of the Deed of Agreement. And they are totally correct. We have failed here dismally.

 

I also really believe, that Lee and the Director do not want us to fail and would come on side if put our problems and issues to them in an open and honest way. I would also ask them to cut us some slack on the Rego issue and allow us far more access, or funding for the safety issue. But full honesty and openness must occur, and I believe the Direcor would not condone the violation of the Associations as has been recently done )

 

As for the person selected, Myles might be the most perfect person. I am not qualified, nor do I have enough information at this time to comment. But I will make this one statement. There is an old saying that goes something like this. "The right course of action must not only be done, but it must be SEEN or PERCEIVED to be done". Myles appointment, where as an Executive Member, he was fully involved in the discussion and approval, of a decision to have a new Staff position created, and one where he was to be personally given this unadvertised and paid RA-Aus staff appointment, shows a gross lack of judgement on Myles part, and it will be seen and perceived by the Membership to be pure NEPOTISM,

 

Sadly, I don't see this motion being passed, But in conscience I must move the motion and vote for it.

 

John McKeown"

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

All RA-Aus members have been really let down by the the Board as a whole in recent times. I have personally witnessed members suffering verbal and written abuse and good people being bullied into resigning or retiring from the Board.

 

This is totally unacceptable. But I must remind all of you, as I have been saying for some years now, that final accountability for this Association lies with YOU. - Yes, You, the general Member. You must take an interest in your association and stop this member apathy where half the Board are not even elected. (Because no one could bother to nominate)

 

You must also demand honesty , transparency, and above all accountability of your elected member. You must demand to see the Board minutes which is where the main business of your Association is carried out, and demand to know how your representative voted on important matters.

 

Those of you who are capable must put up your hand for a Board position and give something back to the Association that has given us all so much. The attitude of "I am not interested in the politics, I just want to go flying" is the real cause of our current mess.

 

Lastly, I say to those who do get elected to the Board, do the right thing by the Members who voted you in, and apart from serious health or financial issues, see out your term. You must never, never, ever, ever, resign if all does not go your way (it never will) and never resign from bullying or intimidation. That is the best way to allow a dark side to win.

 

John McKeown

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi Ian, I am having trouble here with one hand in the hospital. Can you please correct the typo. It should be Censure. The system won't let me edit the mistake.

 

I intend no further action on this matter.

 

John McK

 

 

[DWF]

G'day John

 

While I largely agree with your motion and sentiments above, to be a little bit picky, I think the motion should be a CENSURE motion - not a CENSOR motion. See definitions below.

 

Censoring (by the Board and/or Executive) is something to which we (or most of us) would like to see an end.

 

If I am correct the intent of your motion is to "to criticize (someone or something) severely; condemn".

 

Do you intend any action beyond censure?

 

What effect do you think the motion will have if passed?

 

DWF

 

censor [ˈsɛnsə]

 

n

 

1. a person authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc., in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc.

 

2. any person who controls or suppresses the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds

 

3. (Historical Terms) (in republican Rome) either of two senior magistrates elected to keep the list of citizens up to date, control aspects of public finance, and supervise public morals

 

4. (Psychoanalysis) Psychoanal the postulated factor responsible for regulating the translation of ideas and desires from the unconscious to the conscious mind See also superego

 

vb (tr)

 

1. to ban or cut portions of (a publication, film, letter, etc.)

 

2.to act as a censor of (behaviour, etc.)

 

[from Latin, from cēnsēre to consider, assess]

 

censorable adj

 

censorial [sɛnˈsɔːrɪəl] adj

 

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

censure [ˈsɛnʃə]

 

n

 

severe disapproval; harsh criticism

 

vb

 

to criticize (someone or something) severely; condemn

 

[from Latin cēnsūra, from cēnsēre to consider, assess]

 

censurer n

 

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

 

[rankamateur]

It is a very sad consequence of the disease afflicting our organisation that people with the qualities John has displayed get ground down and spat out without being able to break through the cone of silence and make the changes that we sorely need and they sorely seek. SEQ area is fortunate to be spoiled for choice when they can lose representatives of the calibre of John and have candidates of similar quality come forward to carry on the fight.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks John, and I hope you get well soon without too much pain.

 

If there has been obfuscation from board members to a safety procedure for a year, in the face of an urgent need for a response to fatalities, that is a good cause for precipitate action.

 

The CFI's will be needing a President with his feet on the ground running NOW to explain the Safety Management and Risk Management Systems they will be administering by August.

 

Only a person with Corporate experience will be able to guide them through the change and into the modern Compliance age, so you need to have a look around your board members for an alternative person with Ed's experience before getting over-excited.

 

A bewildered "good guy" is going to be overcome in the massive weight of change almost immediately - within the next few weeks, and you yourselves are likely to come under fire a serial ditherers.

 

Chatting amongst yourselves over a coffee, and censuring Ed is a luxury you can't afford, so you need to get over it and maybe not be so quick to sign him up as an "Administrator" next time. I've been through one of these programmes, and seen others, and they roll out with the speed of a locomotive.

 

Those who have worked for large companies and who have been through the big culture change from fluoro vests in specific areas to fire prevention to risk identification to formal safety procedures to security and so on. I think those people would probably say, its now a piece of cake with the systems in place, but the transition was a difficult time.

 

It would have been more professional to have appointed a Manager for this months ago so he would have time to bring himself up to speed with the processes, because the CFI's will need him NOW to advise them on the bewildering array of decisions and procedures THEY have to design and test to come up with their FTF Safety Management System and Risk Management System Manuals, as many of us have had to do in the past. That can require daily queries for how to go about things how to design a procedure which is practical, helping to assess their ideas and so on.

 

It would be a major mistake to assume "someone" will ride up on a horse and convert the FTF's to compliance with a slash of his sword. Every Manual will be different, every template has to be converted into that Manual for that FTF, and administered daily by the CFI and followed by all staff, so it cannot be just a whitewash with one sentence stating that "instructors and students will operate safely" - that was tried by all of us, and we then had to sit down and work out how to live safety.

 

I guarantee you there will be CFI's who will throw their hands in the air and resist writing their manuals, which do take weeks to write, until they suddenly realise the legal implications of operating without a demonstrated Safety Management and Risk Management System, and face having to cease operations until they comply.

 

Someone has to be there NOW because the queries will already be starting to come in to RAA, and RAA has been left in the situation where he is going to have to train himself and he advises the CFI's.

 

By all means fight each other if you wish, but the very urgent priority is to assist the CFI's in the massive task they have to perform over the next two months.

 

 

[AVOCET]

John sorry to hear about you accident , however , I know from recent experience that your emotions will be largely clouded with medication & bad hospital food ,

 

It took me weeks to be able to have a decent crap ,

 

Take your time to get better & please rest , rest .

 

Your really on sick leave .

 

They call it that for a reason .

 

Cheers & get well

 

 

[facthunter]

Censuring some actions is not the end of the world. No-one should consider themselves to be infallible John has been around for a while and I can't see much to disagree with there. I think he has analysed the situation well.

 

IF Ed wants to make it a situation of do "whatever or I am gone" that will be HIS choice. It's not a requirement to resign unless that is called for and passed by the board and that is unlikely.

 

I have said it many times that Proper Process MUST be observed or it's challengeable. A legal minefield that you don't go into. Every board member must insist that happens or they are negligent... When do we learn? Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

To John McKeown and Jim Tatlock, I'd suggest you put the brakes on any censure motion for the time being.

 

There was a suggestion that the SMS appointment wasn't a CASA requirement and that Ed was just going off half cocked - that wasn't from you two, but I thought I should do some searching and discovered that CASA in their SMS information call up ICAO document 9859 which at Phase 13a calls up a requirement to establish a person/office responsible for the administration and maintenance of the SMS.

 

In looking for a closer link I found this document (link below)

 

It's a CASA publication, "Sport Aviation Self-Administration Handbook 2010" and it was published in June 2010

 

So this issue doesn't just go back a couple of weeks, or even a year - it goes back AT LEAST three years!

 

In it CASA spells out our obligations, and interestingly Board Member obligations

 

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

 

• Monitor the organization's state of compliance (for example in terms of Registration compliance)
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

• 4a Ensure the Organization's SMS framework is current and up to date
   
   
  

 

 

 

But RAA didn't have an SMS framework, did it.

 

We've seen what happened with the registration compliance

 

Why would expectations be any different, or there be no urgency with the fundamental Safety policy?

 

I think rather than rush out and attack one of the new guys, the people who got us into this bind owe an explanation to all FTF's and members on why they've failed to comply with the CASA requirements for three years.

 

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

 

 

[DWF]

This is the table on the 'Revision History' page of the SMS Template sent by RAAus Ops to CFIs yesterday.

 

Version ..... Date ............. Chapter/Section ..... Details

 

1.0 .............. Nov 2010 ..... all ................................ First Draft

 

Note that the date is Nov 2010.

 

Judging by the poor grammar, punctuation and proof reading of this document I suspect that it is the first draft of a SMS produced by someone in RAA over 2.5 years ago!! It has now been rediscovered, dusted off (slightly) and rushed out to CFIs who are now required, with very little guidance, to turn it into an SMS for their FTF.

 

Someone has been sitting on their hands for a long time.

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

How many pages in the template? and what sort of workload do you think it will be to write up?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Hold on to your hats lads..Its gunna get rough....

 

 

[old man emu]

Can anyone get a copy of the template?

 

OME

 

 

[DWF]

The RAA SMS Template is 26 pages long.

 

I can't see why the document should not be available for perusal by RAA members but I think it is up to RAA Ops to post it on the web site (maybe in the Members Only area).

 

It is very similar in layout and content to this CASA document:

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101025

 

But the RAA SMS Template document is not as tidy and will need a lot of work to make it into a usable, readable SMS for FTFs.

 

 

[sain]

Go for it John and Jim.

 

A crisis is no excuse for inappropriate behaviour.

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

Hey Ian....you still up for a new organisation? This one is still going down the gurgler:gaah:

 

 

[Chird65]

...Chatting amongst yourselves over a coffee, and censuring Ed is a luxury you can't afford, so you need to get over it and maybe not be so quick to sign him up as an "Administrator" next time. I've been through one of these programmes, and seen others, and they roll out with the speed of a locomotive.

...By all means fight each other if you wish, but the very urgent priority is to assist the CFI's in the massive task they have to perform over the next two months.

Turboplanner,

 

I think it is wrong to describe the censure motion as fighting each other. A censure motion puts on notice the proposing and supporting members strong opposition to the behavior. What happens after is not a Motion of no confidence; it is a recording for future reference. If this is voted on and the other board members talk to or against at least there will have been full board conversations.

 

I think this motion can happen and the other urgent matters attended to so long as there are no dummy spits.

 

Chris

 

 

[terryc]

Turboplanner,I think it is wrong to describe the censure motion as fighting each other. A censure motion puts on notice the proposing and supporting members strong opposition to the behavior. What happens after is not a Motion of no confidence; it is a recording for future reference. If this is voted on and the other board members talk to or against at least there will have been full board conversations.

 

I think this motion can happen and the other urgent matters attended to so long as there are no dummy spits.

 

Chris

Chris, you are completely correct and it must be done.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't think so guys, I think it's come to Jesus time with some potentially big consequences.

 

 

[planesmaker]

It's time things were done by the constitution. A President should not act alone. Good on you John and Jim and anyone else who will stand for honesty and integrity. If the President has such little regard for our constitution then do not be surprised when the rank and file develop a disdain for rules and regulations which may lead to even more safety implications. Tom

 

 

[terryc]

Hi planesmaker, all of what you say I agree with.

 

 

[ave8rr]

I think CASA wrote draft SMS's for a number of areas back in 2010. I look after a "Certified" aerodrome and we had a "Draft" SMS to start from here.

 

From this draft we developed our own SMS which is now used.

 

I was not aware RAAus had not done their SMS. No wonder CASA have been Auditing the operation with a fine tooth comb and picking up EVERYTHING.

 

No wonder we are finding ourselves in trouble in ALL areas.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

No wonder we are finding ourselves in trouble in ALL areas.

They haven't started on pilots & training yet. That's a minefield. Pilots have to send a photocopy of their log book after each BFR. How many of them will show hours logged beyond the last BFR's currency? Cross country without an endorsement? HP, LP, TW, NW without endorsement, no HF past the deadline? Holes in the training syllabus records for students? Missing CFI signatures. How much of this could be picked up by an audit of log books to get statistics to prove a case for a more thorough audit similar to the groundings we have just experienced? CASA may already have this from recent ramp checks.

 

 

 

The Ops team do their best, but you just can't help some people, and they can't be everywhere all the time. It is becoming more about record keeping than flying. Not just flying - I have noticed the shift in my industry - 20 years ago we went to site with good intentions. Now we have to develop and present 16 "plans" before we are allowed on site, get external audits every week, month, audit ourselves, have employed people to audit, check, train, photograph, test, record and prove on paper that we did the job. All adds to the cost. Expect a fee increase for RAAus members.

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

[frank marriott]

"Pilots have to send a photocopy of their log book after each BFR" .???????

 

This only applies to have a GA AFR recognised by RAA.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I send in a photocopy of my last Log book page with the CFI's stamp and signature every time I do a BFR. I don't think it is a requirement, I do it though so that I know that the RAA have at least a copy of that page in case something un towards happens to my log book.

 

 

[ave8rr]

They haven't started on pilots & training yet. That's a minefield. Pilots have to send a photocopy of their log book after each BFR. How many of them will show hours logged beyond the last BFR's currency? Cross country without an endorsement? HP, LP, TW, NW without endorsement, no HF past the deadline? Holes in the training syllabus records for students? Missing CFI signatures. How much of this could be picked up by an audit of log books to get statistics to prove a case for a more thorough audit similar to the groundings we have just experienced? CASA may already have this from recent ramp checks.

The Ops team do their best, but you just can't help some people, and they can't be everywhere all the time. It is becoming more about record keeping than flying. Not just flying - I have noticed the shift in my industry - 20 years ago we went to site with good intentions. Now we have to develop and present 16 "plans" before we are allowed on site, get external audits every week, month, audit ourselves, have employed people to audit, check, train, photograph, test, record and prove on paper that we did the job. All adds to the cost. Expect a fee increase for RAAus members.

 

Sue

Sue... I am running a mine site aerodrome (FIFO). I agree 100% in all you say above. Can't come to site untill ALL boxes are ticked then audited (Internal / External) for EVERYTHING continuously.