RA-Aus organisational restructure

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Dafydd

 

Times have changes. Sheer personal force has worked in the past, I don't see it working anytime soon with the CASA. Dick Smith, to use your example is clearly also a man of Sheer personal force....how well did that work for him in CASA.......

 

Your thoughts on the likelihood of success align with mine and similarly all we can realistically do to try and change things is to try and get members to be aware of the issues......That of course means I (we) have to bang on like an out of control drummer to the obvious annoyance of a lot of people, but there doesn't seem to be anything practical in the very short term that we can do.

 

Come September we hope that there will be enough change on the board that the previous power cartels are broken and proper board governance can be established allowing some refreshing navel gazing and follow on actions to resolve can occur...whether it will be too late remains to be seen.

 

Any written attempts to address the short term issues with CASA have been rebuffed by CASA when raised directly with them outside of RAAus.....so again, ignoring the long term issues of September and coming back to the leaking dyke right now, what metaphorical finger is that we are putting in the dyke and does the finger donor have to die of blood loss so that the finger can be inserted....... Ed's approach to me means that the RAAus body is likely to die of blood loss in order to put a finger in the dyke, case of which is worse dieing of blood loss or drowning slowly.....

 

Andy

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

DafyddTimes have changes. Sheer personal force has worked in the past, I don't see it working anytime soon with the CASA. Dick Smith, to use your example is clearly also a man of Sheer personal force....how well did that work for him in CASA.......

 

Your thoughts on the likelihood of success align with mine and similarly all we can realistically do to try and change things is to try and get members to be aware of the issues......That of course means I (we) have to bang on like an out of control drummer to the obvious annoyance of a lot of people, but there doesn't seem to be anything practical in the very short term that we can do.

 

Come September we hope that there will be enough change on the board that the previous power cartels are broken and proper board governance can be established allowing some refreshing navel gazing and follow on actions to resolve can occur...whether it will be too late remains to be seen.

 

Any written attempts to address the short term issues with CASA have been rebuffed by CASA when raised directly with them outside of RAAus.....so again, ignoring the long term issues of September and coming back to the leaking dyke right now, what metaphorical finger is that we are putting in the dyke and does the finger donor have to die of blood loss so that the finger can be inserted....... Ed's approach to me means that the RAAus body is likely to die of blood loss in order to put a finger in the dyke, case of which is worse dieing of blood loss or drowning slowly.....

 

Andy

The only answer I can offer (and I recognise that it is not an answer for quite a few people) is: Get out from under. . . .

 

 

[Oscar]

Andy, I don't think it is necessary to bang on like a demented drummer - far more useful to bang on on a recurring theme that is the message that needs to be brought home.

 

One recurring theme I see in this thread (in particular) is that the current form of governance has some sort of sacred-cow-like status, and I think that needs very close examination. I don't know the history of the formation of RAA, so perhaps this is an ignorant comment - but is it possible that the current form of governance was selected for reasons OTHER than (or primary to) providing the best possible structure to undertake the compliance tasks? I wonder if it was appropriate for a bodt that needed to be inclusive, to pull together a base of membership that has real clout, etc. (hence, for instance, the State representation aspect for the Board?)

 

Perhaps the current form of governance has served a purpose but now needs revision. Sometimes it is necessary to say 'thanks, thou faithful servant, time for you to move along'. We won't know that until a searching structural revision aligned to RAA's current needs has been made - and that needs to happen rather quickly, while there is still an organisation that meets members' needs for compliance management to serve! However, a complete examination and clear statement of what the organisation NEEDS to achieve is the driving force here.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

This thread is a huge credit to the contributors that I have been reading. I don't agree with all the conclusions but I greatly admire the clear thought that has gone into it. Quite a few on this thread have written some of the clearest, best argued points of view I have read in years.

 

I have formed the view that our present troubles date back to a time when the Board did something wise. Lee Ungermann gave the Board a great deal of notice that he would be moving on. The Board of the time set up an excellent process to find a new CEO. The process was well run and a unanimous selection made by the Selection Panel. Within as little as two weeks of the new CEO taking up office, the Board realised that they had made a huge mistake - they had in fact hired somebody who knew how to manage a not-for-profit organisation and, worse than that, had the audacity to start managing it!

 

Within two weeks the new CEO was effectively dismissed and the then President, Eugene Reid, quietly slipped his mate Steve Tizzard into the CEO position without first consulting the Board. Eventually, the Exec went to the Board and obtained a retrospective ratification of the appointment. So, we then had a CEO who had not had to apply for the job or be considered in competition with other candidates. That was bad enough but then, for his complete term in the job, he was allowed to do pretty well whatever he liked and not do whatever he didn't feel like doing and was untouchable, beyond criticism. Any criticism of his many mistakes were excused by the Executive. And so, most of the problems we now face were created during his term or were not detected or addressed in his term. The job he had originally been hired to do, re-write the Ops Manual, languished for three years and was not completed until after he left the office.

 

With this awful example of not following a proper process, is it any wonder that those of us who were aware of the last "jobs for the boys" burred up when the deja vu of Myles's appointment was announced?

 

Getting back to the future . . .

 

There is not that much wrong with our rules that by now we couldn't have straightened them out - if the Constitution Review Committee had not been shut down by Steve Runciman in the middle of last year. That decision was supported by Ed Herring. To me it was clear evidence that the personalities did not want change. They still don't want to have to follow the Rules. Ask Ed and he will tell you, he has done nothing wrong. No remorse, nothing.

 

It does not matter a rat's rectum what rules you have or how well the Constitution is written or what deed is signed with CASA or what the organisation structure is, what the Admin Manual requires, if those on the Board have not read the rules (most on the Board) and have no regard for the Rules (this and previous Execs). If you don't have respect for the Rules you have no organisation and all you have is anarchy.

 

What does the Board need to do, to keep RA-Aus out of trouble? How about a bit of integrity? Do what you have agreed to do - Deed of Agreement. Do it in accordance with the Rules (Constitution and Board Resolutions).

 

As somebody above said, it is not rocket surgery.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

What is needed desperately is an internal audit mechanism of the systems within the RA-Aus to alert early to any issues, rather that relying on CASA to wield the big stick with an external audit as has been happening.I am not suggesting that the CASA audits are not required, simply that RA-Aus should be looking to have a more introspective look at their performance benchmarks.

Spot on Damkia.

 

Any reorganisation of the structure of RAAus should include the establishment of a Quality Management System whereby the continual auditing of our internal policies, processes and outcomes will identify any shortcomings, well before CASA find them for us.

 

Effective Quality Management Systems and Safety Management Systems are real assets to an organisation, even though many people simply view them as catchphrases, rather than effective tools to monitor and improve the health of an organisation or operation.

 

Perhaps our Board could consider setting up a QMS so we not only have a formal program to identify our shortcomings before CASA do, but so that we also have a process to monitor and ensure that rectification of the problems is both instigated and the outcome is successful.

 

Dave

 

 

[damkia]

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm

 

Far too large a topic to cover here, but this is what most companies aspire too,

 

ISO 19011 at the very least with what is currently in the organisation.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Who is Alfa Romeo in real life?

There is a statue of me in every town in NSW . . .

 

I even signed one post with my mafia name.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

What this informative forum has put in place is an ongoing governance and management workshop engaging some excellent thinkers who are drilling down into the real issues confronting RAAus. Many of us are not across the history of the organisation and, like myself I am sure, have appreciated being brought up to speed. In a previous post I suggested that most of the pertinent issues, facing RAAus at this time, are now out in the open. Clearly many folk who have been trying to effect sensible change over the years may challenge this assumption. All I am trying to do is isolate the structures and processes that can be changed for the good, as opposed to identifying the actions which have been hurtful, or even more importantly, just plain bad for the present and future of our organisation.

 

Prior to the Feb. EGM in Canberra, some on this forum were proposing specific motions be put as strategic directions from the membership to the RAAus Board. Having attended that meeting we left disappointed at the way the meeting was chaired and the ineptness of the Executive. It was an opportunity lost and one which allowed the Executive to re-group for yet another term of disastrous mis-management and a board split by a culture of board/management intervention.

 

As a lead up to the AGM there is time for the strategic thinkers on this forum to articulate, and direct, very specific resolutions to the RAAus Board. I am sure there are those with the know-how to have them placed on the AGM agenda, as I am also sure that we would have Board Members who would move and second any such member motions/resolutions. This is the only way that the RAAus Board will take ownership of the future of its and our, organisation.

 

What has been done is done and we must learn from those mistakes with examples of good practice from the experience of those who have been there and done it. Don't come back with a whole lot of technical guff on deeds of agreement and safe workplaces etc, just the words that will re-set our governance and management culture to one which is contemporary and beholding of an organisation the size and importance of RAAus. All the parts of the kit are there.....but we have unfortunately lost the plans.

 

Pete

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I have formed the view that our present troubles date back to a time when the Board did something wise. Lee Ungermann gave the Board a great deal of notice that he would be moving on. The Board of the time set up an excellent process to find a new CEO. The process was well run and a unanimous selection made by the Selection Panel. Within as little as two weeks of the new CEO taking up office, the Board realised that they had made a huge mistake - they had in fact hired somebody who knew how to manage a not-for-profit organisation and, worse than that, had the audacity to start managing it!

 

Within two weeks the new CEO was effectively dismissed and the then President, Eugene Reid, quietly slipped his mate Steve Tizzard into the CEO position without first consulting the Board. Eventually, the Exec went to the Board and obtained a retrospective ratification of the appointment.

 

I think you need to look a long way further back than that. I believe you need to discover exactly why John Washbrook ceased to be the RAA Technical Manager. You may find a clue in the evidence file for the Carol Smith case.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Andy, I don't think it is necessary to bang on like a demented drummer - far more useful to bang on on a recurring theme that is the message that needs to be brought home.One recurring theme I see in this thread (in particular) is that the current form of governance has some sort of sacred-cow-like status, and I think that needs very close examination....

The current form of governance as written into the Constitution has had anything but sacred status. It has been totally ignored and a few individuals have run the Association as though it were their own private little club. They have given little more than lip service to the rules and to their fellow Board members and have avoided proper scrutiny by telling the membership everything is great.

 

They even told us the membership numbers were blossoming but, on closer examination, it was shown they had inflated membership by about 30%. We were told there wouldn't be any delays or problems with insurance this year and it was a stuff up again at the 11th hour. And on it goes...

 

Things will change and there will be enough Board members with decent skills by September to effect some real change for the better. Part of that change will flow from a proper structural review and the development of a governance structure to both carry us forward as a multi-million dollar entity and keep us compliant with the Deed as well.

 

Kaz

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The "new" board will need to develop a strategic plan covering the next 12 months. This will need to be done as a face to face exercise, typically it will take two days for a "new" board with operational issues to consider. All board membuers must be prepared to commit this time as soon as possible after the AGM and the membership must be prepared to support the cost of travel and accommodation for this to occur. If we don't get board buy-in through such a process then the old woes will continue.

 

Time to stop looking backward and to start thinking about the practicalities of reform.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The "new" board will need to develop a strategic plan covering the next 12 months. This will need to be done as a face to face exercise, typically it will take two days for a "new" board with operational issues to consider. All board membuers must be prepared to commit this time as soon as possible after the AGM and the membership must be prepared to support the cost of travel and accommodation for this to occur. If we don't get board buy-in through such a process then the old woes will continue.Time to stop looking backward and to start thinking about the practicalities of reform.

So, there's a Statute of Limitations built into the RAA constitution, is there?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I said nothing about compulsion, I said "need" and what happens if we don't. And for it to happen, a couple of " musts".

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Any future board member who has already been elected (unopposed) should be requesting "observer" status for all current board meetings (conference calls) until Sept, so they have a good grasp of the issues at hand and the sticking points, that way come Sept they can all hit the ground running and have a functional board from day one after the AGM.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I said nothing about compulsion, I said "need" and what happens if we don't. And for it to happen, a couple of " musts".

Permit me an analogy: RAAus has serious corrosion in its main spar, to the point where its wings are about to fall off. Would you (a) put a patch over the corrosion, or (b) find and fix the root cause, and then repair the structure to prevent that problem from recurring?

 

If you don't find the root cause of RAA's current woes, you will not be fixing the problem, you will be painting over it.

 

I believe that the root cause is to be found in the reason for Washbrook's dismissal - as I recall, it was because he "acted too much like CASA". Surely this is on record? It is a matter of record that Washbrook, in his AUF capacity, wrote to the importer of the Sting on 28/10/2002 and required him to correct the documents that incorrectly showed the MTOW to be 540 Kg, to the correct weight of 450 Kg; my question is, was this the reason for his dismissal? If so, he was dismissed for doing his job correctly.

 

"Those who fail to study history, are doomed to repeat it."

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Permit me an analogy: RAAus has serious corrosion in its main spar, to the point where its wings are about to fall off. Would you (a) put a patch over the corrosion, or (b) find and fix the root cause, and then repair the structure to prevent that problem from recurring?If you don't find the root cause of RAA's current woes, you will not be fixing the problem, you will be painting over it.

 

I believe that the root cause is to be found in the reason for Washbrook's dismissal - as I recall, it was because he "acted too much like CASA". Surely this is on record? It is a matter of record that Washbrook, in his AUF capacity, wrote to the importer of the Sting on 28/10/2002 and required him to correct the documents that incorrectly showed the MTOW to be 540 Kg, to the correct weight of 450 Kg; my question is, was this the reason for his dismissal? If so, he was dismissed for doing his job correctly.

 

"Those who fail to study history, are doomed to repeat it."

Perhaps you are right Dafydd.....most structural problems have a design fault. A crook spar requires remedial work in the same way the RAAus board needs revision. Not necessarily a total rebuild just tending to the bits that need it.

 

Pete

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Perhaps you are right Dafydd.....most structural problems have a design fault. A crook spar requires remedial work in the same way the RAAus board needs revision. Not necessarily a total rebuild just tending to the bits that need it.Pete

The fundamental fault has, I would suggest, two aspects: Firstly, a totally wrong-headed management philosophy, which has now rebounded catastrophically. Secondly, no effective mechanism to question it or correct it. The overall philosophy that could dismiss a critical professional employee for doing no more nor less than what he was supposed to do under the CARs (and, I presume, under the RAA internal rules) astounds me; and the function of the Board/Executive in allowing this to continue unchecked for a decade, both strongly suggest to me that the minor rebuild you describe does not need to be as excessive as, say, Stalin's Purges - merely scraping it down to bedrock, garotting the last decade's incumbents, and starting again, would no doubt suffice.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Totally agree with your summation of the cause Dafydd but got a bit lost in what you are proposing as a solution. Going back to your analogy of the crook spar.....the choice is to get in an expert to fix it or do it yourself, if you have the skill. As you rightly infer RAAus has been deficient in its capacity to mend itself and now requires the attention of some external expertise. I am confident that once the decision to seek out that expertise is made, RAAus will move on. The new board will need the support of its membership if this is to be achieved.

 

Pete

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Totally agree with your summation of the cause Dafydd but got a bit lost in what you are proposing as a solution. Going back to your analogy of the crook spar.....the choice is to get in an expert to fix it or do it yourself, if you have the skill. As you rightly infer RAAus has been deficient in its capacity to mend itself and now requires the attention of some external expertise. I am confident that once the decision to seek out that expertise is made, RAAus will move on. The new board will need the support of its membership if this is to be achieved.Pete

I was being sarcastic - tho it's clear that some things are wrong right down to the foundations. And I'm not an expert on the constitutional structure of RAAus, so all I can really do is try to assist people who are, to understand where things started to go wrong, because the design of whatever the new RAAus controlling structure is going to be, needs that information; simply slapping a SMS on top of what is there already does not seem to me to be likely to be able to address endemic problems that - from what I can see from this site - are largely due to an entrenched power cartel that is managing to block reform, for reasons that do not make sense to me, or (I suspect) to the average member. I have no axe to grind, I'm out of it (and glad to be so); but for what it may be worth, it seems to me that:

 

(a) There needs to be a means of communication between members that is NOT under the control of the RAAus heirarchy, but of the members. This website is a good start, thank you Ian Baker, but what % of RAAus members read it? Unfortunately, the quality of debate in many blogs is abysmal - tho this one is not; and the contributors seem a very small clique. So the RAAus magazine needs to be independent of the Board and not under its thumb; and it needs to serve as a members' forum rather than as chewing-gum for the eyes.

 

(b) There needs to be a more effective means of effecting reform, possibly by a members' plebiscite mechanism, that cannot be gagged at Board level. What you have at the moment is not functioning as a democratic system; it needs better checks and balances.

 

© There needs to be a mechanism that looks critically at the executive / board policy and blows a whistle if it gets off the rails. That MIGHT be the SMS if its terms of reference include that function.

 

(d) There needs to be a much more explicit statement of policy priorities, with compliance with CASA's requirements at the top of the list. The sort of situation that caused the invalid registration of overweight aircraft for the past decade must be prevented; this means some study of what allowed that to occur is necessary.

 

Some specific suggestions:

 

(i) RAA aircraft should have certificates of airworthiness under CASR 21.175 thru 21.186 as appropriate. This is a one-time thing, but it will stop the unscrupulous importers cold.

 

(ii) The standard of maintenance recording is abominable - and that's praising it up. I would recommend the introduction of a formal, signed-off annual inspection, along the lines of the GFA Form 2. Note that this involves the issue of a maintenance release (for which the C of A is a prerequisite). This is also part of the GFA system. In principle, L2s should be able to do these things, just as GFA glider inspectors do. That may need some upgrading of the L2 system; however if GFA can manage it, I do not see any reason why RAAus cannot. RAAus would have to propose a generic system of maintenance and get CASA's acceptance of it; this comes under CAR 42M. GFA have achieved this for gliders and motor-gliders, so it's entirely possible.

 

(iii) The workload of the RAAus tech Manager seems to me to include far too much make-work that is primarily revenue-collection; he needs to be relieved of that so he can do a better job of initial registrations, Cs of A, etc.

 

(iv) RAA training organisation should be allowed to issue RPLs.

 

All of this, naturally, costs something. It is largely duplicating certain elements of CASA; and so must raise the question as to whether it is all worth-while, or whether it would be better to fold it into CASR Part 91, Part 61, etc - even if this is done gradually and progressively.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Dafydd all good points and they relate to how things should be organised and run. The governance problem is quite distinct, it is about having properly experienced directors who understand their responsibilities and have the time available to carry them out. I have posted elsewhere about good governance, meeting frequency and so on, but these observations seem to sink like a stone. They are not my opinion, there is a wealth of information available on board governance and there are good examples to follow. The people who post here with contrary views are simply out of their depth.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Dafydd all good points and they relate to how things should be organised and run. The governance problem is quite distinct, it is about having properly experienced directors who understand their responsibilities and have the time available to carry them out. I have posted elsewhere about good governance, meeting frequency and so on, but these observations seem to sink like a stone. They are not my opinion, there is a wealth of information available on board governance and there are good examples to follow. The people who post here with contrary views are simply out of their depth.

Yes, Pete, I agree RAAus needs to be run by people who have their feet "on the ground" (the ground being the regulations) and with practical knowledge of working in a constructive manner within them; RAAus governance has been firmly in cloud-cuckoo land for far too long. The problem comes down to attitude; the attitude seems to have been that professionalism is not wanted, we're here to enjoy ourselves. The two are not mutually exclusive, but professionalsim is necessary for survival.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Dafydd all good points and they relate to how things should be organised and run. The governance problem is quite distinct, it is about having properly experienced directors who understand their responsibilities and have the time available to carry them out. I have posted elsewhere about good governance, meeting frequency and so on, but these observations seem to sink like a stone. They are not my opinion, there is a wealth of information available on board governance and there are good examples to follow. The people who post here with contrary views are simply out of their depth.

Pete, I'd not attempt to enter into issues such as meeting intervals and board governance; my experience of running things has been confined to something I could run myself, i.e. a "the buck stops here" situation, with a small group of specialists to whom I could delegate the technical issues that fell within their speciality. It had an annual budget about half that of RAAus, but it involved operating a transport-category aircraft (as a flying laboratory) to provide a service for CSIRO. This only works if the person running the show has real expertise, and it is not applicable to something like RAAus. In other words, I'm not into herding cats. You can have that, for all of me.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

DRAFT

 

Notice of Motion

 

RAAus Annual General Meeting

 

“That the Board/Committee of RAAus immediately restructures and adopts a contemporary Corporate Governance model to oversee the operation of the organisation.

 

In doing so, the Board/Committee of RAAus will accept that:

 

• The elected Board, via its appointed Chairperson, governs the organisation;
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

• The Board appointed CEO/General Manager, reporting to the Board, manages staff and administers all aspects of the RAAus operation;
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

• The RAAus Board, in consultation with its operational staff/team and regional membership, publishes a three year strategic plan for presentation to its membership and strategic partners;
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

• The Constitution is reviewed and adjustments made to the Rules so as to accommodate any structural change;
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

• Professional support is engaged to carry out specialist aspects of the restructure.”
   
   
  

 

 

Any comments folks?

 

Pete

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Good start Pete, but don't forget some timelines, or else we could be in the same position as we currently are with the board just never getting anything done as they don't think it important enough. With realistic timelines in place they will need to explain any failures to complete the requirements.

 

Kev

 

 

[Oscar]

Pete, the recurring problem with all of this is that the form of governance for RAA needs to ensure that it is in the best alignment to the purposes and objectives of the organisation - and I don't believe that that is something that can be discerned immediately. Overarching motherhood statements won't tease out the subtleties required, it's going to be an iterative process and I suggest that deep inspection of possible methods of achieving things like compliance with both technical regulations (read: CASA requirements) as well as governance models will be needed.

 

I don't have any argument with any of the basic principles that you have listed (especially the development of a strategic plan - absolutely essential, in my view) and ultimately I think all of your points should figure in the future shape of RAA - or whatever may emerge as its successor, which is not an impossible scenario. However, since it is rather likely that a refurbished RAA will do things rather differently than they have been done in the past, I'd put the development of the strategic plan as higher priority than an immediate re-structure, simply because any immediate re-structure is rather likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of strategic planning rather than being, as it needs to be, an outcome of strategic planning.

 

That said, it is obvious to blind Freddy that some actions need to be taken very urgently in order to keep the organisation from falling on a heap / on its sword in the short term. We may need to think of the incoming Board as rather analogous to an imposed 'Manager' of a dysfunctional local Council - responsible for ensuring that the essential business is carried out but ultimately supposed to be the agent of change to achieve a new Council that actually works. We need a new Board comprised of skilled, committed people to direct that transformation, supported by adequate mechanisms for communication, deliberation and resolution of issues.