Dave Caban for treasurer......please No!!

[AlfaRomeo]

Well, here is the good news on RA-Aus finances. With the job of Admin Manager to be filled, the Board has the opportunity to re-title the role to "Manager Finance & Administration" or even "Manager Business Services". In plain English, they have the opportunity to employ a qualified accountant who has good affinity with IT (and most young accountants do). The role could also include the Company Secretary routine duties.

 

The role of the Treasurer is simplified if there is some in house expertise and the Treasurer has access to an external firm of accountants he can consult the way we consult a firm of lawyers when needed. It will always be better if the Treasurer has experience to CFO level in a medium to large corporation and knows the questions to ask and understands the answers.

 

There are plenty of qualified accountants with CFO type experience among the 10,000 members. The Treasurer would always be able to talk to one or more of them - if he/she knew who they were. That is where the Skills Register comes in that was promised to us by the Board at the Feb 2013 EGM.

 

I would be pleased to assist Jim if he were to be appointed Treasurer but there is no way I would want to associate my name (either of them) with a Treasury lead by a previously failed Treasurer like Dave Caban. The move to install DC after he performed so badly last time that it took a vote of no confidence to get rid of him. Even then he refused to go and had to be removed and another Treasurer appointed.

 

Those on the Board who are pushing DC for Treasurer are engaging in a very cynical exercise and, in my opinion, an abuse of power to keep a reform minded individual like Jim Tatlock out of the Executive.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I had some communication with RAA admin today, via Maxine Picker, who signed off as Finance officer ?..........Maj...

 

 

[Guernsey]

So far I am. For the first time I'm considering not being. Why do you ask? nev

Just curious as Maj had asked the question and you didn't reply.

 

I believe that there may be some forumites who comment on Raaus matters when they are not in fact Raaus members and whilst this is not an Raaus forum as such should we be commenting? I ask this for personal reasons as I have been a member of Auf/Raaus for many years but gave up my membership last October but remain keenly interested in its operation. What do you forumites think, should I be able to comment or should I just observe and take an interest without contributing???

 

Alan.

 

 

[ahlocks]

You have an opinion that is just as valid as anybody else's Guerns...

 

 

[winsor68]

I gave up my membership in February...and reserve the right to comment. As things stand without membership I am grounded from sitting in the pilot seat of an Ra-Aus aircraft...so if things don't fall in a heap I hope to re join.

 

I think any prospective member should have the right to comment on these matters...after all who would want to pay their dues only to see the organization fold in the next month...I don't reckon there would be a refund offered.

 

 

[Guernsey]

You have an opinion that is just as valid as anybody else's Guerns...

Thanks Ahlocks .

 

Alan.

 

 

[facthunter]

I could have not renewed last time. I have to seriously consider it now. I have held the Senior instructor rating before and have been asked by a couple of people to start a new school. RAAus doesn't need a new school . There are plenty already.

 

I do care about what is happening here and the whole thing has cost me personally a lot of money. You can't wait forever for things to get sorted out, ( unless you are about 20 years old). Damage is being done every day this sort of stuff continues to the sport, so I urge everyone involved to "make it happen". All conflicts can be sorted out by people of good will. I don't know what is at the base of all this but I will probably find out one day. I don't feel it is any good to air opinions, or speculate, because none of it may be relevant, in the end. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

We wouldn't be in this mess if those at the egm had done what was needed and removed the entire board then. Now we live under more threats of groundings cost increases to make up for poor management. Continual uncovering of more non compliance. Wake the $#@& up pull the mess down and rebuild this continual patch up job is going to be the end of the game. Getting really peeved off with those demanding we need system after system to fix it. It needs a complete dismantle and rebuild

 

 

[coljones]

What do you forumites think, should I be able to comment or should I just observe and take an interest without contributing???

Then again there are those who comment without contribution.

 

Your missives are most welcome because they put some dimension to our commentary.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

We wouldn't be in this mess if those at the egm had done what was needed and removed the entire board then. Now we live under more threats of groundings cost increases to make up for poor management. Continual uncovering of more non compliance. Wake the $#@& up pull the mess down and rebuild this continual patch up job is going to be the end of the game. Getting really peeved off with those demanding we need system after system to fix it. It needs a complete dismantle and rebuild

Ozzie

 

It wasn't possible.....they had more proxy's than we did. End of story. We somehow need more members to be aware of what is going on and interested enough to get involved......and so we rinse and repeat

 

Andy

 

 

[coljones]

.....Wake the $#@& up pull the mess down and rebuild this continual patch up job is going to be the end of the game. Getting really peeved off with those demanding we need system after system to fix it. It needs a complete dismantle and rebuild

We live in a democracy .. The first step is to replace the board ... any steps after that require some deeply considered thinking as a rush to the head might just deliver a theocracy (think Iran) or some other sort of autocracy. While it might be good to have some business expertise on board there is nothing innately "good" about bean-counters, lawyers, MBAs or the other usual suspects at the top end of town.

 

I don't think there is anything bad with the current model, it is the culture that is a problem. Westfield, News Ltd, Ansett, and TNT were/are treated like a fiefdom by their significant shareholders. (and HSU for those with a union bent)

 

So we need to set up a safety system, OHS, employee policies, separate management from board interference in daily operations and get the board thinking strategically - only then consider if the legislative and constitutional needs fixing.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The its going to just drag on until either everyone quits or CASA shuts it down. Bugger spending a small fortune on an aircraft when i have to deal with a bunch of useless ego maniacs operating from a monopoly.

 

I often wonder just how much more i could have achieved in my life without having to continually have idiots like the RAAus and CASA dictating how i should live my life when their own achievements total to nothing.

 

Total bunch of insults to the Australian way of living.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't think there is anything bad with the current model, it is the culture that is a problem. Westfield, News Ltd, Ansett, and TNT were/are treated like a fiefdom by their significant shareholders. (and HSU for those with a union bent)So we need to set up a safety system, OHS, employee policies, separate management from board interference in daily operations and get the board thinking strategically - only then consider if the legislative and constitutional needs fixing.

I totally agree, with one minor improvement. Remove the Executive, they shall not be required.

 

Keep the elected representation on the board (reduced to 7-9 members), lead and assisted by a chairperson. They look at the bigger picture and future of recreational aviation, strategically set the policy of the association.

 

The Management team, lead by the GM with his staff, operating within the policy set down by the board, would be responsible for the daily operations of the association; registrations, licensing, training, safety, compliance etc. GM would be responsible to the board (and thus the members), much the same a company CEO would answer to a board of directors and shareholders.

 

Appropriate consults/agencies should also be employed to insure members are getting the most out of their association (and money), this could be professional company such as Aerosafe to setup and manage SMS, Accountants to provide finance advice, Law firms to provide legal advice, Auditors to conduct regular compliance, safety and finanial oversight.

 

What we don't need (and this isn't reflected against anyone currently in this positions or nominated for) is a President who tries to "run" the association, a Treasurer who isn't a professional in accounting or finance, who may struggle counting the simplest of beans. These jobs should be left to professionals who are employed by the members on merit.

 

We also need the correct and most robust systems in place, SMS, Registration databases, communications, website/IT, flight safety, insurance/legal.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

An open question? Is it possible for the membership to exercise their vote by an EGM now and have the board suspended until the AGM in September and allow the current managers to care take the organisation until this time with a new board to be elected.

 

From my understanding CASA is happy with the current management now working to fix things but we are all apparently sick of the board blocking their progress. Interested to hear the thoughts of those more knowledgeable in the constitution.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You can organise a General meeting at any time and remove any official, provided you get sufficient numbers.

 

You have to be a little wary of the exact numbers because although they were reduced by a change to the constitution in February, no one thought to exclude non-members from the vote, so I'd think anyone could challenge the decisions, unless you had the original numbers.

 

The group that organised that meeting gathered a lot of proxy votes, but the Secretary, Paul Middleton rounded them up by asking for proxies as well.

 

Whether his actions were lawful, I'm not sure, but certainly you would want to look into this action before putting a lot of effort in just to be snookered.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

If you are wanting to go down that path there must be a motion on notice so that the people you claim have failed have natural justice in an ability to prepare a defence prior to the meeting.

 

It sounds like a small thing but the motion on notice must be provided to the secretary sufficiently in time to allow publication of the motion to the members with the meeting request.

 

Practically that means months in advance

 

Also remember that its a two part process first you must gather the signatures from members requesting a meeting, and then provide those with the motion.

 

Give Middo's approach at February it would probably be as well to seek legal advice as to the appropriateness of what Middo did (Didn't in our view afford natural justice because it only put one side of the argument) and having that legal advice you would probably need to seek an injunction in the ACT courts to prevent the same thing occurring again.

 

So....with all that said, quick as a flash it was time for the AGM before all that was settled. Don't forget that at the AGM business other than that specified in the constitution for an AGM can not be conducted. Logically however given that members are gathered for the AGM a normal GM may well follow, or precede the AGM to allow for any request such as you are envisaging to be dealt with

 

Andy

 

P.S that reminds me I wonder where the AGM is going to be held this year.......Must be about time we found out and started preparing for the pilgrimage

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Thanks Andy- yes I expected the timeframe- lets hope CASA is patient enough to see if our members vote appropriately to discard the executive that was responsible for creating the current mess- in its' entirety.

 

 

[DWF]

....... Don't forget that at the AGM business other than that specified in the constitution for an AGM can not be conducted. .......

Andy, the RAAus constitution Rule 22 says:

 

"22. Annual general meetings - calling of and business at.

 

(i) The order of the business at each Annual General Meeting under the chair of the President shall

 

be:

 

.....

 

g. Any motions on Notice including Special Resolutions.

 

h. Questions from the floor

 

....."

 

As I read it any motion can be put to and discussed at an AGM provided it has been sent to the Secretary and put on Notice for the AGM.

 

Questions from the floor are also allowed.

 

So, if you have a motion you would like to put at the AGM send it to the Secretary for inclusion in the agenda.

 

DWF

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Not that I'm innocent in this regard but we are straying from the topic here.

 

As far as the treasurer's position is concerned I'd love to know if any board member who voted to remove David Caban from the role in the first place is now intending (for whatever reason) to vote to give him the job back. Call me cynical but stranger things have happened. Understandably this type of behaviour could just possibly, create the impression of mild hypocrisy in some minds.

 

 

[facthunter]

It may be that the vote to remove him from the Treasurer's position requires to be rescinded to allow him to run for the position, unless the circumstances have changed and no longer apply. Nev