Is RAA Imploding - in real time - as in- NOW?

[Oscar]

It appears that the new RAA President, Ed Herring, has placed an ultimatum on the Board that if it does not deed him at least 70% unqualified support for his actions - retrospectively or in the future - by Thursday, 27 June, he will resign.

 

I may be incorrect in that assertion - and if so, PLEASE let it be unequivocally and unambiguously corrected.

 

HOWEVER: if it is correct, and such support from the current Board is unforthcoming - I believe the current situation is that RAA is quite simply non-functional as an organisation. Can somebody with knowledge of the ACT regulations for Incorporated Associations advise us as to whether in this case, the RAA is in fact compliant with the requirements?

 

IF we are no longer compliant with the requisite requirements for an Association post the resignation of the current President (and given the number of Board members who have resigned - it appears to me that there is no legal basis for the registration of aircraft by RAA. Therefore- we are ALL grounded.

 

This seems to me to be not just handing CASA the control of RAA-class aircraft on a plate but in fact forcing CASA to provide a legal basis for us to keep flying. In less strictly legalistic terms: Ed Herring appears to be shooting the whole of RAA in the foot, leg and all areas above, for whatever reasons.

 

Let's get over the dissection of motives etc. - IF this happens, where do we stand? CASA cannot countenance the continued operation of permissions from an organisation that is in default of its legal existence.

 

Serious - and give up banging your personal drum here - ideas as to how we even continue to function, may be required - NOW.

 

 

[facthunter]

To solve any problem you need ALL the facts. I understand you are concerned as we all are. Most members of the board would know what is going on, surely? Nev.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It appears that the new RAA President, Ed Herring, has placed an ultimatum on the Board that if it does not deed him at least 70% unqualified support for his actions - retrospectively or in the future - by Thursday, 27 June, he will resign.I may be incorrect in that assertion - and if so, PLEASE let it be unequivocally and unambiguously corrected.

 

HOWEVER: if it is correct, and such support from the current Board is unforthcoming - I believe the current situation is that RAA is quite simply non-functional as an organisation. Can somebody with knowledge of the ACT regulations for Incorporated Associations advise us as to whether in this case, the RAA is in fact compliant with the requirements?

 

IF we are no longer compliant with the requisite requirements for an Association post the resignation of the current President (and given the number of Board members who have resigned - it appears to me that there is no legal basis for the registration of aircraft by RAA. Therefore- we are ALL grounded.

 

This seems to me to be not just handing CASA the control of RAA-class aircraft on a plate but in fact forcing CASA to provide a legal basis for us to keep flying. In less strictly legalistic terms: Ed Herring appears to be shooting the whole of RAA in the foot, leg and all areas above, for whatever reasons.

 

Let's get over the dissection of motives etc. - IF this happens, where do we stand? CASA cannot countenance the continued operation of permissions from an organisation that is in default of its legal existence.

 

Serious - and give up banging your personal drum here - ideas as to how we even continue to function, may be required - NOW.

No problems, RAA continues to exist just as the United States does, just elections needed.

 

 

[Oscar]

Pardon me - when I used the term 'serious' in regard to responses, should I have explicitly stated 'no bullshit, facile, smart-arse responses' required, to try to avert comments such as this?

 

Do you believe CASA will stand idly by and allow things to develop if RAA is in fact not a 'duly constituted' authority? Do you think CASA will not understand that it will be the first target of media attention if a report suggesting that Kylie Minogue's disabled second cousin, aged 9, died in a crash of an aircraft registered by a non-legal authority, subject to CASA approval? Get real.

 

 

[dodo]

whether in this case, the RAA is in fact compliant with the requirements?

The ACT Act is intended for clubs and associations. These often have dissension and bickering, just some more infrequent than others. We have breached the Act in the past by not issuing minutes on time, not publishing financial statements on time, but nothing too extreme (I know these are bad, but plenty of other associations aren't that good either).

If what you suggest is true, the Prez may resign. Steve Runciman did that. The board just elects another.

 

It is all just as adult and mature as our federal politicians, except asking for a photo of the Prez knitting a kangaroo for the next royal baby would be ...a bit bizarre, whereas Julia just makes it look... a bit bizarre.

 

The real problem is that board, for whatever reasons, is dysfunctional, has been dysfunctional, and continues to be dysfunctional.

 

Despite promises to a disgruntled membership at the EGM, they don't communicate, haven't changed their ways, and still don't get it! This may destroy RA if it continues long enough. I don't think we are screwed yet, but how long can this go on for? We keep screwing up, our board don't respond to their own membership, or CASA, or anyone. Sooner or later this will all crash down.

 

We still have time, but we don't know how much. And the board still cannot cooperate with each other, or represent their membership.

 

dodo

 

PS ...umm...yes, I am a little frustrated about all this. Sorry.

 

 

[Oscar]

Having seen the submitted post, and recognising automated censorship, let me substitute: 'bovine excrement' for ******** and 'gluteous maximused' for '*****'.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I too have heard this and the same timeline and the same "unequivocal" support. Can anyone really ask for that? How can board members who have responsibilities as members of a board under the ACT act possibly provide Ed with that level of support. They may as well put a target over their heart and a sign that says shoot me. If they go down that path they better be damn sure that Ed is 100% correct in everything he does until he rescinds the support required!!!! Or to put it a different way, they are agreeing that they are no longer board members but merely rubber stamps and that while the board currently is 10 in reality it is 1.

 

What I want to understand is if Ed resigns does he intend to resign as president only, or as the SA members representative. If he chooses to go down this path, then from my perspective I hope its the latter which will break the 5:5 deadlock that we have seen over recent times which is preventing any decisions and progress in any direction at all.

 

The current members of the Exec, Middo and Ed need to understand that the membership will not allow things to proceed as it was, years of neglect and poor management bit by bit have brought us to a position where survival is not at all a given, 5 for 5 against is a recipe for disaster because nothing can proceed, yet to give in to a blatantly unreasonable request for unequivocal support is equally a disaster.

 

I had heard a rumour that in the past, where votes were tied (and his vote was already included in the tie) the President would give himself an additional casting vote and break the deadlock. However the constitution is clear that a tie is to result in the motion being lost (Sect 20 (iv) ) At present I think there is a separate motion for Jim Tatlock (5:5) and another separate for Dave Caban (5:5) to be the treasurer therefore today there is no ability to establish a functioning exec.

 

I can see things dramatically improving in September assuming we survive.

 

 

[metalman]

You know , apart from all the crap with RAAus ,one thing I'm really certain of,,,,,,,this forum has become one of the most miserable places on the Internet , there must be a dozen threads about this same subject ,,,,,,

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

RAA is an incorporated association in the ACT. Have a look at the FAQ for Associations - here: http://www.ors.act.gov.au/community/associations

 

You will see that they do not get involved in internal disputes. If illegal activity is suspected the police have jurisdiction; activities contrary to the Constitution may be brought to the courts by members.

 

The Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) does not wind up organisations other than on these grounds:-

 

"The ORS is empowered to cancel the incorporation of an association if there are grounds for believing that the association is not in operation, has fewer than five members, was incorporated as a result of fraud or mistake or has not, within the preceding three years, convened an annual general meeting or has not lodged an annual return with the ORS for each of the last two years." - Associations Incorporations Practice Manual

 

RAA can voluntarily wind itself up by special resolution of the members.

 

You need to read The Constitution, The Act & Regulations, the Associations Incorporations Practice Manual, the Deed with CASA before you can start to understand where RAA stands.

 

The RAA, because it is a National body is also registered with ASIC and has an Australian Registered Body Number 070 931 645.

 

Sue

 

 

[frank marriott]

If people can't pull together for the benefit of the organisation (its all about me) then the result will be the same as what is expected, at least from the polling, on the 14th Sepember.

 

I know it won't happen, but unless the factions (here and otherwise) try working together for a better outcome then it woun't happen.

 

Personally I am sick of reading about personal and differing agenda. Get over it or nominate for the board.

 

Backseat drivers are never useful.

 

 

[Powerin]

Just to reiterate what Sue has outlined above...NO ONE will intervene in internal disputes of an incorporated association. Even if a board is acting against a constitution. It is up to the members to self regulate their association. Voting is a good way of self regulating. If it all hits the fan unfortunately legal action by members is the only solution.

 

Like it or not, the future of RAAus is up to us...the members. Love them or hate them there is a group who can see the writing on the wall and have been at least trying to reform our association. Whether their actions will be constructive or not remains to be seen. At least they're trying.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There is also an immediate and major issue with CASA over the absence of a mandatory safety management system, and a string of fatalities, some of which could produce major financial claims. Time is very much against a structured approach.

 

 

[Oscar]

If Ed Herring resigns on Thursday, it appears to me that the Board cannot function, since a quorum of the Board under our constitution requires 'at least two members of the Executive' to be present. The Board would not HAVE two members of the Executive to BE present, since it would not have either a President or a Treasurer.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The board members have the right to resign and vote among themselves - they are the ones who have to face the consequences of those actions.

 

The Members are the owners of the Association, and they have the power to vote new members in.

 

This does take time and there may be consequences.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you are quoting 18 (viii) the quorum there relates to a meeting.

 

 

[Oscar]

The board members have the right to resign and vote among themselves - they are the ones who have to face the consequences of those actions.The Members are the owners of the Association, and they have the power to vote new members in.

This does take time and there may be consequences.

All of that is agreed - but since we don't know the terms of the Deed of Agreement - what if one of the consequences is that CASA issues some sort of suspension of RAA operations until there IS an effective and duly-constituted Executive? From various comments made on this forum, it appears to me that the Executive has a fairly specific duty of responsibility to CASA to be the nominated action agent for our compliance etc. operation - rather than specified individuals as in I of A persons - so it's not as if business in regard to operation can continue while governance gets sorted out, I would have thought.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

If Ed Herring resigns on Thursday, it appears to me that the Board cannot function, since a quorum of the Board under our constitution requires 'at least two members of the Executive' to be present. The Board would not HAVE two members of the Executive to BE present, since it would not have either a President or a Treasurer.

Not a concern - they will elect successors, or at least nominate someone in an acting capacity (such as when the President is not present to chair the meeting) - the Treasurer's position is being contested now. Regarding a quorum, the Constitution Section 18 Board Meetings and Quorum - requires 2 face to face meetings per annum, allows a half hour to establish a quorum, at least 7 members that includes at least 2 of the 3 Executive. Section 25 General Meetings (ii) 7 members are required for a General Meeting. (no mention of Executive).

 

Also applicable is By-Law No.11 Number of Board Members Present for the Establishment of a Quorum for Voting. Ballots returned unmarked or not returned, or withheld due to pecuniary interest - the member is considered not present and therefore not counted in the quorum. If they are abstaining and write that on the ballot, they are still counted.

 

Once a year, all positions are declared vacant and nominations called to fill them. If it was the case that the Board could not function without the quorum, then it would be impossible to conduct this election.

 

RAA is still functional.

 

There are anomalies in the Constitution, By-Laws, ORS material etc. It does need a good rewrite.

 

Sue

 

 

[facthunter]

IF a meeting doesn't have a quorum by the specified time it has the power to call ANOTHER meeting at a specified time. (Date Hour). This has to be advertised as the original with the required notice given.Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Sorry, but I think you MAY be missing a point: it appears that 'the Executive' is the group that is responsible for operating RAA in the Deed of Agreement with CASA - 'the Executive' comprises a nominated group of positions held by Board members, and if Ed Herring resigns, we don't have an actual 'the Executive' on hand to discharge the operational responsibilities. This is quite a different matter to requirements for a meeting quorum etc. under the RAA Constitution; however the two are to a degree interlinked since (presumably) the Board is effectively the 'head' under which 'the Executive' itself exists - and 2/3rds of 'the Executive' has to be present for the Board to have any decision-making power.

 

(iv) 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.

 

It appears to me that we could have a Gordian knot situation here: no Executive to act as the delegated authority of the Board, and no legitimacy for the Board to make controlling decisions. For how long, do people think, will CASA politely ignore that situation?

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

 

 

(iv) 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.

 

 

 

It appears to me that we could have a Gordian knot situation here: no Executive to act as the delegated authority of the Board, and no legitimacy for the Board to make controlling decisions. For how long, do people think, will CASA politely ignore that situation?

 

 

I will have to read the CASA Deed to see if a full Executive is the only means of satisfying the Deed. However the Executive is only required for decision making when the Board is NOT meeting (my emphasis in your quote). It is concerning that we find ourselves a little short on Executives - only by one at the moment and there is currently nominations and election under way (although deadlocked last I read). Turbo may be able to shed light on the Deed requirements.

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'd just put a chainsaw through the gordian knot - there's a safety job to be done and safety authority waiting and line up of people happy to sue.

 

Another job for the RAA board is to put the deed on the website so at the very least they can have a quick look to see what their jobs are

 

In the meantime here's the HGFA deed. I just scanned down to "Responsible Officer" which looks simple enough, but you may find more further down.

 

http://www.hgfa.asn.au/HGFA/casa/CASA%20Deed%20of%20Agreement.pdf

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

And I have a copy of the DoA for RAAus for about the same time, but it is equally useless because the A is only for a 12 month period and a new one is put in place each year and an assumption that this years will look like last years may be shown to be true after comparison but I sure wouldn't want to make that claim before checking.

 

We raised the DoA in February and SR told us all that the board representatives all have access (now) to the DoA as it was up on the board forum. Prior to Feb some like JT had been asking for it and were simply ignored/denied.......

 

Anyway that's history, if SR disclosed accurately to the membership in Feb then the Board do have access to the DoA

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

In thinking about it, I can't see CASA putting their trust for the key connection in an annually signed document, so maybe that's spelled out somewhere else in the Big Beehive.

 

 

[Oscar]

Can anyone find, and provide a link to, the currently in force Deed of Agreement? I think it is a bloody disgrace that this is not generally available to any RAA member.since it is the head document for how we are responsible to CASA for our operation and seminal to us understanding whether we are as an organisation meeting our obligations. If the reason for this NOT being generally available is that it is for Board Members Eye's only, then the entire basis of us being a 'democratic' organisation is shot to hell, frankly - we are no more than an organisation under the control of a (possibly) 'benevolent oligarchy' - the Board.

 

'Ignorance is no excuse in law' is an established principle. If the Deed of Agreement is a document of which the general membership is being held in ignorance deliberately by decision of the Board, then by what metric are members supposed to be able to judge the Board's performance - other than demonstrated catastrophic failures: read - suspension of aircraft registration, withholding of subsidies for failure to implement a satisfactory SMS - etc.? Statements of the nature of those presented at the February EGM that 'we are all trying very hard on your behalf' are not just vacuous but frankly, either obfuscatory or deceptive.

 

I am, to be honest, starting to regard the call for proxies that was put out by the Secretary for that meeting as being quite deliberately an attempt to pervert due process for the management of RAA to be forced to address the manifest problems. I also believe that we are now in a very precarious situation in regard to being allowed to continue to administer our technical requirements under the Deed of Agreement. Hence, I believe that 'imploding' is not a wildly emotive response to the current situation- and we need a 'Plan B' for our continued existence very, very quickly.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Much of that is correct, but if you have a look at the HGFA deed, you'll see it's a deed of agreement for funding where CASA will give some exemptions and cash in exchange for the Association doing what CASA wants. IF CASA doesn't like it they can withdraw the exemptions and funding.

 

There's no Star Chamber requirement for a face by face interchange between the two parties, and when you think about it that's not necessary; if they withdraw the exemptions we're all on the ground.

 

I was interested to see a 2010 deadline for setting risk management system and the appointment of an accountable manager for a budget of $64,975.45 plus $6497.55 GST.

 

This whole thread has been built up from a hypothetical based on hearsay, and you're talking about other hypothetical threats which aren't based on any factual details. If you could support it with facts, or if it somehow was to happen, that might be a different matter, but for Governance we come under the regulations of the ACT Department of Justice, and for safety we are responsible in some respects to CASA, so I'm not going to spend any more time searching without some hard facts.