Board of Governors vs Panel of Regional Reps

[flyvulcan]

When the AUF first came into existence, it was ostensibly an organisation that provided representation for a group of enthusiasts to the regulatory authority and also a representative body for promoting and coordinating that groups activities.

 

Over time, the function of the AUF/RAAus evolved into one of both representation/promotion as well as administrative oversight through delegations from the regulatory authority.

 

The initial concept of regional reps was introduced during the time when representation/promotion was the core activity for the AUF.

 

Now that one of the key functions of RAAus is administrative oversight through the delegations from CASA, which has introduced more stringent liability and accountability issues to the organisation, and with the inevitable restructure of RAAus imminent as a result of recent events, we probably need to differentiate between the role of the Board and the role of the Regional Reps.

 

First and foremost, in amongst the problems that RAAus is facing at the moment, we need to remember that as well as the regulatory/delegation responsibilities that we are trying to sort through and resolve, we have retained the role of representation and promotion.

 

In my opinion, RAAus should have a Board that provides governance to the organisation in accordance with recognised practices. Separate to the Board, we should have a Panel of elected Regional Reps who do exactly that, represent. I see the Panel reporting to the General Manager who is responsible for the day to day operation of the organisation, in order to comply with the policies and strategies decided by the Board.

 

The Board will have responsibility and accountability for the health of the organisation and should be appropriately qualified and experienced to govern the organisation.

 

The Panel of Regional Reps on the other hand, will be an avenue for members of the organisation to communicate their opinions and initiatives to both management and the Board in order for the organisation to retain an element of representation for its individual members and also to provide an avenue for members to influence the direction of their organisation.

 

Having a Board which is separate from the Panel of Regional Reps would require a change to our organisations constitution, but it is a change that I feel would benefit the organisation as a whole.

 

We are having healthy and constructive discussions about the future structure of RAAus on other threads about SMS and QMS implementation. I trust that this thread can provide some constructive discussion about the structure of the organisation with respect to Governance and Management.

 

There are quite a number of generic threads already that touch on what I am suggesting. However, this thread is specifically started to address the suggestion of having a Board who is responsible for governance, that is a totally separate entity to the Panel of Regional Representatives.

 

So, what are people's thoughts on having a separate Board/Panel of Regional Representatives?

 

 

[old man emu]

How do other organisations that interact with a nationwide membership go about handling this governance/grass roots representation?

 

For instance, how does a Trade Union arrange these matters? How does AOPA do it? Pleanty of examples to look at and extract the best points.

 

OME

 

 

[turboplanner]

Another splintering change proposal when we are now aware that the major problems have simply been people not doing the jobs allocated to them, and the jobs being far from onerous.?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I'm not sure we really need another layer/group of people in the fold. What we really should be focusing on is expanding "rules" around the current roles, or better describe them.

 

The Board should be made up of 7 or 9 elected representatives (with a single chairperson to act as liaison), who's job is to set the policy/strategic direction of the association (on behalf of members) and provide oversight of the management team.

 

The management team would be appointed by the board (following recruiting procedures) and would be responsible for the day to day running of the association in accordance to the policy set down by the board and meeting all CASA requirements/regulations.

 

Communication does also seem to be a major issue in RA-AUS so it would be worthwhile to have strict minimums in the constitution regarding reports to the members and board meetings. Something along the lines of board meeting at least once a month (via phone/skype/video hookup) with at least 4 (could be reduced to 2 if RA-AUS got some decent video conferencing setup) face to face meetings (one a quarter). Minutes (full, detailed and complete) to all board meetings should be published to members (online) within 7 days of the meeting. We should even go as far as detailing the minimum agenda requirements (i.e. Reports from each of the department heads, accounts/budgets, regulator correspondence, etc)

 

 

[pmccarthy]

All good stuff. Meetings might be reported rather than distributing minutes, as the minutes will contain confidential material. Otherwise this is all heading in a good direction.