Constitution Amendment - SR3 & SR8

[DonRamsay]

SR3 - Limited Board Terms

 

Currently, Board Members may serve an indefinite number of terms on the Board. This amendment to Rule 13 proposes limiting Board Members to three consecutive terms (six years) and then requires a two year break before coming back to the Board. This amendment avoids abusing the good will of volunteers serving very lengthy terms on the Board and allows for new input at Board level thereby maintaining a balance of experience and freshness. This amendment is also directed at reinforcing the pre-eminent position of the Rules over individual Board Member’s wishes.

 

SR8 - Removal of Board Members

 

In the unlikely, and so far unprecedented, circumstance that a Board Member were to be removed from the Board by the members in General Meeting, then that person would not be eligible to re-join the Board for at least two years.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

That looks fine to me...............Maj...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Dumb - you lose the services of the very best talent right when you've got it.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Not dumb Facto, If they can't make a difference in six years they shouldn't be there in the first place, how many years do they want ??.....................Maj...

 

 

[DonRamsay]

- you lose the services of the very best talent right when you've got it.

If people were elected on talent alone, we might not have such a crisis on our hands.

Think how much better the talent will be coming back after a couple of years off the Board enjoying their flying.

 

In a period of 10 years they would only miss two - if they are that keen and that well supported.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

There is no shortage of aviation knowledge, RAA needs management talent.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not dumb Facto, If they can't make a difference in six years they shouldn't be there in the first place, how many years do they want ??.....................Maj...

OK, VERY dumb then.

 

You can vote the bad ones out after the first term, or the second term, but you can NEVER have continuity with a good President with this change.

 

Most Associations have good officials, and some of these people are brilliant. I'm currently working with some I'd give my right arm for, and I've known some Presidents who've been in office for 30 years and taken their Associations to heights which could never be achieved with a mate just putting his hand up on the spur of the moment, and b9ing booted out after two terms when he may have done enormous damage.

 

Changes to the RAA Constitution should not be based just on the current standard of officials; that will pass either over time or at a Meeting of very angry members, and the Association will go into a normal phase of operations.

 

This sort of proposal shows the short sightedness of a tiny committee coming up with ideas on their own without the discussion being open to all members; now there's only one extreme or the other to vote on.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I am not sure I would support this one. I have supported it in smaller organisations where the same stressed out volunteer gets brow beaten into continuing to do a job they need to take a break from. This usually happens at an AGM that few members attend. On the down side - some very capable people have had to stand down, and an inexperienced person nominated in their place.

 

RAAus, however, has far more members and it is up to the member to put themselves forward for election and the constituents to vote them in. Looking at the AUF/RAA Board history, there have not been that many who have done more than 6 years. I see the problem being voter apathy; where some who bother to vote, just vote for the status quo, without being aware of the achievements (or lack) of their present member.

 

As Turbo noted, there have been some outstanding people (usually Presidents) who have led their respective organisations to a level of excellence that can only come with continuity.

 

Sue

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

OK, VERY dumb then.You can vote the bad ones out after the first term, or the second term, but you can NEVER have continuity with a good President with this change.

 

Most Associations have good officials, and some of these people are brilliant. I'm currently working with some I'd give my right arm for, and I've known some Presidents who've been in office for 30 years and taken their Associations to heights which could never be achieved with a mate just putting his hand up on the spur of the moment, and b9ing booted out after two terms when he may have done enormous damage.

 

Changes to the RAA Constitution should not be based just on the current standard of officials; that will pass either over time or at a Meeting of very angry members, and the Association will go into a normal phase of operations.

 

This sort of proposal shows the short sightedness of a tiny committee coming up with ideas on their own without the discussion being open to all members; now there's only one extreme or the other to vote on.

There's just no pleasing some people is there !?......one minute calling for instant dismissal and change , and when it occurs by an organised committee , knocking the hell out of a good idea. And are you even a paid up member of the RAAus yet Turbo ?...Did you put your hand up to be part of the re-organisation committee ?....don't really see how you can crow too loudly.......On the other hand I applaud Don Ramsey and those like him, for his continuing efforts, on behalf of the organisation .............Maj...:

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Maj,

 

I can't remember Tubbs calling for anyone's instant dismissal - I believe he came out against that when others were baying for Ed's head.

 

I can also attest the the huge amount of research that he has done on the RAA members' behalf to unearth documents and post links, so that we can be better informed. Unfortunately he copped flack for that too.

 

This thread is discussing the amendment, not about fighting amongst ourselves.

 

Sue

 

Please ... keep it civil ... there are ladies present

 

 

[DWF]

I do support this motion.

 

I have seen too many cases where the incumbent President and/or committee member(s) are well past their "Use By" date. Egos, cronyism and voter apathy keep them in their positions to the determent of the association.

 

Even the President of the United States only gets 2 terms!

 

There should be enough talent amongst our 10,000 (or so) members to share the job(s) around, give others a go, allow new ideas to be tried, develop new talent and provide some succession planning.

 

I agree that the down side is that a hard working, effective Board member may be side lined for a while but there is an opportunity form them to return to the Board after 2 years if they and the membership so wish. If the person is so useful there are other ways they can continue to be involved in the affairs of the association.

 

DWF

 

 

[turboplanner]

No I'm not a paid up member of RAA Major; if you want members only discussions you have a website and you have a magazine and you have the option of calling meetings, and you have clubs, and you have FTF's and you even have an annual event at which you can conduct club only discussions, but you haven't done that and nor has Don Ramsay, you've come on this site where there are Recreational Flyers of all types with a lot more life in them, and they are going to react to dumb ideas, if not for themselves, but for their friends.

 

It wasn't called a re-organisation committee by the way, so you need to do some more study on your organisation.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

In the successful organisations that have the office limitation rule, they also have succession planning. For example where I am Treasurer, they have 2 Vice Presidents, President and Past President. Aspiring Presidents have to serve a term as Vice before the members vote for one of the 3 (within term limits) for President. This stops someone getting on the Board and becoming President before getting experience. They also have Assistants to the other Office Bearers. An Heir & a Spare and two to four to share the workload. Might work with RAA - that way you don't lose the Pres, Sec, Treasurer knowledge at elections.

 

Sue

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

No I'm not a paid up member of RAA Major; if you want members only discussions you have a website and you have a magazine and you have the option of calling meetings, and you have clubs, and you have FTF's and you even have an annual event at which you can conduct club only discussions, but you haven't done that and nor has Don Ramsay, you've come on this site where there are Recreational Flyers of all types with a lot more life in them, and they are going to react to dumb ideas, if not for themselves, but for their friends.It wasn't called a re-organisation committee by the way, so you need to do some more study on your organisation.

Ok then, "Constitutional Amendments" if you like !.......I don't have any problem with anybody expressing opinions on this site, paid up or not, that's what this site is about. However when non members vocally knock the positive efforts of hard- working others, who have thrown in their dime, it's a bit like someone crashing a party and then complaining the beers not cold !.....just ' not on' in my opinion, and it's exactly what drives those trying to do a good job crazy !..................Maj.........

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Personally, I think 6 years is plenty of time to get in and get things done. Time after time we've see entrenched power blocs engage in maladministration and they get dug in like ticks. A classic example was the Joh administration here in Queensland. In the end they had the place gerrymandered such that it took a royal commission and an absolute landslide of votes to get the bastards out. I'm equally sure they and their mates thought THEY were doing a wonderful job of running the place. So the notion of "good talent" can be dependent on your perspective. I'll vote for this one.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Just to throw my (fully paid up) opinion into the ring -

 

I believe that in a democratic organisation the way to get rid of dead wood is to vote them out not for them to have to leave after a fixed term. We've seen how very hard it is to get good people on the Board regardless that we do have thousands of members who could fill the position if they were willing and capable, unfortunately most aren't either one or the other ...

 

However the main thing wrong with democracy is that generally a high percentage of the voters don't know enough about what or for whom they're voting. I've always felt that voting should be compulsory but the voters should have to pass an exam first, to show they know what they're endorsing.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

However the main thing wrong with democracy is that generally a high percentage of the voters don't know enough about what or for whom they're voting. I've always felt that voting should be compulsory but the voters should have to pass an exam first, to show they know what they're endorsing.

I would definitely second this sentiment, but with a caveat; Even voters who take the time to try to inform themselves can be misled by misinformation and propaganda. Without pointing at one side or the other, a quick look at the federal election is a case in point. There too, we have a media organisation that has come out openly on one side. Add that to the mix and it is more difficult even for independent minded voters to form a balanced view.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I would definitely second this sentiment, but with a caveat; Even voters who take the time to try to inform themselves can be misled by misinformation and propaganda. Without pointing at one side or the other, a quick look at the federal election is a case in point. There too, we have a media organisation that has come out openly on one side. Add that to the mix and it is more difficult even for independent minded voters to form a balanced view.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I feel that people should be sufficiently knowledgeable about the system and the issues so that they aren't swayed by the press or by the candidates, and that applies just as much to RAAus as to the Federal election.

 

Voting in UK isn't compulsory so only the more fanatical people turn up to the polls and the country gets a Govt that isn't representative of the wishes of the majority, because the majority were too lackadaisical to turn up to vote.

 

Voting in Oz is compulsory so a high percentage of people vote for a party that has a charismatic leader rather than for the local candidate who would be best for their electorate. Further, they vote with no regard for whether their best-choice candidate has any chance of winning, and with no consideration of how their vote might then have been more beneficial if cast for an independent for example. The voters' ignorance of the political system, of the issues, and of the candidates' suitability is what brings countries to their knees and keeps unregistered planes on the ground. End of rant.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

A good discussion doesn't need to sink to the level of words like "dumb idea". If you have a problem with an idea the intellectual approach is to argue logically for an alternative view. Comments like "very dumb idea"are more suited to an alcohol-fueled argument about football in a bar room. Simply casting aspersions does not advance the discussion. I have no issue with anyone who wants to argue an alternative.

 

These amendments took an intensive couple of months of hard graft to get drafted and a very wide group of RA-Aus members were consulted in the process and their suggestions incorporated. Consulting all 10,000 members was not available to me in the time and with the resources available to me.

 

Putting the proposals up here was intended to give more members a chance to ask questions in clarification and challenge the intent and outcomes so that members could form an informed view and be confident to vote. If I didn't want to hear alternative views I wouldn't have posted here.

 

 

As regards the three terms/six years with a two year break after that, arithmetic tells us that in a 14 year period a Board member can have been in office for 12 of those 14 years. Hardly onerous, I think.

 

The people we might want to hang on to for 20 years must be quite rare both absolutely and compared with the very plentiful people who we'd like to see the back of after a much lesser number of years. We have a clearly demonstrated situation in RA-Aus that members do not like to run against a sitting member. We also have a situation where we have some very small regions (by number of members not area). These have produced in the past lightweight candidates who remain in office for an eternity contributed little if anything useful but caused considerable damage along the way - and are still in office!

 

I can assure everyone, that if you put into being a Board Member of RA-Aus the time and effort that you should put in, after three terms you should be desperate to have a break. If you don't take a break, then you could well be facing the dreaded Aviation inspired divorce syndrome. I know I'm close already.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

how do we feel about adding/having a "ed herring" rule allowing the runner up the option to take position left vacant by a resignation of a rep? Thus avoiding a costly by-election.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Sounds OK to me f_t. By-elections can be expensive and take an immense amount of time to conduct. If they happen around the time of a "general" election they can cause a lot of confusion. Perhaps the Constitution Review Committee might like to have a look at that one? Probably too late to include on the Agenda for the AGM this year.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

It seems to me that if its not a smart amendment to the constitution then it will fall short of the 75% needed. I can See Turbo's point of view....but by the same token any chances of the throwing the baby out with the bath water seems unlikely at this particular point in time.....In fact the specific person I have in mind needed tossing out some time ago...........

 

I look forward to seeing if it gets up or not. I can see both sides and agree they are both valid arguments....

 

Andy

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I can see merit in Turbo's argument in the general case but, in the particular case of RA-Aus, I believe this is an essential change and will do vastly more good than harm. In my longish career, I have not seen many examples where somebody sitting in the top job for a long time was beneficial. Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Richard Branson and Bill Gates being notable exceptions to what I consider a general rule.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I support this. I have seen limited terms work well elsewhere, the reinvigoration is worth the ongoing need to bring new board members up to speed.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I can see merit in Turbo's argument in the general case but, in the particular case of RA-Aus, I believe this is an essential change and will do vastly more good than harm. In my longish career, I have not seen many examples where somebody sitting in the top job for a long time was beneficial. Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Richard Branson and Bill Gates being notable exceptions to what I consider a general rule.

 

Exactly, and the change elminates taking advantage of a Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson, and Bill Gates - the Constitution would prohibit you from keeping them on, and I know Warren Buffett for one would quietly thank everyone, but decline standing for any time, and so would I. On the other hand, with the present Constitution, the members can choose to boot someone out any time they like.

 

To suggest this change will get someone out who's a problem right now is just opportunistic, and if you apply natural justice you still won't be rid of him for another two terms.

 

What's going on here is a diversion - fixing things that aren't broke, while turning backs on the most urgent issues to be addressed - recruiting good candidates and actually getting people to vote. In the last four years I have seen virtually no effort made to inform members of the major issues, which would have got them fired up enough to do something to ensure their flying had a good future. It was done in the AUF days, because the massive expansion has certainly occurred, but the will and the skill has been lost.

 

Manipulating the Constitution like this is like designing a new set of deck chairs for the Titanic.