Constitution Amendment - SR3 & SR8

[Admin]

I personally fully support this amendment but wonder whether a slight change would have been beneficial to all in that the current incumbent can still be nominated for that 4th term however at the time of closing of the nominations if there are other nominations then the current incumbents nomination is withdrawn.

 

This means that "IF" he/she is doing a great job, whether it be a general member or the President, they could still be allowed to do a 4th etc term if no one nominates against him/her. This would put the onus of performing on to the incumbent and RAAus could potentially keep a well performing member...the only "con" of this would be the potential of even just one smart alec to also stand which would defeat the clause but I am guessing he wouldn't be well liked after that.

 

The other comment I would make is, and it may very well not be relevant but it's to do with the timing (operational) of introducing this clause. If the clause is successful it becomes a part of the constitution at the AGM not a few weeks later when the actual clause is included in the document...am I correct in this? And, if so, at what time in the meeting are the existing board members stood down, the new members are confirmed and take up their role and when is the vote taken on the constitution change making the change locked in if successful? Would this then effect the position if say Dave Caban is re-elected?...probably all just semantics and irrelevant but I am just curious.

 

 

[DWF]

.....The other comment I would make is, and it may very well not be relevant but it's to do with the timing (operational) of introducing this clause. If the clause is successful it becomes a part of the constitution at the AGM not a few weeks later when the actual clause is included in the document...am I correct in this? And, if so, at what time in the meeting are the existing board members stood down, the new members are confirmed and take up their role and when is the vote taken on the constitution change making the change locked in if successful? Would this then effect the position if say Dave Caban is re-elected?...probably all just semantics and irrelevant but I am just curious.

 

An amendment to the Constitution of an Association does not become effective until the amendment has been passed by the AGM (or GM) AND it has been lodged with (and accepted by) the Registrar-general, so would not affect the election at the AGM where it was passed. See Section 33 of the Act:

 

"33. Alteration of rules

 

.... (5) A resolution to alter the rules of an incorporated association is of no effect until a notice has been lodged by the association under subsection (2)."

 

Actually the new Board members have been elected before the AGM and the successful candidates are already the new Board at the AGM. See page 12 of the Constitution:

 

"13. Election of Board Members.

 

(i) ....

 

(ii) ..... The names of the Members elected shall be forwarded to the Executive Director prior to the annual

 

general meeting of that year and the results of the elections shall be announced at the beginning of that annual general meeting. The Members so elected shall hold office from the beginning of the annual general meeting at which their election was announced, until the beginning of the annual general meeting of the Association following the group elections ....."

 

DWF

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks DWF

 

 

[DWF]

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.

IMHO the benefit outweighs the risk - see post #11 above.

 

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.

This is true - see post #26 above.

 

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. ....

I think there is some merit in these assertions in that these amendments are not the complete answer and we certainly need to recruit good candidates and reduce voter apathy. I also see the lack of effective communication of the issues with members as a major problem.

 

However, for the most part, Don's Special Resolutions ARE fixing some things that ARE BROKE(N), even though they may not be the most important ones and do not address the full story.

 

Don is to be commended for proposing these amendments

 

- thank you for the time and effort you have put in Don.

 

At least someone has started the ball rolling.

 

It is a pity that they were not publicised earlier to allow for more debate and refinement.

 

There is a danger that people may think that passing these Special Resolutions will fix all the problems. It will not!

 

In my view we need to:

 

1. Review and confirm or amend the Mission Statement and Objectives of RA-Aus.

 

2. Review and update the Structure of the organisation in light of step 1.

 

My thoughts on this are on the "RA-Aus organisational restructure" thread post #131.

 

3. Amend the Constitution to meet the needs of step 2.

 

This will probably require a complete overhaul and rewrite.

 

DWF

 

 

[DonRamsay]

If, in what to me seems to be an unlikely situation, we find that we have a Board Member who is of such incredible value that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to force them to take a two-year vacation, there is nothing to stop anyone from proposing that the Rule be changed to 4 terms.

 

My thinking and experience tells me that most mere mortals, of the ilk we attract to the RA-Aus Board, will have earned two years off for good behaviour after grinding away for six years. I actually think it is unfair to the individual in the sense of "stretching the friendship"to ask them to serve for 8 years or more. It seems to me like we would be collectively bludging on such an outstanding individual.

 

No Board Member will be affected in 2013. Rod Birrell's and Eugene Reid's current terms are due to expire at the 2014 AGM. Both, to my knowledge have served extremely long terms.

 

This Rule change is not going to suddenly dump the entire Board out the door.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its a good rule. Eugene contributed very little as treasurer.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

turboplanner said:

 

What's going on here is a diversion - fixing things that aren't broke . . .

Are you suggesting, Turbo, that there is no merit in any of the 15 proposed changes? If not, which do you agree with and which would you vote against if you were an RA-Aus member - and why?

 

. . .while turning backs on the most urgent issues to be addressed - recruiting good candidates and actually getting people to vote.

I do find that criticism a bit unfair Turbo. I've put a major effort into getting some aspects of the Constitution fixed. I've been campaigning for Constitution Reform for several years. As you know, I started the Constitution Review Committee back in Feb 2012. It was cancelled by the Board a few months later before it could do very much. The Board restarted the CRC in early 2013 carefully avoiding any contribution from me. It was soon after put into suspended animation again to allow the Restructure Committee to report. I understand it is functioning again now - but how would anyone know anything about any of that?

 

I agree there are serious issues other than the issues we've addressed but are you suggesting Turbo that I should have instead devoted my time to badgering members to run for the Board and put forward a proposal to make voting compulsory?

 

In fact, I have made a serious contribution to getting three members to accept nomination for the Board elections so I repudiate the bit about turning my back on the issue of candidates and voting. I am happy to concede that I never considered for a moment proposing that voting be compulsory or even whether that is desirable or enforceable.

 

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.

I don't know if you know Turbo but a few of us have been trying to do exactly that starting at the 2010 Natfly when David Isaac, Geoff Kid and myself and a couple of others put questions on notice to the Board. Those same people have been working hard behind the scenes since then culminating in the Feb 2013 General Meeting in Queanbeyan supported by more than 300 members. And the same people have been campaigning for votes to change the Board makeup. That's what you call democratic action as opposed to armchair criticism.

 

. . .I think there is some merit in these assertions in that these amendments are not the complete answer and we certainly need to recruit good candidates and reduce voter apathy. . . .

It is fair to say is that the 15 amendments we have proposed are not the biggest issues. In consultation with the Board, the Constitution Review Committee and the Restructure Committee we deliberately steered away from the big issues that they were working on. However, when we learned that neither of those Committees would be ready to propose any changes at the 2013 AGM, we felt that it would be a shame to let the AGM go by with nothing tangible achieved. And so we came up with fixes that we thought had merit but didn't cut across the work being done by the Board sub-committees.

 

. . . It is a pity that they were not publicised earlier to allow for more debate and refinement.

I agree that it would have bee better to have got them up here a lot earlier before they got chiseled into stone. We had been working on them for the most of May and June. It took from the end of June into mid July to get them to the magazine publisher. As it is they went through eight editions and past 30 or 40 or more sets of eyes. This was not a one-man job.

 

There is a danger that people may think that passing these Special Resolutions will fix all the problems. It will not!

Agree 100% - this is just a start.

 

In my view we need to:

1. Review and confirm or amend the Mission Statement and Objectives of RA-Aus.

2. Review and update the Structure of the organisation in light of step 1.

 

My thoughts on this are on the "RA-Aus organisational restructure" thread post #131.

 

3. Amend the Constitution to meet the needs of step 2.

 

This will probably require a complete overhaul and rewrite.

You've just listed the terms of reference for the Board Sub-Committee charged with doing this job.

 

Strange thing is most members wouldn't know that such a Committee existed, who is on the Committee or how to contact them. I don't know if this "in cognito" situation is by design or by accident.

 

I understand that the Board Sub-Committee will have a presentation for us at the AGM. Not sure how many of the 10,000 members will get to hear it but I doubt it will be a very big percentage.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Don

 

I agree, my bankbalance tells me absolutely that I haven't been just sitting in the chair. In fact I reckon in the last 12 months between the last AGM at Heck field and the EGM in Feb I'm the poorer by approx. $2500 to ensure that the right questions get asked and the spot light shone where needed. My name as seconder has been attached to a number of special resolutions but what people cant see, other than your name and my name (and others) is that there is a much larger group involved and the work is not just yours or mine, but rather the output of a group with common concern.

 

It is true that you and I have much to say here on these forums, but our involvement far exceeds that alone.

 

Andy

 

 

[P for Popsey]

The various views expressed all have some merit. This is not clear cut but to be honest I don't think it will make a jot of difference whether these amendments succeed or not. I fear we have a dysfunctional Board partly due to there own mismanagement but hugely impacted by such vociferous criticism mounted by a few unelected members that have taken it upon themselves to hold the Board to account. Whilst this may seem reasonable, the net effect has been to have an embattled Board more focused on dealing with their critics than focussing on sorting out the problems. I fundamentally believe that in the majority of cases, Board members get involved for the right reasons. But the barrage of disparate criticism is actually not helping resolve the issues. I would prefer that the Board be given some space to get on with sorting out the real issues and problems facing RAAus rather than spending an inordinate amount of energy dealing with their critics and the bad press they are generating.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

For me there has never been any question of motivation for board members. However There is a question over appropriate life skills and experience. I don't subscribe to the thought that if only we'd shut the hell up the mess that they got us into they'd then get us out of.

 

We need people on the board that have life experiences and skills in managing a large organization. We have an abundance of flying skills, and at least on paper (NSW), an abundance of maintenance skills in our board members........but running a $2m+ pa organization.....<sound of crickets!!>

 

We don't need to ditch all of the former in a chase for the latter but we do need a more healthy balance than what we have today.

 

Transparency and honest disclosure with the members in general should be the rule rather than the exception!

 

Andy

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Sadly, fear of being held to account for their mismanagement has lead some Board Members to resign rather than just doing the right thing. It has also probably contributed to them being more secretive than less. Unfortunately, best intentions just doesn't cut it when we have perhaps as many as one-third of the fleet on the ground awaiting registration. The people who got us into this mess are not the people to get us out of it.

 

Letting the Board alone to manage how they choose to is actually what gave us the worst year in the history of the AUF/RAA. Natural apathy of ordinary members induced by being in an information vacuum allowed the Board to bungle on until there was very nearly nothing left to save. A healthy management team would value informing the members and being given informed feedback. Secrecy , jobs for mates, lack of effort by most on the Board and misdirection by a hard working minority is not and never will be a recipe for success in any form of organisation.

 

 

[Oscar]

There is always the distinct chance that amendments such as these being currently proposed will lead to 'unintended consequences'; however I strongly suspect that within the next 6 years, the entire management/administrative / governance structure will be forced to evolve to a more effective and relevant structure for the organisation.

 

Given that, I generally support the various amendments being proposed on the basis that they will, in all likelihood, tend to produce an interim result that is conducive to effecting the sort of changes that will be required - even if that ends up being a (quasi, at least) commercial-type 'business' structure with perhaps an adjunctive promotional / lobbying arm that is responsive to regional interests etc.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

By their very definition, unintended consequences are never anticipated. If they do eventuate, they can be rectified albeit with some delay due to our last century communications systems. The Board can of course make by-laws that, as long as they are not in conflict with the Constitution, can clarify a Rule or establish a procedure to give effect to the obvious intent.

 

 

[webbm]

I don't mind the 2 year period for board members removed by members to be eligible back onto the board.

 

... But I don't like the proposed resolution limiting the years one can serve on the Board.

 

We have push for some new blood on the board, preferably young and enthusiastic. Say we get someone young, takes awhile to start making really positive contributions, then keeps making positive contributions over the years. By the time he/she is ready to take on a president position (and perhaps just the president we need) - sorry, your time is up!! And to make matters worse, say then only one candidate then put his/her hand up to contest a replacement who not a good person for a board position...

 

Leave it to the members to vote people out.

 

Another question that might already be answered... Why are there so many proposed changes to our constitution now when a Constitutional Review Committee has just been formed?

 

Cheers.

 

 

[Oscar]

Don, I completely agree with that, and my feeling is that what is being proposed in pretty much all the amendments is in all probability the best that can be done in the current circumstances. I just think that RAA has to move eventually to a different business model, and an Association may well not be the best option - but that needs to be done in a well-considered manner and the first step in that journey is most certainly a Board capable of and willing to examine all options and work through those to arrive at the best way forward.

 

Effective and efficient communications is most certainly a core problem, but equally so is the problem that RAA compliance needs to be accomplished as a proper, modern business practise management system. Here is not the right space to debate that, but it is obvious that just a registration system that requires more staff time and input than is available - i.e. the work required exceeds the resources available - is evidence on its own that the current arrangements are a failing enterprise. It appears that we are heading inexorably to the point where there will be a greater backlog of unregistered aircraft than can be managed within the renewal period available!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

In the end this comes down to a balancing act - kind of risk versus reward. Risks of burn out but stays on the Board. Risk that RAA members typically won't challenge a sitting member. Risks that with thirteen Board members there are plenty who coast along and keep new talent off the Board. Then there are probability issues like how probable is it we are going to get somebody so good that none of the other 10,000 members could do as good or better job. Ask a few who have been on the Board for 6 years whether they are not a bit burned out? If they say they are not then it'is because they have not been going hard enough in my view.

 

If passed in September there will be no immediate effect. But there could be an effect over the next 6 years. As somebody said even the USA president only gets 8 years.

 

If we got somebody who was so brilliant that we wanted them for longer than 6 years, we could in 6 8 or 10 years time amend the constitution to allow for that. Highly unlikely in my view.

 

Regarding the Constitution Review Committee there is a bit said about it already but happy to summarise for you. The CRC was formed as a result of a motion I put to the Board in Feb 2012. It was cancelled by Runciman immediately afterI resigned from the Board even though I and the other members of the CRC were quite prepared to work on and report to the Board.

 

The Board reformed the CRC this year with Myles as Chair and all new members and no reference back to all the work that had been done. The Board again suspended the work of the CRC earlier this year. The Restructure Committee was formed after the Feb EGM at Queanbeyan. With the CRC suspended and the Restructure Committee in deep thought and neither the CRC nor the Restructure Committees proposing amendments to the AGM in September a few of us went ahead and developed the 15 that are being put a vote. We deliberately avoided the areas that the CRC/Restructure Committee were looking into. We passed all 15 proposed amendments to the CRC, Spencer Ferrier, the Board and the General Manager for their comments. A number of changes were made to the draft proposals on the basis of comments received. What has been proposed is version eight.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Oscar,

 

Agree with all you have said there. The Restructure Committee is looking in to alternative forms of incorporation and should give us apresentation at the AGM. While I believe we could make the Incorporated Association work it is not where I would have gone. Limited by guarantee is probably better suited to the size and style RAA needs to become.

 

 

[Oscar]

I hold out great hopes for the Restructure Committee achieving the start of a major evolution (preferably NOT a 'revolution', which by ironic definition rather means that what went around comes around again!), and the regard that Spencer Ferrier is held in by knowledgeable members of the aviation community is only ONE of the reasons for this!. A Board with much new, expert and enthusiastic (albeit some may feel this is entering a swamp with a known overpopulation of alligators..) membership will bolster that progress - what we do NOT need is a Board comprised of people who doggedly maintain that the world is flat and therefore pushing CASA over the edge will solve our problems, nor a membership that believes that 'democracy' is the one true way forward and the Holy Grail for the Association - and beyond espousing that general concept, actually do nothing of use to ensure that it is an effective mechanism for ensuring that RAA works as it needs to do.

 

Whether one likes it or not, adherence to recognised 'standards' is one of the most effective defences against litigation, and RAA activities are a potential minefield for litigation. RAA right now has on its financial books a very, very expensive example of the cost of failure to maintain standards - and far more sadly, two good people died as a result of that failure. Let nobody be ignorant of the fact that, should RAA activities become branded in law as a 'dangerous recreational activity', the repercussions for individual RAA-class aircraft owners / operators will be far-reaching and potentially dire. Think Public Risk insurance through the roof, just for starters.

 

RAA has - for its survival - to become highly (and demonstrably in a Court of Law), professional and auditable in regards to adherence to standards. Ideally, it would also be in a position to influence the setting of the standards that apply, by expert representation to the standards-setting authorities. I've been down that road (no pun intended) in regard to representation of motorcyclist's concerns to the standards-setting authorities, and with some success - we worked WITH the authorities, starting at Ministerial level and working downwards. Hard yakka - but with proper research, presentation and persuasion - it is possible. The first hurdle was to demonstrate that we were, in fact, a group operating with intelligence, responsibility and rationale on our side. Confronting the responsible Minister with 10,000 of our members outside Parliament House did wonders for his (Milton Morris) appreciation that we were not to be dismissed out-of-hand..

 

RAA must move from being something of a 'club', to being a recognised force in aviation - and frankly, if we are to keep access to airfields and airspace, to being valued by the community at large. The first step to that is to be a really professional organisation, able to point to a record of success in maintaining standards in all of our operations. The contribution that GA makes to business and community life is pretty much a given by society, RAA needs to achieve the same sort of status.

 

I do think it is possible for RAA to encompass every form of 'light' flying from the purely recreational - the 'view of the ground from higher-up' idea - through to a limited commercial use of the capabilities of the aircraft that fall within RAA's purview. It's going to take some fairly visionary people on the top echelon of RAA management to achieve an organisation that can accomplish this - and they're going to need to be damn good at weaving their way through the rules and regulation that apply. I see people coming onto the Board / contending for positions on the Board who have the ability to carry the organisation forward, transcending the miasma that has led to our current problems.

 

Hopefully, the general membership will turn out and support the transition of RAA by the thoughtful voting of a Board that is willing and capable of guiding and implementing that transition.

 

 

[webbm]

Thanks for the clarification guys. :)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

........Another question that might already be answered... Why are there so many proposed changes to our constitution now when a Constitutional Review Committee has just been formed?

 

Cheers.

I'm not sure that this question has been adequately addressed.

 

While it is true that there has been an on again off again on again off again CRC it, in its own right has not yet delivered anything and is showing no signs of doing so anytime soon. Given that we haven't seen any Special resolutions from that committee then it must be that there aren't any to be considered at the AGM. That infers that the next logical time to consider changes is next years Natfly GM and to meet that timeline means the committee must deliver recommendations around Feb. latest next year.

 

For me, that is too far in the future when there are clearly things in our constitution that are broken and need fixing now (IMHO)

 

Lastly constitutional change isn't the sole purvey of a CRC or similar committee but rather a single individual that can find a seconder has the ability to put an option for constitutional change before the whole membership. The bar is set high so something that isn't supported by the vast majority will never get up, but even if something is voted down at the AGM it gives the proposer and seconder the ability to talk to the underlying issue and identify their concerns as well as hearing from other members that have concerns over the proposed changes. It may well be that in being voted down, birth is given to a more balanced proposal that goes towards addressing the underlying concern but in a way that members will support next time around .

 

Its my view that constitutional change and Special resolutions being put at AGM give additional purpose to those meetings, give rise to greater membership involvement and in general get people to realise that RAAus is their association and they too can have a say in where things go and what is done.

 

If nothing comes from a special resolution but the improved involvement of the membership base then is was worth absolutely the time and stamp cost to get it on the agenda.

 

Its my opinion that where we are today is a result of many things, but without doubt one of the biggest is low member involvement and oversight/scrutiny of the organisation.

 

To have failed 4 mandatory CASA audits and be grounded before we get one peep that there is a systemic problem is unforgivable in my mind and we as members must never allow that to happen again (Lack of disclosure, not so much failing a single audit)

 

So......Love em or hate em, lets get to the AGM and talk about these and vote them up, or down as the membership base feels is best

 

Andy

 

 

[webbm]

Thanks Andy. That explains it very well. :)