Organisation Restructure Considerations

[Spriteah]

RAAus Members, Recently members of the Constitution Review Committee and the Executive met and discussed our future organisational structure. Below is a summary of what was considered.

 

• One model consisted of a large group of 13 people being elected by the members who then select, among themselves, a subset of five people to form the board. Different views were held as to what responsibilities each group would have with some views saying the larger group would be policy oriented and the smaller group be tasked with implementation. This idea would, however, create confusion between the roles of the two boards and management.
   
   
  
• A slight variation on the first model was also suggested where the larger group doesn’t play any active role in the organisation other than to appoint the smaller board. The smaller board would then govern while management manages. This would create issues with the larger board being elected but not doing anything.
   
   
  
• The model that was arrived at in the end was a much simpler one. It simply consisted of a 7 member board elected by members to set policy and strategy for the organisation. The model is well accepted in the outside world (both non-profit and for profit orgs use this structure) and has proven to be effective. Furthermore, it was noted by several people that members have expressed a strong desire to reduce the size of the board so it meets this requirement as well.
   
   
  

 

 

Also discussed were options to improve the selection of candidates for the board to attract the right group of people. Ideas included selection criteria, limiting the number of any particular interest group on the board, requiring a high hurdle for nomination. These ideas have been employed successfully elsewhere (e.g. RAA in SA requires nominees to have the support of 50 members before being nominated while Choice sets out selection criteria in terms of skills and experience). No method was chosen as the preferred option and further discussion is required on this point before any proposal is made.

 

In general, the plan is to begin socialising the idea of change to the members and gauge the opinion of the membership. Once finalised the revised structure would be written into the constitution in accordance with the processes outlined in our current constitution.

 

I have placed this communication on the forums so members can consider what is being discussed and make any comments that I will take back to the board.

 

If you have any idea's as the best way to select the board members I would like to hear them. If we move towards a smaller board it will be paramount that those elected are skilled and prepared to contribute. There is a significant amount of work that needs to be done by those that are elected.

 

I look forward to hear your ideas and feedback.

 

Regards and safe flying.

 

Jim Tatlock

 

Victorian Board Representative.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Eight states and territories in this country, so who is going to miss out ?......Plus Queensland needs at least two reps. One in the South East corner is not going to give a damn about the North, and one in the North Probabily won't do much for the SE corner, as we already get ignored by them in most other aspects. Is NSW and Victoria going to be happy with only one rep ?.................Maj...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Jim, Can you tell us who is on the constitutional Review committee , and from what states they were elected from. Additionally are there any members on it, who were elected unopposed ?....................Maj....

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Eight states and territories in this country, so who is going to miss out ?......Plus Queensland needs at least two reps. One in the South East corner is not going to give a damn about the North, and one in the North Probabily won't do much for the SE corner, as we already get ignored by them in most other aspects. Is NSW and Victoria going to be happy with only one rep ?.................Maj...

...and the people west of the Range think NSW stands for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. Lets toss out our petty, local jealousies and remember we are Australian. For too long we've had politicians press the parochial button for their own benefit. This week it was a Mayor talking up the wonderful spirit of "The Blue Mountains people" -as if lesser Australians would react differently to a bushfire situation!

Does RAAus need geographic representation more than it needs good governance?

 

 

[frank marriott]

As a constitution change I guess the whole membership ( or at least those interested) will get to have their say by way of vote in due course. I would suspect the idea would need to SOLD/PROMOTED to the membership for it to be successful.

 

Without commenting on the actual proposals, there will be an opposition to Canberra/Victoria control of anything - whether actual or only perceived, but an opposition just the same.

 

I suspect a proposed change supported by the complete board would have a better chance of approval then the last private members proposals, otherwise the normally quiet proxy voters will be out in force again.

 

 

[ruffasguts]

Eight states and territories in this country, so who is going to miss out ?......Plus Queensland needs at least two reps. One in the South East corner is not going to give a damn about the North, and one in the North Probabily won't do much for the SE corner, as we already get ignored by them in most other aspects. Is NSW and Victoria going to be happy with only one rep ?.................Maj...

are not we better off having 7 board members living in the same street who are qualified to do the job than geographical representation by people not qualified

 

Mick W

 

 

[facthunter]

Mick W. In theory yes, but in appearance not good. The matters that would relate to geographical areas specifically would be few, really. Australia is a big place and travel from remote areas difficult and costly. Being a national organisation there may be some requirement for the representation giving some account to states as such. This should be checked so we know what we are talking about. Putting requirements on candidates may be difficult at law. Attitude has been a problem in the past. How does one assess that?. I would like to think we are past a lot of that. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The membership needs to be equally represented throughout the country, rather then by a select few from perhaps a couple of Southern states. That would not be 'fair representation' in any form. Remember this is a membership based organisation after all, and they are there in Canberra to represent the members, not some perceived Idealistic agenda that the membership may not accept or agree with................Maj.....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Aviation is all about innovation

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Aviation is all about innovation

Not if it leaves a large portion of the membership out of the equation........................Maj...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

RAAus Members, Recently members of the Constitution Review Committee and the Executive met and discussed our future organisational structure. Below is a summary of what was considered.

• One model consisted of a large group of 13 people being elected by the members who then select, among themselves, a subset of five people to form the board. Different views were held as to what responsibilities each group would have with some views saying the larger group would be policy oriented and the smaller group be tasked with implementation. This idea would, however, create confusion between the roles of the two boards and management.
   
   
  
• A slight variation on the first model was also suggested where the larger group doesn’t play any active role in the organisation other than to appoint the smaller board. The smaller board would then govern while management manages. This would create issues with the larger board being elected but not doing anything.
   
   
  
• The model that was arrived at in the end was a much simpler one. It simply consisted of a 7 member board elected by members to set policy and strategy for the organisation. The model is well accepted in the outside world (both non-profit and for profit orgs use this structure) and has proven to be effective. Furthermore, it was noted by several people that members have expressed a strong desire to reduce the size of the board so it meets this requirement as well.
   
   
  

 

 

Also discussed were options to improve the selection of candidates for the board to attract the right group of people. Ideas included selection criteria, limiting the number of any particular interest group on the board, requiring a high hurdle for nomination. These ideas have been employed successfully elsewhere (e.g. RAA in SA requires nominees to have the support of 50 members before being nominated while Choice sets out selection criteria in terms of skills and experience). No method was chosen as the preferred option and further discussion is required on this point before any proposal is made.

 

In general, the plan is to begin socialising the idea of change to the members and gauge the opinion of the membership. Once finalised the revised structure would be written into the constitution in accordance with the processes outlined in our current constitution.

 

I have placed this communication on the forums so members can consider what is being discussed and make any comments that I will take back to the board.

 

If you have any idea's as the best way to select the board members I would like to hear them. If we move towards a smaller board it will be paramount that those elected are skilled and prepared to contribute. There is a significant amount of work that needs to be done by those that are elected.

 

I look forward to hear your ideas and feedback.

 

Regards and safe flying.

 

Jim Tatlock

 

Victorian Board Representative.

Jim, I thank you for posting the above on the forum. However I do look foward to you replying to my post #3, the membership have a right to know who makes up the 'review' committee .

 

Regardless, the 'Constitutional Review Committee' is just that , a working committee to study a particular area.

 

They would then make recommendations to the whole board, who would then, with something like this that would effect all members, put it to the membership nationally for a vote.......................Maj........

 

 

[Keith Page]

are not we better off having 7 board members living in the same street who are qualified to do the job than geographical representation by people not qualifiedMick W

Come on ruffasguts,

 

I can imagine seven (7) board members being *profesionaly trained and educated people *trade qualifed and experienced people (see they are clever people have all the quals. and smarts) this bunch living in Collins Street, Melbourne.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(Q)..How much help and support will they give a small aeroclub in Mt. Isa.?

 

I will answer it for you (A).. None.

 

(Q). How much work is involved in getting them to Mt.Isa. ?

 

(A). Heaps.

 

Have a wee think...

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[facthunter]

You talk of 'divides' a lot Keith. a lot of this can be a perception. I'm not aware of the RAAus "helping" any particular area to the detriment of any other. Australia has a lot of remote areas to service. That is one of the problems of supervision? training and communication, but with technology we are better off than anytime in the past. I would like to think that I could get the support of say Maj even though he is not my local rep IF I felt he was the best person to contact. Similarly IF you wanted to contact all or any other rep. I would fight for your right to do that. I can't recall any matter that was totally area based, but naturally you are more likely to have personal contact with someone closer to you because that is the way things are. Borders on the map are an arbitrary line and when I fly along I have trouble seeing them. Our problems are not related to borders. Distances are a fact. Australia is as big as the USofA. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

F-H divides they are here, whether we like it or not they are in society. Fact of life. What about the big one? State of Origin"

 

We need people who can go out into the digglies and say hello to the members, remember the majority are basicly shy people who want to just fly, we need to get these people talking. For RAAus to advance we need to gather these person's knowledge and experience - these people will have a great input and if we do not capture that input, I think that will be a great waste.

 

As you said we need, "personal contact". So how can that be achieved with a rep on the other side of Australia.

 

There is only so much of Maj how can he spread himself all over Aust.? He will look after his cronies around Townsville the the other part of his life he must work, sleep, eat and play, his precious time and should not be taken by travel.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't think he will look after his cronies Keith, he is already communicating Australia-wide, and we are all getting something out of it. There's absolutely no way a volunteer, paying for his own travel can even fully cover a small region of Australia.

 

The electronic age has allowed us to do that though. I've previously been involved in marketing at a global level, selling milk tankers into the Carribean, airport refuellers to Madrid.

 

Right here, right now, we are communicating on this subject, whereas 25 years ago people in Mackay would not even know there were discussions going on in Townsville.

 

An Association thrives when it has honest, active people with drive who can afford to invest their time for all members, and they are not easy to find.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Turbo --- we can have a yarn and describe situations, world wide, however I was more thinking about advice on mechanical things like which bolt to tighten or or which screw to back off or his specialty "the rattle of the rotax", you know those safety things where it would be good that he had a look and listen. Plus the paper work.

 

A milk tanker is a description and photo then the intending purchaser should be all over it, "one hopes".

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

At the end of the election blurb in the magazine recently, I, and David Martinee posted our Email addresses. Don't know about David, but One reason I did it was hopefully to hear from members in the NQ area, that I do not know already, and to get their slant on things. After all we are supposed to be the voice in Canberra.

 

Responses so far ??.............zero, nuddah, nah !...I do know many of the people in the North and we have been communicating well, but what about the rest of you.

 

I did send David an introductory Email, and got a nice reply....so at least the canidates are talking !! !!!!!!!!!........Maj....

 

 

[Keith Page]

Oi! Maj...First of all I must congratulate you on putting your self forward as a candidate for NQ. Thank you.

 

As I see the board member's task, they have many hats and a busy time.... "it is not all going to Canberra and sitting at the board meetings far from it".

 

The big point I see in the situation and it is missed be out there promoting RAAus. This promotion covers meeting the members and encouraging new people to join. By this meet and greet and promote one will get a good idea which direction we should be going. With this extra information one can make a good judged approach, not these ego trips which have been displayed on these previous threads.

 

As I said before people are basicly shy and as board members we must get out and ferret information from these people, as Maj said no one will contact us, how else can we get a responsible view? We only hear from the ones,....... "They should be doing"...... As I said get off ones but and run the ball up, will not go anywhere by just passing the ball about.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I have to say that this thread exemplifies the reasons why I am no longer a member of RAA.

 

What I see here, is a conflict between capability and proportional representation. What I cannot see, is what the importance is of representation based on geography. RAA contains a number of identifiable interest groups, based on the kinds of aircraft they choose to fly; these are all set out in CAO 95.55 and CAO 95.10. If proportional representation were of any consequence at all, I could understand its being based on the representation from each of these groups; 95.10 people tend to have the same needs, wherever they are based, so do the operators of LSA, homebuilt, etcetera. Each group has its particular desiderata, and the numbers in the group should perhaps bear some relationship to its representation on the Board.

 

However, I rather doubt that RAA needs proportional representation at this point in time; I suspect it needs "12 wise men" - and you don't get that by proportional representation. RAA has major problems that need competence, rather than loyalty. After those are sorted out, if the organisation still exists, maybe there will be an opportunity to do it the old way - tho I doubt it.

 

FFS, stop playing sand castles and fix the dyke instead, before you all and your sand castles are washed away. I've seen kindergarten kids with more sense . . .

 

 

[frank marriott]

It is interesting to note how many people who don't have enough interest to even be a member, and thereby vote,[and support the costs involved] have so much to say about how an organisation they don't belong to should be run. Why bother?

 

 

[M61A1]

Come on ruffasguts,I can imagine seven (7) board members being *profesionaly trained and educated people *trade qualifed and experienced people (see they are clever people have all the quals. and smarts) this bunch living in Collins Street, Melbourne.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(Q)..How much help and support will they give a small aeroclub in Mt. Isa.?

 

I will answer it for you (A).. None.

 

(Q). How much work is involved in getting them to Mt.Isa. ?

 

(A). Heaps.

 

Have a wee think...

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

Realistically, the laws of physics and the other rules we must abide by do not change no matter where you are in this country. They have one job to do, that being to make sure we all safely follow CASA's rules, nothing more. You could probably effectively outsource it to somewhere in India and get as good or better result as we currently have.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

It is interesting to note how many people who don't have enough interest to even be a member, and thereby vote,[and support the costs involved] have so much to say about how an organisation they don't belong to should be run. Why bother?

Because I was involved in the original set-up of the AUF; and I hate to see so much potential go down the tube due to stupidity. I was a member for about 20 years; and its first tech manager. I'll spit orange pips if I want to.

 

 

[facthunter]

You may well have earned the right . Maybe your line of expertise is more suited now than it was then. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

As I said, interesting, hard to comprehend, but interesting to watch just the same.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Realistically, the laws of physics and the other rules we must abide by do not change no matter where you are in this country. They have one job to do, that being to make sure we all safely follow CASA's rules, nothing more. You could probably effectively outsource it to somewhere in India and get as good or better result as we currently have.

A propos of that, for what it may be worth, George Markey made a remark, not too long before he died, that the way to run it would be to set it up as a limited-liability company, and give the technical people and the managers directorships, and make the members shareholders. I've not thought this through, but somebody might like to.