Organisation Restructure Considerations

[coljones]

....With 13 members on the board any decision that needs to be made takes about three weeks. That is three weeks the office manager waits for direction

 

...

If you had a face to face meeting the deciscion would take no more than a couple of hours so I cant really see why it would take more than a week or so with a mail trail or phone or electronic meeting.

 

RAA also has an executive which is supposed to operate when the board is not meeting. Are they too busy running the joint rather than overseeing management?

 

The board needs a Vice-president to take a bit of the load and the exec needs to be able to declare some proposals as urgency motions to speed up the process.

 

I suspect that a lot of the work that the board and exec do should really be the province of the professional staff.

 

The biggest change required in RAA is not the size of the board but how much authority the exec and staff can exercise

 

 

[Spriteah]

Something like this doesn't need member input...it is basic governance 101.This is on PAGE 1 of one Governance training manual I have (from the Australian Institute of Company Directors):

 

And that's it. Pretty simple stuff to understand (but not always to practice).

 

Seeing we in aviation love our acronymns, here's another golden rule for our board to remember:

 

NIFO......Noses In, Fingers Out. It is the board's job to keep an eagle eye on the running of the organisation (down to the last detail), but keep its fingers out of the running of the organisation.

 

Not having a go at you here Jim, I realise you are on the same page with all this. This is just the way an organisation should run, regardless of members' opinions.

To change our constitution ie: board make up needs 75% vote. It needs member input and consultation or it will not get supported. Jim

 

 

[Spriteah]

Jim, will the members get a look at the draft tech and ops manuals before they are implemented. CASA had the draft Reg 61 out for comment before implementation. The draft Reg 61 MOS was out for a long while.Thanks for the headsup

Col, CASA have put some tight timelines on us for the documents so the general membership will not get the draft. The intention is the tech manual will be regularly updated so members can have input at any time. It's not idea and not our making.

 

Jim.

 

 

[coljones]

Col, CASA have put some tight timelines on us for the documents so the general membership will not get the draft. The intention is the tech manual will be regularly updated so members can have input at any time. It's not idea and not our making.Jim.

Jim, not good - there is more transparency in CASA than in RAA. Time for a bit of pushback to staff and CASA so that the troops know what is happening BEFORE we get done over.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I am not so concerned about the Tech Manual ... but the Ops manual is what we are governed by and NOT providing a draft to the members for comment is piss poor management. This bloody document has been under review by our previous CEO for as long as I can remember and he was working on it under contract after he retired from the job; so why has it taken this long Jim to allow us to be backed into a corner by CASA? This smells to high heaven and I know pretty much all of this delay happened before your time and in bad times during your last year.

 

 

[Keith Page]

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.

Good morning Dafydd

 

You would have seen a big change then till now. However society has evolved to something different I think for the worse..... systems and processes and governance are the in thing....functioning is not a priority, If one follows all systems, all governance, all process guide lines to the letter all is then perfect???

 

If it will not function after all that I ask what is wrong??

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Keith Page]

Lost me here Keith, what has the board selection got to do with technical matters? Jim

Hello Jim

 

I was thinking that the board member gives technical interpretations and advice. When mechanical things are playing up, we need a system of "Call a Friend". We need a good knowledge base to keep us safe, covering air frames to engines.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Jim, this may be one reason we need people on the board with years of UL experience behind them, rather than Collins St academics who have nothing but degrees , and generally drive a bus for a living......Maj...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good morning DafyddYou would have seen a big change then till now. However society has evolved to something different I think for the worse..... systems and processes and governance are the in thing....functioning is not a priority, If one follows all systems, all governance, all process guide lines to the letter all is then perfect???

If it will not function after all that I ask what is wrong??

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

Keith, unfortunately you can blame most of that on the disinformation spruiked by some posters on this forum; it appears that it has prompted an esoteric talkfest among the board members instead of addressing the urgent issues.

 

Some sections of society are as you describe, but much of society now conducts business with simpler systems covering all the bases with less people.

 

If you translate this to an overview of RAA, start by comparing the Model Rules of an Incorporated Association with the ACT with the Constitution of RAA.

 

It becomes immediately obvious that in the past the RAA Constitution has been doctored to complicate things and centralise power by creating an Executive, so you have four potential conflicting rulers, the president, the executive, the board and the members.

 

If you change the constitution back to having a president, committee and members there is a much simpler flow of communications for a start, and the members will have more involvement.

 

If you clean out some of the clutter from the Constitution, you can have a simple, straightforward constitution which everyone understands

 

You, the members had the power to write the safety management system, so again that could have been a simple, elegant document based on airmanship, and specifically being respectful of rag and tube needs.

 

You the members had the power to write an operations document which again could have been simple and elegant.

 

You the members had the power to examine the job descriptions of the people you pay to employee, particularly the technical conflict between compliance and technical matters.

 

You the members had the power to identify the increasing number of fatal accidents, and dramatically improve the training syllabus, and compliance and enforcement.

 

You have to comply with CASA regulations if you use CASA airspace, and I agree CASA certainly confuse even the experts, but for the most part you yourself still control your sport.

 

There should be red warning flags flying as you read this thread, and you should be looking at what has been going on behind your back.

 

After all it's your money, your destination.

 

 

[Spriteah]

The board should not be giving tech advice. They can interpret requirements. We have a tech manager for that role.

 

.

 

David, I understand your concerns. The re-write has been a significant failure, however, it is being rectified now. Maybe not to the liking of all and maybe not in the ideal way. The full board has been involved and consulted on the memberships behalf for both tech and ops manuals. I am confident they are better than in the past.

 

We are travelling a little off thread here. I am really looking for feed back on the board make up and ways to achieve it. I would like to hear from members on their thoughts of the following:

 

1. Could we apply criteria to board selection? If so what?

 

2. Should we target skill sets? If so which ones?

 

3. Do we need regional representation? Why?

 

4. What is the optimum size of the board?

 

5. Any else you can think of?

 

Regards and safe flying,

 

Jim Tatlock Victorian State Representative.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Good Morning Dafydd

 

You mentioned "esoteric talkfest".

 

The best way to describe that, is a game of football.

 

One can not just pass the ball about one has to run it up, if it is not run up the ball does not get over the try line. Simple:- The ball must be grabby and run up.

 

for revision:- Read post 44.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Jim, can I suggest you structure the organisation around the problems you want fixed now. Easier to restructure if you have a goal in mind instead of vague ideas.

 

 

[facthunter]

To reply to Jim's request for comment.

 

1 You could, but may create more problems than you solve.. See 2.

 

2. Make suggestions from time to time to the voting membership about skills candidates should contribute.

 

3. STATE based representation may be required to be acknowledged and addressed as a "National" body under the rules of it's incorporation. Elected board members should exercise their judgement for the benefit of ALL RAAus members and be able to react to requests by members beyond their own state boundaries. this might be used it the local member has a vested interest in a matter , that a person considers makes a fair approach unlikely through that member.

 

4 Have an ACTIVE policy manual with a process for members involvement inputting it's (updated and reviewed) content. Decisions should accord with existing policies or a comprehensive RIDER explaining why in that particular instance the POLICIES were ignored by the board.

 

The RAAus has to NOT leak . Members complaints have to be dealt with in a confidential way ( when necessary.) If this is not assured You won't get ANYWHERE.. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Jim

 

Answers to your questions from my personal perspective. Not full answers, but things that float my boat so to speak:-

 

1) Could we apply criteria to board selection? If so what? and 2) Should we target skill sets? If so which ones?

 

I would like to see at least 1/2 (4 of the 7, assuming 7 is accepted) board members with corporate experience working on a board of a public company. I would like to see that after 12 months all board members who do not have previous life experience as a company director of a public company have undertaken at least the "101 equivalent" training at the Australian Institute of Company Directors at RAAus expense. Corporate experience for the 4 of the 7 needs to be such that they meet the eligibility requirements for a normal member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Membership/Membership-types-and-fees) Noting that the AICD covers Not for Profits (http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Membership/For-Better-Directors_NFP).

 

I would like the treasurer to ideally have an accounting background, but failing that formal training sufficient to read and interpret an annual report and demonstrable experience at creating a company wide budget and being able to interpret monthly reporting against that budget. We need sufficient life experience that in adhering to the NIFO principle the treasurer is able to guide the staff in ensuring that our financial systems meet our needs and also our ability to report both to members and our statutory requirements.

 

Aviation experience beyond that of an average standard member is probably not required, our problems of the last 10 years aren't related to aviation knowledge of our members reps IMHO. Problems in the Tech area's of our organisation may well be an issue within the staffing areas and I draw a distinction between board and paid staff.

 

Ideally at least one or more of the board members should have experience in audit and as such should understand the benefits of an internal audit function and be able to assist (NIFO principle still applying) the GM in setting an internal audit regime and annual timetables up.

 

3). Do we need regional representation? Why?

 

IMHO No, I cant think of a single thing that RAAus does of significance that requires state based representation. Those that speak for proportional representation, what exactly is it that your local rep provides that COULD NOT be provided any other way??? Is it something real and tangible that he provides, or is it addressing some fear of something else? If the latter what could be done to address that fear other than requiring proportional representation? Its my opinion that PR has benefits and disadvantages, but that the disadvantages (of which the greatest is sheer unwieldy size) IMHO outweigh any perceived advantages.

 

For myself I couldn't be bothered to contact the NSW reps, not because I have a problem with them, but rather if I have an issue I want to go to the one that will be best able to answer the question or seek the answers, having a middleman in that transaction adds only time and reduction in value in my opinion. Steve Runciman was always prompt in answering queries, even those for areas that he himself didn't have responsibility. The treasurer of the time never answered a single query that I had. Steve technically I suppose could have said, "I'm not your rep you need to go through Dave Caban......." but I'm sure he realised that would be pretty unacceptable to me. Similarly I have never been turned away by you or other interstate reps when I have rung and wanted to talk about where we are and where we are going!

 

4) What is the optimum size of the board?

 

Much smaller than we have at present. Today as I understand it there are those reps that add nothing to the debate of agenda items relying on the sheer numbers of reps to paper over their own lack of involvement. IMHO we cant afford to have passengers at the board level. Ideally an odd number, to prevent tied outcomes as much as possible.

 

Let me take this opportunity to address a board behaviour that I believe must stop. We have a board forum, being a technical solution much like this forum, where board members formally communicate. Votes and posts for and against proposals should occur within the board forum so that in X years time when a position for Y is revisited the full history of why a position was historically established is available to the then current board. Today and in recent years as I understand it much of what happens in the board happens within email, which belongs only to the sender and receiver and once they move on is not available to the membership, or the current board. We must stop using email for board business, or where it is used it needs to be imported into the board forum so that tool becomes the 100% repository of RAAus board business. Trying to understand who is contributing to a board decision is difficult if not everything is visible to the entire board.

 

5) Anything else you can think of?

 

I would like to see published a monthly précis of business addressed by the board, where such a précis is not detrimental to natural justice , and doesn't damage a negotiation position. I want to understand what the board is doing and I want to understand what its priorities are. Ideally a strategic vision for RAAus should exist and be a living document and against which progress is reported quarterly?

 

Andy

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Col, CASA have put some tight timelines on us for the documents so the general membership will not get the draft. The intention is the tech manual will be regularly updated so members can have input at any time. It's not idea and not our making.Jim.

Jim, I admire greatly your commitment to and actual doing of communication with members. Nothing I write below should be taken as a criticism of you personally. I'm one of your biggest admirers and if we had 13 Jim Tatlock's on the Board we would be in very good hands.

Sorry to be so late to the discussion on this and hope I'm not repeating what others have written but I have to say that something as important as the Ops and Tech Manuals can not be left to the Staff and/or one or two Board Members. To think that that is in any way, for any reason, acceptable is plain poor logic and bad manners.

 

There must be a time made for these documents to be distributed in draft form as notices of proposed rule making even if it is just a week or two. CASA must be made to accept that proposition as it is their own standard practice. CASA do NPRM, I suspect, not just to have their work checked before it is carved in stone but to get acceptance. If people have had the opportunity to contribute to Rule Making but don't then they have no comeback. What loyalty do people have to Rules that are thrust upon them by a few? What chance of bad Rules coming into being? ONce a Rule is in place CASA have shown they are very reluctant to allow its repeal - e.g. Aircraft Condition Reports. RA-Aus Board tried to get rid of them but CASA said NO regardless of the fact that they are not declarations of airworthiness and thus add nothing to air safety.

 

 

[M61A1]

I am in agreeance with pretty much everything Andy had to say. We need people with business and admin skills, such as accounting, and quality management systems to run the show, a passion for flying, as admirable as it is, is not sufficient to run this organisation.

 

A tech manager, ideally, would have experience with quality systems and associated processes as well as an engineering background.

 

 

[David Isaac]

... A tech manager, ideally, would have experience with quality systems and associated processes as well as an engineering background.

Yep, absolutely and we have NO chance of getting one with that experience for the $90K on offer!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

$90k doesn't go far in Canberra

 

 

[facthunter]

Neither does logic. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

As an ordinary member i cannot recall ever being asked for my opinion or asked about my needs as a basic 95_10 owner. Ever. When i questioned my nsw rep over the contining build up of regs that was starting to choke us i was just told tuff that's the way its going.

 

If the RAAus is going to change will us down in the weeds types going to see some common sense prevale or do we just give up with true ultralighting in Oz?

 

 

[facthunter]

Ozzie, I guess at some stage THAT does become the question. The originators have become the minority. Perhaps that is something like what the aborigines feel. I wouldn't give up yet. On your own though it's silent oblivion, by a slow neglect with no voice. I would always uphold the right of your style of plane.to exist, and not be charged excessive costs that don't apply to it. On the other hand we can't stop innovation.( Nor should we).. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

You take the next step beyond commenting here and reclaim your turf. None of the things I outlined above are beyond being fixed.

 

 

[David Isaac]

If you have a smaller Board you have to abolish the 'Executive' otherwise there is a very real possibility the executive could never be overruled, by the balance of the Board. A President and a Secretary at max in a Board of say seven total would work. If you have 4 on the 'Executive' in a Board of seven, the 'Executive' will always have the majority ... so what accountability does the rest of the Board provide ...? Zip.

 

If we ran with a smaller Board and established area based Chapters with a mechanism to get the members messages to the Board, we would have a vastly improved member participation. At the moment we have virtually zero member participation because there is no mechanism except by direct single correspondence with a Representative member and virtually no opportunity for members collective discussion except via some clubs that are by their nature not all RAA members and a limited communication via forums like this one.

 

 

[coljones]

The board should not be giving tech advice. They can interpret requirements. We have a tech manager for that role..

 

David, I understand your concerns. The re-write has been a significant failure, however, it is being rectified now. Maybe not to the liking of all and maybe not in the ideal way. The full board has been involved and consulted on the memberships behalf for both tech and ops manuals. I am confident they are better than in the past.

 

We are travelling a little off thread here. I am really looking for feed back on the board make up and ways to achieve it. I would like to hear from members on their thoughts of the following:

 

1. Could we apply criteria to board selection? If so what?

 

2. Should we target skill sets? If so which ones?

 

3. Do we need regional representation? Why?

 

4. What is the optimum size of the board?

 

5. Any else you can think of?

 

Regards and safe flying,

 

Jim Tatlock Victorian State Representative.

jim,

 

It is very hard to apply criteria and get the voters to vote in accordance - you could put the quals out there but don't be surprised if the voters don't play ball..

 

From a board of 13 you "might" get 5 to work and contribute. If you take a look at past executives it was nigh on impossible to get three people who could rub three neurons together (the present exec seems OK, though). from a board of 7 you might get 2 or 3.

 

Set rules for board qualification and you might end up with a board of overqualified, under enthused, workshy bean counters or engineers or professional directors (in dads company) or lawyers or take your pick

 

The big end of town - the Corporates - are not democracies, they achieve board balance by appointment and concurrence with the wishes of the big shareholders and never with the majority of shareholders who are overwhelmed by the number of shares they don't own.

 

Most successful not for profits succeed because they employ professional staff who are dedicated to the organisation and its ideals and who, and which, survive in spite of the board rather than because of the board.

 

Despite everything else that has been said the essential first steps are to invest the organisation to some for of corporate governance, process, vision, financial intelligence and staff remuneration and development and this can all be done within the current rules.

 

In the past it wasn't so much that anyone was in the way, rather than too few people thinking with a clear mind, outside the square and prepared to do some work - any work. In a bigger board you end up with more willing workers and a lower possibility of an emerging dictator (but we have a had a few of those).

 

And I agree with Powerin - NIFO......Noses In, Fingers Out.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The board should not be giving tech advice. They can interpret requirements. We have a tech manager for that role..

 

David, I understand your concerns. The re-write has been a significant failure, however, it is being rectified now. Maybe not to the liking of all and maybe not in the ideal way. The full board has been involved and consulted on the memberships behalf for both tech and ops manuals. I am confident they are better than in the past.

 

We are travelling a little off thread here. I am really looking for feed back on the board make up and ways to achieve it. I would like to hear from members on their thoughts of the following:

 

1. Could we apply criteria to board selection? If so what?

 

2. Should we target skill sets? If so which ones?

 

3. Do we need regional representation? Why?

 

4. What is the optimum size of the board?

 

5. Any else you can think of?

 

Regards and safe flying,

 

Jim Tatlock Victorian State Representative.

Jim, Correction, we have an acting tech manager at the moment, I believe now the position of tech manager has been advertised, as would be expected. We know where in - house appointments have got us in the past !............Maj.....