Board members expressing opinion - thread split

[facthunter]

I regard a top end as maintenance, and so does the system. Lyc's and Continentals list around 2300 hours as a TBO, but you would rarely get one there without a "top". An Overhaul is a complete strip and rebuild. This has to be done on some engines on a TIME (Years in service) regardless of condition or hours in service. Some have a shelf life too. Zero time engine is another concept. NEW means NEW. Nev

 

 

[motzartmerv]

As per sections 25 of the constitution

 

(vi) Within 30 days of each general meeting, the Secretary shall cause a copy of the unratified

 

minutes of that meeting to be sent to each Board Member and to be published in the next

 

available edition of the member magazine and/or the official RA-Aus web site. The

 

minutes shall include the names of the Members represented, the names of their

 

representatives and assistants, the names of any other persons present and their role, and

 

the proxies received.

 

September or october last year was when this so called "decision' was made. All I want is to see the minutes, even just a simple line " dude one moved to delete FTFs from insurance" seconded by dude 2, carried.

 

If i could see that, I will go away quietly and pick on oscar.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Hello Ross, could you post your newsletter here as you write good and are the only RAA rep prepared to speak and (probably) listen.Your start as a rep has been pretty good - I like that you are open, you state your position and you are prepared to debate the issues and to defend yourself.

 

We hope on in NSW - nothing like that happening here. Perhaps they write a newsletter and then chuck it out into the airstrip in the vainglorious hope that I might fly past and read it. Except for Don, it has always been thus.

No Col sorry, I won't post my newsletter on this forum...it is between a board rep and those in the area he represents, and is written accordingly..........Maj...

 

 

[Russ]

G,day there Ross, is FNQ your area, hope so. ( Atherton to be exact )

 

Russ

 

 

[turboplanner]

Major I see on the RAA site someone has RAA described as "The Corporation" instead of "The Association"

 

Apart from visitors to the site, who could be suppliers, land owners etc thinking they are dealing with a Company, that's the sort of nonsense that makes committee members think they are corporate Board Members and sit back watching employees take control when they should be managing the Association. That needs to be fixed.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Sounds like we have a constitution that is unsuited to the role and responsibilities of the organisation today.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

G,day there Ross, is FNQ your area, hope so. ( Atherton to be exact )Russ

Yes Russ....

 

 

[gandalph]

I will go away quietly and pick on oscar.

Merv, Merv, MERV! What about me? I feel left out. Was it something I said???

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Lol.. i'll get to you later!!!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't tell anyone but he's a Major in the German SS.

 

 

[Downunder]

Don't tell anyone but he's a Major in the German SS.

He must be Herr Major then......

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

He must be Herr Major then......

Just the Majority

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ross Majors in Cat herding now that he's a bored member of RAAus....or...as Tubs would say "Its not a bored...Its a committee of mismanagement!"

 

(and yes I know its board....but I reckon bored must be more the truth given ..............history)

 

 

[Oscar]

Nope; he's the very model of a modern Major, just didn't quite achieve the grade. Probably a lack of hanging around with intellectuals.

 

 

[DrZoos]

There is a reason parliament and courts have public seating. Because they are required to be open and transparent. So they can be held accountable for procedures and decisions. As should boards of memberships. I too have been on many boards including president of many. Yes in business board rooms are closed door events. But in membership organisations they must be transparent. There are certain issues that must be done in confidence. But most issues are not confidential when you are truly acting in the interest of members. Anyone not acting in the interest of members needs to be judged and voted on by the members for what they actually do while in office. Not what they say publicly prior to elections. The only way members can know is via transparency.

 

Many here moan about the board, but how do you expect to improve things if you dont know what goes on, who votes for what and who stands for what. Honesty and transparency brings about accountability. Closed doors and secret deals brings about the status quo and decisions not necessarily in the interest of members

 

 

[farri]

Last time I looked at the Constitution there was no provision for board members to be committed to secrecy; this is an Incorporated Association required to operate in accordance with its constitution.

Thanks for that Turbo, I was about to go through the constitution. I didn`t think there was anything in there about secrecy from board members.

 

There it is guys!!! Keep in mind that Maj ( Ross Millard ) is there to represent us! The RA-Aus members of NTH Qld.

 

As a long standing NTH QLD member of the AUF/ RA-Aus, I want our area rep given the same rights as anyone else on this forum.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Yenn]

As usual this seems to be becoming a Tall Poppy issue, which is very common on this site. If you don't like what anyone says you can post a rebuttal, give your point of view, anything you like so long as the vitriol is spared. A lot of things are said here that i don't agree with, but I am happy to read them and draw my own conclusions. Some emmbers say things I totally disagree with but that doesn't stop me considering them a friend and respecting them. The only bad post is from someone who is trying to cause harm and doesn't care about others, and as far as I can see that doesn't apply to tnose posting here.

 

 

[Oscar]

Yenn, I don't believe that it is a Tall Poppy syndrome issue at all; it has been about the difference between expressing a personal opinion vs. expressing an opinion which is - apparently, by the form of expression - a statement of policy or position of the RAA and the possible consequences of that. In the former case, a personal opinion is fine even if it is quite obviously from la-la land. If a Board Member comes out and says that in his (since there are no hers at the moment, unfortunately I believe) opinion, 'all FlightSnappy aircraft should be grounded permanently and turned into landfill', that's one thing; if however he says that 'The RAA is taking action in relation to the grounding of all FlightSnappy aircraft' then that has entirely different - and serious - implications. I've outlined earlier at least some of those implications in terms of potential, immediate and probably irreversible damage to the operational potential and re-sale value of the aircraft concerned.

 

There is an old saying, that 'a lie can be half-way around the world before the truth has got its boots on' - and with the speed of the internet nowadays, that's probably a huge understatement. All Board Members (and the members of the Executive, as well) have a responsibility to present an accurate and truthful picture of the positions and policies of the RAA in the interests of all the membership, not to use the position of responsibility that the RAA has as the regulatory agency for the sector to apparently reinforce the effect of their own particular biases and phobias.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The board members, being simply the representatives of the members formed into a committee, have every right to free speech.

 

They particularly have the right to express any genuine concerns about safety, particularly when the members they represent express similar concerns.

 

Naturally they should be expressing their concerns loudest in their own arena, which is the committee meeting, and one would expect the committee to pass motions to address any potential safety issue by appropriate action all the way up to penalties and groundings where warranted by the potential risk.

 

However the committee members are still members and fully entitled to express their own opinions on any matter.

 

The situation which started this is in my opinion less of a tall poppy syndrome than a spirited rebuttal of what the person was saying.

 

 

[Oscar]

The board members, being simply the representatives of the members formed into a committee, have every right to free speech.They particularly have the right to express any genuine concerns about safety, particularly when the members they represent express similar concerns.

Naturally they should be expressing their concerns loudest in their own arena, which is the committee meeting, and one would expect the committee to pass motions to address any potential safety issue by appropriate action all the way up to penalties and groundings where warranted by the potential risk.

 

However the committee members are still members and fully entitled to express their own opinions on any matter.

Turbs, I think you have missed the essential distinction of the difference between Board members expressing their OWN opinion vs. making a statement of the RAA official position.

 

The Board Member at the heart of this debate was elected by 67 members of a 9,000+- strong (who knows the real figures?) Association. Even if every single one of those 67 members has a strong negative position on the perceived safety of Jabiru engines, that represents 0.007 of the RAA population. I suggest that that is somewhere around the population of the Earth that believes in Creationism; quite possibly those who deny the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun have the same level of following.

 

The current Government accepts the right of a Cory Bernadi to express a personal opinion about his pet peeves- but it has also stated unequivocally that that opinion is not Government policy. Do we really NEED the situation to develop where the RAA Board has to issue statements that the 'opinions' of Board members are not, as suggested, the RAA official position? RAA is trying to re-establish itself as a responsible, competent authority capable of professionally discharging its obligations under the terms of its relationship with the legislative authority for the regulation of 'recreational' class aviation. There is much ground to be recovered here; we do not need ideological ranting intruding into that process.

 

The distinction between a Board member stating that 'I think that X' vs. 'The RAA has this position on X' is quite clear. The former is entirely legitimate as an opinion by the Board member; the latter has to be a position agreed and ratified by the Board as whole. We, the members of RAA, can accept or dismiss the opinions of the individual Board member as informative or bovine-originated fertiliser - but we operate our aircraft under the rules determined by RAA.

 

That is where the line is drawn.

 

 

[Captain]

Last time I looked at the Constitution there was no provision for board members to be committed to secrecy; this is an Incorporated Association required to operate in accordance with its constitution.

Tubb,

 

 

 

As you, I and others know, this has been discussed here many times over several years, and was also highlighted during last year's EGM ............ yet still all new RA-Aus Board Members are required to execute a document that requires Secrecy/Confidentiality before they are admitted into the Club.

 

 

 

As you also know, some of us took advice from my solicitor and a QC prior to last year's EGM and it was confirmed that the members have the definite right to know ALL that goes on within RA-Aus. The Board actually has NO right to keep any information from the members.

 

 

 

I believe that all members accept that some items are best considered by the Board "in camera" but as we know, communicative Board Members have been carpeted previously on numerous occasions and I'd be willing to bet you a Florin that Madge has been chatted by the OBC about his frankness to this Forum and to the members that he represents in his region, just like happened to John McKeown, Ian Baker and all the others who took seriously their accountability to the members who elected them.

 

 

 

It's a lot better since the EGM but still needs to be watched lest those corrosive old habits creep back in, as some of the Cone-of-Silence/Tell-the-members-bugger-all OBC are still there.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oscar,

 

I didn't mention any person or product in my post, so how about cutting the hyperbole?

 

You took another opportunity to attack a board member who was elected by about 20% of the voting population of RAA rather than the number of people who believe in creationism which I notice coincidentally is a current topic in newspapers.

 

I would also refute that the person is guilty of idealogical ranting; he sees product issues first hand in his daily work, and what he sees is backed up by statistics published by the Association you seem to be so concerned about.

 

I notice he has become very quiet on here lately.

 

I would sincerely hope that isn't because of baseless carping from people running agendas; I would like to reassure him that there are plenty of us who want to read his opinions on any subject.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

I notice he has become very quiet on here lately.

 

I would sincerely hope that isn't because of baseless carping from people running agendas; I would like to reassure him that there are plenty of us who want to read his opinions on any subject.

 

Except bagging

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Tubb, 

 

As you, I and others know, this has been discussed here many times over several years, and was also highlighted during last year's EGM ............ yet still all new RA-Aus Board Members are required to execute a document that requires Secrecy/Confidentiality before they are admitted into the Club.

 

 

 

As you also know, some of us took advice from my solicitor and a QC prior to last year's EGM and it was confirmed that the members have the definite right to know ALL that goes on within RA-Aus. The Board actually has NO right to keep any information from the members.

 

 

 

I believe that all members accept that some items are best considered by the Board "in camera" but as we know, communicative Board Members have been carpeted previously on numerous occasions and I'd be willing to bet you a Florin that Madge has been chatted by the OBC about his frankness to this Forum and to the members that he represents in his region, just like happened to John McKeown, Ian Baker and all the others who took seriously their accountability to the members who elected them.

 

 

 

It's a lot better since the EGM but still needs to be watched lest those corrosive old habits creep back in, as some of the Cone-of-Silence/Tell-the-members-bugger-all OBC are still there.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

You would loose that Florin Rat, nobody has mentioned my info sharing..in fact just the opposite. It is purely my decision not to post here ATM . I will publish my Feb board member report shortly, and it will go to selected recipients in my area who actually appreciate my input and frankness. And all feedback I have recieved from the Jan one has been positive and constructive................Maj....

 

 

[facthunter]

Speculate less here and keep your ear to the ground more.. I am sure there are well intentioned people trying to do a thorough job in difficult circumstances. Faces and circumstances have changed in there, and if I read it half right there is a lot to cope with , so give them a good go as you would wish for yourself if it was you, and don't be so quick to judge.. Nev