Constitution Amendments for NATFLY General Meeting

[DonRamsay]

Those that have their copy of the March SportPilot will be aware that a handful of proposed amendments to the Constitution will be put to a vote at the NATFLY General Meeting. None I believe are controversial and are largely directed at fixing anomalies created at the last Annual General Meeting. At the 2013 AGM some Special Resolutions that were carried were interconnected with some of the Special Resolutions that were not carried. This has led to unintended consequences which need to be rectified to guarantee the integrity of our Constitution.

 

There are six motions for Special Resolutions that will be put to the Members for a vote by those present and those who have sent in their proxy. Despite an enabling amendment at the last AGM you cannot cast a Postal Vote because the antiquated ACT legislation does not allow us to have that as a Rule. We really need to get RA-Aus out of this legislative backwater overpopulated by Politicians and Public Servants.

 

Following is the first of the six. The remaining five will follow in subsequent posts. Please feel free to ask questions and please exercise your democratic privilege and VOTE! Proxy forms will be provided with the March edition of SportPilot.

 

Special Resolution 1

 

This motion recognises the fact that the Secretary is in a mainly oversight role rather than fully “hands-on”. RA-Aus employs staff to do the bulk of the “hands-on” work that Rule 14B currently requires the Secretary, personally, to do. With this amendment, the Secretary’s role becomes more one of ensuring systems are in place that will give reasonable assurance that all Secretarial responsibilities will be met.

 

This amendment will also ensure that Members will have access to Annual Reports in sufficient time prior to the Annual General Meeting so that they can come to the AGM better informed. This should reduce the time required to hold the AGM.

 

That Rule 14B Secretary be amended by the deletion of all words and the substitution of the following words:

 

14B. Secretary

 

The Secretary shall

 

(i) ensure that all secretarial functions of the Association are performed and that a proper record of the affairs of the Association is maintained, including all correspondence, meeting minutes, Members Register and other papers.

 

(ii) ensure all Board Resolutions are published within 7 days in the Members Only Section of the RA-Aus website with the report to include how each Board Member voted and the Resolution summarised only where that is essential to protect reasonable confidentiality

 

(iii) at the direction of the Board, conduct a plebiscite of the Members in respect of a matter of policy, and the result of such plebiscite shall be binding on the Board, subject to the right of the Board to act contrary to the result of a plebiscite in the case of an emergency only

 

(iv) ensure that once received, the annual reports of the President, Secretary and Treasurer and the audited Annual Financial Statements are provided to the Members in accordance with Rule 21.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I don't have mine yet but living 150 kays from the editor doesn't seem to make much difference. We get it late here on the Gold Coast .

 

 

[corvairkr]

I don't have mine yet but living 150 kays from the editor doesn't seem to make much difference. We get it late here on the Gold Coast .

March's ? I'm still waiting on February's

jason

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi Don

 

Thank you for all the important work on our Constitution you have continued to undertake on our behalf. It leaves me wondering what the Constitutional Review Committee has been doing all this time?

 

I think your comments regarding the singularly anachronistic nature of the ACT Act are particularly appropriate at this time and add force to the proposal for relocation of RAAus headquarters which was recently aired in Sport Pilot.

 

Perhaps people on this list might like to consider where they would like to have the office if the opportunity for a change should arise?

 

Kaz

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Reporting how each board member voted is unusual and could lead to board members voting for actions favoured by their local supporters but clearly not in the interests of RAA. I would not vote for an amendment that does not create anonymity for voters. By all means publish the number of votes for and against.

 

 

[coljones]

Reporting how each board member voted is unusual and could lead to board members voting for actions favoured by their local supporters but clearly not in the interests of RAA. I would not vote for an amendment that does not create anonymity for voters. By all means publish the number of votes for and against.

How else do we establish who are the good guys apart from the chest thumping do-littles.

The events leading up to Feb last year would be indicative of a board patting themselves on the back and doing absolutely zip about the big hole in our governance.

 

I might not agree 100% with Ross or Jim but at least we have a view of what they are doing.

 

The rest - we don't know if they are missing in action or just wearing very good camouflage paint.

 

Parliament and local government record votes in the minutes

 

 

[cooperplace]

Hi DonThank you for all the important work on our Constitution you have continued to undertake on our behalf. It leaves me wondering what the Constitutional Review Committee has been doing all this time?

 

I think your comments regarding the singularly anachronistic nature of the ACT Act are particularly appropriate at this time and add force to the proposal for relocation of RAAus headquarters which was recently aired in Sport Pilot.

 

Perhaps people on this list might like to consider where they would like to have the office if the opportunity for a change should arise?

 

Kaz

the Victorian act was updated in 2012 and is a lot better than the ACT act IMHO. I think you can have the head office in ACT or wherever you like and still be incorporated in Vic.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Reporting how each board member voted is unusual and could lead to board members voting for actions favoured by their local supporters but clearly not in the interests of RAA. I would not vote for an amendment that does not create anonymity for voters. By all means publish the number of votes for and against.

What good is voting for a representitve if they are not going to represent your views and opinions. It's very unusual for a representative body NOT to show who voted how.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . Thank you for all the important work on our Constitution you have continued to undertake on our behalf. It leaves me wondering what the Constitutional Review Committee has been doing all this time?

Thanks Kaz. Obviously I can't comment on the CRC's efforts as I've been specifically excluded from its work despite having been told by Runciman that when it was reformed I would receive an offer to participate. I'm afraid the work that I've been able to put in, while useful, has been just scratching the surface of what needs to be done. To have the Board Rep on the CRC vote against every Special resolution I've proposed "on principle" that I have usurped the task of the CRC has a kind of hollowness when his own Committee has produced absolutely nothing since the original CRC was disbanded by Runciman in 2012!

 

I wonder if Ed will vote volumes of proxies against these six as well on the same ingenuous basis?

 

I think your comments regarding the singularly anachronistic nature of the ACT Act are particularly appropriate at this time and add force to the proposal for relocation of RAAus headquarters which was recently aired in Sport Pilot. Perhaps people on this list might like to consider where they would like to have the office if the opportunity for a change should arise?

I also applaud Mark Clayton's initiative in raising the issue of the unsuitability of the ACT as a base for RA-Aus. I'll create a new thread to see what RecFlyers think.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Reporting how each board member voted is unusual and could lead to board members voting for actions favoured by their local supporters but clearly not in the interests of RAA. I would not vote for an amendment that does not create anonymity for voters. By all means publish the number of votes for and against.

pmc,

 

I agree that it is important that Board Members act like, well Members of a Board, and consider the best interests of the whole of RA-Aus when voting on issues. They in fact have both an RA-Aus Constitutional duty to do that and a legally enforceable duty to do that.

 

However, if they need to depart from the known will of their electors the manly way to handle that is to come clean and persuade their constituency that the way they have voted is the best for them and RA-Aus. It is not ethical to hide behind anonymity and pretend they opposed something when in fact that were in favour and voted that way.

 

How in earth can an Ordinary Member judge the performance of the Board Member they helped elect unless they know how that person voted on various issues? If you can't stand the heat of fair and open scrutiny PLEASE don't go into the Board Room.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

All the Special Resolutions, including one from Rod Birrell, have been printed in the March Edition of SportPilot at page 48. Seems there are no proxy forms included in the Magazine but you can always download the form from the RA-Aus website. The form is Appendix A to the Constitution. Better not to attempt to use Appendix C Postal Vote as they cannot be accepted due to the ACT legislation that overrules our Constitution.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Reporting how each board member voted is unusual and could lead to board members voting for actions favoured by their local supporters but clearly not in the interests of RAA. I would not vote for an amendment that does not create anonymity for voters. By all means publish the number of votes for and against.

I cannot believe you said that buddy. It's called accountability. I would expect my representative to vote on the basis of his /her platform for election or at least give us the reasons why not. If they don't like scrutiny then they should get out of the Board room.