Constitutional Reform

[Keith Page]

I am wondering why all these "Special Resolutions".

 

I am of the view that this duty belongs to the "Constitution Review Committee" or my old mate Don has taken over.

 

To me, this is only doing the work twice and most of us are so time poor that we need to utilise our time wisely.

 

Someone out on this great forum would have some answers?

 

To me the the constitutional review is a very important task and why should it be done by one person and the "Constitutional Review Committee" be pushed aside/ignored?

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Or, you could make a priority list of the most urgentaction required for members rather than tilting at windmills like Don Quixote, or ask the people you elected if that's what they are doing, otherwise why elect them.

 

 

[Captain]

I am wondering why all these "Special Resolutions".I am of the view that this duty belongs to the "Constitution Review Committee" or my old mate Don has taken over.

To me, this is only doing the work twice and most of us are so time poor that we need to utilise our time wisely.

 

Someone out on this great forum would have some answers?

 

To me the the constitutional review is a very important task and why should it be done by one person and the "Constitutional Review Committee" be pushed aside/ignored?

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

I'll have a crack at answering that for you Keith and to be up-front, I also declare that I am no longer an RA Aus member.

 

 

 

Don has put those motions up for consideration, as is his right as a member. What is wrong with that?

 

 

 

I urge the Membership to fully consider Don's submission and to vote on them as you each see fit.

 

 

 

It has now been almost 14 months since the 2013 EGM and from what I can see, the membership hasn't heard a dicky-bird from the "Constitution Review Committee", so if matters are to be considered at the Temora meeting they needed to be tabled in time. They were not, nor have the membership been brought along or informed by the "Constitution Review Committee". Perhaps a complete update will be given to those members who attend Temora, but the rest are probably in the dark on this important issue.

 

 

 

I don't see Don's submissions as "pushing aside" the "Constitution Review Committee", and if you want to sit on your hands and wait for their tome then by all means feel free to do so.

 

 

 

I suspect that you are "playing the man", Keith.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[DWF]

Is there still a CRC?

 

Who is on it?

 

Are they currently active?

 

If so, do they have a program or timeline?

 

If not, why not?

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[Keith Page]

I'll have a crack at answering that for you Keith and to be up-front, I also declare that I am no longer an RA Aus member. 

 

Don has put those motions up for consideration, as is his right as a member. What is wrong with that?

 

 

 

I urge the Membership to fully consider Don's submission and to vote on them as you each see fit.

 

 

 

It has now been almost 14 months since the 2013 EGM and from what I can see, the membership hasn't heard a dicky-bird from the "Constitution Review Committee", so if matters are to be considered at the Temora meeting they needed to be tabled in time. They were not, nor have the membership been brought along or informed by the "Constitution Review Committee". Perhaps a complete update will be given to those members who attend Temora, but the rest are probably in the dark on this important issue.

 

 

 

I don't see Don's submissions as "pushing aside" the "Constitution Review Committee", and if you want to sit on your hands and wait for their tome then by all means feel free to do so.

 

 

 

I suspect that you are "playing the man", Keith.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

Good Morning Geoff

 

First of all thank you for replying.

 

I am saddened to see you are not a member anymore, however I have enjoyed your input to this forum, just like now. Keep adding things Ratty you are always thinking, I miss you.

 

Yes, Don can do what ever he likes as he is a member, free world.

 

However I am now aware that you now not a member (not so bad)...

 

I was having thoughts for you with the CRC having done a pile of reading, made notes etc. etc. and then some one jumps in and takes all your hard work away, then you start again, just because they have a big ego and want to show everyone how great they are.That would irritate me to no end.

 

I think I will have to do a ring about and try to glean some information regarding the CRC.

 

There used to be a great noise on this forum regarding the CRC "how things should be done" -- that is now mute.

 

"playing the man"? ...... nup.... Digging for more information.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page..

 

 

[Keith Page]

Or, you could make a priority list of the most urgentaction required for members rather than tilting at windmills like Don Quixote, or ask the people you elected if that's what they are doing, otherwise why elect them.

Turbo

Question for you..... urgentaction:- which dictionary is that in?

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's a word not often found these days Keith, and comes from the logging area of northern Tasmania where they were always finding ways to use less words when they spoke, or use less paper which was in very short supply in the 19th century.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Turbo

 

I have been doing a bit of thinking... So with a bit of deep thinking:- The Tasmanians were conservationists back in the 19th centuary.. So there is our history lesson for the day.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Seems this thread is more of a personal attack then a discussion on constitutional reform.

 

I for one would like to congratulate Don on his work trying to improve RAA for all members

 

 

[Captain]

However I am now aware that you now not a member (not so bad)...

I was having thoughts for you with the CRC having done a pile of reading, made notes etc. etc. and then some one jumps in and takes all your hard work away, then you start again, just because they have a big ego and want to show everyone how great they are.That would irritate me to no end.

 

..

Sorry Keith,

 

 

 

Can you say that again so that I can clearly understand what you are getting at.

 

 

 

I'm not into cryptic crosswords either.

 

 

 

Will be happy to respond once I understand what you are trying to say & what point you are trying to make.

 

 

 

No, bugger it, I'll try to respond now. Re your long para above, I still don't understand your point but I can say the following .......... I spoke from the top table at last year's GM at Temora and was involved with a committee that was formed after the Feb 2013 EGM and charged with looking at the restructure of the organisation which necessarily needed to consider the Constitution. After the Temora GM I asked on a number of occasions for RA Aus to provide a Charter for that Committee so that we knew exactly what was our brief and on precisely what matters we were to report. We were unable to obtain any such Charter from the then President, so I pulled the pin as I was not prepared to dick around on such vital issues without knowing what they really wanted, and because at some time I also learnt that the CRC existed and both activities would cross (which could have been a problem/disaster if 2 committees were working without a clear Charter).

 

 

 

The Board/Management of RA Aus is now much improved and I am confident that all or any Committee such as the CRC, or any others, will have been provided a clear brief on what the Executive and Board require of them. I also assume/expect/hope that the CRC has been reporting to the Executive or someone at Board level, however I am also aware that some Board Members recently remained uninformed on where the CRC were at.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Keith Page]

Regarding my concern, the people on the CRC ( Geoff and Co.) would have read through the old constitution then had a discussion as what could be improved and made clearer.

 

After having the new thoughts in their mind they would start the wording what they wanted to say in a clear way -- this takes ages as there is many rewrites till the information is presented in a clear manner.

 

With regard to all the effort you put into the restructure, in my view doing it twice is a waste of energy.

 

I am concerned one task is being done twice.

 

Yes you are correct about association restructure and constitution review as they will clash in areas, because the constitution would prevent restructure, have them together.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Seems this thread is more of a personal attack then a discussion on constitutional reform.I for one would like to congratulate Don on his work trying to improve RAA for all members

Good Afternoon rhysmcc

 

I am sorry if I am sounding like a "personal attack" not true.

 

It is wonderful that Don is putting his effort into the "Constitutional Reform"

 

What I am asking, "What is the the "Constitutional Reform Committee" doing?

 

As I am looking at the situation the reform work is being done twice:- one (1) by Don two(2) by the committee.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Fiction:-

 

"The CRC is hard at work and will deliver the next phase of it's multi phased approach IAW the published discussion paper that all members will have received with the GM Notice....."

 

Fact:-

 

"The CRC has delivered nothing of consequence that is visible to members, for years....... What we currently have is broken and needs to be fixed....its not all broken equally, some things are more important than others to be fixed soonest"

 

I know Don and the team involved in these proposed changes. These were run past the CRC (as they were last time as well) with a view to retracting these if they conflicted or created issues....they didn't as I understand it from the POV of the CRC!

 

Reality:-

 

If you need to suggest "we need to use our time wisely" then perhaps you might consider applying that test to your own posts.... and additionally run it past a waffleometer to see if it determines that the post makes logic sense, or merely plays buzz word bingo...... Don't pick up rocks if your in a glasshouse!

 

Andy

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Keith,

 

One of the first thing I did when I joined the Board back in September 2011 was to read the Constitution. I was probably one of very few who had ever undertaken such a rash move. Having read it I immediately understood why few had ever got past the introduction.

 

The document as a whole if submitted to Law lecturer at any University would have been awarded a grade of "F-".

 

Having come to that conclusion, I wrote a paper and presented it to the Board at the February 2012 Board Meeting. In the paper I set out what I thought needed to be done and named a small team of four people who had the capability to review and re-draft our Constitution and present the re-draft to the Board for their review. It was not the role of the original CRC to present Special Resolutions to the Members for a vote. That step was to be undertaken by a consensus Board decision. The Board voted unanimously in favour of the establishment of the CRC.

 

The original CRC had been toiling for about 4 months when Steve Runciman , Paul Middleton and Ed Herring with support of a Board majority terminated the CRC.

 

Under extreme duress of the February 2013 extraordinary General Meeting at Queanbeyan, the Board promised to re-start the process of Constitutional Review and Organisational Review. A second CRC was formed lets call it CRC2 for clarity.

 

None, zero, zilch of the original CRC was invited to join or contribute to the CRC2. None of the research or documents or experience of the original CRC was sought by CRC2. This was no accident but policy of the Executive of the day: Runciman/Middleton/Reid.

 

The reason given for the dismissal of CRC1 was that the committee had no current Board Member. When a year or so later CRC2 was appointed the nominated Board Member was Ed Herring. Members of the CRC2 were former RA-Aus Secretary Lynn Jarvis, Max Brown and Ken McKoskey. So now you know who to talk to about the lack of anything from the CRC2.

 

Before presenting any of the 25 Special Resolutions for a vote by the Members each SR has been passed to CRC2 for their review and comment. This has been useful with good suggestions coming from CRC2 which led to improvements to the Special Resolutions finally put to the Members.

 

The current crop of six Special Resolutions were put to CRC2 but I was advised there was insufficient time to review them. To some extent that was because I was late drafting them. I had intended to cease after last September because I was advised CRC2 would be right to present something to the next General Meeting at Natfly. When I found out that was not going to happen, I reviewed the Special Resolutions presented at Narromine last September and found that the failure of 4 of the 15 presented had left some holes in the Constitution. There were interdependencies between SRs that passed and SRs that didn't pass.

 

The six SRs we've proposed this time are intended to repair those holes in the Constitution and don't do much more than that. The 7th SR has been moved by Rod Birrell and is intended to have the Board work more effectively when a member of the executive is absent for a period longer than two weeks.

 

I understand that CRC2 was to present a paper to the Board prior to Natfly and that we may all get a briefing on what they're up to at the Natfly General Meeting.

 

Keith, I hope that gives you the information you were seeking when you started this thread.

 

Don

 

 

[Keith Page]

Thank you Don.. you have put things straight for me.

 

If one is sitting on their hands and thinking about picking their nose -- why not get off ones but and do something, which you have done.

 

"when a member of the executive is absent for a period longer than two weeks":- that is a good amendment, however we must be aware of here - is an executive member being convienently absent (any reason).

 

NO ONE ever goes out of their way and deliberaty does things incorrectly, it is the interpretations afterwards which cause the grief.

 

You know there is good and bad in all things we do ---- depending on which critics are watching is where the yells come from.

 

Thank you again Don.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

At the Natfly General Meeting on Saturday last, all motions for Special Resolutions were supported by the Board and passed without opposition by those present. I hear that there may have been one person vote against Special Resolution 7 but I didn't see the hand raised from where I was sitting.

 

The meeting ran well under new Chair/President Michael Monck ably assisted by new Secretary Tony King. It was well attended and well received by the members present.

 

Jim Tatlock gave a first class presentation on the grim financial situation. It was so clear and well-presented that there was no general outcry despite his suggestion that we are likely to have a large deficit this financial year and, if nothing changes, a possibility of insolvency within a few years. Jim T explained that there was a determined effort to address the decline in revenue and the rising cost base. One initiative being considered by the Board is relocating to a less expensive location. Increasing demands from CASA means they will have to make a realistic contribution to RA-Aus admin costs. If they don't and RA-Aus were to go insolvent then CASA would be faced with a huge bill to take over administration of 10,000 pilots and 3,500 aircraft. There is no way they could manage recreational aviation at anywhere near the relatively low costs RA-Aus achieves.

 

There was an item of business arising from the Minutes of the last AGM that nearly slipped by unnoticed until it was pointed out by Max Brown. This related to the expensive legal advice provided to Steve Runciman which it had been agreed by the previous Chair would be investigated and report back to the meeting. Mr Runciman was to be approached to disclose the advice, or if he wanted to keep it private to himself then he should pay the $1,950 that it cost RA-Aus Members. The principle being that if it is paid for from RA-Aus Members funds then it is to be available to RA-Aus members. If it is paid by Mr Runciman then he could do what he liked with it. When the item was explained to the Meeting there was a spontaneous applause in favour of that principle of disclose it or pay for it.

 

On Saturday afternoon, Mark Clayton convened a Q&A session. It was also well attended and very well received. Mark called a few straw polls by show if hands of those present including:

 

In favour of merging with SAAA? Overwhelming support.

 

In favour of moving out of Canberra? Overwhelming support.

 

In favour of merging magazines with AOPA and SAAA. Overwhelming support.

 

In favour of free electronic SportPilot with extra cost if you want the printed version. Overwhelming support.

 

These were of course not binding votes but give Mark an idea of how a random sample of RA-Aus members feel about such proposals. There is a great deal of money that could be saved by having an iPad App version of SportPilot and it would be a lot more current than 4 to 6 weeks old as it is now when we finally get it. An electronic version could be distributed to the World and would reach many more, especially younger people than the current magazine reaches.

 

There is a totally new and welcomed feeling associated with the Board & Management these days. Glasnost (openness) & Perestroika (restructuring) are alive and well.

 

 

[dodo]

Don,

 

thanks for that update. I have made it to every other GM for the last few years, but couldn't get to this one. Your precis is very informative, and relevant.

 

I can't say the financial position is a surprise, but it gives everyone impetus that we must change, and I think Jim Tatlock has the sense to make a good go of it,

 

dodo

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Thanks for the summary of events for those of us who couldn't attend. Sounds like Mark has quite alot of ideas to move recreational aviation in a new direction, most seem sound from my pov.

 

Looking forward to reading the minutes and hopefully a bit more about Jims presentation, albeit in a few months time.

 

 

[rankamateur]

In favour of merging with SAAA? Overwhelming support.

In favour of moving out of Canberra? Overwhelming support.

 

In favour of merging magazines with AOPA and SAAA. Overwhelming support.

 

In favour of free electronic SportPilot with extra cost if you want the printed version. Overwhelming support.

I would have put my finger up for each of these suggestions too, if present. I know the board historically don't take any notice of this forum, but it might be interesting for the rest of us to pole these suggestions on the forum, since the initial random sampling was rather small, it would be one way to expand the sample some what. I am aware people who could be bothered being present can and will vote again but I could live with that.

 

 

[DWF]

At the Natfly General Meeting on Saturday last, all motions for Special Resolutions were supported by the Board and passed without opposition by those present. I hear that there may have been one person vote against Special Resolution 7 but I didn't see the hand raised from where I was sitting.

Don, well done in preparing and presenting the amendments to tidy up the constitution.

 

The fact that all (except one - which was not yours anyway) were passed unanimously is testament to the sensible (and perhaps non-controversial) nature of the amendments.

 

 

 

The one dissenter on SR7 actually seemed to me to be more an abstention than a NO vote.

 

I did not find out his reason for not agreeing with the motion.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[DWF]

On Saturday afternoon, Mark Clayton convened a Q&A session. It was also well attended and very well received. Mark called a few straw polls by show if hands of those present including:

In favour of merging with SAAA? Overwhelming support.

 

In favour of moving out of Canberra? Overwhelming support.

 

In favour of merging magazines with AOPA and SAAA. Overwhelming support.

 

In favour of free electronic SportPilot with extra cost if you want the printed version. Overwhelming support.

 

These were of course not binding votes but give Mark an idea of how a random sample of RA-Aus members feel about such proposals.

Although each of these options probably received majority support I would not call it "Overwhelming".

 

I also think that these were presented as cost saving options that should be explored rather than definite proposals.

 

 

 

While I do not think Canberra is necessarily the best location for RAAus HQ, I think that it would be rather problematic to implement, with relocation expenses, major disruption to business, staffing issues and the fact that as RAAus is an association registered in the ACT the public officer (and probably the official location) of the association must be resident in the ACT. Changing the jurisdiction of the association or becoming a company limited by guarantee may resolver the latter issue and also make operations and constitutional change more flexible.

 

 

 

Regarding the Sport Pilot suggestion - this would perhaps save money by not having to print any hard copy magazines but if some printed copies were required then the cost per copy would be significantly increased (due to lower printing volume). This would in effect mean that those of us who would like a printed copy of the magazine would have their membership fees effectively increased by $80/year (or whatever the mag. would cost). As a compromise alternative we could reduce the number of hard copy magazines to 4 or 6 per year and have an electronic newsletter/update every month.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don, Yes, I was probably being overly enthusiastic with "overwhelming". More like clear majority. I suppose I was expecting a fair amount of division on the SAA questions. There are a few of the old brigade who really burr up over any talk of synergies with SAA. I think Middo's biggest insult he can offer you is "SAA spy!"

 

Mark's approach on relocation I think he termed "decentralisation" as a means of getting away from the Canberra high cost of living and doing business. There are significant cost savings by getting out of Canberra that would well outweigh the cost of moving. With good computer systems, he disruption could be minimal. With the sale of prime real estate in Canberra we could acquire a better, more appropriate facility for significantly less cost.

 

Your suggestion of some printed and some electronic issues makes a lot of sense as a transition. My belief is that printed magazines will be looked on as a curiosity by our grandchildren who are being raised with an iPad in one hand and an iPhone in the other.

 

As you intimate, any reduction in the volume printed will show only a small reduction in the total cost of printing and therefore a big increase in the per unit cost. This is true for any printed publication and will eventually mean the end of magazine printing.

 

Eventually, all those who hope to avoid computers in the 21st Century will lose hope and have to get with the program. I am always surprised that there are pilots who still avoid computers but I've been operating computers since 1966.

 

Don

 

 

[frank marriott]

All bar one unanimous is bullshit. I submitted a proxy against more the one so the statement is either incorrect or the records invalid. True records are important even if one does not support the view - Unanimous , if proxy votes were not counted its illegal .

 

 

[DWF]

All bar one unanimous is ********. I submitted a proxy against more the one so the statement is either incorrect or the records invalid. True records are important even if one does not support the view - Unanimous , if proxy votes were not counted its illegal .

Frank,

 

I was at the General Meeting and as far as I am aware posts #16 and #20 are correct.

 

The Secretary did say at the beginning of the meeting that a small number of proxies had been received after the deadline of 24 hours before the meeting and were therefore invalid in accordance with Rule 30 (see below).

 

Yours may have been one of those.

 

May I ask what you objected to in the resolutions?

 

As far as I could see the meeting was run strictly in accordance with the rules.

 

DWF

 

Rule 30. Appointment of proxies.

 

(i) Each member shall be entitled to appoint another member as proxy by notice given to the Secretary no later than 24 hours before the time of the meeting in respect of which the proxy is appointed.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Frank, as DWF relates, there was only one valid proxy received in time to be counted. That proxy directed the Chair of the Meeting to cast his vote in favour of all motions.

 

I also would like to understand which motions you were unhappy with and why.