General Manager Resigns

[DonRamsay]

Announced today on RA-Aus site in the Members Only Section

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/2014/05/general-manager-resignation/

 

General Manager Resignation

 

May 15, 2014 | opsassist

 

After a little over a year in the top job Mark Clayton has decided to step down from the role of General Manager and return to his family in Queensland. Most members will be aware that the role of managing our organisations affairs can be challenging and some have likened it to nailing jelly to a tree. Despite these challenges Mark has performed admirably in this role and his dedication to improving RA-Aus has been noted and is very much appreciated. Mark brought a level of professionalism to the office that has helped to guide us through challenging times with respect to registration issues. The board would like to express its sincere gratitude and thanks for the efforts put in by Mark during his time and wish him well in his future endeavours.

 

We will be recruiting for a new General Manager shortly and will have the position advertised on the RA-Aus website and other appropriate locations very soon.

 

Michael Monck

 

President

 

 

[deadstick]

What a shame, why oh why are we turning over people so fast? Is the pay to low? Conditions too bad?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Gotta get the right team together?

 

And fast?

 

 

[Riley]

Unfeckingbelievable!! Each and every one of the outgoing participants must surely have been aware of and accepted the fact that it historically has been a poisoned chalice before throwing their hat in the ring and then, (some before the ink was dry) end up chucking in the towel before they've earned their first annual vacation. I've lost track of the resignations over the past two years. I cast no aspersions on the retiring individual because not one of us can know what they've gone thru but if the Board can't identify and resolve the re-occuring problem areas then RAA (we - us) are truely doomed. Is the Board so insensitive to the needs of the position that they can accept this sort of turn-over as being the norm? Just when it appears that some progress is being made, along comes another massive upheaval. It's almost as if it was a component part of the annual business plan (if we had one). I'm aiming my vituperance at the Board because either they ratified an unsuitable candidate at the outset or they didn't handle the requirements of the position correctly. A circus of this magnitude wasn't evident during my three years of local business administration in West Africa. In desparation I challenge anyone to show me (as an unwilling and captive audience) where I'm wrong. Riley

 

 

[metalman]

At least mark can say he didn't make things worse, for that we're all grateful I guess!

 

Matty

 

 

[nomadpete]

I, for one, am thankful for Mark's contribution to the running of our organisation. It's not a job that anybody could do for ever. He lasted over a year and that is a lot better than some in a 'poisoned chalice' role, and we are better off thanks to his energy and work.

 

Thanks, Mark

 

 

[Admin]

I think Mark has done a great job and are very thankful to him for the time and effort he has given RAAus, he has been both passionate and professional. I wish him luck and good fortune in his future endeavors...thanks Mark

 

 

[facthunter]

The high turnover in important positions (where the pressure is), has been happening for years. For what I see we overload them and expect miracles without enough support. CASA doesn't help by pinching 3 of them although their circumstances might be advantaged and the decision is theirs. (Those who accepted the offer). Nev

 

 

[Riley]

The high turnover in important positions (where the pressure is), has been happening for years. For what I see we overload them and expect miracles without enough support. CASA doesn't help by pinching 3 of them although their circumstances might be advantaged and the decision is theirs. (Those who accepted the offer). Nev

Nev you have summed it up correctly and the part of your statement that sticks out like a diamond in a goat's arxe is "it's been happening for years". Rightly or wrongly I hold the previous and existing Board responsible for not addressing that very fact. Cripes, if the recruitment system and/or the follow up support system is repeatedly proven inadequate, it's incumbent on the Board to do whatever it takes to resolve the problem. Hiring, firing, releasing by agreement etc, ad infinitum obviously is costing us dearly in all manner of resources. I'm truely frustrated by this seeming blase acceptance of continueing senior personnel swap-outs. It shouldn't be a bloody lottery! yours in perplexion Riley

 

 

[Tiger]

I have personally met Mark a few times and I always found him extremely helpful to all and sundry. I do remember him telling me early in his tenure that he would do his best for RAAus and re-evaluate his position after twelve months. It would appear that this is what has happened now.

 

Feed back from many is that he worked very long hours each day for weeks on end. A task as big as RAAus, as he inherited ,was definately one that would challenge anyone. Mark took it on face value, did a very good job, sorted out a number of serious matters affecting the membership and leaves the job in a very good state in comparison to what he inherited. How many of our members out there would have dedicated themselves to the task in hand like Mark did. I commend him for a job well done.

 

Separated from his family most of the time over these 15 months has also been a drain on him I am sure that has played a role in his resignation from the job.

 

I understand he has now taken a job in Brisbane which is only a little over an hours drive from his home so I wish him well.

 

I agree with nomadpetes comments above.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Just when you thought things were starting to move in the right direction. I think there needs to be a hard look at this position and what causes so many to leave after only a short period.

 

Mark had been expressing some interesting ideas lately about how we can move this organisation forward into the future, I just hope his decision is purely based on family life rather then pressures or tensions with the board.

 

 

[Tiger]

rhysmcc,

 

Marks comments in the Feb or March magazine and the latest in the April magazine has been reflected in Major Millards comments and looks to be a good way forward for the board to be considering. That is some of the forward planning that is required. SAAA appears to have done it well, so why shouldn't we?

 

Starting to move in the right direction - agree that is the way it appears and from what I am seeing and reading will continue forward and ever upward.

 

As mentioned in another thread we have to move forward with discussions with other associations and have those board members who are obstructionalist ( as mentioned) voted out of office.

 

I am sure as mentioned to andyatcoffs by someone, consider your position, family and commitment required before nominating. We do need robust interaction from withing the board members and we want to hear from them what is happening on a regular basis.

 

Andy's posts are very good and I support your nomination, but I cannot vote for you up there in New South Wales.

 

I understand that under the new Executive, board members are seeing changes happening that is very encouraging for us in the long term.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

Why did the bloke take the job on if he wasn't going to see it through? or , maybe more to the point, why was he given the job seeing that he lived in Brisbane and wasn't committed to it? ...............There are very few of us who could get away with accepting a CEO position with the rejoiner "I'll give it a go for a year then see, by the way I live a thousand kilometers away and I don't like to be away from the family. " However well Mark did in the job he had a fantastic " Get out of jail free " card. Perhaps the board will consider only future candidates that are happy to live near the job and are willing to commit themselves long term, Constant changing of top management is really devastating for the organisation... "If the boss can't handle it , why should we?"

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Why did the bloke take the job on if he wasn't going to see it through? or , maybe more to the point, why was he given the job seeing that he lived in Brisbane and wasn't committed to it? ...............There are very few of us who could get away with accepting a CEO position with the rejoiner "I'll give it a go for a year then see, by the way I live a thousand kilometers away and I don't like to be away from the family. " However well Mark did in the job he had a fantastic " Get out of jail free " card. Perhaps the board will consider only future candidates that are happy to live near the job and are willing to commit themselves long term, Constant changing of top management is really devastating for the organisation... "If the boss can't handle it , why should we?"

One of the good reasons we need to get the office out of Canberra...it does have an effect on the quality of people we can attract and keep...the board is aware of this fact..................Maj......

 

 

[rankamateur]

Did Mark think Brisbane would be a good place to move it to?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Also it would make sense that these top management position have a non-compete clause, in that they can't work for RA-AUS for a year then get recruited to CASA. It's a waste of our resources. (I'm not implying this is the case with Mark, he has done a great job in the last 12 months and RA-Aus will be worse off without him)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I covered in a law course some years ago at Uni some specifics relating to employment contracts and restraints clauses. As I recall these can only:-

 

1) be used to protect IP from a competitor

 

2) be of a reasonable timeframe

 

3) are geographically bound to reasonable area's

 

Given that the only people who we compete with arguably is HGFA in that a trike owner can be registered with either HGFA or RAAus then such a restriction would seem to be only available if the employee was going to transfer to HGFA. (if my recollection of the lecturers content and intent is correct)

 

2) and 3) in terms of reasonableness are determined on the facts of the case so 5kms might be reasonable for a office supplies store and whole of country for some other form of business where the IP is of a nature that could destroy a business if inappropriately released...

 

With my (poor) understanding I would have thought that a better approach might well be able to be contained in the annual Deed of Agreement between RAAus and CASA where we might agree to a clause that says if CASA employ's a person who in the last X months was working for RAAus, then CASA will pay RAAus's demonstrable costs associated with:-

 

1) training a new employee

 

2) Our direct replacement recruitment costs, such as headhunters fees, recruitment team time costs, advertising costs etc

 

3) Any temporary employee costs such as travel/work from home costs for a temp

 

and , the employee will not as a requirement of CASA to be the regulator, be put by CASA opposite the replacement employee for a period of time not less than 24 months...... for example if CASA take our opps manager then they cant audit the replacement RAAus opps manager for 18months, but could go and audit ASRA or Warbirds or some other aviation business.......in other words keep them away from RAAus until such time as the new person is up to speed, but use them in their specialty with other RAO's or aviation organisations

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Also it would make sense that these top management position have a non-compete clause, in that they can't work for RA-AUS for a year then get recruited to CASA. It's a waste of our resources. (I'm not implying this is the case with Mark, he has done a great job in the last 12 months and RA-Aus will be worse off without him)

Well we are optimistic that we can recruited a replacement that will be even better than Mark has been...............Maj...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Andy

 

I covered in a law course some years ago at Uni some specifics relating to employment contracts and restraints clauses. As I recall these can only:-1) be used to protect IP from a competitor

2) be of a reasonable timeframe

 

3) are geographically bound to reasonable area's

 

Given that the only people who we compete with arguably is HGFA in that a trike owner can be registered with either HGFA or RAAus then such a restriction would seem to be only available if the employee was going to transfer to HGFA. (if my recollection of the lecturers content and intent is correct)

 

2) and 3) in terms of reasonableness are determined on the facts of the case so 5kms might be reasonable for a office supplies store and whole of country for some other form of business where the IP is of a nature that could destroy a business if inappropriately released...

 

With my (poor) understanding I would have thought that a better approach might well be able to be contained in the annual Deed of Agreement between RAAus and CASA where we might agree to a clause that says if CASA employ's a person who in the last X months was working for RAAus, then CASA will pay RAAus's demonstrable costs associated with:-

 

1) training a new employee

 

2) Our direct replacement recruitment costs, such as headhunters fees, recruitment team time costs, advertising costs etc

 

3) Any temporary employee costs such as travel/work from home costs for a temp

 

and , the employee will not as a requirement of CASA to be the regulator, be put by CASA opposite the replacement employee for a period of time not less than 24 months...... for example if CASA take our opps manager then they cant audit the replacement RAAus opps manager for 18months, but could go and audit ASRA or Warbirds or some other aviation business.......in other words keep them away from RAAus until such time as the new person is up to speed, but use them in their specialty with other RAO's or aviation organisations

 

Andy

Andy,

I believe there is some requirement or regulation in place in gov departments that says that a new CASA recruit for example (IE: Zane Tully ) cannot be directly used in business with his previous organizations for a period of two years...........Maj....

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

AndyAndy,

 

I believe there is some requirement or regulation in place in gov departments that says that a new CASA recruit for example (IE: Zane Tully ) cannot be directly used in business with his previous organizations for a period of two years...........Maj....

must be new then cause I think Lee U didn't disappear for 2 years did he? and we sure didn't get any compensation for having to find an alternate (but had he left to work in Big W we wouldn't have been morally entitled to anyway....)

Andy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

must be new then cause I think Lee U didn't disappear for 2 years did he? and we sure didn't get any compensation for having to find an alternate (but had he left to work in Big W we wouldn't have been morally entitled to anyway....)Andy

Not sure if its a new rule or not but I do believe it is in place............Maj...

 

 

[Camel]

Isn't it a requirement of RAA membership not to bring It into disrepute, three former RAA employees aren't exactly making things easy, or are they ? Seems they know where the mistakes are !

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I'd argue that the disrepute occurred when the skeleton was hidden in the cupboard, not when the "Tada!" event occurred that dragged it kicking and screaming back out!!! Its hard to argue that a regulator ensuring we are complying with the regulations is bringing us into disrepute.......

 

But all that said, is it morally fair????? I'd argue not really! so I sure get your point! Especially as Im pretty sure all or some of the 3 are still RAAus members, but if we in the past had done the right thing we'd have very little to fear wouldn't we ? .......Its a tough one! especially if the dragging out of the skeleton was done by the same guy who put it their in the first place!!!! (as an example only, I have no idea if such a thing was really possible)

 

 

[frank marriott]

If I was on a selection panel, the successful applicant would undertake to take up permanent residence where the job is located.

 

 

[poteroo]

If I was on a selection panel, the successful applicant would undertake to take up permanent residence where the job is located.

My understanding is that living in Canberra is expensive. Also, the average salary is higher there than anywhere else in Australia. So, RAAus is between a rock and a hard place with respect to attracting staff. I think that the Board needs to conduct talks with SAAA to ascertain the pro's and cons of moving out to the regions.

 

happy days,