Board meeting motions

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Personal opinion, not board position:-

 

I will be arguing that many over the years have claimed that Sport Pilot represents the key that opens RAAus to new members. I don't know if that's true or not and I intend to get some marketing data created that will show how we get new members. If they show, as people here argue, that it indeed is the key, then we will ensure that it is used appropriately, if, however the data doesn't show that, then in "Openness and transparency" we will share the data and react appropriately.

 

Robinsm:-

 

At the heart of our approach to costs we embrace user pays......People argue that magazine costs have always been part of the subscription cost.....well obviously!!...no-one else pays for the magazine so yes its been part of the subscription costs......There is no revenue line where we have allocated a part of the subscription to magazine as we have for insurance.....why??? I have no idea, it just is what it is.

 

However there is nothing that prevents us changing the magazine (and I mean in terms of rules or constitutionally, not in terms of just ignoring member requirements) and if we do there is nothing that says we have to pass on the increased costs, or return to members something that folk believe was "for magazines" Why????? same answer...it is what it is......

 

There is a rule however that we cannot trade where we get to the point that we know we will be unable to meet our commitments (trading insolvently) We are absolutely a million miles from that point, however if we do nothing that will not always be the case. So if it would make you feel better , I would be happy to state in the case of the magazine changing to electronic for all, subscriptions for those that want paper that your costs would be $-30 (we own you) for the changes to the magazine +$30 (you would owe us) for the increases in dues to cover the costs increases of staff and compliance and insurance, and optionally +$60 (or whatever it turns out to be) if you want a paper version......Will that make you feel better about it?

 

If you folk can think of a way of boosting revenue, or decreasing costs by $350k in a year all the while meeting our full obligations to CASA and ehile implementing the longerterm changes that will bring efficiency to us that should have been started 10years ago then we are very happy to hear it.

 

I would also point out that while this forum is useful to discuss things, there are some like me and you who are happy to post and be included in the discussion but equally there are probably another 10 that just read, either not wanting to add their view, or safe in the knowledge that someone has already full captured their view and others just not confident enough to participate.... As such we don't really get a statistically relevant cross section of views. However now that we have and are using online surveys and email outs to the greater membership we can test to see what the greater membership thinks. I believe we will be doing that before anything major occurs.

 

While I might (no actually I do) have strong views on how I believe it will play out the reality is that whatever I try to do will be evidence based so that when the minority (which ever side that is) argues we have just ignored them and not been open and transparent we will be able to produce the evidence for the decision! I am but one of 13, what the board will do will depend on whether the others see things the same way as me.

 

Can you really be expecting more than that? If so how and why?

 

Andy

 

 

[gareth lacey]

Andy, your damned if you dont and damned if you do , always a problem with some members in any organisation, i was soccer club president for seven years and generally the people on thye committee didwell financially and for the clubs benifit BUT there were always one or two who did not lilke all our decisions , Andy you and the team are working well ,and as mostly volunteers you are all doing a great job under trying circumstances , personally i give you all a big thumbs up

 

thank you for getting on with job and making it better for ALL members

 

 

[timb]

For a little bit of history, the magazine in the AUF days was required as part of the CAA/CASA memorandum, as a vehicle for communicating necessary safety information to members ("Airworthiness Directives" & such), and for distribution of membership information such as notification of General Meetings & Motions on Notice. As each member received a copy it was deemed to satisfy the legal requirements of "Notice by Post to Each Member" or some such. This of course was in the pre-internet days, and the magazine was indeed edited in-house. The decision was made in about 95/96 to put the magazine out to an external editor.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hello timb

 

Seeing you have some history of the mag issues. I can remember the mag was the avenue to inform us of AD's and all those important things.

 

Can you remember any thing about the current mag how the publisher won the contract?

 

What I am after --- is regarding the publishers.

 

When this mag was put out to contract this publisher won it because he could make it more glossy and so forth.

 

The loosing bidder lost because he could hot make it as glossy however the mag was greatly less expensive.

 

I can remember there was a lot of noise regarding the contract issue.

 

I will stand being corrected on all issues ---- however I can remember the noise regarding the contracts and the two publishers.

 

If someone can remember the issues we may get some answers to move on with to reduce the cost of the mag.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Hello timbSeeing you have some history of the mag issues. I can remember the mag was the avenue to inform us of AD's and all those important things.

Can you remember any thing about the current mag how the publisher won the contract?

 

What I am after --- is regarding the publishers.

 

When this mag was put out to contract this publisher won it because he could make it more glossy and so forth.

 

The loosing bidder lost because he could hot make it as glossy however the mag was greatly less expensive.

 

I can remember there was a lot of noise regarding the contract issue.

 

I will stand being corrected on all issues ---- however I can remember the noise regarding the contracts and the two publishers.

 

If someone can remember the issues we may get some answers to move on with to reduce the cost of the mag.

 

Regards

 

KP.

From memory Keith the current publisher was awarded the contract at about the same time as we agreed it would be a good move to put it on the news stand....he had the most experience in that field. I think the magazine has been great unde that contract and I am still very happy with it. Brian tries very hard for us with every edition. It does cost money to produce and print thousands of copies of a nice glossy magazine ...we just need to find ways for it to become cost neutral............Maj....

 

 

[JEM]

According to the 2013-14 budget (on the RAAus web site members’ area) the cost of publishing 12 issues of the magazine was $358,168. During that same period the magazine generated $16,828 from newsagent sales plus $33,807 from members’ market ads. So the net cost of publishing Sport Pilot last year was $307,533. If that cost is spread over 10,000 members it is $30.75 per member per year or just $2.56 per copy – one third of the news stand price of $7.70!

Hi

 

I haven't read the Financials fully, but I am curious to know whether the net cost shown above includes the income to RA of advertising published in the magazine?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

HiI haven't read the Financials fully, but I am curious to know whether the net cost shown above includes the income to RA of advertising published in the magazine?

RAAus lists all its income sources under the income section of the financials...There is nothing there to report because there is no income associated to report.

Andy

 

 

[DWF]

HiI haven't read the Financials fully, but I am curious to know whether the net cost shown above includes the income to RA of advertising published in the magazine?

It would appear from the budget figures and Andy's response that RAAus does not (directly) derive any income from adverising published in the magazine (except for the Members Market).

 

One hopes that such income, presumeably accruing to the publisher, defrays some of the cost (to RAAus) of producing the magazine.

 

DWF

 

 

[rhysmcc]

It would appear from the budget figures and Andy's response that RAAus does not (directly) derive any income from adverising published in the magazine (except for the Members Market).

One hopes that such income, presumeably accruing to the publisher, defrays some of the cost (to RAAus) of producing the magazine.

 

DWF

I doubt it. I would imagine the contract would be for the publisher to provide X amount of copies at Y cost per copy. Anything the publisher makes on advertising is icing on the cake. Hopefully this will be addressed as part of the review and maybe brought in house with only the printing contracted out.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I doubt it. I would imagine the contract would be for the publisher to provide X amount of copies at Y cost per copy. Anything the publisher makes on advertising is icing on the cake. Hopefully this will be addressed as part of the review and maybe brought in house with only the printing contracted out.

I believe the last contract for publishing was given under the leadership of ST...correct me if I'm wrong here please. Next time the magazine contract is let will be a different story for our interests, with the new CEO looking at the whole thing closely

 

 

[Keith Page]

I believe the last contract for publishing was given under the leadership of ST...correct me if I'm wrong here please. Next time the magazine contract is let will be a different story for our interests, with the new CEO looking at the whole thing closely

Good on ya Maj you are on to it..

 

Where I will not be drawn into the he did he said avenues there was some noise regarding the magazine contract.

 

The finer details escape me, that is why I asked in a previous post.

 

One point I can remember this magazine has more gloss than the loosing bidder. Well bower birds go for bright shiny things.

 

A good example of non-gloss... Who has "Modless Composite Homebuilt Sandwich Aircraft Construction".... Copyright:- Rutan Aircraft Factory.

 

No gloss in that book even hand drawings however the information is great. Gloss does not change information only draws bower birds to have a look.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Look, all other things being equal (and they're not) we probably would not be discussing the magazine because for the size of the organisation and the associated print run size, the quality and content is such that it has rarely been discussed here, or anywhere else as being too much or too little to our needs. Furthermore preparing a monthly magazine is not core business for RAAus, rather providing pilot certification and Aircraft registration and meeting CASA's contractual demands is core business.

 

The only reason we are discussing is that we have a situation of costs exceeding revenue which is not sustainable and in any event your board members have a fiduciary requirement to do something about that and not just watch from the sideline.

 

Suggestions that the current deal is biased one way or the other is irrelevant, The editor who does everything like the rest of us expects to be paid for his efforts, and the fact that we signed an agreement with him, that still has time to run means that the board of the time felt the return for the consideration was fair and reasonable.

 

Things move on and electronic form for newsletters/magazines is becoming the norm....Around where I live Newsagents are all downsizing as their rack space of magazines diminish.....That's reality and its appropriate that we review the contract terms conditions deliverables and costs every few years.

 

The reality is that we have a lot of transformation in RAAus to undertake and again, if deficit wasn't our driver we would likely focus on the bigger change items as being in more need of priority, but deficit is and has been the order of the day and as such we have to review.

 

Is such an approach not logical? What otherwise would you suggest?

 

Some folk have suggested they would be supportive of a due's increase while we transform, others have suggested that such an approach is folly. I personally agree with the latter, however I would love to hear from all that have contributed to this thread (and not already answered that question). As a member are you prepared to pay another $30 to $40 per year membership fees while we transform? As Col Jones and others have suggested, we have significant reserves still despite a few years of deficit, but until we have the strategic plan that identifies where we are transforming too, I'm personally nervous about digging too far into it. Once we have that strategy if we find that the reserves are in advance of what we need I would have no hesitation in cutting them back to what is prudent.

 

So what do folk think?

 

Andy

 

 

[peter]

I agree with pretty much all of that Andy. I would be prepared to pay an increased fee if that translates to computerised filing, an online presence, CASA compliance, advancements like 2 yearly rego/pilot certificates. I would like to see all of that in place before we spend money on chasing more endorsements, ie consolidate our "core" business first. I have no issue with paying for board member travel to work on a strategic plan, a draft of which I hope will be emailed out the moment it is prepared. Personally I like the magazine (whatever the format) but consider it a luxury. Essential for me is more communication (thanks to you and Maj on here) and if that is regular emails rather than the magazine I would accept that.

 

Peter

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't think a $30-40 fee increase could be justified. I agree with looking at reducing the associations expenses rather then increasing the members expenses (which is what the board appears to be doing already). If what the reports are saying are correct, in that we have about 3-4 years at the current rate before we are in deep trouble, I'd say the best course of action would be to focus on reducing the overheads, whether that's digital magazine, move to an automated system which requires less clerical staff, ditch some of CASA's demands back to them or a mixture of all the options.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

A $30-40 increase is about an hour's fuel for me, or a bottle of ordinary wine in a restaraunt. I would forgo either once each year if a fee increase was necessary.

 

 

[rankamateur]

A $30-40 increase is about an hour's fuel for me, or a bottle of ordinary wine in a restaraunt. I would forgo either once each year if a fee increase was necessary.

If I drank $40 bottles of wine in restaraunts, or even ate in resaraunts, and flew something that burnt $40 per hour I could probrably afford to agree with you!

 

 

[robinsm]

I disagree with the increase. We have a situation where we pay for our certificates, pay for our aircraft rego. (over 200 per year combined) Membership is meant to include a magazine etc. We had an increase one or 2 years ago and promptly gave some idiot a golden handshake after employing him to do a job he never did. Why dont we use the available funds efficiently and correctly. Temora next year has been cancelled, they are looking at scrubbing the on shelf magazine, lets apply the savings back to the members instead of going in for a money grab.

 

 

[robinsm]

Not all of us are company directors/ millionaires/rich bug.ers. Some of us work for a living and the yearly cost are a large expense for the average person. Any large (and $40 per year comes into that area) cost has to be weighted against continuing to fund a sport we love. With hangerage, aircraft costs, certificate costs, landing costs etc. Pain level can be reached fairly quickly.....just sayin'

 

A furthur point, any suggestion of an increase "only for the time it takes to make the changes" is dreaming. Once the increase is in place, historically, they are never removed...

 

 

[coljones]

Look, all other things being equal (and they're not) we probably would not be discussing the magazine because for the size of the organisation and the associated print run size, the quality and content is such that it has rarely been discussed here, or anywhere else as being too much or too little to our needs. Furthermore preparing a monthly magazine is not core business for RAAus, rather providing pilot certification and Aircraft registration and meeting CASA's contractual demands is core business.The only reason we are discussing is that we have a situation of costs exceeding revenue which is not sustainable and in any event your board members have a fiduciary requirement to do something about that and not just watch from the sideline.

 

Suggestions that the current deal is biased one way or the other is irrelevant, The editor who does everything like the rest of us expects to be paid for his efforts, and the fact that we signed an agreement with him, that still has time to run means that the board of the time felt the return for the consideration was fair and reasonable.

 

Things move on and electronic form for newsletters/magazines is becoming the norm....Around where I live Newsagents are all downsizing as their rack space of magazines diminish.....That's reality and its appropriate that we review the contract terms conditions deliverables and costs every few years.

 

The reality is that we have a lot of transformation in RAAus to undertake and again, if deficit wasn't our driver we would likely focus on the bigger change items as being in more need of priority, but deficit is and has been the order of the day and as such we have to review.

 

Is such an approach not logical? What otherwise would you suggest?

 

Some folk have suggested they would be supportive of a due's increase while we transform, others have suggested that such an approach is folly. I personally agree with the latter, however I would love to hear from all that have contributed to this thread (and not already answered that question). As a member are you prepared to pay another $30 to $40 per year membership fees while we transform? As Col Jones and others have suggested, we have significant reserves still despite a few years of deficit, but until we have the strategic plan that identifies where we are transforming too, I'm personally nervous about digging too far into it. Once we have that strategy if we find that the reserves are in advance of what we need I would have no hesitation in cutting them back to what is prudent.

 

So what do folk think?

 

Andy

strategy, prudence, decision - I can live with that. My two concerns were continuing to build reserves because it seems like a good idea, at the time and hacking off a member benefit because it seemed like good idea at the time. I don't have problem with paying $55 - $75 a year for an RAA themed magazine but I would get pissed off if the board ditched it and trousered my mag sub to prop up an underfunded area of our business. The board needs to establish the costs (P/L) of the each line of business and then work out if it needs more or less, or no, money and set a fee to fund our current activities, reasonable projected activities and provisions for any harm we do.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Not all of us are company directors/ millionaires/rich bug.ers. Some of us work for a living and the yearly cost are a large expense for the average person. Any large (and $40 per year comes into that area) cost has to be weighted against continuing to fund a sport we love. With hangerage, aircraft costs, certificate costs, landing costs etc. Pain level can be reached fairly quickly.....just sayin'A furthur point, any suggestion of an increase "only for the time it takes to make the changes" is dreaming. Once the increase is in place, historically, they are never removed...

I can certainly relate to where you are coming from there robinsm, and imput like yours is exactly what needs to be communicated to the board and is one reason why I am still on this forum....for this type of imput. Andy and myself unlike a lot of the other board members see the value in directly communicating with many RAAus members On this site. I will make sure your imput is seen by others on the board. Nobody on the board is committed to a 'hell for leather' fee increase ...we are fee paying members also remember just like you, there are no financial benifits to being a board member regardless of what some may think.......rather with the help of our very capable CEO we are all looking at ( on your behalf) ways to keep our organization strong and viable financially now, and into the future. There were five ( I think ) Board members who voted against accepting the latest budget at the last board meeting because it presented a sizeable deficit for the second year in a row. Basically what this has said to the excutive and in particular the Treasures, is get rid of the deficit as maybe next time it may be a majority of board members who vote against the acceptance of the budget. This is why everybody is looking at any and all areas of cost cutting or additional revenue raising. A membership fee rise is just one of these, however I don't believe the board will vote for one unless there is no other alternate.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

strategy, prudence, decision - I can live with that. My two concerns were continuing to build reserves because it seems like a good idea, at the time and hacking off a member benefit because it seemed like good idea at the time. I don't have problem with paying $55 - $75 a year for an RAA themed magazine but I would get pissed off if the board ditched it and trousered my mag sub to prop up an underfunded area of our business. The board needs to establish the costs (P/L) of the each line of business and then work out if it needs more or less, or no, money and set a fee to fund our current activities, reasonable projected activities and provisions for any harm we do.

Your suggestion is right on the money Col....it has been suggested just in the last couple of days that expenditures be broken done further into specific areas of income or loss....and that is being done by the CEO at this time and will be more formalized very soon....and indeed it will give us a much more area - specific look at where improvements can be made, or costs cut. I cannot say more strongly just how impressed I am with the current CEO.......when someone comes up with a good and productive suggestion....he's usually already thinking about it also, or has already put it into motion. This is how it should be .... Michael is certainly working for us and earning every cent we pay him..

 

 

[DGL Fox]

I see some members borking at paying an extra $40 per year...per year guys...not per week or fortnight or even per month...per year... to keep our magazine coming out to us the way we like it.

 

As I have said before here that I don't mind paying this money providing that the money only goes to paying for the magazine and not diverted to some other purpose. We spend and have spent big money training and flying and in some cases buying an aircraft yet some are worried about $40 per year...come on get real..

 

David

 

 

[robinsm]

David, I am real, the funds only go so far. If you have bottomless pockets then so be it, but some of us have to actually save money to be able to fly and enjoy the sport. $40 per year may not sound like much, but then hanger fees increase, flying training fees increase, landing fees at some of our airports are out of control and so on. May be chicken feed to you but not to others...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Gentlemen and ladies, I am in no way offering the following to warrant any price increase to our fees....however by way of offering some level of comparison..........

 

The HGFA charge $314 per annum plus a state levy of up to an additional $75.

 

GFA varies by club but can cost up to $400 per annum.

 

ASRA charges $296 per annum if you have a passenger endo.

 

Evan SAAA which doesn't provide anywhere near the benifits we do (no licensing, no rego or insurance etc) charge roughly the same at $190 per annum.

 

Maj.......

 

 

[robinsm]

Oh well, if it gets too high there will be my aircraft for sale, resignation from Raa and I will take up boating, cheaper in the long run...