Draft Constitution?

[DWF]

Has anybody seen the new draft constitution that was supposed to be released to members in July?

 

DWF

 

 

[robinsm]

nope...didnt even know one was coming...

 

 

[DWF]

From the RAAus July newsletter:

 

"Constitution Reform

 

The one topic that I have heard more about than any other topic since joining Recreational Aviation Australia has been our constitution. For the last four months the board executive and I have been working hard on preparing a draft for members to consider. Currently the full board is reviewing the draft document and we will share this with members shortly.

 

We will soon upload a copy of our draft constitution onto our website for members to comment. Member's input will be open for sixty days. At the conclusion of this comment period, we will review comments and prepare a second draft document, which will be consulted with members at our forthcoming member’s forum on 11 October 2015 following our AGM.

 

At this forum on 11 October 2015 we will provide members with a timeline and process for adopting a revised constitution. We expect the timing to take some four to six months following the AGM.

 

We are committed to engaging with members and urge you to have input into this process."

 

It is still 65 days to 11 Oct so maybe I am getting in a bit early on their timeline of 60 days for comment but if they are true to their word it will be on the RAAus web site by next Tuesday.

 

 

 

I will be interested to see what they have come up with.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[coljones]

Before I see the draft constitution I would like to see a list of principles that we can comment on.

 

1. The Ops Manual was just dumped on the table, not even a take it or leave it.

 

2. Part 64 was also dumped on the table with bits and pieces chucked on later. Take it or leave it. There is still confusion out there.

 

I haven't seen the draft of the draft let alone the draft of the draft of the draft but there will be things there that will bite us on the bum.

 

Perhaps the process should be to investigate democratic models of advocacy and service organisation and test those against our organisational constraints FX being a incorporated association under Canberra law doesn't allow us to have postal ballots to change the constitution. Maybe we should move ourselves, with our current constitution, over to NSW (where incorporation permits postal ballots) and use those rules to ensure that the maximum number of people get to bite the cherry about change.

 

Someone appears to be off crafting words to reduce the size of the board as we speak but we don't have a clear view about what the organisation should look like and how it is governed.

 

Incorporation under ASIC doesn't excite me as the level of bullshit the lawyers bury into those Articles of Association are quite stupid. (I am one the board of one now).

 

Talking about lawyers, has anyone managed to get the advise Runciman was waving around, that we, apparently, paid for, but was kept in a black box, inside a lead barrel down in one of the reactors at Fukushima.

 

Am I being treated like a mushroom? Don't know. Am I whelmed by the board and CEO? Don't know. Perhaps the election will bring a little clarity.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The Constitutional draft is currently being read and considered by the board, together I might add with the new tech manual draft......thank god there are 13 of us !............

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Maj, why does having 13 make a difference? Surely all members of the board are reading all of the docs and not just 1/13th of it? So it's not like having more board members reduces the work load, just increasing the time it takes to "gather" everyones thoughts. We need a more open board and association that included the members in the discussions rather then just making a draft or decision on our behalf. Although that's what most on the board think they are elected to do.

 

 

[facthunter]

There ARE some things we expect our elected people to get on and do. (You don't buy a dog to bark yourself). There is a level of openness that is desired and people would like to think there is someway of imputing the knowledge of the membership on policy directions. CASA have invited comment on some matters in the past etc using things like NPRM's (Notice of Proposed Rule Making). Other times they have announced things that have been poorly formulated and suffered the embarrassment of having to correct or clarify it. I do have a level of confidence in the current team but they should be conscious of the need for transparency and communication. Nev

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Oh damn. misread the title. Thought it said DAFT Constitution. Probably will be though.

 

 

[facthunter]

Freudian slip.? I did too. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

(You don't buy a dog to bark yourself)

Remember what was going on behind the scenes the last time you rolled out that old chestnut?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Maj, why does having 13 make a difference? Surely all members of the board are reading all of the docs and not just 1/13th of it? So it's not like having more board members reduces the work load, just increasing the time it takes to "gather" everyones thoughts. We need a more open board and association that included the members in the discussions rather then just making a draft or decision on our behalf. Although that's what most on the board think they are elected to do.

Having 13 board members gives a large pool to draw from for specific skills, for instance it is myself and Trev Bange putting in most effort on the tech manual draft, with some others of course. We have both been in the sport for over thirty years and both have technical aircraft maintenance backgrounds in fact we are still both maintaining aircraft for a living.

There are others who prefer to tackle the Constitutional side of things and their background is more suited to doing that. Remember we are just all volenteers after all so don't have time to read and tackle everything on a personal basis, it makes good sense to share the work load. And of course we also have some board members who don't get involved in much at all, preferring only to be active at the board meetings themselves.

 

As far as 'gathering every bodies thoughts' go, we have a very active board only forum which is used on a daily basis for communication between individual board members and the board as a whole. It is the board president who steps in and sets the pace here although any board member can post a topic if he/ she feels it is worthy of discussion. And additionally the board ARE elected to make decisions on your behalf. If you would like to be part of that process then simply put your hand up next time elections roll around, it's that simple.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

It's great that the Tech Manual is getting reviewed by 2 experienced in technical maintenance. Now imagine if the draft was published to the wider audience of RA-AUS members (whom the document controls) through a NPRM type process, you'd be able to draw on the experience of many and involve the people you are actually meant to be represent (rather then just act on our behalf).

 

Hopefully the reporting of the "board forum" will be covered in the new constitution so it's not used to get around the publishing of resolutions that currently takes place with our open, honest and transparent board.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

It's great that the Tech Manual is getting reviewed by 2 experienced in technical maintenance. Now imagine if the draft was published to the wider audience of RA-AUS members (whom the document controls) through a NPRM type process, you'd be able to draw on the experience of many and involve the people you are actually meant to be represent (rather then just act on our behalf).Hopefully the reporting of the "board forum" will be covered in the new constitution so it's not used to get around the publishing of resolutions that currently takes place with our open, honest and transparent board.

Great idealistic idea to get 10, 000 takes on every little detail, but realistically nothing would ever get off the ground if done that way. Hell we're flat out getting 5% to vote in our elections for Chris sake. The final versions of both the Tech manual and Constitution are to be offered to the membership for comment when they are finalised. Traditionally only a very small percentage of the membership take the trouble to read and offer comment anyway. Even the board has only a certain length of time to review stuff ( traditionally two to four weeks ) so that things keep moving along, as they must for anything to get done,

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

It's great that the Tech Manual is getting reviewed by 2 experienced in technical maintenance. Now imagine if the draft was published to the wider audience of RA-AUS members (whom the document controls) through a NPRM type process, you'd be able to draw on the experience of many and involve the people you are actually meant to be represent (rather then just act on our behalf).Hopefully the reporting of the "board forum" will be covered in the new constitution so it's not used to get around the publishing of resolutions that currently takes place with our open, honest and transparent board.

The board forum is available to board members only, not even the CEO has access. It allows the board to communicate and work correctly and efficiently. It is not something designed to be viewed by the membership, once again if it bothers you that you don't have access, put your hand up next time the elections come around, and become a volenteer board member. The membership is currently getting more information these days about what is happening at the head office than ever before in the past. As an example the CEOs monthly Email newsletters, and at other times when needed to spread important information.

This board is committed to being open and transparent.

 

 

[DWF]

Having 13 board members gives a large pool to draw from for specific skills, for instance it is myself and Trev Bange putting in most effort on the tech manual draft, with some others of course. We have both been in the sport for over thirty years and both have technical aircraft maintenance backgrounds in fact we are still both maintaining aircraft for a living.There are others who prefer to tackle the Constitutional side of things and their background is more suited to doing that. Remember we are just all volenteers after all so don't have time to read and tackle everything on a personal basis, it makes good sense to share the work load. And of course we also have some board members who don't get involved in much at all, preferring only to be active at the board meetings themselves.

As far as 'gathering every bodies thoughts' go, we have a very active board only forum which is used on a daily basis for communication between individual board members and the board as a whole. It is the board president who steps in and sets the pace here although any board member can post a topic if he/ she feels it is worthy of discussion. And additionally the board ARE elected to make decisions on your behalf. If you would like to be part of that process then simply put your hand up next time elections roll around, it's that simple.

"Having 13 board members gives a large pool to draw from for specific skills"

 

Having 10,000 members provides a much larger pool of skills and ideas if only you were willing to tap it!

 

"Remember we are just all volenteers(sic) after all so don't have time to read and tackle everything on a personal basis"

 

It is highly likely that among 10,000 member there are some who have the time, inclination, knowledge and expertise to assist with specific topics if you give them the opportunity.

 

Do you think that the 13 Board members are the only RAAus members who have appropriate ideas, knowledge and experience?

 

"As far as 'gathering every bodies thoughts' go, we have a very active board only forum which is used on a daily basis ....."

 

It is great that you talk amongst yourselves. Do you seek input from anyone else?

 

"And additionally the board ARE elected to make decisions on your behalf."

 

It appears to me that the Board are making decisions on the Board members' behalf, not on my/our behalf, because, apart from the strategic plan survey some time ago, I have never been consulted by any Board member on any topic so how do you know what the members are thinking?

 

"If you would like to be part of that process then simply put your hand up next time elections roll around, it's that simple."

 

I don't think it is "that simple". I suspect that there are many members who could provide valuable input on particular topics but are not in a position to volunteer for a Board position but would like to have an avenue to contribute nonetheless.

 

If every member "put their hand up" they would have just over a 1:1000 chance of getting a say (which is probably better than most of us have at the moment).

 

 

 

With reference to the constitution, I would like to see/have seen the Board issue a Green Paper/NPRM/Discussion document outlining the perceived problems with the current constitution and legal entity and offering alternative solutions and seeking member opinion and suggestions. This should have been done before any draft was prepared. Then a first draft issued for comment followed by a final draft for comment and then presentation at a General Meeting.

 

I fear we will just be presented with a fait accompli in similar fashion to the Ops Manual - with a lot of holes that better consultation could have avoided/plugged.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

"Having 13 board members gives a large pool to draw from for specific skills"Having 10,000 members provides a much larger pool of skills and ideas if only you were willing to tap it!

"Remember we are just all volenteers(sic) after all so don't have time to read and tackle everything on a personal basis"

 

It is highly likely that among 10,000 member there are some who have the time, inclination, knowledge and expertise to assist with specific topics if you give them the opportunity.

 

Do you think that the 13 Board members are the only RAAus members who have appropriate ideas, knowledge and experience?

 

"As far as 'gathering every bodies thoughts' go, we have a very active board only forum which is used on a daily basis ....."

 

It is great that you talk amongst yourselves. Do you seek input from anyone else?

 

"And additionally the board ARE elected to make decisions on your behalf."

 

It appears to me that the Board are making decisions on the Board members' behalf, not on my/our behalf, because, apart from the strategic plan survey some time ago, I have never been consulted by any Board member on any topic so how do you know what the members are thinking?

 

"If you would like to be part of that process then simply put your hand up next time elections roll around, it's that simple."

 

I don't think it is "that simple". I suspect that there are many members who could provide valuable input on particular topics but are not in a position to volunteer for a Board position but would like to have an avenue to contribute nonetheless.

 

If every member "put their hand up" they would have just over a 1:1000 chance of getting a say (which is probably better than most of us have at the moment).

 

 

 

With reference to the constitution, I would like to see/have seen the Board issue a Green Paper/NPRM/Discussion document outlining the perceived problems with the current constitution and legal entity and offering alternative solutions and seeking member opinion and suggestions. This should have been done before any draft was prepared. Then a first draft issued for comment followed by a final draft for comment and then presentation at a General Meeting.

 

I fear we will just be presented with a fait accompli in similar fashion to the Ops Manual - with a lot of holes that better consultation could have avoided/plugged.

 

 

 

DWF

Tell me DFW...,when was the last time you contacted your area board member...or any board member for that matter ?...or gave your CEO a call .

 

 

[turboplanner]

He doesn't have to Maj, and that's not what he is talking about. The problem is the board members are not consulting the members.

 

On critical area like the Constitution, Ops Manual, Tech Manual, that's a problem - you only represent them, you don't control them.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Great idealistic idea to get 10, 000 takes on every little detail, but realistically nothing would ever get off the ground if done that way. Hell we're flat out getting 5% to vote in our elections for Chris sake. The final versions of both the Tech manual and Constitution are to be offered to the membership for comment when they are finalised. Traditionally only a very small percentage of the membership take the trouble to read and offer comment anyway. Even the board has only a certain length of time to review stuff ( traditionally two to four weeks ) so that things keep moving along, as they must for anything to get done,

What's the point of releasing something for comment when it's "finalised". Sorry but the Board does not have a good track record in releasing final documents without involving members (Ops Manual v7 and MARAP comes to mind). When was the last time anything was released to the members and submissions/comments invited prior to the final decision been made. When was the last plebiscite taken from the membership to see when what the members actually wanted?

 

The board forum is available to board members only, not even the CEO has access. It allows the board to communicate and work correctly and efficiently. It is not something designed to be viewed by the membership, once again if it bothers you that you don't have access, put your hand up next time the elections come around, and become a volenteer board member. The membership is currently getting more information these days about what is happening at the head office than ever before in the past. As an example the CEOs monthly Email newsletters, and at other times when needed to spread important information.This board is committed to being open and transparent.

You misunderstand me, the forum is being used as an electronic board meeting (which is good and i support it), however the reporting of such decisions is NOT been made as per the constitution. Any decision the board makes, whether it's by phone, face to face or forum MUST BE REPORTED to the membership.

 

Tell me DFW...,when was the last time you contacted your area board member...or any board member for that matter ?...or gave your CEO a call .

I've given up contacting because the emails either go unanswered or get the standard "we'll do better in the future" response. The board has made no effect to canvass the membership, at least CASA pretends to take an interest.I doubt many of the 10,000 would even be members if CASA didn't make it a requirement under the CAO.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

He doesn't have to Maj, and that's not what he is talking about. The problem is the board members are not consulting the members.On critical area like the Constitution, Ops Manual, Tech Manual, that's a problem - you only represent them, you don't control them.

The board don't think they are there to represent the members, but act on our behalf.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's a bit of a dead argument though; the members are likely to remain apathetic and just take what's dished out.

 

 

[DWF]

Tell me DFW...,when was the last time you contacted your area board member...or any board member for that matter ?...or gave your CEO a call .

Maj, as it happens I have, over the last 12 months or so contacted by phone, email or in person, several Board members including the President and staff, and have not learned much, if anything, of substance regarding the amendments to the constitution or structure of the association.

 

 

 

However, I feel you are attempting to shoot the messenger and ignoring the message.

 

DWF

 

 

[coljones]

Snip...snip...snip...And additionally the board ARE elected to make decisions on your behalf. If you would like to be part of that process then simply put your hand up next time elections roll around, it's that simple.

That is pretty much the reason we have had cockups in the past. The board implying that the membership was unfit to know the truth about the organisation and the executive saying much the same thing about the board. Saying "it is my turn to play silly buggers with the ship, you willhave to wait for your turn" just does not cut it with me.People are not saying that you are not doing a good job, or not even an OK one, but you don't have a system in place that provides any sort of transparency. To say you have started reviewing a draft of a constitution indicates that you have moved beyond the concept stage and, to me, suggests that you have not shared that concept with the great unwashed.

 

 

[kasper]

Maj,

 

This is not personal - it is about the way RAA exec and board are seen as operating ... and it HAS been said by me to the exec, Tech Manager and board previously ...

 

Constitution - Yes we are incorporated and the board draft changes as they like/see fit BUT it requires a 3/4 majority of votes case - member apathy may help you with low turn out BUT if the board are SEEN to be not consulting and listening then there is a risk that vocal members MAY get enough no votes to ruin your day ... extraordinary general meetings being called in the past few years does show that when the board pi$$ off the membership enough they can bite...

 

Ops Manual and Tech Manual - Yes they are controlled documents that have to be approved by CASA ... BUT:

 

- that does not mean that what CASA wants MUST go in (eg MARAP tech office announcement of actual false changes) or

 

- that members should not be consulted on drafts (Ops 7 - as many holes as a net and inconsistencies that beggars belief - Tech manual on regn numbers and Trikes demonstrating complete incompetence and lack of knowledge on the part of the Tech Manager)

 

And on Tech Manual specifically why have not even the L2 been consulted? Yes opening it to 10,000 is a RISK of too many uninformed opinions (balanced by an ACTUAL risk of being seen to consult members) but L2's have to live by the damn manual like all members BUT have specialist knowledge as exemplified by the fact we ARE L2's and personally I would like the next Tech Manual to less of a nightmare than the OPs 7 is ...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Maj,This is not personal - it is about the way RAA exec and board are seen as operating ... and it HAS been said by me to the exec, Tech Manager and board previously ...

Constitution - Yes we are incorporated and the board draft changes as they like/see fit BUT it requires a 3/4 majority of votes case - member apathy may help you with low turn out BUT if the board are SEEN to be not consulting and listening then there is a risk that vocal members MAY get enough no votes to ruin your day ... extraordinary general meetings being called in the past few years does show that when the board pi$$ off the membership enough they can bite...

 

Ops Manual and Tech Manual - Yes they are controlled documents that have to be approved by CASA ... BUT:

 

- that does not mean that what CASA wants MUST go in (eg MARAP tech office announcement of actual false changes) or

 

- that members should not be consulted on drafts (Ops 7 - as many holes as a net and inconsistencies that beggars belief - Tech manual on regn numbers and Trikes demonstrating complete incompetence and lack of knowledge on the part of the Tech Manager)

 

And on Tech Manual specifically why have not even the L2 been consulted? Yes opening it to 10,000 is a RISK of too many uninformed opinions (balanced by an ACTUAL risk of being seen to consult members) but L2's have to live by the damn manual like all members BUT have specialist knowledge as exemplified by the fact we ARE L2's and personally I would like the next Tech Manual to less of a nightmare than the OPs 7 is ...

Thanks for your Input there Kasper......as far as the Tech manual draft comments you make, remember it is a draft....we on the board have spent a considerable amount of time just recently reviewing that draft and our requests for changes and modifications have been considerable. Those suggested changes are now with the CEO to direct to the author of the draft. Remember myself and others reviewing the draft document on your behalf are working L2s also, and there are a number of L2 related items that I personally have not been happy with.

Additionally I have just reviewed the 2014-2015 financial Audit report for members which will be posted on the members portion of the RAA website with Email notification to members advising them of such later this week.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

We all need to take a deep breath and remember that this organisation was a shipwreck up until February 2013 when the Members got off their butts and said "No more!". Since then the control of the Board has shifted to a group of hard working, conscientious and capable people one of them being Maj. We have new Ops and Tech Managers that inherited Manuals that were long overdue for a total refurb and CASA jumping up and down wanting the manuals revised forthwith. So, after plugging the holes in the shipwreck, re-floating it and trying to turn it around, some corners have been cut. I agree with all the comments that the Board can lift its game on consultation and on tapping the incredible resource that 10,000 members represents. However, there were some things that had to be pushed through with vigour with perhaps less consultation than desirable.

 

The new Ops Manual was a significant step forwards and is NOT carved in stone. It has a Version Number and is up for periodic review. There is every intention to have it as a live document that will just improve with time and input. So, if you don't like the Ops Manual as is, send in detailed criticisms including what improving changes can be made. Communicate your ideas to the Ops Manager, the CEO and the Board - don't wait to be invited. You will be doing all 10,000 members a big favour by doing that. Talking about it on here is never going to make much of a difference however good it makes you feel.

 

I know that the people that Maj is responding to on this thread *do* respect him both for his technical ability and dedication to making RAAus better. I hope he realises this and accepts the "advice" he's getting here as well intended on not personal.

 

Constitution Reform

 

We are all aware that there have been moves to have the Constitution revised since at least February 2012 when the then Board approved the formation of a Constitution Review Committee - only to kill it off a few months later at the whim of the then President. The Committee was subsequently reformed but as far as I am aware never produced anything much.

 

It was clear at the Queanbeyan General Meeting that there was a wide acceptance that the Constitution needed to change and that a Board of 13 was, to say the least, unwieldy. The work facing the Board in formulating a new Constitution is legally technical. You need to decide the form of incorporation and possibly the place of incorporation that would suit an organisation of the size of RAAus with the not-for-profit purpose that it has for existence. That decision making will benefit from the input of an aviation specialist lawyer like Spencer Ferrier. It is not something many other members would claim expertise for.

 

As for the details, the 75% majority required ensures that there has to be serious actual consultation and the feedback absorbed, or it simply will not clear that high hurdle. I agree with Col Jones that it would have been good to get a crack at the parameters before anybody made too many decisions but I have confidence in the small group that has been working on it to produce a handy first draft for our review.