Draft Constitution?

[cooperplace]

Michael Monck has now emailed apologizing, saying that my email was missed in the sheer volume of emails and that my suggestion will be taken up. Good outcome, I'm happy with this.

 

 

[frank marriott]

"to bring the board size to no less than five members?"

 

I am glad at least some people are happy.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

So the new draft isn't the final draft we will be voting on?

 

 

[Yenn]

There are other posts on this subject in other places. It would be good if they could all be brought under one banner.

 

I have posted elsewhere that i think the whole thing is a very badly written constitution and charter and not suitable for a yes vote without a lot of rewriting. to say that RAAus is under pressure from lack of time is ridiculous. They should get it right before they expect us to vote on it. I will not be voting for it unless it is cleaned up and made acceptable to all of us.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

"to bring the board size to no less than five members?" I am glad at least some people are happy.

Frank if you had ever had to work with a Board of 13 you would appreciate how inefficient that is. If each Board Member speaks for just 10 minutes on a given topic then 130 minutes or 2 hours and 10 minutes has just gone by. And that's just for one topic. And 1o minutes is reasonably brief.The expense of shipping 13 Board members around the country just twice per annum is greater than the benefit of doing that.

The worst part is we end up with not the best talent available. For example we had two excellent candidates in South Australia at the last election but only one could be elected. And, only people in South Australia region could vote. We had the odd situation that we had no candidate from Victoria and a person from NSW was nominated and elected, unopposed to the Board.

 

It is not very clever to have as many Board members as there are employed staff. With a smaller Board there is no need for a Board Executive and all Board decisions will be made on the consensus of the entire Boars.

 

Directors under the Association model are supervised by the state based Office of Registry Services. We were unable to get any reaction from the ORS back in the days when the Board was happy to ignore the Constitution and operated at a poor level of Governance. As a Director of a company supervised directly by the powerful Australian Securities and Investments Commission, you need to tread very carefully to avoid the wrath of ASIC invoking the severe power granted to it by the Corporations Law.

 

Also, Directors of the new Company will not be able to operate in cruise control as happened a lot over the last 10 years or so with calamitous results. Directors of the new Company will need to be participating fully in the affairs of RAAus keeping themselves fully informed and performing the analysis and getting answers to questions from the management.

 

If we left the old structure in place it would just be a matter of time before RAAus drifted back into its bad old ways and all the effort of the reformers over the last 5+ years would have been wasted and we would be back into having aircraft grounded by CASA for months or years on end.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

There are other posts on this subject in other places. It would be good if they could all be brought under one banner.I have posted elsewhere that i think the whole thing is a very badly written constitution and charter and not suitable for a yes vote without a lot of rewriting.

Yenn,

 

And I replied to you in the other place.

 

to say that RAAus is under pressure from lack of time is ridiculous. They should get it right before they expect us to vote on it.

I agree that would be a poor and unacceptable excuse.

 

I will not be voting for it unless it is cleaned up and made acceptable to all of us.

I think it has been "cleaned up" but whether we are likely to get 10,000 "Yes" votes is unlikely in a democracy. The pass mark for a Special resolution is severe and Australians are notorious for not wanting to approve constitutional change. Lets hope that we are not confined to repeat the mistakes of the last ten years by having the same organisation structure as facilitated that calamity. I'd much prefer we took a step forwards to a Board obliged to maintain the highest level of good governance than continue on with the structure that let us down so badly in the past.

 

Yenn, It is a pity that you still feel this way. I hope you have looked carefully at the last draft and have given it a fair consideration against what we currently have.

 

If you feel it can be further improved then you will always have the right to propose a motion for a Special Resolution to make the new constitution more to your liking. It only takes a few lines of text and a 75% majority of those who vote to get a Special Resolution approved. I've done about 25 in the past and all but a few got that level of support from fellow members.

 

 

[frank marriott]

"if you had ever had to work with a Board of 13 you would appreciate how inefficient thatis"

 

Actually a 12 and a 6. So both.

 

 

[Yenn]

I will re download the draft and see if it is the same as I have been looking at. From memory the drafts are not dated or numbered, but I may be wrong.

 

I would like to see a new constitution, but it must be set out properly. not as what I have seen where the first part of the members charter should have been in the constitution. I still cannot understand why the reference to space craft, it makes me wonder what is the hidden agenda.

 

 

[Downunder]

Only 8 board members listed on the website... https://www.raa.asn.au/our-organisation/meet-our-board/

 

A little bit pre-emptive?

 

 

[kasper]

Only 8 board members listed on the website... https://www.raa.asn.au/our-organisation/meet-our-board/A little bit pre-emptive?

No just lack of delivery against what was said when the site was relaunched - the 8 were listed when the relaunched site went live with a note the rest to follow ... it never happened.

 

 

[Yenn]

I have looked at the latest draft and it is as I was using before, signed on 15 April I think.

 

I will enumerate here what I see as needing attention.

 

The constitution item 6 Object does not cover what RAAus is all about. It should also have the Vision, Purpose and aims which are in the charter. What goes in the charter is supposedly how RAAus reacts to members, the board and employees.

 

All items 1 to 8 should be in the constitution.

 

That is my main gripe with it as it stands, but there are other lesser faults.

 

Clause 17 Dispute resolution. We need that to be written into the constitution, not something that happens later. Also what are the rules of procedural fairness. This is a legal document, so it should have definitions, not an airy fairy assumption, because you and I may not assume the same thing.

 

Cl 21-3 should read wording of the proposed resolution, not "words"

 

Cl 22-6 is poorly worded, delete "and " after declared.

 

Cl 28-1 Should start "If too late"

 

Cl 54-1 Should refer to the charter which is part of the constituion, not as if it was to come later.

 

Cl 58 (b) Three days is nowhere near the time it takes Australia Post to deliver aletter. Make it 6 and it would be nearer the mark.

 

Cl 64 Winding up. Aircraft registration should be refunded pro rata. If there is a wind up days after a plane is registered there is a big financial loss and no reason why it should not be refunded.

 

The Charter has a few faults as follows.

 

Why the reference to space craft, this makes me wonder if there is some hidden agenda here.

 

Some provision must be mentioned where members can be communicated with, if thy do not use social media or other mentioned methods.

 

There is no reference to "Reporting culture" which is alluded to in members accountability.

 

The mention of committed acts of terrorism, threats of violence or actual violence and wilful violation of aviation laws are really nothing to do ith RAAus. They are police or CASA matters.

 

Not really much needs changing but I consider what I have outlined above should have been done before it was put out to the members.

 

Hopefully we can get a well sorted constitution and charter ready before we are expected to vote on it.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Only 8 board members listed on the website... https://www.raa.asn.au/our-organisation/meet-our-board/A little bit pre-emptive?

All 13 Board Members were invited to contribute a bio - 8 did.

 

 

[Downunder]

All 13 Board Members were invited to contribute a bio - 8 did.

Thanks Don. Perhaps that says something about why we do need the board reformed.

 

 

[bull]

Was just wondering {as us dumb fisherman do sometimes} that :if RAA becomes a "company"will members then have a right under the consumer laws to choose another "company"if they are not happy with RAA,s performance ,And will this then end RAA,s monopoly of being the one and only way to legally pursue our sport. Will we have a choice to pick another "company "?????

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Nope Bull sorry but that choice is not made by the pilot, but rather by CASA.

 

Monopoly isn't absolute across all classes of aircraft. For example if you fly a trike you get to choose HGFA or RAAus as best suits you. If you flew hang gliders as well as trikes then it would make sense to belong to only 1 RAO being HGFA (better to only pay 1 membership per year than 2 separate ones). If like me you flew trikes and more traditional 3 axis aircraft then RAAus is the obvious way to go for the same reason.

 

Being a monopoly and being classed as a monopoly speaks more to the complete inability of anyone (human or Company) to set up an alternate. RAAus is not a monopoly in that if a bunch of you felt strongly enough, and were prepared to spend the money with CASA that they demanded and meet the requirements of an RAO that CASA separately requires then RAAus could end up with multiple competitors......

 

My gut however suggests that while CASA is pleased with RAAus they are very unlikely to look favourably on alternates when they infact see themselves as an alternate via RPL. Also understand that every competitor that is born and continues represents another organisation they have to provide annual funding to, and oversight of. So I wont hold my breath waiting for an alternate to spring up..... but equally my gut is not something I can rely on....a few years back I guess we went close to CASA probably almost looking to nurture and support an alternate to RAAus.....or killing the whole RAO approach off altogether.......the funding realities of the later probably meant that if things got worse for RAAus than they were at the time I'd have bet on them preparing an alternate in the background.

 

Andy

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Was just wondering {as us dumb fisherman do sometimes} that :if RAA becomes a "company"will members then have a right under the consumer laws to choose another "company"if they are not happy with RAA,s performance ,And will this then end RAA,s monopoly of being the one and only way to legally pursue our sport. Will we have a choice to pick another "company "?????

RAA is a form of a company now. A company is a legal entity as an incorporated body. RAAus as an incorporated association is a body corporate. RAAus as a company limited by guarantee is a body corporate.

CASA set up a competitor to RAAus when it introduced the Recreational Pilots Licence. However, they set it up in such a way that it has not been a very popular option. The silly medical and the need to employ a LAME has not done it any favours. Mostly, it seems it's been used as a replacement for the GFPT.

 

For Trikes the option is the HGFA.

 

 

[kasper]

And a quick question for Don and Andy ... and I am NOT saying I would or are thinking of this...

 

But WHAT would the RAAus position be to a Member starting down the road to creation of a parallel RAO to RAAus? Would this be against the Constitution, would it be bringing the RAAus into disrepute? Would they get disciplined and slung out effectively without access to fly any aircraft under the ultralight CAOs until they completed the process of creating the parallel RAO to RAAus?

 

Just asking ... because there are RAO models out there that are minimal touch and can work within a for profit model and heaven forbid that a person or group decided enough was enough and set up in competition

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I can no longer speak on behalf of RAAus but I personally don't see any issue, from the RAAus side with someone wanting to do as you suggest. When I was on the board there was murmurings that some in Queensland were considering doing just that. As I recall we gave it 30 seconds of discussion before moving on, and in my view that was about 20 seconds too much....

 

However my experience, short though it was, is that "minimal touch" isn't something you as the business decide, it's something that CASA decides for you in that having a "minimal touch" requires your outward facing tech and ops manuals and your inward facing business procedures agreed by CASA and that agreement is not optional....... They are well aware of what works and what doesn't and what satisfies them......I would expect that the reality is that your "minimal touch" may evolve to the point that you either don't proceed or accept that its probably more apt described as " pretty much the same touch as the alternates" which means if you want to extract a profit from the business then the only way you can do so, is for the profit to come out of efficiencies as yet unexplored by your competitors, where they are NFP's. Lastly people qualified and accepted by CASA as Tech managers are rare beasts, to me they seem as thick on the ground as the Thylacine is in Tassie.......Having one of these is also not optional.

 

The only "minimal touch" RAO's I'm aware of have that perceived label because at the end of the day the 3 men and a dog that the RAO looks after can't support in their user cost structure anything more than minimal touch........CASA doesn't accept minimal touch when it doesn't have to......

 

Just my views, reality may be entirely different.....pick up the phone and discuss with Lee Ungermann, only his views and his Boss's views count and you may find (yet again???) that I have completely misrepresented the truth

 

Andy

 

P.S re the disrepute thing......Im personally only aware of 1 time that that specific smelly piece of excrement was dragged out for a public airing......as I recall it ended up all over the fan and was quietly put back away while those who participated tried desperately to work out how they could get clean again......

 

The likelihood of anyone wanting to try that again is probably related to the generational memory thing.. while anyone is alive who remembers the last time then it would be unlikely that anyone else would be allowed to get close to the smelly thing without the rememberer beating them with the nearest cricket bat!

 

 

[kasper]

Thanks Andy for your thoughts.

 

As this is a constitutional thread the ins and out of practically walking through the RAAO process were not the areas of particular interest but the implications of the constitution to someone exploring that option.

 

I am aware of some of the CASA views on RAAOs and the processes and levels of involvement but as I said I am not interested or involved or even thinking of being involved in creation of a separate RAAO so will leave it there.

 

 

[bull]

Nope Bull sorry but that choice is not made by the pilot, but rather by CASA.Monopoly isn't absolute across all classes of aircraft. For example if you fly a trike you get to choose HGFA or RAAus as best suits you. If you flew hang gliders as well as trikes then it would make sense to belong to only 1 RAO being HGFA (better to only pay 1 membership per year than 2 separate ones). If like me you flew trikes and more traditional 3 axis aircraft then RAAus is the obvious way to go for the same reason.

 

Being a monopoly and being classed as a monopoly speaks more to the complete inability of anyone (human or Company) to set up an alternate. RAAus is not a monopoly in that if a bunch of you felt strongly enough, and were prepared to spend the money with CASA that they demanded and meet the requirements of an RAO that CASA separately requires then RAAus could end up with multiple competitors......

 

My gut however suggests that while CASA is pleased with RAAus they are very unlikely to look favourably on alternates when they infact see themselves as an alternate via RPL. Also understand that every competitor that is born and continues represents another organisation they have to provide annual funding to, and oversight of. So I wont hold my breath waiting for an alternate to spring up..... but equally my gut is not something I can rely on....a few years back I guess we went close to CASA probably almost looking to nurture and support an alternate to RAAus.....or killing the whole RAO approach off altogether.......the funding realities of the later probably meant that if things got worse for RAAus than they were at the time I'd have bet on them preparing an alternate in the background.

 

Andy

Thanks Andy

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . WHAT would the RAAus position be to a Member starting down the road to creation of a parallel RAO to RAAus? Would this be against the Constitution, would it be bringing the RAAus into disrepute? Would they get disciplined and slung out effectively without access to fly any aircraft under the ultralight CAOs until they completed the process of creating the parallel RAO to RAAus?

Sounds like a hypothetical question and no sensible politician would answer a hypothetical. However, as I'm not a politician, just your 'umble servant, I can advise that the answer lies in reading plain English as plain English.

I can't see how starting a competitor RAO to RAAus could ever be bringing RAAus into disrepute - unless you used false statements to slag off RAAus and thereby, literally, bring RAAus into disrepute.

 

A Director of RAAus who formed or even attempted to form a competing RAO might have to look very hard as to how appropriate remaining a Director would be.

 

This is not just a theoretical exercise because a former Board Member of RAAus set out to do just that while on the Board of RAAus. He did voluntarily resign from the Board but it was not in relation to his interest in an alternative RAO.

 

Just asking ... because there are RAO models out there that are minimal touch and can work within a for profit model and heaven forbid that a person or group decided enough was enough and set up in competition

I'm a strong believer that competition is a powerful agent for improvement. However, the cost and effort to set up an Administration function the size of RAAus would take, I'd estimate, an absolute minimum of $1 million and 6 months to a year before you could open your doors and accept memberships. Daunting.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Sounds like a hypothetical question and no sensible politician would answer a hypothetical. However, as I'm not a politician, just your 'umble servant, I can advise that the answer lies in reading plain English as plain English.I can't see how starting a competitor RAO to RAAus could ever be bringing RAAus into disrepute - unless you used false statements to slag off RAAus and thereby, literally, bring RAAus into disrepute.

 

A Director of RAAus who formed or even attempted to form a competing RAO might have to look very hard as to how appropriate remaining a Director would be.

 

This is not just a theoretical exercise because a former Board Member of RAAus set out to do just that while on the Board of RAAus. He did voluntarily resign from the Board but it was not in relation to his interest in an alternative RAO.

 

I'm a strong believer that competition is a powerful agent for improvement. However, the cost and effort to set up an Administration function the size of RAAus would take, I'd estimate, an absolute minimum of $1 million and 6 months to a year before you could open your doors and accept memberships. Daunting.

Jonathon Aleck's view is clear. In the unseen NPRM that has been circulated to the existing RAAO's by CASA MR Aleck says (Appendix C para 14):

 

"...... having regard to the nature and extent of the kinds of sport and recreational aviation activities currently administered by existing bodies, and

 

cognisant of the potential safety risks attendant on the approval of more than one RAAO to administer essentially the same activities, it is not unreasonable to expect that, as a matter of safety and consistent with applicable anti-competition laws, CASA

 

might not properly approve more than one applicant in respect of a particular sphere of activity."

 

In an environment where regulators should not be seen to be favouring one constituency over another, that is, seen to be facilitating competition and providing equal opportunity to all, it is breathtaking that CASA has sought to embark on this SECRET NPRM process by consulting with the existing participants to the exclusion of all else. Put simply the fox is in charge of the hen house in this process.

 

To illustrate how ethically and intellectually bankrupt this NPRM is, it only considered three options for consideration and all of them required that the existing RAAO model would be a requirement in future regulation. No consideration would seem to have been considered such as CASA undertaking the tasks currently undertaken by the existing RAAO's or delegations to individuals in same way as the issue of VH experimental certificates is currently done or a consolidated body to take up all the RAAO's regulatory tasks or any other model.

 

BTW Don, any group of people can form a body to take up memberships to lobby a particular point of view. That is how the AUF got going. The estimate of $1 million has no basis. However, it is interesting that you think that it would take 6-12 months to establish a new RAAO when CASA says in its preamble to its secret NPRM:

 

"CASA proposes a transition period of 18 months to ensure that industry has sufficient time to transition to these changes. CASA is presently engaged in planning the transition for all expected applicants to become ASAOs from established sport and recreational aviation groups. Expressions of interest and subsequent applications from the wider aviation community will be managed as they arise."

 

(Note: RAAO's are ASAO's)

 

Interestingly, prior to this statement CASA said:

 

Overall, it is CASA’s assessment that the impact of the proposed Part 149 rules will be largely borne by the existing RAAOs, in the first instance, with the requirement to develop a suitable exposition that could range from a few weeks of effort for some organisations to approximately one year for more complex organisations. (

 

Note: an "exposition" is the set of documents that roughly equate to RA-Aus's Operational and Technical manuals)

 

It is probable that RA_Aus's documents that have been approved by CASA may not be subject to copyright as they probably exist in the public domain in which case there is nothing to stop a group from using RA-Aus's CASA approved documents as the basis of their exposition to gain approval for a new organisation.

 

In short this RAAO model is broken for a myriad reasons and it is time CASA, the RAAO's and those who have been mandated to be members of RAAO's woke up to this an began a search for a model which, for example, means that people who are compelled to join that organisation cannot be expelled or otherwise disciplined by a body that cannot legally act as a tribunal to determine guilt or innocence.