Draft Constitution?

[DWF]

...... The thinking is that members should communicate with the people who can solve their issues directly rather than Board Members mulling over the 20 year strategic plan. The staff really only need one boss, the CEO, and not the CEO plus 13 Board Members.

 

.......

Don

 

You seem to be saying that we should not be contacting Board members.

 

The staff are, of course, the best people to contact for admin, ops and tech matters, however the Board and its members are responsible for and directly influence the policy and direction of our association and it is they with whom we should be communicating about such matters (e.g. the new constitution). The staff are of no help here and should not be.

 

Therefore a readily accessable list of Board member contact details should be available to members both in Sport Pilot and on the web site.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[coljones]

This ceases to be an issue with the new Constitution.

My reading of the draft suggests that there are NO postal ballots, just the flawed proxy at GM meeting problems we are saddled with.

Can you dig out the drafting guidelines used to nut out V1, before the lawyers got to it. Leaving aside Spencer who else is on the sub committee, and their qualifications?

 

 

[DWF]

My reading of the draft suggests that there are NO postal ballots, just the flawed proxy at GM meeting problems we are saddled with. .........

I agree.

 

The 'Explanatory document for members' says:

 

"Voting at General Meetings

 

There is no material change to the way that votes are conducted at general meetings. Members may still appoint proxies, a poll may be called by members at the meeting and each member holds only one vote."

 

I can find no metion of postal voting in the draft constitution.

 

"Clause 31. How voting is carried out" does not mention postal voting.

 

"31.1© another method chosen by the Chairman that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances." Would not be usable for postal voting as a postal vote requires that the ballot be organised and taken before the meeting.

 

Postal voting has its problems, not the least of which is cost, but it may provide a better means of determining (more widespread) member opinion than a general meeting attended by a very few members.

 

(A quorum is 20 members but only 5 must be physically present. The rest can be proxies!).

 

 

 

In some ways appointing a proxy can achieve the same result as a postal vote if it is done correctly. However it requires a lot more work on the part of the member appointing the proxy.

 

 

 

Maybe some form of electronic voting could be devised and included in the constitution. Members watche the meeting (live) via the internet and votes on resolutions using their personally assigned code - again, via the internet.

 

 

 

I think this part of the document (constitution) needs more thought to get it right.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[facthunter]

How does a postal voter have the benefit of the discussion and material considered at the meeting? It's the same thing with a directed proxy. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

How does a postal voter have the benefit of the discussion and material considered at the meeting? It's the same thing with a directed proxy. Nev

you can have a meeting, which can be broadcast, and then after an ensuing debate, you can have a postal ballot. Directed proxies only work with an informed electorate - unless of course, like those "grown up" companies, you can con the mums and dads into giving open proxies to the chair where they can be used to support the power block. Think Whitlam and the NRMA. By issuing a ballot paper it forces the rank and file to make a decision - yes, no, do nothing - how much more democratic can you get.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have listed a few problems. Distortion is the worry and APATHY. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

I had thought that following the member meeting last Oct there would be a V2 of the draft constitution ... only V1 is on the RAA website ... any hints as to if/when/where V2 will be?If not i will go back t ot eh CEO ... but as he has not responded in the past 4 months to comments provided on V1 I am at the point of giving up on RAA/CEO/Board as actually giving a damn about members views and comments or engagement

It is something else, RAAus is supposed to be a members organisation as it stands here ....it is a select few board members and selected staff and there is the RAAus. No members organisation.

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Thanks for the "constructive criticism". I'm a bit caught up at the moment with visitors from overseas and Mother-in-law's 95th birthday. I will respond to your questions and suggestions as soon as I can.

 

Don

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

It is not a matter of differences in obligations or penalties but in the attitude of ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) as RAAus Inc is theoretically subject to both. What is different is the attitude of the "Policeman". You know how the Police are reluctant to get between warring parties in a "domestic" well, the regulator of incorporated associations seems to have a similar attitude to that with incorporated clubs. When we were severely at odds with the then Board in 2012-13 with regard to governance and many other failings, there were a number of approaches to the ACT regulator who basically responded with "sort it out yourselves".Must say that I've changed my view on whether RAAus should remain in Canberra or move out to an airport has changed in favour of staying where we are now. The resources available to the Office in Canberra are so much better that anywhere but another capital city. And in Canberra we have ready access to CASA CEO Skidmore and his deputy Dr. Aleck Combine all that with Canberra resident Mick Monck able to spend a considerable amount of his otherwise very expensive management consulting time at the Office and in meetings with the CASA hierarchy at no cost to RAAus.

 

Perhaps, one day way off in the future, when we've become a mature, stable organisation, we could afford to move to somewhere like Narromine. That really would be the icing on the cake.

As someone who runs a business in a regional city it is a definite DISADVANTAGE to be in that location compared to my competitors who have relatively easy access to everything that matters. And then there is the "out of sight - out of mind" factor. A move to a location like Narromine, however romantic, would be a retrograde step for an organisation like RAAus which is fundamentally an advocate. Advocates belong in the seat of power, not wandering around in the wilderness which is where we may end up if we relocate to the bush.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

You seem to be saying that we should not be contacting Board members. . . . however the Board and its members are responsible for and directly influence the policy and direction of our association and it is they with whom we should be communicating about such matters (e.g. the new constitution). . . . a readily accessible list of Board member contact details should be available to members both in Sport Pilot and on the web site.

David, I can only agree with what you are saying and will discuss with the Board and the CEO to see what we can do. Perhaps what we need is to publish an email address that covers the entire Board rather than one individual member as the Board should act as one entity not as 13 independents.

 

 

[tillmanr]

David, I can only agree with what you are saying and will discuss with the Board and the CEO to see what we can do. Perhaps what we need is to publish an email address that covers the entire Board rather than one individual member as the Board should act as one entity not as 13 independents.

Don I believe that the association has board members to represent voting members. These board members are elected on a regional basis, I assume to have a voice for the members in those regions.

 

If I cannot approach my regional representative of the board we might as well have no regional basis to the board elections but only a universal (nation wide) election to the board.

 

Am I right or wrong?

 

 

[kasper]

David, I can only agree with what you are saying and will discuss with the Board and the CEO to see what we can do. Perhaps what we need is to publish an email address that covers the entire Board rather than one individual member as the Board should act as one entity not as 13 independents.

And of course Don there is ALWAYS the option with the current structure of the website to have the board members contact details on the member side and the employed personnel contacts on both sides ... but frankly given that we make Sport Pilot available free of change to all and sundry there is no logical reason to put the contact details that are available on a free publication behind the member wall.

Personnally I would have thought that as the constitutional change is ONLY applicable to members the draft constitution would have been on the members only side with the current operating constitution on the freely accessible side for prospective members to see ... but of course simple clear communications means that in fact the constitution and the draft are on the public side and NOT visible on the member side of the website ... not in my opinion well thought out in terms of audience and communication ... but then again I am now consistently giving RAA an F- on communications.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don I believe that the association has board members to represent voting members. These board members are elected on a regional basis, I assume to have a voice for the members in those regions.If I cannot approach my regional representative of the board we might as well have no regional basis to the board elections but only a universal (nation wide) election to the board.

Am I right or wrong?

A bit of both.

 

The"right" bit is that " . . . board members are elected on a regional basis". The right postcode is the primary qualification. If you were Dick Smith but your postcode was outside the particular region, you could not even be considered for election.

 

The wrong bit, if I understand you correctly, is that "the association has board members to represent voting members". I've interpreted that to mean that they are there to represent the region they were elected from. If that's what you meant then that is completely incorrect. All decisions made by individual Board Members must be to the benefit of the entire association as a whole. It would be unconstitutional and even illegal to act to the benefit of your region against the best interests of RAAus as a whole. RAAus is a body corporate and the Board must act in the best interests of the Association not any particular group of members.

 

That may surprise some people.

 

If you simply meant that Board members are elected to look after the interest of ALL members (not just the 15% who voted) then you are of course correct.

 

This is a bit theoretical because it is difficult for me to imagine how the Board could favour one group of members over another. I'd be very interested if anyone could give me an example of how that might happen.

 

Part of the problem here is that we are currently using the Association form of incorporation which is more suited to a small club with a limited geographical spread of membership and certainly not well suited to a national body. The Club model works quite well at the Hunter Recreational Flying Club that I am a member of. However, because RAAus operates outside the state/territory of incorporation (the A.C.T.) we are accountable to the Aust Securities and Investments Commission (the other ASIC) as well as the A.C.T. Dept. of Justice and its Office for the regulation of incorporated associations.

 

Being a member with a postcode as the primary qualification for election to the Board is not necessarily going to result in having the most competent Board. If we had a choice between a pilot who had legal qualifications, an MBA and extensive Board experience versus a pilot who was enthusiastic enough to put him/her self up for election but had no qualifications or experience that would equip them well to operate at Board level then, other things equal, we should probably vote for the former. However, if the former was from Sydney and the latter was from Katherine in the NT the former could not be even considered if the "seat" was for the NT and RAAus would most likely be the poorer for it.

 

The regional thing at the moment is also quite undemocratic in that we have a great disparity in the "one vote one value" principle.

 

The regional representation model was adopted in a time before cheap landline calls interstate, widespread use of emails, Skype, etc. and may have had some value then. It just no longer makes any sense.

 

In my view, we would be better off to have every candidate for the Board elected based on their qualifications, experience and declared intent rather than, in the first instance, their postcode. In the new Constitution that is exactly how Board Members will be elected.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

My reading of the draft suggests that there are NO postal ballots, just the flawed proxy at GM meeting problems we are saddled with.

Col,

 

As you know, we have postal voting for Board elections based on a lengthy process over several months of calling for nominations, announcing nominations and publishing election statements of candidates, receiving counting, scrutineering of ballots and announcing successful candidates.

 

The current proxy voting system is as required and allowed under the Act. As I see it, it is in effect a postal voting system. The motion ofr the Special Resolution is notified and published with at least 3 weeks notice and proxy votes can be received up to 24 hours before the published time for the start of the General Meeting. The voter by directing their proxy (wisest is to nominate the Chair of the Meeting) to vote as directed ensure their vote will be cast exactly as if they were in attendance.

 

The only in principle "flaw" in this process I can see is the lack of debate at the meeting and the opportunity to sway votes for or against the motion. But, with a membership entitled to vote exceeding 9,000 people spread across more than 7 million square kilometres it is not feasible to have useful discussion at the General Meeting.

 

Col, perhaps you could explain the flw you see in the process and what might be a better process?

 

Can you dig out the drafting guidelines used to nut out V1, before the lawyers got to it. Leaving aside Spencer who else is on the sub committee, and their qualifications?

The current draft was put together before I came on to the Board late last year. Apart from the legal support, I do know that there has been a great deal of work done on it by Board Members and the CEO including 2 x MBAs. The President has written extensively on the subject in the lead up to the last AGM and since and will be publishing further comment as the next draft becomes available. I have no intention of jumping that particular gun. The qualifications and experience of other Board Members is available from their election statements. We are fortunate with the current Board to have a substantial component of people highly qualified and experienced to operate at Board level. We also have a few Board Members who may lack the formal qualifications but whose life experience, energy and determination have invaluable to the Board.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

It is something else, RAAus is supposed to be a members organisation as it stands here ....it is a select few board members and selected staff and there is the RAAus. No members organisation.

Keith,

 

If you have 13 people democratically elected to sit on the Board and up for re-election every only 2 years, how is not representative democracy at work?

 

If you want a direct vote on every decision of the Board you need to stand for and be recognised by your peers as the person they think will be best for their Association. This takes a major effort to achieve.

 

The Board was not born into the role like members of the Mountbatten-Windsor dynasty. We are totally accountable to the electors.

 

I and a relatively small group of people have worked assiduously since 2010 when I first discovered that the management of RAAus was, in my judgement, well below par. We have since seen a quantum leap in governance and the quality of management at CEO level. We have seen a significant turnover of Board Members due to the activism of the few who were prepared to put in the time and effort to get these changes to happen. The relatively small group was the driving force behind the extraordinary AGM held at Queanbeyan in 2013 that became a watershed moment for RAAus.

 

I would speculate that if that group had just sat at their keyboards having potshots at the Board RAAus would have been wound up by now.

 

Yes, it is a work in progress but progress is happening and we will not give up until RAAus is in a position where it can be guaranteed to survive well into the future.

 

I really wonder at times how people come to the conclusion that the Board is always working against the best interest of members. Flabbergasted would be a better word to describe this feeling.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Col, David,

 

I fell it important that you understand that my last post (in exasperation) was not directed at yourselves in particular who invariably remain positive contributors.

 

Don

 

 

[kasper]

A bit of both.The"right" bit is that " . . . board members are elected on a regional basis". The right postcode is the primary qualification. If you were Dick Smith but your postcode was outside the particular region, you could not even be considered for election.

 

The wrong bit, if I understand you correctly, is that "the association has board members to represent voting members". I've interpreted that to mean that they are there to represent the region they were elected from. If that's what you meant then that is completely incorrect. All decisions made by individual Board Members must be to the benefit of the entire association as a whole. It would be unconstitutional and even illegal to act to the benefit of your region against the best interests of RAAus as a whole. RAAus is a body corporate and the Board must act in the best interests of the Association not any particular group of members.

 

That may surprise some people.

 

If you simply meant that Board members are elected to look after the interest of ALL members (not just the 15% who voted) then you are of course correct.

 

This is a bit theoretical because it is difficult for me to imagine how the Board could favour one group of members over another. I'd be very interested if anyone could give me an example of how that might happen.

 

Part of the problem here is that we are currently using the Association form of incorporation which is more suited to a small club with a limited geographical spread of membership and certainly not well suited to a national body. The Club model works quite well at the Hunter Recreational Flying Club that I am a member of. However, because RAAus operates outside the state/territory of incorporation (the A.C.T.) we are accountable to the Aust Securities and Investments Commission (the other ASIC) as well as the A.C.T. Dept. of Justice and its Office for the regulation of incorporated associations.

 

Being a member with a postcode as the primary qualification for election to the Board is not necessarily going to result in having the most competent Board. If we had a choice between a pilot who had legal qualifications, an MBA and extensive Board experience versus a pilot who was enthusiastic enough to put him/her self up for election but had no qualifications or experience that would equip them well to operate at Board level then, other things equal, we should probably vote for the former. However, if the former was from Sydney and the latter was from Katherine in the NT the former could not be even considered if the "seat" was for the NT and RAAus would most likely be the poorer for it.

 

The regional thing at the moment is also quite undemocratic in that we have a great disparity in the "one vote one value" principle.

 

The regional representation model was adopted in a time before cheap landline calls interstate, widespread use of emails, Skype, etc. and may have had some value then. It just no longer makes any sense.

 

In my view, we would be better off to have every candidate for the Board elected based on their qualifications, experience and declared intent rather than, in the first instance, their postcode. In the new Constitution that is exactly how Board Members will be elected.

 

Don

Would disagree on this areas Don.

IF the Board is intended to provide oversight and direction of travel in relation to the coverage of the association and the employed staff and executive are the professional delivery team for the association THEN you have an executive and employed team with the basic business skills and operational management experience and you do not need to replicate those skills in the Board. The Board only need to have those skills if the Board are expected to and do the operational management ... in which case we do not need a highly or even moderately paid executive.

 

So if the executive brings the operational management and core business skills to the table the board need only have the knowledge and skills relating to the core association membership ... in this case its pilots and owners of RAAus registered aircraft and on that basis the move towards 'selecting' skill sets for board membership prior to approval/election by members is IMO very flawed.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . a readily accessable list of Board member contact details should be available to members both in Sport Pilot and on the web site.

David, further on this matter . . .

 

There was a decision taken by the Board at the Bundaberg Board Meeting to drop the individual Board Members email addresses from the new website. The intent was to emphasise the change of direction to having members consult first with the responsible staff person rather than "their Member's Representative". The old approach had produced a very unsatisfactory situation especially for the staff.

 

The matter will again be discussed by the Board at Canberra at the next Board Meeting.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Would disagree on this areas Don.

Unsurprisingly.

 

IF the Board is intended to provide oversight and direction of travel in relation to the coverage of the association and the employed staff and executive are the professional delivery team for the association THEN you have an executive and employed team with the basic business skills and operational management experience and you do not need to replicate those skills in the Board. The Board only need to have those skills if the Board are expected to and do the operational management ... in which case we do not need a highly or even moderately paid executive.So if the executive brings the operational management and core business skills to the table the board need only have the knowledge and skills relating to the core association membership ... in this case its pilots and owners of RAAus registered aircraft and on that basis the move towards 'selecting' skill sets for board membership prior to approval/election by members is IMO very flawed.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here Kasper especially in relation to your reference to "the executive". Are you referring to the Triumvirate of the President/Secretary/Treasurer? Or to the CEO and direct report managers?

 

Let me assure that under Corporations Law, ignorance is not accepted as an excuse. Board's must have a level of knowledge and capability appropriate to the role. They may seek advice but the buck stops with the Board and they have to act not just in good faith but with due diligence meet their fiduciary duty.

 

There are plenty of examples of Boards being nailed for just accepting the advice of the management team.

 

 

[kasper]

Unsurprisingly.

 

I'm afraid I don't follow you here Kasper especially in relation to your reference to "the executive". Are you referring to the Triumvirate of the President/Secretary/Treasurer? Or to the CEO and direct report managers?

 

Let me assure that under Corporations Law, ignorance is not accepted as an excuse. Board's must have a level of knowledge and capability appropriate to the role. They may seek advice but the buck stops with the Board and they have to act not just in good faith but with due diligence meet their fiduciary duty.

 

There are plenty of examples of Boards being nailed for just accepting the advice of the management team.

Completely missing the point

1. the executive is the CEO and the management team that operate the business.

 

2. Fully aware that Corp Law does not allow ignorance as an excuse BUT nor does it require that the board have business management skills at any particular level

 

It's the writing of you on here about needing to get or having a preference for business/legal/management skills as a selection criteria for appointment to the board that is what I have issue with ... a bog standard pilot who in their 'other' non-flying life has swept the floor at the local supermarket is just as 'qualified' to talk on the needs and direction of the RAAus at board level as is an MBA holding qualified accountant/lawyer who is the CEO of a company in their other life.

 

I'm not at all saying anything on ignorance of corp law nor is it excusing errors of compliance with it - BUT those bits of corp law compliance are readily available to be proivided as training courses to new directors if they feel they have a need or to all directors as refreshers.

 

What I outlined in my post you don't follow is actually a fairly standard and common split in skills/knowledge/responsibilities between the executive and board levels within companies and there are LOTS of board members who I would not let near the petty cash tin on a weekend market stall let alone the management of a multi million dollar association ... and equally there are very competent executives and managers who can run a very good and controlled operation on a day-to-day basis but who have not a jot capacity or interest in the strategic vision required to direct the business.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't agree with removing the contact details of board members, how do you expect represent members views on policy if you don't bother to canvass members or allow them access to the board.

 

The changes should be broken down and opinion of members taken (online poll/discussion) on each issue. (I.e. Change from ACT, reduction of board, removal of state based election etc)

 

 

[frank marriott]

The proposed change to 6 and no regional representative will remove the arguement, just run by a small click and cop it and shut up.

 

People can support or otherwise these proposed changes at the next AGM. We can only hope people vote according to their beliefs and not sit back and complain about the result if it is not to their liking after the horse has bolted.

 

 

[tillmanr]

A bit of both.The"right" bit is that " . . . board members are elected on a regional basis". The right postcode is the primary qualification. If you were Dick Smith but your postcode was outside the particular region, you could not even be considered for election.

 

The wrong bit, if I understand you correctly, is that "the association has board members to represent voting members". I've interpreted that to mean that they are there to represent the region they were elected from. If that's what you meant then that is completely incorrect. All decisions made by individual Board Members must be to the benefit of the entire association as a whole. It would be unconstitutional and even illegal to act to the benefit of your region against the best interests of RAAus as a whole. RAAus is a body corporate and the Board must act in the best interests of the Association not any particular group of members.

 

That may surprise some people.

 

If you simply meant that Board members are elected to look after the interest of ALL members (not just the 15% who voted) then you are of course correct.

 

This is a bit theoretical because it is difficult for me to imagine how the Board could favour one group of members over another. I'd be very interested if anyone could give me an example of how that might happen.

 

Part of the problem here is that we are currently using the Association form of incorporation which is more suited to a small club with a limited geographical spread of membership and certainly not well suited to a national body. The Club model works quite well at the Hunter Recreational Flying Club that I am a member of. However, because RAAus operates outside the state/territory of incorporation (the A.C.T.) we are accountable to the Aust Securities and Investments Commission (the other ASIC) as well as the A.C.T. Dept. of Justice and its Office for the regulation of incorporated associations.

 

Being a member with a postcode as the primary qualification for election to the Board is not necessarily going to result in having the most competent Board. If we had a choice between a pilot who had legal qualifications, an MBA and extensive Board experience versus a pilot who was enthusiastic enough to put him/her self up for election but had no qualifications or experience that would equip them well to operate at Board level then, other things equal, we should probably vote for the former. However, if the former was from Sydney and the latter was from Katherine in the NT the former could not be even considered if the "seat" was for the NT and RAAus would most likely be the poorer for it.

 

The regional thing at the moment is also quite undemocratic in that we have a great disparity in the "one vote one value" principle.

 

The regional representation model was adopted in a time before cheap landline calls interstate, widespread use of emails, Skype, etc. and may have had some value then. It just no longer makes any sense.

 

In my view, we would be better off to have every candidate for the Board elected based on their qualifications, experience and declared intent rather than, in the first instance, their postcode. In the new Constitution that is exactly how Board Members will be elected.

 

Don

Don, my impetus was not that a board member should act contrary to the benefit of the association but be aware of the thoughts and wishes of members. I feel that the administration is busy with day to day running of the show not collecting thoughts and feelings of the membership. That is the role of our elected board in my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Completely missing the point

Which is why I asked you to explain your obtuse comment.

 

1. the executive is the CEO and the management team that operate the business.

"Executive" has a special meaning for RAAus as defined in the current constitution and I wasn't sure whether you meant that or the general meaning of executive. I do know what that the two executives are as I have been one of each . . . . . . but it is imperative to know which one you meant before I could respond with certainty.

 

2. Fully aware that Corp Law does not allow ignorance as an excuse BUT nor does it require that the board have business management skills at any particular level. It's the writing of you on here about needing to get or having a preference for business/legal/management skills as a selection criteria for appointment to the board that is what I have issue with ...

There is no requirement to have any qualifications or education to be a company director as many people who are company directors who know nothing of the business let alone the law will attest. And all is fine until everything is lost and ASIC And the auditors come in to bayonet the wounded.

 

In any case, I would not want that sort of person deciding the fate at board level of our corporation especially if we could have an Australian from somewhere outside their region who does have the education and experience to make a knowledgeable director. And that person is still going to be a pilot with valid aviation opinions and has to be elected to stay in the job.

 

. . . a bog standard pilot who in their 'other' non-flying life has swept the floor at the local supermarket is just as 'qualified' to talk on the needs and direction of the RAAus at board level as is an MBA holding qualified accountant/lawyer who is the CEO of a company in their other life.

Ok for them to talk all they like and ask questions but to be the elected company director it is preferable that you have experience of something other than having "swept the floor at the local supermarket". I've packed shelves at Woolworths and been paid $2 an hour for the privilege but I was undertaking a commerce degree at the same time.

 

Company Director of a multi-million dollar national corporation is not a job for an amateur and on that matter we may have to just disagree. I have seen such people in action and they would be better placed contributing from a non-board position. Also, if you read my comment you will notice that I included the words "life experience". We have at the moment a couple of Board Members who are eminently qualified to be on our Board because of their life experience rather than experience at Board level or formal qualifications. What I was saying was, "other things equal" you would prefer somebody well qualified and experienced to your average plumber with no corporate experience. A bit like you'd prefer to have an ATPL flying the jet you are commuting in rather than an enthusiast with an RPC.

 

I'm not at all saying anything on ignorance of corp law nor is it excusing errors of compliance with it - BUT those bits of corp law compliance are readily available to be proivided as training courses to new directors if they feel they have a need or to all directors as refreshers.

Some training will be necessary but if you already hold a Commerce degree or a law degree or an MBA, or AICD a lot less very expensive training will be required. RAAus should not be in the business of training motor mechanics or electricians or specialist doctors or architects to be company directors from scratch.

 

What I outlined in my post you don't follow is actually a fairly standard and common split in skills/knowledge/responsibilities between the executive and board levels within companies

How was I supposed to "follow" before you answered my simple question asking for clarification of what you meant by "executive"? I have never claimed to be clairvoyant and I'm not in the habit of making wild guesses when an explanation is available for asking.

 

. . .and there are LOTS of board members who I would not let near the petty cash tin on a weekend market stall let alone the management of a multi million dollar association.

RAAus Board Members?

 

. . . ... and equally there are very competent executives and managers who can run a very good and controlled operation on a day-to-day basis but who have not a jot capacity or interest in the strategic vision required to direct the business.

Sorry, but I'm having difficulty again understanding the point of that comment.

 

We have a CEO now with an MBA who would grace any board of a corporation of similar size to RAAus. He has demonstrated great capability at CEO level.

 

I agree that working at Board level is quite different to managing the business at the level of CEO. But, CEOs can usually make good Board Members. The skill at board level could reasonably be considered an incremental skill over line or senior or top management. Shop floor to Board level is not something that normally happens or is successful.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I don't agree with removing the contact details of board members, how do you expect represent members views on policy if you don't bother to canvass members or allow them access to the board.

As I said above, this matter will be re-visited at the next RAAus Board Meeting.

 

The changes should be broken down and opinion of members taken (online poll/discussion) on each issue. (I.e. Change from ACT, reduction of board, removal of state based election etc)

Rhys, we are not running that sort of Athenian democracy. We run a representative democracy. People are elected to do a job and then get on and do it. Consultation is a very useful thing especially in a matter as complex as the coming constitution reform.

There can be little doubt that 3 years ago RAAus was broken. There has been a very substantial change of management and Board Members since then charged with the responsibility of making repairs so that RAAus can continue with certainty for many years to come.

 

It is simply not possible to reengineer RAAus in real time with the detailed help from 9,000+ people .

 

There has been consultation and there will be further consultation before anything goes to a vote. Obviously, the very few members who take an interest in these sorts of things (as opposed to the overwhelming majority that just want to go flying) will have a significant impact on the final form of the constitution re-write.