Draft Constitution?

[DWF]

Thought bubble for RAAus structure ......

 

 

 

As I see it RAAus is now a two headed beast (or monster if you prefer).

 

On the one hand the association is to advocate on behalf of members, promote recreational aviation in all its forms, organise social and educational events for members and provide a forum for members views and interests.

 

On the other hand we must be an adminsitrative and regulatory body that controls pilot certification and aircraft registration and regulates the activities of recreational flyers.

 

 

 

Sometimes (often, you say?) these two functions are at odds with each other.

 

 

 

A struture that would accommodate these two disparate functions would be to have:

 

1. an association similar to the current one with a committee (which could be relatively large) that undertook the first listed functions; and then

 

2. a wholy owned subsidiary limited company that undertook the admin and regulatory functions with its own board of suitably qualified directors.

 

The association would set the policy/strategic direction of the organisation and charge the directors of the company with implementing it within the bounds of legal requirements and good governance.

 

The down side of this arrangement would be the additional cost and infrastructure in running, in effect, two organisations. Also it may be possible that people would have to pay for pilot certificates and aircraft registrations but would not necessarily need to be members of the association. If this were the case the association may lose some income but more importantly members and therefore political clout.

 

The up side would be that individual members of the association would potentially have more direct say in the running of the association and its direction.

 

 

 

Do you think this would work?

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[turboplanner]

Or, DWF an Incorporated Association, like the Sporting Shooters Association which looks after its members by advocating for them, providing facilities they want, and taking action to protect them from risk.

 

It's been interesting reading this thread; public consultation is not giving people the choice of voting for something or against it, particularly when the outstanding characteristic of members is apathy.

 

On the other had, where board members find that changes to the Constitution are needed, then releasing a Draft Constitution to all members and inviting submissions by a certain date, say one month out, does constitute public consultation, and often finds the weak spots, produces some better solutions, and quite often shows some missing points.

 

 

[Keith Page]

It sounds like my way or the byway to me. Anyhow I have made my opinion known, and whether it is liked or not is irrelevant, it is my opinion, so I will buy out of this circular arguement as nothing is being addressed, just repeated opinions.Yes I acknowledge you included "without good reason" but really no opinion against your statement would be reasonable, I would submit given the posted opinions.

 

Anyway I have had my say and will leave it at that, what the majority vote for is what counts (or at least those who bother to vote).

Do not go Frank we need you. You used to handle more mud than that. Look you survived.

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[DWF]

Or, DWF an Incorporated Association, like the Sporting Shooters Association which looks after its members by advocating for them, providing facilities they want, and taking action to protect them from risk.

I agree that our representative organisation (in whatever form) should do all this.

 

However RAAus (and its membership) is a different kettle of fish.

 

For a start SSA does not have to regulate, licence or control its members.

 

SSA members in general are probably more passionate and concerned about their sport as far as their awareness of and sensitivity to public opinion is concerned.

 

It's been interesting reading this thread; public consultation is not giving people the choice of voting for something or against it, particularly when the outstanding characteristic of members is apathy.

This is also true.

 

I think member apathy is one of our biggest problems.

 

In a previous post I bemoand the lack of opportuity for debate on this (or any other) RAAus topic; and the lack of people participating in this forum.

 

There is, for the most part, also a dirth of positive or alternative suggestions - most posts seem to be criticisms.

 

Reasoned debate can disagree with or counter ideas without trying to shoot the messenger.

 

On the other had, where board members find that changes to the Constitution are needed, then releasing a Draft Constitution to all members and inviting submissions by a certain date, say one month out, does constitute public consultation, and often finds the weak spots, produces some better solutions, and quite often shows some missing points.

It is not just Board members who can and should find the need for constitutional change. In fact, if you look at recent RAAus history, you will see that it was non-Board members who instigated constitutional change.

 

 

I think that presenting a draft completely new constitution for public (member) comment is jumping the gun a bit when there has been no information provided or consensus sought on what options are available and which direction we should head.

 

 

 

Drafting a good constitution is not a simple matter (I have done more than one). You should at least get some agreement on the basics before putting all that work into the detail.

 

 

 

I guess what I am trying to do is generate a bit more interest in this constitutional reform.

 

How do we overcome the general apathy.

 

This is a very imporant step in the evolution of RAAus. What is decided and put in place here will guide the organisation for a long while to come (I hope).

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree that our representative organisation (in whatever form) should do all this.

However RAAus (and its membership) is a different kettle of fish.

 

For a start SSA does not have to regulate, licence or control its members.

 

SSA members in general are probably more passionate and concerned about their sport as far as their awareness of and sensitivity to public opinion is concerned.

I keep bringing up SSAA because it is an Incorporated Association, and about the same size and geographic spread as RAA.

 

It has expanded its Constitution to enable it to operate successfully on this large scale. (I went looking for their Constitution a few days ago, and couldn't find it on public view)

 

You could roughly relate the Firearms Acts with the Civil Aviation Regulations.

 

SSAA does have its rules, like RAA, so it regulates.

 

Any licences, as you say are issued by State Governments.

 

It does control its members as I found out on two occasions, when I opened the breech but left the magazine in place, and when I pointed a rifle down (towards a concrete floor), and they do that through a series of Range Officers at their venues.

 

I think the number of their venues would be roughly the same as RAA formal airfields.

 

They control their members when they are hunting through Codes of Practice (Like Department of Infrastrucure and Regional Development does with vehicle modifications), and through an Insurance where, if a member accidentally shoots a prize bull etc, he/she is covered provided he/she met the COP.

 

So there is a lot to be learned by studying what they have done, and what success they have had.

 

 

 

 

This is also true.

I think member apathy is one of our biggest problems.

 

In a previous post I bemoand the lack of opportuity for debate on this (or any other) RAAus topic; and the lack of people participating in this forum.

 

There is, for the most part, also a dirth of positive or alternative suggestions - most posts seem to be criticisms.

 

Reasoned debate can disagree with or counter ideas without trying to shoot the messenger.

Apathy, I have found, is common to all walks of life. In my City of over 125,000 people, virtually all the major Planning decisions have been discussed, debated and decided by less that 250 people.

 

I found, in running Incorporated Associations, that when people tried to bully members into attending meetings or contributing to decisions it was a lost cause. If you went the other way, and made a decision without involving them, the reaction was a fully house of hostile members at the next meeting.

 

If you communicated an issue to all members, and made a recommendation, if they agreed with it they didn't turn up to the meeting, and when you made the decision there was no back biting.

 

So this present thread relates more to reacting to simple human nature than anything else.

 

Posts will always be criticisms, and in meetings the people standing up to speak will usually be disagreeing - goes with the territory because:

 

(a) Unless things get emotional, the ones who agree won't be saying anything.

 

(b) The ones standing up to speak will be passionate about what they say.

 

A lot of people simply don't understand what the messenger is saying, or are so busy getting ready to shoot down the first line, that they miss the key message in the last line.

 

It is not just Board members who can and should find the need for constitutional change. In fact, if you look at recent RAAus history, you will see that it was non-Board members who instigated constitutional change.

Agree totally - in fact when board members start trying to make changes without involving the grass roots, it's time to read those proposals from all angles, including why they would want to change the words.

 

 

 

 

I think that presenting a draft completely new constitution for public (member) comment is jumping the gun a bit when there has been no information provided or consensus sought on what options are available and which direction we should head.

Exactly.

 

 

 

 

Drafting a good constitution is not a simple matter (I have done more than one). You should at least get some agreement on the basics before putting all that work into the detail.

It's very tedious, which is why most members stay away from it, but it's critical to get as many eyes on it as possible, rather than find four years down the track that you can't address an urgent issue because the Constitution won't let you.

 

 

 

 

I guess what I am trying to do is generate a bit more interest in this constitutional reform.

How do we overcome the general apathy.

Post your ideas, don't get frustrated when people shoot you down.

 

 

This is a very imporant step in the evolution of RAAus. What is decided and put in place here will guide the organisation for a long while to come (I hope).

The Constitution can always be changed if it turns out wrong. Provided you can get the votes, it can be as flexible, or powerful, as you want it to be.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

This discussion only serves to amplify what I have been saying on this forum for the last 12 months. That is that the only reason RAAus exists is because the various CAOs require membership of RAAus. There in lies the root of the problem. Associations are created by a contract between the members. The contract sets out the rights, liabilities and obligations of members. As with any contract it can only be varied by agreement between the parties and yet RAAus and CASA have regularly varied this contract. If we move to a company the relationship changes. A company is a legal "person". Its interests are paramount and the interests of its shareholders (ie members) come second, or actually further down the food chain when you consider the various liabilities eg creditors, directors that arise in the course of a company's operation. So any view that a company operates for the benefit of members is fanciful. For example, shareholders of a company cannot vote to direct the Directors to take a course of action. In reality, they (the members) can only vote to change directors or the constitution.

 

So,CASA's legal people should be aware of this dilemma caused by the CAO requirement to be a member of RAAus which dates back to the postwar arrangements that DCA and GFA negotiated to avoid DCA having regulate a few nutters who wanted to fly mostly homebuilt gliders. The world was a much different place back then but nevertheless the model persists and over 9 pages of this forum prove why it is broken.

 

The only rational way to proceed is for CASA to delegate to individuals who undertake those activities that the various recreational aviation bodies undertake on behalf of CASA. This is already done in respect of many of the delegations required by the recreational bodies (ie the delegations are held by employees or volunteers). Some would say this will be more expensive but if this were the case why is a VH registered homebuilt experimental cheaper to comply with airworthiness requirements than my VH registered glider?

 

 

[shags_j]

I agree with everything you have said Jim.

 

And this is the biggest issue I have with the draft constitution.

 

There is too much power to be able to stop people from joining placed in the directors hands. This is an entity for the ability to license aircraft and pilots as allowed by CASA. The ONLY reason that anyone should be denied entry is due to disciplinary issues surrounding either breaking the "flying" rules or aircraft registration rules. Hence why I want that particular clause removed from the constitution. Seems no one in power wants that so that they can have the ability to remove a member without cause (or prevent them from joining).

 

The quality of the draft constitution supplied also speaks to the amount of "effort" that has been put into it. I think it's appalling personally and will NOT be voting for it.

 

I am not however putting down anyone on the board. This isn't a personal attack on board members or ceo etc. only that I disagree with the constitution as presented.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Jim, I think if you go looking, you'll find quite a few sporting/recreation/volunteer Associations. Governments like offloading liability from the the taxpayer to the participant, and the insurers don't like a rabble, but when people with a common interest group together and make some safety rules, the government can have its cake and eat it too. The participants are paying for their sport/recreational/non wage-earning activity. The aviation path still could have tracked year by year as you say though.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Shouldn't a persons ability to be a member of the association and their ability to operate an aircraft be separate issues? If someone has done the wrong thing then flying privileges should be revoked on their pilot certificate, rather then membership to the association. Being expelled should be reserved for people who bring the assosicstion into disrepute. I agree with shags that a fair system needs to be developed for refusing someone's ability to join us, considering the CAO require such membership.

 

 

[facthunter]

Since it could seriously curtail your ability to fly certain types of aircraft and by inference reflect on your reputation and integrity, there would need to be a process for appeal that is demonstrably fair, and available. I would think one should tread warily in this matter. I can't think of many situations where it should just be automatic with out specific and thorough examination of the circumstances and actions of the individual involved.. The case has to be made against you as natural justice has a presumption of innocence..Nev

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Jim, I think if you go looking, you'll find quite a few sporting/recreation/volunteer Associations. Governments like offloading liability from the the taxpayer to the participant, and the insurers don't like a rabble, but when people with a common interest group together and make some safety rules, the government can have its cake and eat it too. The participants are paying for their sport/recreational/non wage-earning activity. The aviation path still could have tracked year by year as you say though.

I am VERY aware of associations and the law surrounding them since I did the legal research on a law suit which we won and is now used in law schools to educate students about associations.

Are you saying VH pilots are a rabble?

 

The government does not escape liability as CASA approves the various manuals

 

RAAus has a number of participants who earn their income in the "sport" eg instructors and mainainers

 

The safety rules are simply proposed by RAAus and approved by CASA.

 

It is simplistic to think that the Government escapes liability by having a third party undertake administration of an activity. As with any aspect of commerce, If I delegate responsibility to undertake a task - the ultimate responsibility for performance still remains with me

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Now that comment I totally agree with.

I also agree with that Geoff.

But, by the same token, some relevant qualifications and experience never reduced anyone's capability to do a good job.

 

Don

 

 

[turboplanner]

I am VERY aware of associations and the law surrounding them since I did the legal research on a law suit which we won and is now used in law schools to educate students about associations.

You have my undivided attention; I'm used to dealing with people who are struggling in the world of office work let alone getting into fine detail, so I've been talking at a very basic level.

 

Are you saying VH pilots are a rabble?

SH!T No, I'm one of them; I was referring to the many people who like to do their own thing for sport or recreation. If they all do their own thing in their own way, the insurers have no real guarantee of some sort of predictable risk, so the premiums then to be sky high. If they form into an Association which then sets up a code of conduct and rules, the risk level starts to become workable.

I wasn't really talking about VH pilots, because this group is still totally managed by the government (CASA).

 

The government does not escape liability as CASA approves the various manuals

In the mid 1980's the State Governments announced that they were dropping control of most sporting and recreational Activities.

In Victoria, the sport of Speedway Racing had been controlled by the Department of Labour and Industry (DLI) The DLI prescribed specifications for the tracks, such as safety fence dimensions and heights, distance from the track to the crowd and so on, and visited the locations to manage the safety operations, and measure the infrastructure safety items, and then provide a Certificate, which implied the track was safe.

 

This all ended, virtually overnight; in NSW the State Government decided control of speedways would be handed over to Police, who reacted violently to the late night work, and the situation quickly disintegrated.

 

I was President of the Victorian Association at the time, and we feared that this may put us out of business, so I went to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, Tom Reynolds, and outlined our concerns.

 

He said the State Ministers had meetings each year with the Federal Minister, and at the last one they had discussed the rapid escalation of lawsuits against the various governments and they all agreed that governments were seen as convenient deep pockets which could never really control everything everywhere, so they had all gone away from the meeting determined to quit control of anything that wasn't absolutely essential to be controlled by government.

 

We talked about various ways we could keep going, other than the disastrous NSW model, and after a while he said "How would you like to run it yourself". I said we would, we got a unanimous agreement to that end, and that's when we realised we were responsible for all the liabilities. The government even rescinded the DLA Act, disbanded the DLA, and the life was gone, and the government had no liability.

 

So that simple example was what I was talking about.

 

What has intrigued me was that after that slash and burn operation, which has worked extremely well for governments, some have done a partial U Turn, and inadvertently re-applied some or all liability.

 

The elimination of Council Health Inspectors, then in recent years their re-appointment is one example.

 

In aviation, the "self-administering" bodies were probably supposed to be arms length operations, but as you have picked up on, CASA didn't go all the way and cut them loose, and in approving manuals etc. re-assumes some, or all liabilities. Similarly in the current Jabiru situation, some engines can be handled independently, others are CASA's baby in therms of "certificating".

 

So you are correct when you say CASA does not escape liability for what it approves (or meddles in as some people see it).

 

RAAus has a number of participants who earn their income in the "sport" eg instructors and maintainers

Yes, that's an additional level of complication I missed talking about. They are also workplaces.

 

The safety rules are simply proposed by RAAus and approved by CASA.

There are some things which CASA spells out (such as the 2010 requirement for board members to set up a Safety Management System), but there are others where, as a Self Administering Body, RAA can expand the Constitution (if necessary) and lay down rules for. Two of these might be management of servicing standards, and management of pilot behaviour after they have the training environment.

 

It is simplistic to think that the Government escapes liability by having a third party undertake administration of an activity. As with any aspect of commerce, If I delegate responsibility to undertake a task - the ultimate responsibility for performance still remains with me

Agree; in the complex arrangement CASA have come up with this gets blurred, but in recent years I've seen a steady change in their operations towards moving liability towards their self-administering bodies.

Unfortunately laying that all out in a single document is as difficult as laying out Pilot responsibilities in a single document; personally I'd have preferred them to do what happened to me, just say "it's all yours, risk and all', but of course then International Regulations and Codes of Practice come into the equation.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

here are some things which CASA spells out (such as the 2010 requirement for board members to set up a Safety Management System), but there are others where, as a Self Administering Body, RAA can expand the Constitution (if necessary) and lay down rules for. Two of these might be management of servicing standards, and management of pilot behaviour after they have the training environment.

I am not aware of any legislative requirement for a self administering body to set up a safety management system. CASA has entered into an agreement with RAAus for RAAus to undertake certain tasks in return for a paltry $120k - SMS systems were part of that deal which by the way is an unapproved alteration of the members contract with RAAus. As yet Part 149 of the CASR's are not law yet CASA and the self administering bodies who have been coerced into behaving as though it is even though no-one knows what the eventual Part149 will look like. To my way of thinking I would gladly pay an extra $20 membership fee to dispense with the agreement (ie 9000members x $20). CASA has not been able to get the largest model aircraft organisation to play the self administering organisation game and they have 40000 members apparently (ie 40,000 voters).

The law says that we must be members of RAAus and CASA must approve manuals - that is all. Anything else is what CASA makes up by itself.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

If they all do their own thing in their own way, the insurers have no real guarantee of some sort of predictable risk, so the premiums then to be sky high. If they form into an Association which then sets up a code of conduct and rules, the risk level starts to become workable.

My experience in insurance is that insurers pick and choose their risk on a world wide basis with some local biases. In the US, which is probably the largest and most active risk group insurers still accept risks (ie insure) despite the absence of organisations comparable to RAAUS etc. This is a fallacious argument.

 

 

[turboplanner]

My experience in insurance is that insurers pick and choose their risk on a world wide basis with some local biases. In the US, which is probably the largest and most active risk group insurers still accept risks (ie insure) despite the absence of organisations comparable to RAAUS etc. This is a fallacious argument.

I'll give you an example; as our case losses climbed over th million dollar mark we realised we were not going tone able to afford to continue, so we went into a joint venture with an insurance company linked to a US company. This was an immediate success, we were able to get all of the 105 tracks in Australia a $5 million Cover for a meeting for $1,000.00 which kept us in business at the same time as truck sub contractors were being unloaded.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I also agree with that Geoff.But, by the same token, some relevant qualifications and experience never reduced anyone's capability to do a good job.

 

Don

Relevant and experience being the operative words. To many uni student are trained to be unemployable but do not realise it.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

David,

 

It is always a pleasure to discuss or even debate with you. While I have some relevant qualifications and experience in corporate matters, I happily defer to people like yourself who have good business acumen, a sharp mind, a wealth of aviation experience and can hold a very civil discussion.

 

. . . I think it is a pity that this is the only place (forum) where RAAus members (and others) can debate changes to the RAAus structure and constitiution. (I know we can send our ideas and thoughts to the CEO and President but rarely does one get a response and (in my experience) never a debate.)

Back in 2012 I proposed that RAAus provide a forum facility of its own. However, as soon as I left the Board, that got put in either the "too hard basket" or "don't mention it" file. I don't think now that it would be feasible for RAAus to take it on now when there is a successful facility here. It has never been a popular place for current Board Members to frequent and those that have who lack an impervious exterior soon tire of the abuse and go away.

 

 

I don't think a new constitution can/will be accepted by many members if it is presented in a take it or leave it document without at least some form of meaningfull consultation, justification and hopefully debate.

 

 

Agree 100% and neither should it be accepted if put on that basis. I am sure I have said a number of times in this thread that we are still at a relatively early stage of development and that there will be revised drafts and meaningful consultation. What is not possible is to accommodate everyone's views and preferences. Listen and evaluate and offer arguments as to why or why not for sure but at some point your elected representatives will need to make decisions and come to a final draft for presentation to the membership.

 

 

 

In the, I think, unlikely situation that the answer is "No" then the process will have failed and it is quite possible we will have to just limp on in our current form because I doubt there will be any appetite to have a second go at it. I guess I was trying say, not as a threat but as a prediction, that I would be "constitutioned-out" by then. Perhaps a new Constitution Review Committee will be formed to understand why the process failed and try again but I can't see how I, personally, could be involved in that work.

 

We have a group of people elected to govern RAAus who are well supported with the best legal advice. Incidentally, we don't work for the lawyers, they are there to advise us. It is very difficult to bring everyone along for the ride at a very detailed level. But I agree there are some big issues that need to be determined and determined not on parochial, self-interest basis but on what is going to be the best for RAAus as a whole into the future.

 

 

. . . there is no point in arguing the fine points of each clause if there is no agreement that the topic should be amended. There are some big questions to be decided before you get down to the niggy gritty. For instance: Does RAAus become a company limited by guarantee, move to an incorporated association in a jurisdiction deemed to be more benign or stay as we are in the ACT? I am of the view that we should become a Company Ltd but I am sure there are other opinions.

 

 

We have looked extensively at this question and received legal advice. Being a National Body incorporated in one State or Territory under "club rules" was easily ruled out. Moving the Corporation to another Territory or State provides no significant benefits. Mick Monck has published the reasoning behind going the way you suggest David. Anyone who wants to read these can in SportPilot and the explanatory documentation presented at the last AGM.

 

 

Similarly with the number of Board members. Reduce to 7 or stay at 13. This also brings up the question of the relevance of Regional representation as a way of selecting Board candidates. My view (as already expressed several times) is that the number of Board members should be reduced to 5 or 7 and regional selection of candidates should be scrapped in favour of opening the field to any and all

suitable candidates. Then we must decide on the definition of a suitable candidate.

 

 

I have sat through meetings with 13 Board Members (only in RAAus) and I can assure you it is inefficient and highly unproductive. If there is a small point to be decided, and everyone has a say on it and they can contain their contribution to just 10 minutes (as if) then 2 hours and 10 minutes has shot by. Flying 12 Board members to Canberra or 13 Board Members plus CEO and Ops & Tech Manager and support staff to a location like Bundaberg is a pretty expensive proposition.

 

 

 

When you have a Club (or Association) that has no employed staff, then the Board does all the work and the more the merrier. But, when we have 15 staff who should do all the work then a Board of 5 can do as good or better job than 13 and for much less cost.

 

 

 

From my experience with RAAus, a 5 to 7 person Board is an easy conclusion to reach and it seems we agree on that.

 

 

 

In terms of identifying suitable candidates . . . While it is the members who elect directors, it is the obligation of any member who thinks they know of who could be a good director and campaign for that individual to nominate and be elected. While I have argued that relevant qualifications and skill is an advantage, in the end, the members can elect any member who accepts nomination.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. .

As I see it RAAus is now a two headed beast (or monster if you prefer).

 

. . . Do you think this would work?

David,

You are completely correct about the Role of RAAus having two almost competing objectives. Advocate for members and keep 'em in line.

 

This very proposal in similar form was discussed back in the days when Geoff Kidd teamed up with the Board Committee on organisation re-design. In the end it was decided to keep it simple. Apart from cost, the complex organisation structure could see the two heads moving away from each other to the detriment of the members. You could have Ops and Tech departments that no longer needed to see themselves as advocates for members become another CASA style gestapo.

 

Don

 

 

[turboplanner]

I am not aware of any legislative requirement for a self administering body to set up a safety management system

Correct, the self-administering body can choose how it wishes to manage risk (how it wishes to minimise payouts for alleged negligence)

However, I didn't say that, I said "There are some things which CASA spells out (such as the 2010 requirement for board members to set up a Safety Management System.

 

Here's a link to the CASA Sport Aviation Self-Administration Handbook 2010, which among other things lists the duties of board members.

 

CASA has not been able to get the largest model aircraft organisation to play the self administering organisation game and they have 40000 members apparently (ie 40,000 voters).

The Model Aeronautical Association of Australia Inc. Constitution would be another one for RAA to have a very close look at. They are an umbrella body, with a lot of State Associations providing volunteers on the ground.

I haven't been a member for a few years, but when you showed up at a field there was someone in charge, a safety officer, someone in charge of radio frequencies and so on, and an extensive multi million dollar liability cover which covered you while you were on the field.

 

I'm not sure why MAAA are at arms length from CASA, but suspect is is because they are outside CASA airfield limits (there are strict location rules for MAAA fields, primarily due to radio transmitting distance maximums), and under 300 feet.

 

The law says that we must be members of RAAus and CASA must approve manuals - that is all.

Whatever CASA mandates, as you said earlier, CASA re-assumes some risk for.

 

Anything else is what CASA makes up by itself.

This is why I don't like arms length government bodies where the body is told to look after something by the government and given powers to make rules.

Once the Body is set up, they keep making rules, and you no longer have those rules going through Parliamentary debate.

 

In Victoria the Transport Regulation Board got so far out of hand that the government closed it down, and today is much better for it.

 

One of the amazing regulations was "as of right" registrations, which limited trucks to their local areas without penalties, and there were about a dozen local areas in Victoria.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

This discussion only serves to amplify what I have been saying on this forum for the last 12 months. That is that the only reason RAAus exists is because the various CAOs require membership of RAAus. There in lies the root of the problem. Associations are created by a contract between the members. The contract sets out the rights, liabilities and obligations of members. As with any contract it can only be varied by agreement between the parties and yet RAAus and CASA have regularly varied this contract.

CASA can not vary the contract amongst RAAus Members as it is not a member of RAAus.

 

CASA backed by federal legislation directs RAAus to do its bidding in certain aspects of its operations. We don't get to vote on that.

 

If we move to a company the relationship changes. A company is a legal "person". Its interests are paramount and the interests of its shareholders (ie members) come second, or actually further down the food chain when you consider the various liabilities eg creditors, directors that arise in the course of a company's operation. So any view that a company operates for the benefit of members is fanciful.

Sorry but I must disagree with just about all of the above. RAAus Incorporated is a Corporation right now, in its present form of incorporation. Because it operates nationally, it is registered and comes under ASIC. The form of incorporation being proposed ends up with RAAus still being a Corporation.

 

Companies via the Board must act in the best interests of the members of the company. Corporations, no matter in what form, may not favour one member over another. The current Board may be elected by regions but, once elected, the Board Members must act in the best interests of the corporation even if somehow that disadvantaged the members of their region.

 

. . . shareholders of a company cannot vote to direct the Directors to take a course of action. In reality, they (the members) can only vote to change directors or the constitution.

On the contrary, members can direct the board by moving a motion at a General Meeting and having the motion supported by the majority required by the Constitution and the directors ar obliged to carry out the direction of the members (if lawful).

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I agree with everything you have said Jim.

Even the things he got wrong?

 

There is too much power to be able to stop people from joining placed in the directors hands. This is an entity for the ability to license aircraft and pilots as allowed by CASA. The ONLY reason that anyone should be denied entry is due to disciplinary issues surrounding either breaking the "flying" rules or aircraft registration rules. Hence why I want that particular clause removed from the constitution. Seems no one in power wants that so that they can have the ability to remove a member without cause (or prevent them from joining).

I understand your concerns Shags. I must admit I thought this was a bit generous when I first read it. Where RAAus has close to a monopoly in some branches of aviation, refusal of membership by directors perniciously or frivolously would, I imagine, be actionable because of the denial of "Natural Justice".

How long have you felt this way about the draft/ Since last October and the AGM? Or, more recently?

 

Would the President Mick Monck or CEO Michael Linke or any Board Member be aware of your concerns, Shags?

 

Would you be prepared to put in the missing effort to get the Constitution up to a standard you would judge to be at least satisfactory?

 

If not, is it fair to campaign here that the proposal is flawed and should be voted down?

 

If you have advised them, have you had any response at all?

 

The quality of the draft constitution supplied also speaks to the amount of "effort" that has been put into it. I think it's appalling personally and will NOT be voting for it. I am not however putting down anyone on the board. This isn't a personal attack on board members or ceo etc. only that I disagree with the constitution as presented.

So, as I understand you, the new Constitution is of poor quality, suffers from lack of effort being put into drafting it and the result is "appalling" but that is not a putdown of the Board Members responsible for it? Who is it a put down of? The drafting fairy? Give me a break.

Oh, and remember how we said it was an early draft and that there would be revised drafts and serious consultation before the final draft is put to a vote. Doesn't that mean that the thing you are going to vote against (the current draft) will have been superseded?

 

Would you be surprised to learn that you are not the only one of our 10,000 avid draft constitution readers who see this one aspect as an issue?

 

So, other than your post on here today bagging the first draft (but not the drafters) please tell us all about the effort you've put into modernising RAAus? Or would you just be an armchair negative critic who just wants to fly?

 

It seems that sometimes when I am not accused of putting in insufficient effort and not thought to have produced appalling work which I clearly have no intent of remedying I somehow lose my sense of what's funny.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I am not aware of any legislative requirement for a self administering body to set up a safety management system

Correct, the self-administering body can choose how it wishes to manage risk (how it wishes to minimise payouts for alleged negligence)

 

However, I didn't say that, I said "There are some things which CASA spells out (such as the 2010 requirement for board members to set up a Safety Management System.

 

Here's a link to the CASA Sport Aviation Self-Administration Handbook 2010, which among other things lists the duties of board members.

 

http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/casa_sport_aviation_handbook.pdf

 

Sorry, forgot to attach the link to the CASA book earlier.

 

 

[01rmb]

I think member apathy is one of our biggest problems.

 

...

 

How do we overcome the general apathy.

 

This is a very imporant step in the evolution of RAAus. What is decided and put in place here will guide the organisation for a long while to come (I hope).

 

 

 

DWF

At the general meeting in Bundaberg I went a long way out of my way to attend and see what was going on and to hear what the the CEO, President and board had to say on the draft constitution and the other issue going on in RAAus. I found only one board member who was keen to engage in a discussion and the other board members off to one side in private discussion with each other. During the meeting, I asked a couple of questions regarding the proposed changes to the constitution, raised the need to be cautious of a board who nominates their replacements since it could form a bias against the broader member base and the potential of RAAus to engage with members better it was brushed off. I even tried after the meeting to have a chat with the president to say how I thought he was doing a good job and he blew me off so he could escape the room to have a beer with the other board members.

 

The lack of desire of the board to engage in open discussion with their members and get direct feedback via a forum such as this site or on the RAAus site only encourages apathy. Kudos to Don to participate on this forum but why is it necessary to put somebody down when a they express their concern about the proposed constitutional changes. Hardly inspiring or encouraging of feedback and debate.

 

I very much want RAAus to prosper and I tried to take an interest but I came away very disappointed with what I saw.

 

 

[shags_j]

Don:

 

I have sent my concerns to the ceo and my local board member. I started listing I another thread here all the incorrect references etc but stopped when i ran out of time that particular day. I outlined my major 6 concerns but neither the ceo or the member agreed with my concerns.

 

I assume (perhaps wrongly) that a legal firm prepared the draft. Hence my comments on appalling. If it was prepared by you, am unpaid board member, then of course i rescind that comment. If it was a law firm then the comment stands and i question the advice prepared by a firm that pays that little attention to details.