Board Members being replaced Paid Directors

[Keith Page]

The RAAus members will have to take an active interest in this new constitution because it is no use moaning as all must be involved with the outcome. This is a members organisation.

 

The new draft constitution is on the RAAus web site for all to read what I suggest all members have a read and have an input even to the point of getting your friends involved. Read the preamble.

 

What really disturbs me is it is doing away with state representation and having a system in place where all can be governed in one little area, now that is open to heaps of underhanded tricks.

 

The other interesting point there is a push to do away with people of vision and replace them with tertiary qualified people not necessarily from aviation persuasion, just imagine that.

 

This brings up the reason why I am anti board member being a ROC it has a big conflict of interest and has large avenues for poor conduct.

 

I am very happy with a smaller board as that will make decision making more streamlined and dodging the talk fests which go around in circles.

 

A board member is to be a diplomat for RAAus that is some one who will go to a flyin and promote our sport just imagine a board member who resides in Melbourne and there is a small flyin at Atherton, I can hear all the bleeding hearts "you can do that over the internet" no board member can not show their face.

 

The other interesting point, was the mention of directors. (?????)

 

I am a bit suspicious here. Is that there so when the smaller board is up and going the executive can vote themselves in as directors and get paid?

 

That needs a lot of questions being asked and do not accept waffle for an answer.

 

Have a research.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Having 5 directors would be a big improvement over the 12 member board the RAA has now. Personally I can't see much of a future for the RAA unless it a/ learns from its mistakes and b/ starts recruiting more pilots.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Very valid points there F_T.

 

(a) you have to get some to agree on what is correct/wrong because most want to argue over anything just for the sake of their egos. All can not be wrong.

 

I am a bit over how bad the old board was and how good the new board is.. We here this same rot from Canberra "the us" and "them".

 

We are good they were useless, I will hate to pass judgement on any of them.

 

(b) how can anyone recruit pilots when some of the RAAus staff turn up -- they are resented like police turning up to spoil the fun.

 

The pilots must have a feeling of being wanted not being dictated to.

 

That is why I am pushing board members turning up at flyins and promoting our sport.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Downunder]

Professional board Vs volunteer board is a hard one.

 

Lots of dissatisfaction with current decisions regarding moving RAA classifieds, the shift to electronic "Sport Pilot" and related fees/charges, website and other things.

 

I wonder if a fully professional board would have better decision making capabilities or instigate a better decision making process?

 

I am a bit over how bad the old board was and how good the new board is.

That's been going on for as long as I can remember. Even the totally hopeless boards used it against their predecessors.

It always struck me as a lack of confidence in their own decision making when it was said...... a political deflection. (If you think we're bad, look at them!)

 

One of the reasons I stopped reading the mag was the constant theme of "great things going to happen, watch this space" (especially the presidents report). I watched and waited...waited.

 

 

[Keith Page]

(i) Which ever board it is does not matter one iota they all flick it out to a consultant.

 

(ii) Yep.. Watch this space good things are gunna happen. Gunna is the answer and we are all still waiting. Out in the consultant world it is called,

 

"The toxic yes syndrome".

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There has been no suggestion of paid directors. On the other hand, there is no such thing these days as a volunteer director. The word volunteer implies that you do as much as you choose, and may choose to limit your involvement. Once you accept directorship in a not for profit company then you are in boots and all, with all the hard work and liability that the role entails. The board is about governance, and will choose in consultation with the CEO what roles it might play in promoting the organisation.

 

 

[Russ]

Thinkin not out loud.............

 

Shut the canberra office down...........gawn. Each state puts together their own management team, Funds......the curly bit, current status is easy to work out, divide total membership into that pool of funds, then each state receives "that amount" per state member.

 

Sell off current holdings, then that $$ is issued to each state, to set up their own office. each state could manage their own full time employee, and volunteer office bearers set agendas etc. Maybe.......twice a year, all office bearers get together, but regular contact is ongoing ( video conferencing etc )

 

Running this canberra office, is one hell of a drain on funds, and yrs gone by, saga after saga, and still do this day, nothing has come out to members just how bad Raa was run.

 

just sayin.......

 

 

[fly_tornado]

going from 1 office to multiple offices won't improve anything.

 

to simplify the decision process you need less variables, the biggest problem with the current board structure is the size.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Oi! F_T,

 

What will be the excuse when we get the smaller board structure?

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

(i) Which ever board it is does not matter one iota they all flick it out to a consultant.(ii) Yep.. Watch this space good things are gunna happen. Gunna is the answer and we are all still waiting. Out in the consultant world it is called,

"The toxic yes syndrome".

 

Regards,

 

KP.

Oh dear..........Keith provide some guidance for us all.....what consultants are you talking about? Can you give examples where the current board has paid a consultant other than where it was essential to do so? I mean we paid the financial auditors....were they consultants in your mind?...what about the IT firms that upgraded the backend systems from the medieval tablets of rock......were they consultants? or perhaps the specialist aviation lawyers........

 

Those examples are normal everyday cases where we need to use specialists because we don't have equivalent skills in the staff or the board.......I personally see nothing wrong with that approach.....should we grow to be 10 times the size we are now then an argument could be made that we should have those skills in house, but at present no way!

 

about 2 years ago we paid for a few days for a consultant to provide specialist training to the board on our legal obligations as directors......but in reality we re talking relatively small $ for a very important subject that should have been covered decades ago because as pmccarthy accurately identified the term a volunteer director may be common English use but from a legal sense the word volunteer buys you exactly zero precent of a get out of gaol free card...

 

As a normal member I want that the RAAus board is fully aware that they are putting their family wealth at personal risk by taking on the role of an RAAus board member. If they do fully understand that then that should temper some decisions born of stupidity (or much more likely as in the past of ignorance!), or worse decisions never made when they should have been. If they do that knowing the risks then I want that the membership supports them in making decisions that we as individual members may not like, but which no one if looking at the purpose and reason for the RAAus existence would argue that it was anything but the right decision for the greater membership.

 

If in making those decisions that means we rely on expert advise by professional people, who some might disparagingly call "consultants" as though that somehow infers that $ signs can be seen in their eyes and they only parrot the views of "real" employees while at the same time likely having every form of STD that one can catch... then bring the engagement and the invoice on.......due diligence is called that for a reason...overdue diligence doesn't cut it!

 

As for the view that folk seem to have that somehow a team of 7 will make decisions much faster than a team of 13.....I guess I can see some rationale for that thought process, however my time on the board, short that it was, was there was no time where a decision wasn't made in an appropriately timely manner....it WAS however my view that not all of the 13 involved themselves in the discussions leading up to the decision being made. That leads to an ugly place where a decision is made by a vocal minority and endorsed by the rest through lack of protest.....that in my view is NOT an example of a healthy environment, but it is an example where the exec of the time wouldn't allow some who choose to not participate despite asking the membership to elect them to that place, to prevent decisions being made......I truly wonder if a reduction in numbers will somehow address that issue......I personally believe it will not! The only thing that will is full and frank disclosure to the membership, and the membership being of a view that "Not good enough" needs to be addressed and addressed quickly!

 

Andy

 

 

[Keith Page]

We are on the constitution issue and how it can be interpreted. I am concerned that a situation will be concocted and we will have payed directors by highlighting it here more people will be active in the decision making.

 

RAAus is a members organisation and with directors that is all gone --- we will become share holders.

 

Andy you ask for examples where the current board used consultants does not concern you any more you were there for five minutes. Trying to get information on some thing like that is a bit difficult as there are a lot of secrets.

 

"expert people/consultants":- call them what ever they are called on a bit too often because most of the time they cause more confusion in the decision making and get payed a heap to cause confusion.

 

The other point we are never 100% correct 100% of the time just a human factor. Then there are the arm chair experts yelling when things are not 100% correct news for them, most of the time they do nothing but criticise and here is the situation where the blame is shoved onto the consultants.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Didn't a previous President have a legal consultant who provided advice that even after multiple member requests has yet to be disclosed? Last I heard the Board and current President still haven't been able to see the "advice" paid for by the members.

 

I don't see why we need a clause on paying directors to "future proof". If you want paid directors in the future, raise a resolution and let the members decide then. We've had in the past examples of board members having to resign to take up paid jobs at HQ, with this proposed change, directors could be paid for their service, including working at HQ (i.e. CEO could be a director, a director could be hired to consult on putting in a safety management system)?

 

 

[Keith Page]

Good on you rhysmcc you are getting about with your eyes open.

 

One thing for sure it was not Steve Runciman who organised the legal consultant to the meetings.

 

I may have not made myself clear regarding the paid directors. Will be great to have a process designed now so that can not happen because we will have ones within our midst who think that process will be OK. Think about this,with reduced board numbers they will be able vote themselves in as paid directors by the fact of the executive having greater voting power. Remember RAAus is a member based organisation.

 

The CEO runs the office, the board sets the direction. We do not need a CEO doing things like "Do this like xyz they will not wake up". This is the last thing we need for a member based organisation.

 

The other issue likes of yourself in Cairns how will someone in Sydney know your lot in Cairns?

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I'm not so worried about where the director lives, the best person for the job. What concerns me more is how those people are selected. Representing the members interests it seems only proper that the members get to vote. Remove the "appointment style" or at least reduce it to 3 board members with the remaining 4 elected by the membership.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Not a complicated equation the board member lives in Sydney..

 

Cairns needs something Sydney needs something.. Sydney wins..

 

We have to close the avenues for that to ever happen, if we let it in then discover it does not work, imagine all the pain we suffer while we are discovering it dose not work, have you ever thought how much effort and wasted resources involved to reverse that debacle.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

I'm not so worried about where the director lives, the best person for the job. What concerns me more is how those people are selected. Representing the members interests it seems only proper that the members get to vote. Remove the "appointment style" or at least reduce it to 3 board members with the remaining 4 elected by the membership.

How are the the 3 board members appointed you mention 4 are elected by the membership, however I can not see how the 3 arrive at the schene.

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[frank marriott]

How are the the 3 board members appointed you mention 4 are elected by the membership, however I can not see how the 3 arrive at the schene.Regards,

KP

Job for mates Keith, simple.

 

 

[Keith Page]

You are a very short price favourite on that view Frank.

 

Depends on which side of the fence one comes from..

 

Will be those yelling - best person for the job, best skill set for the job, do not have to live in the area, will work tirelessly for RAAus.

 

THEN. There are those yelling - fraud, job for the boys, nepotism, most useless person they can find.

 

Regards

 

KP

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Not a complicated equation the board member lives in Sydney..Cairns needs something Sydney needs something.. Sydney wins..

We have to close the avenues for that to ever happen, if we let it in then discover it does not work, imagine all the pain we suffer while we are discovering it dose not work, have you ever thought how much effort and wasted resources involved to reverse that debacle.

 

Regards,

 

KP

Well being a national group that operates across the country, what effects me in Cairns should also effect me if I lived Sydney, if you need a "local club" feel I would suggest an aero club would of interest.

Btw the current Rep for Cairns (North Queensland) actually lives in Townsville so it's not like I can just drop in to discuss an issue.

 

How are the the 3 board members appointed you mention 4 are elected by the membership, however I can not see how the 3 arrive at the schene.Regards,

KP

The board could make the appointment or recommend the appointment to the AGM to be confirmed.

 

 

[Keith Page]

You do get local issues from time to time and if it does not effect the southern ones you will get nothing done and be classed as that Northern whinger. Be careful of that banter handed about saying the best rep is in the south and you can contact them on email and all will be good. What I say here be careful. I know for a fact we are on our own up here. The other point Townsville is closer than Melbourne.

 

The board recommending new board members that is exactly what I am advocating. (Not)

 

Just imagine what rot that will start. The goverenence crowd will yell or might - as depending on which of their cronies they are trying to shoe horn into the paid position.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

a proper problem reporting system (or helpdesk) would negate the need for local representation. There are plenty of them out there but we could get the ppl that designed the new IT system to build one for 1000x the cost of an off the shelf item. It will have 1/2 the features but will deal with member's problems in a less efficient manner.

 

 

[Keith Page]

a proper problem reporting system (or helpdesk) would negate the need for local representation. There are plenty of them out there but we could get the ppl that designed the new IT system to build one for 1000x the cost of an off the shelf item. It will have 1/2 the features but will deal with member's problems in a less efficient manner.

This will not give a personal touch. What about the diplomat duties, what about the visual attendance, what about the personal visual appraisal??

A screen has not fixed a thing yet the experts think so, plus it has a delete button.

 

I am over screens and the promises associated with the screen way, these days I go straight to the phone or front up. The personal approach has the "Hey You"factor, I am here to talk about things sort it out.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I'm sorry but I don't see how the current system has a personal touch. As long as I have a point of contact to express my concerns and suggestions it doesn't matter where they live.

 

Can you give some real "local" examples that would come under RA-AUS responsibility?

 

The CEO and President should be the face and be doing diplomatic visits. Board members should be engaging the members to represent their views.

 

 

[Keith Page]

The current system has room for improvement. Not that long ago board members would attend fly-ins and promote RAAus now that has all gone now they sit behind screens and phones and saying what a wonderful job they are doing. In the marketing game you have to be physically seen, yes seen. No short cutting.

 

The board members also would do a bit of a wander about the aero club just to see how they are going. No more.

 

What is the use of a personal contact they have to something, not just a talk fest.

 

Local responsibilities -- board members be seen at fly-ins - membership is dwindling look about other threads on this forum.

 

I have a personal view on this new cult of the CEO and President attending fly-ins. We need good fellowship at these fly-ins. Remember RAAus is a member based organisation and we do not need, "This is what you are going to do".. Should be more like " What can be done to improve this?"

 

The president should be collating information gathered by the board members, the president is not a dictator.

 

The CEO should be managing and giving guidance to the office staff. This is not a police division.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So...other than the entire board, who you saw at the AGM at Bundy (pretty close to your area?) and prior to that quite a few at Old station (just west of Rocky) who is it that you feel hasn't been seen enough in your neck of the woods only talking only from a keyboard.....Was it the real Don Ramsay that you personally talked to at the AGM or was it a blow up doll while Don was really at home on his keyboard?

 

The current arrangements are that the President and CEO are at as many fly ins as they can get to and board members continue to get to as many as they logically can.......what exactly more than that (Given that the board members, other than CEO/Pres and staff if required, pay their own way to flyins and burden the membership for exactly $0 etc) can you logically expect from them......

 

How exactly would you prefer member based representation to occur....... and what problem will that solve that we have with todays approach?

 

Your great with emotive tripe like "cult of the CEO and President..." I mean WTF does that mean? explain to me the use of the word cult......justify its need to be used?

 

and then this:-

 

The president should be collating information gathered by the board members, the president is not a dictator.

 

The CEO should be managing and giving guidance to the office staff. This is not a police division.

 

Keith you really should try and make days where you feel you must post here drug free......

 

Where do you get your material? where did you determine that the role of a president (chairman of the board) is to be "collating information gathered by the board members" I suggest that the chairman has exactly zero need to do what you suggest, the board are a group of equals, the chairman is the servant of the board.........which does not mean he's their secretary! Dictator!!!! seriously......please justify the use of that word?

 

"This is not a police division"!!!!! I don't understand you Keith, CASA have a deed of arrangement whereby they allow RAAus to do what we do, and in order to do what we do they obligate us to do some in-house policing of our membership.....why do you think that is a bad thing.........If RAAus didn't do it CASA would...RAAus can make you retrain where you have been shown to be deficient. They can rescind flying priv's for a period of time for continued failure despite retraining.......On the other hand CASA can fine you sh!tloads at a time and send you to gaol........ why would you want to play in their patch rather than RAAus patch?? help me understand why dealing with CASA policing is a better choice than RAAus policing? Its a significant amount of times that RAAus polices its membership because CASA brings specific infractions to the attention of RAAus and says "deal with it!"

 

While I too would prefer that we were all hugs and love and free flyins for all only those that do drugs can have a real expectation that is a real opportunity....grow up!