Board Members being replaced Paid Directors

[facthunter]

If board members are doing their job well, the agenda is always provided ahead of the meetings and a fair bit of research/preparation is needed to speak with any meaning on the topics. You have to make a lot of phone calls and go through emails and references. previous minutes etc It's not really a picnic but could be rewarding to people with good ideas and communicating skills with a need to suffer more than most. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

Natfly relocation, meetings and fly insMovement of head office

Funding and rationale for all the above

 

Descisions on compliance and maintenence may not appreciate lack of regional services

 

Im not really saying either approach is right or wrong just that there are risks to national voting of all board members whenever you have low voting numbers and few choices some can be elected by a small group of supporters..

 

We have seen accumulation of CFI on the board previously and this led the organisation down a track. Not saying it was bad one but influenced by their skills and paradigms.

 

Real chance you will end up with most of the board living in Melb or Syd.

There is no-one from Syd on the board and hasn't been for quite a while.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm not in favour of staying in Canberra, but there's no rush.I'm not in favour of changing states representation either but I don't really believe that there are many state's specific issues (except using multigrade oils in cooler climates).

CFI's are probably as a group, amongst the most knowledgeable of the members about what is actually going on with CASA and other operational things of all our members. Could they UP check complexities or go for more training hours. Maybe but I haven't seen any evidence of it.

 

Where we went down a track would be more about people hanging on to control of "their" organisation for too long rather than geographic considerations or being CFI's.

 

Canberra is not a particularly easy place to get to by air, but is reasonably accessible from Sydney by road.

 

Apathy shown by low voter activity is always a risk in any organisation. Even if you don't personally know the candidate, it's not much trouble to ring up a few people you trust and discuss it with them to aid your voting effectiveness. If there is only one candidate in your ballot you get no say in any of it. Nev

I think what has emerged as the greatest issue following a few years of board(committee) secrecy and poor involvement of members is a "them" and "us" attitude where literally thousands of members think they are dealing with an external body like Vicrooads/RMS etc. and don't need to have any contact or input as long as their registrations/certificates are renewed. This will eventually end in tears as it nearly did with the audits. Everyone needs to pull their weight if they want to remain independent.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Things are not too bad at present. Systems have been changed so that long mandated requirements of RAAus can actually be met. Financially we are better than we might reasonably expect to be....so people ask why change something if it isn't broken?

 

Fundamentally the same constitution was in place when things weren't good, and the members ability to really do something about it was very constrained in that the legislated body that exists to look after incorporated associations in the ACT would not act on identified failures of management. Nothing has changed and given that interest in this area is sliding back towards lack of motion then the potential for a repeat is imho high. The extra ordinary GM that Col referred to took nearly 2 years to arrange and achieve its outcome, we 1st needed to modify the constitution to allow that extra ordinary GM to occur....back then, imho, (as a result of appalling management) our financial reserves where huge and without purpose...which meant that by luck, RAAus didn't fold....today we don't have the same level of reserves due to years of flow on affects and if we were to get another set of poor board appointments we could easily see RAAus become insolvent.

 

A change to the constitution and a change to the form of company governance will allow us to return to where RAAus once was, where failures in management have significant legislated consequences that are actively policed (Company limited by guarantee)...... Given that it's hard to find people interested in playing the board game now, then add a potential for real individual board member consequences for failures of management on top and will we have an increased or decreased the liklihood of people stepping up? I think the later, because at the end of the day risk outweighs reward.... Pay people to manage and you get a balance of risk vs reward. Today the very best candidates we could have will likely never offer themselves because they truely understand the risk vs reward paradigm and Likely don't have spare recreation time available.

 

For a bunch of reasons RAAus survived the last set of,imho, poor board appointees, unless we change what we have at constitution level, and by flow on, governance model ( incorporated association, at least under ACT legislation) we are unlikely to survive the next instance of poor board appointees......fwiw, my view is that the previous board I talk of individually had no desire to fail RAAus, but collectively they did not have the necessary skills, and in many cases the work outputs required....today to some extent the same is true, but collectively the skills required are better.......some however still just turn up to board meetings and do nothing else......they don't, imho, meet their fiduciary obligations, relying on the skills of those that do to drag them across the line.......we, the members deserve better, but under our existing constitution are unlikely to get it.

 

Now that cost you exactly $0 for that advice. It's my opinion that it's almost worth what you paid for it.

 

Andy

 

 

[DrZoos]

If you want the best people for the job, yes you do need to reward them in kind or financially. This doesnt need to be massive, but it should at least pay approximate wage for time spent away from family and work, otherwise your asking them to take a financial hit just to be on the board and serve... This will generally attract better skilled board members then getting only people who are willing to give away free time.

 

More importantly the board members need to be completely insured from all personal liability and have their personal assets protected , otherwise smart skilled people with assets will simply avoid these positions.

 

 

[Downunder]

I think what has emerged as the greatest issue following a few years of board(committee) secrecy and poor involvement of members is a "them" and "us" attitude where literally thousands of members think they are dealing with an external body like Vicrooads/RMS etc. and don't need to have any contact or input as long as their registrations/certificates are renewed. This will eventually end in tears as it nearly did with the audits. Everyone needs to pull their weight if they want to remain independent.

If they didn't treat the membership LIKE they are a government authority, then perhaps members would not perseive them as one.

 

I think one of the main problems with the RAA is it's identity.

 

What is it really? Government authority, association, CASA stooge or a hodge podge mix up of them all.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well it was set up to administer recreational flying; if it is fully administering and managing the risks there should be no reason for the Government, in the form of CASA to step in.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

OK, OK OK. Maybe I upset someone with my last post but it is now MIA. Would who-so-ever took it down, please have the balls to own up and say what, how or where I offended you.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you posted it on IPhone, a common problem is to forget the additional "post" action; I've done it quite a few times.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Was posted ok and was there yesterday albeit a bit faded, plus the last line was missing.

 

 

[shags_j]

Hi everyone

 

I have sent in my list of concerns (basically the list here http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/draft-constitution-my-concerns.142735/ )

 

I received a reply from the CEO that i don't find satisfying. If any of the problems i portrayed are concerning to you then i urge you to email the CEO and your local representative.

 

My biggest issue to date is the ability for the board to disallow membership for any reason they please without having to divulge it.

 

Please read my concerns and read through the constitution and raise any concerns of your own. This is your chance. You won't be able to complain afterwards...

 

When reading this please note how much freedom to act the directors have without any consequences.

 

I for one will be working hard to get at least my rpl prior to this constitution so i can cancel my membership immediately if implemented in its current form.

 

Cheers

 

Shags

 

 

[UltraFlash]

The 'disallow membership for any reason' is an issue I've recently dealt with as a board member for another association. The basis of it is a new legislative requirement which gives committees the ability to exclude membership to those who could harm or otherwise bring the entity into disrepute.

 

There should be checks and balances above this clause which ensure this power isn't abused. For example, a motion to disallow membership would have to have a greater than 75% vote of the entire committee. If this power was abused and a person or persons were excluded, other members would be able to take the committee to task to determine why the action was taken, no committee member in their right mind would get to that.

 

 

[Keith Page]

If they didn't treat the membership LIKE they are a government authority, then perhaps members would not perseive them as one.I think one of the main problems with the RAA is it's identity.

 

What is it really? Government authority, association, CASA stooge or a hodge podge mix up of them all.

As I have said many times RAAus acts as small police force. Case one, look how they are handling the Jabiru issue we get told how diligent they are and looking after the members interests. No.

How the tech. department are acting looks like they are a mini CASA.

 

Read in the last Sports Pilot the presidents report, as I interpret the report this constitution is angling at paying a smaller board. Have a read, make your own decision, played my card.

 

We have to be very careful with this new constitution or RAAus will be gone for ever. We get told how wonderful it is but only for a few. Needs to be sympathetic to the members.

 

I would like to know what deskpilot wrote. Must have been a sensitive issue.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[facthunter]

Disallow a membership is like excommunication (if you could be affected) You are outside and up the creek without a paddle. I would caution with this one. Bit like cancelling citizenship.

 

Same is not having a vote in an election in your country, or moving the "member be not heard".

 

EASY to abuse and very difficult to justify.

 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to be heard" . Isn't that the principle we go by? Nev

 

 

[shags_j]

That's is why i raised it With the CEO. I won't post hisb response but i urge everyone to email him and your local delegate if you disagree with these clauses. Its yourv association. Make your voice heard.

 

 

[facthunter]

Have you really resigned shags? Hope you haven't. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

Post #98 in this thread:

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/draft-constitution.137578/page-5

 

email to CEO middle of Oct last year and not a dickie bird of even an acknowledgement let alone any response or redrafting of the fundamentally flawed provisions on membership renewals and payments

 

 

[shags_j]

No not yet. I Will be now fast taking my rpl though and Will likely do so then.

 

 

[storchy neil]

pity that 99% off the persons that this document applies too would get that copy and read it properly it will bite us

 

have you read it or just went along with said document neil

 

 

[shags_j]

pity that 99% off the persons that this document applies too would get that copy and read it properly it will bite ushave you read it or just went along with said document neil

Sorry Neil. I tried to understand this

 

 

[storchy neil]

are yes written like the document you ref to :im stupid:neil

 

 

[Keith Page]

Post #98 in this thread:http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/draft-constitution.137578/page-5

email to CEO middle of Oct last year and not a dickie bird of even an acknowledgement let alone any response or redrafting of the fundamentally flawed provisions on membership renewals and payments

That is my case, it is an organisation for select board members and selected staff. That is what Maj eluded to on many occasions. It is forgotten that RAAus is a member based organisation. Not Alice state.

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I hate IPads. Life is supposed to be easier with these know all I -Pads with their auto correct. The last phrase is:- Not a police state.

 

Sorry about that, had to be corrected or turbo would rip strips off me.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

OK, OK OK. Maybe I upset someone with my last post but it is now MIA. Would who-so-ever took it down, please have the balls to own up and say what, how or where I offended you.

Re-post it. See how we go.

I will keep an eye out for it.

 

KP.

 

 

[storchy neil]

state of alice was not good:off topic: neil