Why I will be voting AGAINST the new constitution

[shags_j]

So these are the reasons that I won't be voting in favour of the new constitution. All of these concerns went to both my local member and the CEO (yes Don Ramsay, in spite of your pithy accusation that I have just sat on these forums "complaining" while everyone is working etc, I had already made my objections known. My new objection is that you slandered me for no reason. I find this behaviour abhorrent... rant over) and evidently were not taken under advisement. I'm not sure if I am allowed to quote the relevant sections on here so will reference them only. Here is the link to the draft... https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/2-raaus-draft-constitution-and-explanation.pdf

 

My biggest concern is that we are relying on Board members and CEO's who have issued this draft, AFTER BEING ADVISED THERE WERE REFERENCE ERRORS IN THE LAST ONE, with still more reference errors (see below). I find it hard to rely on a document with that many errors in it at all but given that these errors exist this constitution MUST NOT be voted in. I hope I am wrong regarding the reference errors. I would expect this in an undergrad at a local law firm, not from an association the size of the one we have.

 

14.3 - Basically directors can choose not to allow a person to become a member without even telling them why.

 

16(d) - Could be a way to get rid of someone they don't like. If you are 1 day late paying your fees they can terminate you as a member...

 

17 - Dispute resolution - Will there be a new dispute resolution procedure (as referred to) or will it be the same as the existing one. Hard to vote on this without knowing. I am ok with the vagaries being in the constitution to allow easier change to the procedures but we should have these procedures before voting

 

30 - The Chairman is able to veto a members right to vote at an AGM. If you want a member not to vote then why not allow the quorum to vote on this. Chairman shouldn't be able to just veto someones right to vote.

 

OMG there are still errors pointing to incorrect clauses. Seriously this is atrocious. On this alone the draft should not be voted in as constitution.

 

clause 36.2 refers to non-existent 35.6

 

36.4 also refers to 35.6

 

38.3 (b) refers to delegations of power under clause 43 but clause 43 if about conflict of interest. Maybe this is beyond my layman understanding of this stuff or perhaps an incorrect clause reference? I think this should be 39?

 

47.2 refers to non-existent 44.3

 

52.1(d) refers to clause 29. This should be 27?

 

55.2 refers to proxy per clause 34. I think this should be an earlier clause, clause 34 is for appointment of directors.

 

 

[shags_j]

In hindsight that sounds a bit harsh against the board members. I guess I am more ticked at the CEO for letting this through. I know he received my email regarding this in the first place. I did also tell my local member however I guess all he would have done is tell the CEO and we can't expect all the members to be lawyer types when it comes to this stuff. Sorry Board, my criticism's in the above thread are not levelled at you.

 

Maybe even the CEO is innocent in this but if he is who is the responsible person for the draft. I guess that is a more pertinent question and why wasn't that person on the ball regarding these mistakes?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

14.3 - Basically directors can choose not to allow a person to become a member without even telling them why.

Doesn't this imply the RAA has the legal right to discriminate with prejudice?

 

 

[shags_j]

One of the reasons I wanted it changed.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Sadly, the new board is repeating the mistakes of the past. Don't criticize the board and you won't have a problem.

 

 

[shags_j]

Ok, I have found out that this is still an early draft and that the errors will be fixed in due course before voting. These shouldn't be an issue going forward.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

So the link in the last newsletter is still to the old version and not the one we are actually meant to vote for in May?

 

 

[shags_j]

No it is a newer version but there will be more scrutiny before we vote on it I believe.

 

 

[frank marriott]

There is various aspects of the proposed new constitution which have extreme opposition. I was hoping I might have some input reflecting members opinions (should I be successful in the current election) however that is not to be whatever the result.

 

I do wonder how much feedback the proposal has had. I am aware that it is Don's baby and he feels very passionate about it and has some support on this site. I realise I have not spoken to a large number of the members of the northern region but I have spoken to a lot, and I am yet to find ONE who agrees. That includes some senior appointed examinators.

 

The statements I have heard, first hand, that if this goes through then I will be supporting the ELAAA proposal worries me. Surely something as important as this deserves more consultation and not this it it, cop it we have decided? Maybe a number of proposed changes as opposed to this is it take it in total?

 

As I have previously stated, whether these strong opinions actually end up in votes I have no idea, but certainly there is a lot of unhappy members about (at least the ones I have spoken to).

 

As I have been told before by certain members of this site, "you wouldn't know", they may be correct, and I will accept that.

 

 

[shags_j]

I'm sorry ELAAA?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I'm not sure how far this went, but there's a reference to an aviation association on page 17.

 

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/biz_res/ftweb/pdfs/About_us/Have_your_say/Improving_governance_within_incorporated_associations_discussion_paper.pdf

 

 

[flying dog]

I really need to get back up to speed with all the things happening, but I too would be concerned about voting for a paper with has obvious errors in it.

 

Although society seems to be trending towards the "We'll work on that and fix it later" attitude is not really a good way to set standards on how to behave.

 

Just imagine what would happen if this sort of attitude became more and more popular and governments started to behave like that?

 

Hang on!

 

They have already.

 

Oops.

 

 

[storchy neil]

it is not easy to rewrite a constitution at the meeting 2010 persons warned that it would take time so bloody well read it and plug the holes in it before the red draft sign is removed from it

 

not everyone will be happy when it is put to the vote as it can and will bite at some time the cost to fix it later is enormous neil

 

 

[flying dog]

No, Neil, you are right.

 

You can't please all the people all the time.

 

How ever, when passing this kinda thing, submitting a theoretical concept and saying that the problems will be worked out in the wash, is a pretty pathetic way of doing things.

 

If that kind of thinking holds, then there are serious problems with how the law works.

 

Oh, yeah, right, sorry. That IS how the law works nowadays. People can get away with airy fairy ideas, make the masses accountable to these ideas but personally can not be held to account. It is called government.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Reading the 'amalgamation' thread I see RA.Aus has about $1mill in the coffers. Perhaps it's time to spend some on a qualified proof reader (not a solicitors clerk).

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If you need a professional proof reader to ascertain if your bylaws are valid then your argument that you serve your members is now void.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Correct FT, which is why this sits on the heads of the board members.

 

 

[Riley]

No it is a newer version but there will be more scrutiny before we vote on it I believe.

shags_j, I'd like confirmation of your advice we will be offered a V3 of the draft and more importantly, when will it be forthcoming? Considering that we have less than 7 weeks in which to have our proxies registered prior to the SGM and the seeming 'wheel-spinning' of V2 (V1 re-presented), I'm fearful that there will be insufficient assessment/vetting time remaining for members to identify and request action on any further anomolies or shortcomings in the new draft of the re-draft. Let's face it, there's been a significant degree of lack of professionalism in the various draft presentations so far. For anyone to expect that we can come back later and massage such an important document into a workable state after it's ratification is absurd. They (we) need to get it right the first time! Unless my (and many other's) areas of dissatisfaction with the current presentation of the draft are wholly resolved, I shall be voting against it's acceptance at the SGM. regards, Riley.

 

from whence coms your info re V3?

 

 

[shags_j]

Private message from a board member. I'll try and get an official response to post here.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

it is not easy to rewrite a constitution at the meeting 2010 persons warned that it would take time so bloody well read it and plug the holes in it before the red draft sign is removed from itnot everyone will be happy when it is put to the vote as it can and will bite at some time the cost to fix it later is enormous neil

This is an issue that I've tried to raise before, they are trying to change too much without even asking members if that's the direction they want to go. Why not poll the members on what they want then design the constitution around it.

 

Association vs Company

 

Size of the Board

 

Regional vs National representation

 

Elected vs Appointed Board

 

The members have not been consulted on any of these issues, the latest newsletter is another example of poor management on this issue

 

 

[Geoff13]

Private message from a board member. I'll try and get an official response to post here.

A PM from a board member simply does not cut it on something this important.

 

There is nothing in the email that I received that even hints at further changes, just a sales pitch trying to sell the less popular items in the Draft.

 

Sorry my vote will be against it in its current form. To many changes for reasons that to my mind have not been justified.

 

This has been a work in progress for 12 months now, if it takes another 12 months that is fine but I won't support something with so many holes in it. And to be honest with less than 7 weeks to go this thing should be finished not still looking to change.

 

I have a question for the people working on this.

 

When are we going to see the constitution that we will be asked to vote on and will it be soon enough for us to consider it fully or with it be thrown on us at the last minute with a here you go folks we have plugged the holes type of statement?

 

 

[Russ]

I'm sorry ELAAA?

Experimental light aircraft assn Australia

 

 

[Yenn]

From what I read here it appears that the new constitution is full of mistakes, discrepancies, call it what you will, but it doesn't sound like a legal document. A constitution has to be flawless to be of any use, we cannot go back and change mistakes after it is voted in.

 

It must be correct first time.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

There is various aspects of the proposed new constitution which have extreme opposition.

Frank, I'm sure you would agree that if there is extreme opposition to any aspect then it is essential that that opposition is communicated, succinctly, to the CEO who is coordinating the project. From all the personal appearances at many airports/fly-ins etc., by the President Mick Monck and CEO Michael Linke (I was at the Evans Head meeting) there has been no "extreme opposition" expressed and there has been general acceptance of the key elements of the proposal.

 

. . . I am aware that it is Don's baby and he feels very passionate about it and has some support on this site.

At least you didn't say it was "Don's Party" . . . really over that one.

 

In fact, I was not involved at the birth of this one (nor its conception). As you may recall, I didn't join the Board until not long before the October 2015 AGM at Bundy. While I had urged Constitution reform as early as 2012 when I was previously on the Board and got the first Constitution Reform Committee formed, I was not involved in producing the current draft. However, a big reason for my running to fill the spot left vacant by Andy was to see the reform process through. I have been bashing away at constitution reform since 2010 when I found such a poor standard of governance in place. I am not going to allow anything to get to a vote that does not give precedence to members rights and benefits.

 

There are associated documents that go with the new constitution like the yet to be released disputes procedure and members charter that give President Mick Monck the confidence to make the statements he has like "At no time can a members' rights be reduced or removed by the board."

 

I would urge every member to read and respond to the last newsletter and the next six. Perhaps 80% of members will adopt the RAAus standard "I just want to go flying" and take no interest in the new constitution. But, on RecFlying we have a group of people who think hard and express their views freely and it is important that you don't just talk to each other but include the CEO in the conversation.

 

As I have said privately to a few RAAus members, I would be pleased to receive direct communications from anyone who feels they have not had a fair hearing from the CEO.

 

. . . Surely something as important as this deserves more consultation and not this it it, cop it we have decided? Maybe a number of proposed changes as opposed to this is it take it in total? . . .

To confirm what Shags wrote above, this is not the final draft nor the document that will go to the 10,000 members for their vote. If it were then what would be the point of the extensive consultation planned for the next 6 weeks? Apart from the feedback received during the next 6 weeks, it will be subject to expert legal review to ensure it is a robust, error free document.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Don

 

The one point that is overriding is a simple choice whether one agrees with the new board set up proposal or not. If that is opposed then as it is take it or leave it position.

 

For those, which happen to be "everyone" that I have spoken to locally, anyway, the rest is academic - as I understand it the proposal is a vote for or against the lot.

 

Various aspects can be debated but if one is against the reduced & appointed board proposal then that is it at least for them.