Why I will be voting AGAINST the new constitution

[kasper]

They admitted the plan isn't perfect and we will likely have amendments over the coming year or two.Talk to them yourself, but I am prepared to gamble on the need to change now after understanding how they have made past decisions.

Problem with this is that even Don himself admitted that trying to amend the current constitution was near on impossible and what are we to do in the interim when we find that the as implemented either does not or cannot work ... and lets face it we are going to only find that out when we try and use the 'powers' of discipline or exclusion for the first time and get challenged ... the board are all about stating we are needing to improve the professionalism of the organisation - how will it look to CASA or anyone when the nice shiny new Constitution fails at the first real application of its 'professionalism' and 'control'?

I am very afraid that we are setting ourselves up for a series of trips and falls through rushed change. I reinterate - I am not opposed to change - but i am opposed to THIS change

 

 

[David Isaac]

Problem with this is that even Don himself admitted that trying to amend the current constitution was near on impossible ...

Kasper that was not quite what Don was saying. What he meant was that the existing constitution is so convoluted and poorly worded that making changes was NOT worth the effort. We have made many changes over the years by simply putting up special resolutions, I was a member of the constutional review committee back in those days with Don until Rinciman canned it. So why would it be any harder to amend this new constitution when this new one is infinitely better and better structured with members rights better protected than the existing constitution.

I do understand your point of getting it as 'right' as possible before putting it up to a resolution and that is always my preference. My point is that no matter how 'right' you think it might be when it finally goes to the vote, you will still ultimately need to amend it several times over its life. A constitution is NEVER set in stone, but it must not conflict as you know with Corporations Law.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Thank you Ian...

 

Good on you..

 

You will get good help..

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Admin]

So why would it be any harder to amend this new constitution when this new one is infinitely better and better structured with members rights better protected than the existing constitution

David, there are less member rights so how can it be infinitely better...for example:

Dispute process - less member rights as there is no independent panel unlike there is now, the new one gives all rights to the directors to act as they see fit regarding disputes...so loss of member rights

 

Director casual vacancy - the new one gives the directors full rights to appoint a new director to a casual board vacancy unlike now where the membership appoints - so loss of member rights

 

Director numbers - the directors "can" decide how many directors there will be between 3 and 7, not the membership - so more loss of member rights

 

and many more when you read through all the posts

 

 

[turboplanner]

I do understand your point of getting it as 'right' as possible before putting it up to a resolution and that is always my preference. My point is that no matter how 'right' you think it might be when it finally goes to the vote, you will still ultimately need to amend it several times over its life. A constitution is NEVER set in stone, but it must not conflict as you know with Corporations Law.

That's the way it is for a well developed Constitution David, I agree.

 

But this vote is not just for a constitution change but a major change to a corporate structure as well.

 

The proposed corporate change has been almost hidden by the emotional debate over the constitution, and there are still serious matters to be considered by the members, one of the primary ones being the cost of multi layered, paid management, where they will be footing the bill. If it's an additional one or two hundred dollars, that may not be a problem, but if it is up there with the $2,000 to $3,000 for golf club membership, a lot of members will be squeezed out, and there are many other aspects which will require either volunteers or paid members to keep up with a Limited Company's reporting requirements. So it's better that all the details are put on the table for the members to decide beforehand.

 

The current constitution was a dog's breakfast in 2012 and still is, but take a look at the document; it's not a 500 page manifesto, it's just a few pages long. There's noting wrong with starting with a new sheet of paper, but the new constitution is nowhere near workable, and requires many corrections. Kasper, a lawyer, has pointed out serious issues, some of which have been addressed, but based on my reading here, a lot of genuine mistakes and potential land mines are still left in the document.

 

If the vote is NO, I'm sure there will be a lot of dummy spitting, and it really would be a pity for all the collective work through the very limited consultation period to be lost.

 

If the vote is YES, and it turns out the change to a corporate structure was a train wreck and too costly for members and the constitution is unworkable, that would be far worse.

 

It would appear to me that a better course would be to delay the vote, and provide more consultation, detailed and realistic consultation, on the pros and cons or the proposed corporate change vs the existing status, and the pros and the reasons for each change to the constitution, clause by clause.

 

 

[gandalph]

Sorry Don, but now you are really off the ball with no right of appeal here...that is what the moderators as a collective are for. Absolutely no one gets banned, they are given a suspension

So Ian, the notorious Deborah (I forget the rest of his/her forum name) wasn't banned? Was she/he just suspended?

For how long?

 

Eternity?

 

 

[Admin]

So Ian, the notorious Deborah (I forget the rest of his/her forum name) wasn't banned? Was she/he just suspended? For how long?

Eternity?

He was deleted due to false representation to the site users. And yes, most of these people like him are still on the site under pseudo identities but are adhering to the site rules so that is all I care about. They are more than welcome to come on to the site and use their real name and I can transfer their existing posts over to their real name and as long as they abide by the site rules...even Micheal Coates, Brent Christensen etc. but absolutely no commercial promotion or attacking other site users or trying to lead other users up the garden path. Common decency to each other applies at all times

 

 

[Admin]

Gandalph

 

Does this make you happy?

 

 

 

[storchy neil]

when a group off persons called a meeting on this very matter I did jump at the chance to demand that the then constitution needed to be up dated and the board made accountable that it had to made public and all members that is the so called over 12000 members to be involved yes apparently we as an organization of over 12000 members now there was collusion and now way that you could get the truth out of them I was threatened to shut up or I would be banned thrown out

 

now don't shoot our selves in the foot by just laying down and not having your say as it is our fun time your organization as members it is your right to say want you would like how it is to be written after all its about us the members

 

in my opinion it need just 100 members to demand a meeting of the board to make changes to the new constitution

 

what I would like is a written letter of confirmation that the first general meeting will be for changes if needed and I feel it will to this constitution if it is passed

 

yes bruce admin did get a great deal off shit and threats personal attacks on him and his family I thank him and his family for continueing to make this site what it is a venue for aviation to be discussed

 

the good the bad and the ugly me neil

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper that was not quite what Don was saying. What he meant was that the existing constitution is so convoluted and poorly worded that making changes was NOT worth the effort. We have made many changes over the years by simply putting up special resolutions, I was a member of the constutional review committee back in those days with Don until Rinciman canned it. So why would it be any harder to amend this new constitution when this new one is infinitely better and better structured with members rights better protected than the existing constitution.I do understand your point of getting it as 'right' as possible before putting it up to a resolution and that is always my preference. My point is that no matter how 'right' you think it might be when it finally goes to the vote, you will still ultimately need to amend it several times over its life. A constitution is NEVER set in stone, but it must not conflict as you know with Corporations Law.

But be fair - a SINGLE resolution to replace in its entirety with a new constitution on the exisitng Inc structure has been available to the board since day 1 ... the process of attempting piecemeal amendment was Dons choice not a requirement of the existing structure.

And I am not certain that the proposed constitution is infinitely better than the current one ... it has a lot of structural changes that are desirable but in my opinion contains a LOT of operational and unintended/unclear areas that have the potential to be horrid in operation that are likely to counter the improvements.

 

I am and have from day 1 said change is necessary but whats before us is not a good and clean set of changes

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You must have a rule for maximum term but it must be arranged to rotate through the board such that current knowledge is NOT lost.

Why won't the former board members contribute to the RAA without the title? There must be something wrong with them if they only contribute when they have an official duty.

 

I contribute to the RAA without being a member with my nuanced observations.

 

 

[gandalph]

GandalphDoes this make you happy?

[ATTACH]42748[/ATTACH]

Thanks for clearing that up Ian. I was simply asking because I had in the back of my memory that Deborahwhoever had been banned, but you responses are clear. He/She wasn't banned, just deleted. I dont really care either way. Banned or Deleted, different words but with the same result I guess

LOL, And you reckon I should be a politician! .....

 

p.s. I'm almost always happy, especially now, since I kissed my boss goodbye.

 

 

[Admin]

Banned puts procedures in place to prevent the use of the site under certain conditions. Deleted enables them to re-register and in the case in point using their real name and starting fresh to help them from being tagged with their previous history...in fact it is better for them to be deleted than to be suspended. There is also a security measure that I won't go into which lists a user that is using different user names

 

 

[Yenn]

It looks as if several of us consider the draft constitution to be flawed, but they will vote yes anyway.

 

If there is a defect in the proposed constitution why vote yes, why not convince the board to extend the time and get it right before we vote.

 

As I was told there could still be changes, to have already voted is to vote for an unknown. Why not wait and see what the final wording is before voting.

 

 

[Admin]

Yenn, the constitution can not be changed now before the vote as it must be locked for the 21 days prior to a vote. This means that what has been presented, and all the flaws in it that are being exposed now is it, and we will have to go through the whole voting process again and again if a YES wins

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yenn, the constitution can not be changed now before the vote as it must be locked for the 21 days prior to a vote. This means that what has been presented, and all the flaws in it that are being exposed now is it, and we will have to go through the whole voting process again and again if a YES wins

Or the current board could cancel the meeting, fix the issues and put a resolution with revised docs to the AGM. If there really are serious issues that would be a tidier outcome.

 

 

[David Isaac]

But be fair - a SINGLE resolution to replace in its entirety with a new constitution on the exisitng Inc structure has been available to the board since day 1 ... the process of attempting piecemeal amendment was Dons choice not a requirement of the existing structure.And I am not certain that the proposed constitution is infinitely better than the current one ... it has a lot of structural changes that are desirable but in my opinion contains a LOT of operational and unintended/unclear areas that have the potential to be horrid in operation that are likely to counter the improvements.

I am and have from day 1 said change is necessary but whats before us is not a good and clean set of changes

I don't disagree with you. There were many options available. What we have is one of them.

 

 

[David Isaac]

That's the way it is for a well developed Constitution David, I agree.But this vote is not just for a constitution change but a major change to a corporate structure as well.

 

The proposed corporate change has been almost hidden by the emotional debate over the constitution, and there are still serious matters to be considered by the members, one of the primary ones being the cost of multi layered, paid management, where they will be footing the bill. If it's an additional one or two hundred dollars, that may not be a problem, but if it is up there with the $2,000 to $3,000 for golf club membership, a lot of members will be squeezed out, and there are many other aspects which will require either volunteers or paid members to keep up with a Limited Company's reporting requirements. So it's better that all the details are put on the table for the members to decide beforehand.

 

The current constitution was a dog's breakfast in 2012 and still is, but take a look at the document; it's not a 500 page manifesto, it's just a few pages long. There's noting wrong with starting with a new sheet of paper, but the new constitution is nowhere near workable, and requires many corrections. Kasper, a lawyer, has pointed out serious issues, some of which have been addressed, but based on my reading here, a lot of genuine mistakes and potential land mines are still left in the document.

 

If the vote is NO, I'm sure there will be a lot of dummy spitting, and it really would be a pity for all the collective work through the very limited consultation period to be lost.

 

If the vote is YES, and it turns out the change to a corporate structure was a train wreck and too costly for members and the constitution is unworkable, that would be far worse.

 

It would appear to me that a better course would be to delay the vote, and provide more consultation, detailed and realistic consultation, on the pros and cons or the proposed corporate change vs the existing status, and the pros and the reasons for each change to the constitution, clause by clause.

Not sure where you get your multi layered paid management idea from. I can't recall that in any of the documents.

However, if the membership feel widely there are show stoppers, I agree it would be better to cancel the meeting and delay the resolution until the issues are sorted. I just can't see the show stoppers, but I would be happy with a delayed meeting because I can't attend this one which I would like to do.

 

 

[Admin]

Don, mate, a question. You have previously stated to me, and you to David, that it was this site/resource that was so instrumental in bringing about change and alerting the members about the turmoil of RAAus in 2012. So why, oh why, was this resource not used over the last year to get members input through collaboration on each element of the changes with the constitutional change. Instead we have an 11th hour of communication push that has opened up many holes in what is being proposed. You guys have admitted that this site/resource is a valuable tool so why was it neglected by the board? We could easily have set up a special forum for RAAus members only to assist you and the board to get it right without the waste of our money and yours and the board's time

 

 

[facthunter]

Ian, the site was a good platform at that time, when things were way off key. This document is not the sort of thing that can be finessed on a site like this effectively. It could only be done by a well set out series of amendments which would take considerable time and effort. If it's not right and can be rectified it should be done. You are arguing for it to be right, Fair enough, let's do it but the arguments here get bogged down and people have their own agenda's or you, we, everyone, think(s) they do, which is counter productive . Nev

 

 

[01rmb]

I recognise, respect and appreciate the effort that has been put into changing the constitution but why accept something that needs to be improved? We need to be sure we get a constitution that will protect member’s rights and should not just accept one that needs immediate improvement to get it right - Get it right first time.

 

I cannot support the proposed changes to the constitution in its current form and will be voting NO until changes are made to include better controls to ensure member’s privileges and rights are protected.

 

My critical issues with the proposed constitution and supporting documents are:

 

• The objects of the company are so lose that the company (CEO and directors) can do most anything in the name of advancing aviation or encouraging training but there is nothing in the proposed constitution that specifically addresses the requirement for the provision of pilot certificates or aircraft registrations. The objects needs to be more focussed to ensure the company will deliver the services we as members need and to protect the current privileges we require in recreational aviation in order to fly.
   
   
  
• When developed, the disciplinary process and dispute resolution process will be separate to the constitution and can be changed at any time by the directors with no input from the members. The disciplinary process and dispute resolution process needs to be included in the constitution to ensure it cannot be changed without members input and vote.
   
   
  
• There is no appeal process to protect member’s/prospective member’s privileges for membership application or disciplinary action short of taking legal action at your cost and which RAAus would protect at the members cost. There needs to be an agreed process for disciplinary action with an appeal process which includes escalation to an independent regulator/ombudsman to ensure fairness for members/prospective members. Procedural fairness provides the basis of a good disciplinary process not as a replacement to it.
   
   
  
• The member’s charter which is separate to the constitution can be changed at any time by the directors with no input from the members. This needs to be included in the constitution to ensure it cannot be changed without members input and vote.
   
   
  
• The member’s charter is poorly written and does not ensure member’s rights from the company and staff to deliver services critical to the ability to legally fly including the provision of pilot certificates and aircraft registration. There needs to be more to ensure the members can expect of RAAus and staff to provide good openness, communication, consultation, fairness and integrity to members.
   
   
  

 

 

RAAus as the sole provider of pilot certificates and aircraft registration for recreational aircraft must have a constitution that ensures member’s privileges are protected now and in the future. The constitution must be set up to provide checks and governance of the board to deliver the critical activities (objects) with appropriate disciplinary and appeal processes.

 

Whilst the current board may be able to provide the appropriate governance for RAAus can we be ensured that will always be the case. With a smaller board it will only take 3 people to have full and absolute control until member’s take back control via a member’s resolution to effect a change of the board.

 

If the people involved in bringing about the changes are truly committed to the outcome then they should take solace in people actually being interested enough to register a no vote telling them that further work is needed and not give up on the work done to date. The constitution changes are headed in the right direction but it needs further improvement before I can consider it to be acceptable.

 

Changing or not changing the constitution has little to do with RAAus doing a good job and avoiding CASA issues. That is up to the CEO and the board to make sure the performance requirements are being met and any complaints are being dealt with appropriately. The constitution serves to ensure the company has a clear purpose and that members can not be unfairly restricted through a poor disciplinary process.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not sure where you get your multi layered paid management idea from. I can't recall that in any of the documents.

That's why I raised it; rather an important omission.

 

 

[turboplanner]

RAAus as the sole provider of pilot certificates and aircraft registration for recreational aircraft must have a constitution that ensures member’s privileges are protected now and in the future. The constitution must be set up to provide checks and governance of the board to deliver the critical activities (objects) with appropriate disciplinary and appeal processes.

Great statement, and central to the whole purpose of a self administering authority, where there is no alternative to go to if they aren't meeting your requirements.

 

 

[Admin]

01rmb...I wish there was an ability to cast 10 'Likes" on your post...so extremely well done!!!

 

 

[Keith Page]

Well said 01rmb..Your #246 covered a lot of points which need addressing.

 

Fishla from #212 did the president and CEO address these points?

 

There is a term which is used quite often used, "Lying by the fact of omission".

 

This could cover a lot of these roving seminars.

 

Regards,

 

KP