Why I will be voting AGAINST the new constitution

[rhysmcc]

Frank, that's basically the issue I'm having, some changes I agree with (in favor of 7 board members), others I find a deal breaker (board appointed by the board). I believe the more needs to be done to ascertain what the members want, saying for us all to email the CEO just doesn't cut it, and the board shouldn't be relying on the CEO to represent the members views, that is the function of the board and the board then directs the CEO.

 

The CEO appears to have done a great job in bringing various options to the board, now we just need the board to survey the members and then direct the CEO to piece it together. However it appears the board still wishes to skip the step on asking the members.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Frank,

 

I accept that there are aspects of the draft constitution that are take it or leave it. In particular, the form of incorporation and fewer, nationally elected (not appointed) directors.

 

These were the things that drove us to release an early draft in time for review at the AGM and, by internet link from anywhere in Australia. To the best of my knowledge (far from exhaustive) there has been broad acceptance of these key issues. The people who chose that direction (before I was elected to the Board in 2015) were your elected Board Members. I am satisfied that all these things make good sense but then I have been arguing for them on here since for ever. I hadn't made up my mind about the form of incorporation back then but in trying to work with the Canberra (ACT) regulator for Incorporated Associations and finding them useless on issues of governance, I quickly came to see that there had to be something that suited us better. The Incorporated Association works fine with a single State location Aero Club where the Committee do the work themselves but in national body like RAAus, it is simply inappropriate.

 

National voting for a smaller board would certainly have been part of the output from the first Constitution Review Committee if it had not been scuttled by a former Nth Qld rep .

 

I am satisfied that reasonable arguments have been put to every member of RAAus as to why these key strategies were adopted. If you are not convinced then I'd simply ask that you re-read what has been sent to you and point out the flaws in the logic and tell me what would be a better as in a more effective, more efficient and more reliable approach.

 

I think that if we don't get the new constitution approved by the membership we will be doomed to repeat all the mistakes of the past that had RAAus on its last legs. Poor governance, mates looking after mates and giving them jobs working for RAAus and those incompetent mates undoing the rectification work of the last two years. We could then see approvals being given to mates for aircraft that even CASA has no authority to approve as happened leading to another crackdown by CASA and thousands of aircraft being grounded as happened in 2013.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . others I find a deal breaker (board appointed by the board).

I don't know where that idea comes from - Directors will be elected by the members not just appointed by the Board.

 

I believe the more needs to be done to ascertain what the members want, saying for us all to email the CEO just doesn't cut it, and the board shouldn't be relying on the CEO to represent the members views, that is the function of the board and the board then directs the CEO.

There are 12 part-time Board Members at the moment who are spread from one end of Aus to the other. It is essential that the CEO be the first point of contact for feedback on the draft constitution. He is not entitled to dismiss out of hand anyone's suggestions. The present form of the draft constitution is the considered view of the Board not the CEO. The CEO works for the Board not the other way around. The CEO has been working very closely with the President Mick Monck on the draft constitution with advice from a very senior aviation lawyer.

 

The CEO appears to have done a great job in bringing various options to the board, now we just need the board to survey the members and then direct the CEO to piece it together. However it appears the board still wishes to skip the step on asking the members.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. There has been extensive consultation already with the members - have a look at the link in the latest email newsletter. Mostly in print but there have been numerous opportunities for members to talk with the Board directly including the AGM and its web conferencing facility and visits to many airfields across Australia. Feedback has been positive and supportive so far. If you want to change the Board's position it is your right to do so. My only recommendation is that if you want to make a difference then now is the time.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Sounds like it will be decided one way or the other by proxies.

 

So be it.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Sounds like it will be decided one way or the other by proxies. So be it.

Frank,

Before coming to a final position on the new constitution, I hope you will do us the courtesy of having a close look at the final draft and the Special Resolutions that will be the vehicle for the adoption of the new constitution.

 

Every vote will be critical to the future of RAAus. It will be, I believe, a watershed or pivotal moment in the history of RAAus.

 

I would be amazed and disappointed if it wasn't decided by proxies. I have attended every AGM since 2010 and for all, except the 2011 AGM, it has been at considerable and my personal expense. However, I don't expect members to flock to Canberra at great personal expense when a proxy vote will serve perfectly well. If it were to turn on the votes of the <40 members that I would expect to attend at Fyshwick it would not be a good comment on the state of the RAAus democracy.

 

All I ask is for an informed and considered vote based on members reading the information made available to them and making enquiries of the people who have put in the considerable time and hard work to get the draft written. Voting "No" on the basis that somebody said it's a pile of crap is not what RAAus deserves.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Frank,Before coming to a final position on the new constitution, I hope you will do us the courtesy of having a close look at the final draft and the Special Resolutions that will be the vehicle for the adoption of the new constitution.

Every vote will be critical to the future of RAAus. It will be, I believe, a watershed or pivotal moment in the history of RAAus.

 

I would be amazed and disappointed if it wasn't decided by proxies. I have attended every AGM since 2010 and for all, except the 2011 AGM, it has been at considerable and my personal expense. However, I don't expect members to flock to Canberra at great personal expense when a proxy vote will serve perfectly well. If it were to turn on the votes of the <40 members that I would expect to attend at Fyshwick it would not be a good comment on the state of the RAAus democracy.

 

All I ask is for an informed and considered vote based on members reading the information made available to them and making enquiries of the people who have put in the considerable time and hard work to get the draft written. Voting "No" on the basis that somebody said it's a pile of crap is not what RAAus deserves.

Don,

 

Depending on the outcome of the vote next Tuesday, I have a one in 3 chance of being there to discuss my personal views, otherwise I will certainly express my opinion by way of a proxy vote for what it is worth.

 

In relation to proxy votes, I will register my vote with the RAA office this time, but that is another matter which I will be happy to discuss with anyone on the board should I be successful, but not here.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Good luck Frank, I think you'll have better than 1 chance in three. Don

 

 

[shags_j]

I need someone to walk me through how to do a proxy vote btw. Never done one.

 

 

[kasper]

Under our current Constitution look to rule 30:

 

30. Appointment of proxies. (i) Each member shall be entitled to appoint another member as proxy by notice given to the Secretary no later than 24 hours before the time of the meeting in respect of which the proxy is appointed. (ii) The notice appointing the proxy shall be in the form set out in Appendix A.

 

Appendix A provides a required form ... and the proxy can be general or specific - ie power to vote your vote on any item any way they see fit or specific being limited to numbered resolution(s) in a specified manner

 

Here is one setting out what goes where for the upcoming general meeting - replace text in red and either do a general or a specific in the appropriate place ...

 

 

 

If someone is gathering Proxies for a position they will probably provide a word or pdf document for you to fill out and be GIVEN to the RAAus Secretary no later than 2pm Friday May 13th for the 2pm May 14th meeting:

 

FORM OF APPOINTMENT OF PROXY

 

I [insert YOUR full name] (full name) [insert YOUR RAAus Member Number] (Member No.) a financial member of RA-Aus appoint: [insert PROXY full name] (full name) [insert PROXY RAAus Member Number] (Member No.) a financial member of RA-Aus, or, failing that person, appoint [insert ALTERNATE PROXY RAAus Member Name ] (full name) [insert ALTERNATE PROXY RAAus Member Number ] (Member No.) a financial member of RA-Aus as my proxy to vote on my behalf at the meeting of RA-Aus (Annual General Meeting or other General Meeting or Board Meeting) to commence on the 14th day of May, 2016, and at any resumption (after any adjournment) of that meeting.

 

My Proxy is hereby authorised to either

 

vote as seen fit on all matters at the meeting,

 

or vote on the following resolution(s) in the manner indicated:

 

Resolution Number Title For or Against

 

……………………………………… this [Date] day of [Month] 2016

 

[Your Signature]

 

 

[shags_j]

Does that mean you need someone there who will physically be your proxy?

 

 

[DWF]

Does that mean you need someone there who will physically be your proxy?

I think the answer is yes. But you can, and probably should, nominate the chairman of the meeting (there has to be one) if you have directed your vote.

 

If you nominate someone to vote on your behalf as they see fit they obviously they have to be physically present at the meeting to exercise their and your vote.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[TK58]

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.

Yenn, don't rely solely on what other people tell you about it. Read it yourself and decide.

 

The current consultation draft is not perfect and it was never intended (or realistic) that it would be. It definitely is not what will be put to the vote, although the final version will be substantially similar - with all identified errors corrected. I understand from the CEO that a new draft will be posted sometime next week. The document won't be changing after the vote - assuming it gets approved at the GM, any change will require another vote of the members.

 

A lot of people are getting hung up on concerns that appear to be based on misunderstanding of the document and how it will be applied. Where the text can be altered to avoid such misunderstandings it will be. However not all misunderstandings are the fault of the document - there certainly are examples that stem from incorrect assumptions some people seem to be making rather than an objective reading of the document.

 

With the vast range of backgrounds and experience in the RAAus membership, a document like this is never going to satisfy everyone on every point. And the consultation process isn't either. If you've made a suggestion and it hasn't been taken up that doesn't mean you've been ignored. Similarly, if you've made a submission and haven't received a personalised response that doesn't mean it's gone into a black hole, that we're not interested in people's ideas or that we're conducting a "faux consultation".

 

The key question to ask yourself is this - does the proposed constitution represent an improvement over the current situation? If it does, vote for it. If you believe it doesn't then don't vote for it. Personally, if you don't think it's better than the current constitution I'd be wondering whether you've read and understood either document, but that's just my opinion.

 

If you've got constructive suggestions for improvement, send them in. I can assure you they are being carefully considered.

 

 

[TK58]

Does that mean you need someone there who will physically be your proxy?

A proxy form will be published at the same time as the special resolutions to be voted on (at least 3 weeks before the meeting). You can send your proxy to the office (ensuring it arrives by 2pm on the day before the meeting) or you can give it to someone who will be at the meeting.

 

If you give your proxy to someone who will attend the meeting you have the choice of directing your vote (e.g. vote yes to all resolutions, or yes to 1 and 3 and no to 2, etc.) or you can give a person an open proxy which allows the proxy holder to vote on your behalf as they see fit. The former is essentially a postal vote. The latter essentially gives the proxy holder an extra vote.

 

 

[kasper]

much clipped...

If you've got constructive suggestions for improvement, send them in. I can assure you they are being carefully considered.

If that were true then the constructive comments provided over the past 5 months would have appeared in the draft presented to us with the announcement of the general meeting wouldn't it?

Whilst I agree you will never get 100% agreement on change within an organisation like the RAAus the strangest thing is that of those posting on here with issues there is pretty much 100% agreement that the past 5 months of consultation has been ineffective and to all intents and purposes a nominal process with no substance.

 

 

[TK58]

Frank, that's basically the issue I'm having, some changes I agree with (in favor of 7 board members), others I find a deal breaker (board appointed by the board).

Rhys, you are fundamentally misunderstanding (and misrepresenting) the document if you think it promotes the board appointing the board. All directors must be voted in by the members. The only instance where the board can appoint a director is to fill a casual vacancy, and where that occurs the appointed director must stand down at the next general meeting.

 

However it appears the board still wishes to skip the step on asking the members.

Your repeated insinuation of bad faith on the part of the board towards the members is offensive and wrong. What is it you think we've been doing since before the last AGM if not giving the members an opportunity to tell us what they want? Just because we haven't gone about it in the manner you might prefer (e.g. some sort of survey) doesn't invalidate the process or the outcomes. We've done surveys on other things (e.g. NatFly) in the past. The response rates were abysmal. We've met with far more members and gained a more comprehensive understanding of their views by attending flyins and other gatherings than we ever would get from a whole series of surveys. Not to mention the input we've had from those (including some on this forum) who have taken the trouble to write in.

 

It's easy to find fault. But being constructive is much more useful (and welcome).

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

 

 

[TK58]

If that were true then the constructive comments provided over the past 5 months would have appeared in the draft presented to us with the announcement of the general meeting wouldn't it?

You're assuming those constructive comments were consistent with the goals of the whole constitutional change exercise, didn't conflict with other constructive comments, and were capable of adoption without creating other issues. Any expectation that suggestions from anyone would appear verbatim in the document is somewhat unrealistic, but that doesn't mean they weren't given due consideration.

 

 

[Riley]

You're assuming those constructive comments were consistent with the goals of the whole constitutional change exercise, didn't conflict with other constructive comments, and were capable of adoption without creating other issues. Any expectation that suggestions from anyone would appear verbatim in the document is somewhat unrealistic, but that doesn't mean they weren't given due consideration.

Your response to Kasper is lacking. The original call was for queries, comments and suggestions to fine tune the draft constitution. As such, your postulation that the Board's evaluation as to quality of comment, validity of suggestion, or potential conflict with original draft or other member's response justifies the Board's failure to acknowledge and/or ignore a member's concerns, smacks of bull-dozing. Pushing this half-filled barrow to presentation for ballot without due attention to all concerns is bound to create more problems at a later date when the shortcomings crawl out of the woodwork and bite us in the bum (and they surely will).

 

Not shooting the messenger but, with the 'new look' Board, I expected far more comprehensive and exhaustive footwork and it appears lacking in this instance. Agreed, some grey areas can later be resolved with bylaws but this is the Constitution. Let's get it as close as we can to being right the first time. regards. Riley

 

 

[Admin]

If you remember it was me that after being a board member raised many issues about the goings on of the board a few years back. I jumped up and down so much that got members to finally see that all was not right with OUR organisation which eventually over several years saw a complete change for the better. My reward for doing this was I was refused membership which resulted in the initiation of a legal fight...to cut a long story short.

 

Now it seems this can all happen again to any member that speaks out and the board will have a constituition to back them up.

 

Everything I said back then was right and whilst it did take some time to bring about change, who he remembers the names of Runciman and Tizzard who were sinking our organisation into oblivian, however it was available for the members to collectively improve our OWN organisation but it seems now it will be a lot harder, or near impossible. Power and greed is the root of all evil.

 

To recap on what happened:

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-stopping-membership.46127/

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I am on two not for profit boards and on both boards we vote to approve memberships. I think it is a normal thing. If a board member is aware of a reason a membership should not be approved, or we get that advise from the professional staff, then it is not approved. But only after proper discussion by the board. I think any organisation should be able to protect itself in that way.

 

 

[kasper]

You're assuming those constructive comments were consistent with the goals of the whole constitutional change exercise, didn't conflict with other constructive comments, and were capable of adoption without creating other issues. Any expectation that suggestions from anyone would appear verbatim in the document is somewhat unrealistic, but that doesn't mean they weren't given due consideration.

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/draft-constitution.137578/page-16

 

Try reviewing these comments on the draft before us NOW and you might reconsider - NOTHING in here relates to the philosophy or structure of the change proposed but PURELY relate to simple draftin gerrors and practical applications of the new constitution to the EXISTING RAAus admin processes ... consultation on these basics are a no brainer ... except if you are the RAAus CEO/Board ... still not clear on who and how the consultation is being managed

 

OK Don and co ...Overall its still a very poorly drafted document - it looks like it has 'customised' from a template by a junior who really did not read it. eg under 57 notice to members from the company can be given in writing or by electronic means if the member agrees ... yet at several points in clauses they have included specific reference to electronic communications .... when you read the document from the top you get very concerned that we must do everything in writing except where otherwise allowed ... the draft looks like a patched up old document and it absolutely should not.

 

Specifics:

 

Cl65 - definition of initial member - How are RAAus intending to demonstrate the consent of an exisiting member to become a member of the company? it can't be inferred so when will we see written consent requests and what is the RAAus board plans for the inevitable situation where either the consent is not given or is not received by the change over date?

 

Cl10 - membership register - any break in membership (even a day) makes a new second membership a requirement (including a duplication of the member guarrantee under Cl4) how is this going to work with the existing member numbers? currently a 'member' number is for life ... under the requirement to maintain seperate records of memberships for the past 7 years how will the RAA admin system deal with this?

 

Cl11.1 - reference to purposes of the company ... in other clauses these purposes are specifically referenced back to Cl6 yet here they are not ... it would be better to be consistent throughout the document and I suggest that purposes as set out in Cl 6 would be better used throughout

 

Cl12.1 - classes of membership - can the Board please set out what they intend to use this for. It might be by pilot certificate class, might be by company vs individual - without a guide by the Board we cannot appreciate why this is needed and intended to be used Cl 12.2 is written to indicate that classes attache to/align to pilots certificates but its not clear.

 

Cl13 - applications to be members must be in writing - using cl57 extends that definition to be email or other electronic means so online application is OK ... but telephone would not ... being 1 day late on ANY payment to the company ceases your membership so calling the office to pay and 'renew' will no longer be possible - how are RAAus going to deal with this?

 

Cl14.2 © Allows delegation of Board powers to the CEO ... not to other employees so thats going to be fun ... no allowing other employees to undertake anything the directors have to and no ability to delegate to others from CEO when he/she is on leave or unavailable.

 

Cl14.4 deals with a 30 day review period on membership after entry onto the register ... sorry guys but a person is a member from the time they are entered onto the register ... cl15 ... so having a second bite of the cherry to remove them after entry opens up lots of issues ... does the fact they are a member on day 1 and cancelled on day 29 mean that they are still under the member guarantee of Cl4 for the next year? by cancelling the membership you are NOT covered by the no reasons section covered in refusal to grant membership in 14.3 so as a decision it might require reasons to be given because you are cancelling membership and we are getting into slippery items that end up with court actions reviewing reasons

 

Cl14.5 seems to cover the RAAus ar$e when they cancel the membership entry under 14.4 by saying they are 'considered to be members' for the time they were on the register ... trying to cover this area in this manner is clumsy but if you are going to retrospectively remove membership we have to have this crap or suddenly any use of thet amembership to support a pilots certificate use would render then after the fact illegal wouldn't it? Not a good thing to have this retrospective 30 day removal of membership - much better to just run the disciplinary and expulsion process.

 

Cl14.6 is trying to imply agreement to the purposes of the company to any member who fails to provide it in writing - ridiculous! this is in fact trying to resurrect failed to comply applications to membership! either you HAVE to agree to the purposes and if thats in writing then that applies to everyone or abandon it as a concept but for goodness sake do not try to write back door processes to deal with potential failings in admin processes.

 

Cl16(d) this is the biggest kicker in the whole constitution - the failure to pay to the company ANY amount immediately ceases your membership. If this is passed in this form 1 day late on payment of your membership and you are immediately not a member ... and if you are a director you immediately and irrevocably cease being a director. Now for your membership annual fee that might seem logical ... but it ANY money owed to the company ... hows that gonna work with aircraft renewals? fail to renew and you have failed to pay money owed ... suddenly you have a second trigger to lose membership ... or are we going to change ALL renewals of aircraft to be not automatic (they currently come through as invoices with due dates) ... and how are we going to recognise that an aircraft can go out of registration currency by choise of owner for a time ... are we going to be requried to positively advise a decision to not reregister or face losing our membership and ability to fly??? big mess this one and IT HAS BEEN WITH THE CEO AS A SPECIFIC PROBLEM FROM MONTHS UNADDRESSED

 

Cl34.6 refers to Cl35.3 ... which unfortunately does not exist ... I think it should refer to 34.3

 

Cl36.1 refers to Cl35.6 ... which unfortunately does not exist ... I think it should refer to 34.6

 

Cl36.4 refers to Cl 35.6 ... which unfortunately does not exist ... I think it should refer to 34.6

 

36.7 restricts directors to 3 x 3yr terms ... then they need a specica resolution to be appointed ... why require a separate 75% majority vote for allowance of an appointment where they have already faced an election to get there??? illogical in the extreme because they may get enough general votes to be the electrorates choise but then fail to get a 75% majority to be allowed to be appointed - this would be a farce.

 

Cl38.3(b) reference to Cl43 delegations - but cl43 is not about delegations - I think it should refer to Cl39

 

Cl52.1(d) reference to Cl29 - wrong reference again - should be Cl28

 

Cl54 talks of the member charter - given this has the same power as the Constitution in terms of binding members can we PLEASE see the charter as part of this - particularly as the Constitution is only changed after consultation and vote by members whereas the charter is under the direct control and edit of the directors without requirement to put it to the members - I really do not like this as it is a back door to control and rules - not saying the directors intend to use it but without sighting the charter I am unhappy

 

Cl55.1 refers to Cl5858 ... typo should read Cl58

 

Cl 57 is a ripper - to be allowed to use other than written notice as communiations the Company has to have an email nominated by member and how are RAAus going to manage collection of this ... or more particularly where a member refuses to accept email, web postings, portal posting etc ... we HAVE to give notices to all members for AGMs etc and we will have members who refuse to accept electronic comms and this constitution gives the power to the member

 

Cl57(b) where and how are members going to nominate acceptance of an email address for the purposes of notices from the company ...and how/where will RAAus record that an email address is NOT to be used for notices and HOW will we manage that and ensure all notices are valid and complete?

 

Cl57© member portal notification to members only allowed if member nominates it ... same issue on recording member nominations and refusals and dealing with this mixed bag

 

Cl57(d)same issue on agreed by member ... here to record, how to record not accepted and deal with the mixed bag

 

The whole member electronic continues into 57.2 but overall its really impractical as it stands

 

There you go Board - practical issues and errors in the draft and that before considering the rights and wrongs of reducing board numbers.

 

I will copy this into an email to the CEO and pop it into the black hole of fake consultation that has been the hallmark of the whole process.

 

Cheers

[TK58]

If you remember it was me that after being a board member raised many issues about the goings on of the board a few years back. I jumped up and down so much that got members to finally see that all was not right with OUR organisation which eventually over several years saw a complete change for the better. My reward for doing this was I was refused membership which resulted in the initiation of a legal fight...to cut a long story short.Now it seems this can all happen again to any member that speaks out and the board will have a constituition to back them up.

 

Everything I said back then was right and whilst it did take some time to bring about change, who he remembers the names of Runciman and Tizzard who were sinking our organisation into oblivian, however it was available for the members to collectively improve our OWN organisation but it seems now it will be a lot harder, or near impossible. Power and greed is the root of all evil.

 

To recap on what happened:

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-stopping-membership.46127/

Ian, your experience of several years ago has been discussed and it is absolutely NOT the intention to deliver a constitution (either deliberately or inadvertently) that will enable a repeat of that debacle. When the draft of the members' charter is released (soon) this will become clearer. That document will outline the (very few) circumstances in which a person may be denied membership. Those will include things like criminal activity related to aviation, threats of violenece (or actual violence) against members or staff, etc. It will definitely not include criticism of the organisation or political activity such as agitating for change as grounds for denial of membership.

 

This is an area where CASA takes some interest as well. Since the regulations require that in order to fly under the exemptions granted by CAOs 95.10, 95.32 or 95.55 you must be a member of RAAus (or HGFA in some cases), CASA requires that we make membership open to all comers.

 

Similarly, it is not the intention that the Chairman will deny any member a vote at a general meeting. There is a mechanism for the Chairman to make a decision in circumstances where someone's eligibility to vote is called into question. The most likely example is if another person at the meeting questions whether someone is in fact a member. In that situation, and in order to enable the meeting to continue, someone has to have the authority to determine whether an individual is what they claim to be. It's entirely unremarkable that that should be the Chairman. This is an example where the text may be altered to avoid misunderstanding and make it clear that the Chairman may not deny a person a vote so long as that person is a current member.

 

Which brings us onto another concern that people seem to have around whether late renewal will invalidate membership. The answer is no it won't, provided the renewal is not unreasonably late (e.g. months). The expectation is that day to day practice in relation to renewals will be the same as it is now. However there are some things where there has to be a cutoff. Eligibility to vote requires that you be a financial member. If you haven't renewed you cannot be regarded as being a financial member. Similarly, cover under the members' liability insurance requires that you are a financial member. And exercising the privileges of your Pilot Certificate also requires that you are a current member. If push comes to shove in relation to the insurance or you flying without a current PC, RAAus won't have any discretion because RAAus won't be in control of whatever action the insurer of CASA might take.

 

Some have argued there should be a grace period and on the surface that seems reasonable. But what should it be? A week? A fortnight? A month? 3 months? No matter what it is, this same issue will still exist - what happens to someone who misses the extended deadline? Since renewals are issued 4 - 6 weeks prior to the renewal due date, and we now have systems in place to enable renewal instantaneously online, as well as the option of sending payment to the office, the argument that there should be a grace period is weak at best and, as I have pointed out, a grace period doesn't address the problem anyway. Current practice is that a period of some months goes by before the office decides "this person isn't going to renew" and the member gets marked as inactive. That won't be changing. But that doesn't make you a current member if you haven't paid your renewal on time. At some point people have to be responsible for their own action (or inaction).

 

 

[TK58]

I am on two not for profit boards and on both boards we vote to approve memberships. I think it is a normal thing. If a board member is aware of a reason a membership should not be approved, or we get that advise from the professional staff, then it is not approved. But only after proper discussion by the board. I think any organisation should be able to protect itself in that way.

In RAAus this is handled by exception. The Board doesn't vote on accepting new memberships or on renewals, however the Board will make the decision (informed by professional and legal advice) if the staff raise a concern about a particular individual. It is not expected this will change.

 

 

[Admin]

Ian, your experience of several years ago has been discussed and it is absolutely NOT the intention to deliver a constitution (either deliberately or inadvertently) that will enable a repeat of that debacle.

Thanks, this is very encouraging and as you put it, it was a debacle with board members setting out on personal vendettas because they didnt like the members having the ability to have a say. As I said, your reply is very encouraging...thanks

 

 

[TK58]

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/draft-constitution.137578/page-16Try reviewing these comments on the draft before us NOW and you might reconsider - NOTHING in here relates to the philosophy or structure of the change proposed but PURELY relate to simple draftin gerrors and practical applications of the new constitution to the EXISTING RAAus admin processes ... consultation on these basics are a no brainer ... except if you are the RAAus CEO/Board ... still not clear on who and how the consultation is being managed

Kasper, I can respond to some of those points. Firstly, I am not a lawyer (I understand you do have legal qualifications) so I'm basing my response on the extensive legal advice RAAus has taken on this matter - both from a very senior aviation specialist (as Don has mentioned) and also from a firm specialising in corporate constitutions.

 

Transfer of existing members and assets is enabled by a positive vote on the special resolution to adopt the new constitution. This SR (which is being finalised as we speak and must be presented to members at least 3 weeks prior to the meeting at which the vote will be held) will not be a simple "let's adopt a new constitution" proposition. It will be a multi-part proposition specifying the steps that will need to be taken to implement the new corporate structure. But it will be a single yes/no vote because otherwise we risk the untenable situation where some elements get approved and others don't - as we saw with some of Don's SRs a couple of years back.

 

In relation to the membership register the expectation is that current practice will continue. Members do not get removed from the register, they are marked inactive. That's how we currently have a database of something like 30,000 current and past members. Members typically aren't marked inactive until some time (months) after the renewal due date unless we receive information that they will not be renewing.

 

Examples of classes of membership include life members, affiliated clubs and the like. The new constitution provides flexibility for the organisation to create and remove classes subject to a no disadvantage clause.

 

Late payment will not cease your membership and require a new application, but it will mean you are no longer current and cannot vote, should not be flying an RAAus aircraft and are at the whim of the insurer as to whether the members' liability cover applies for an event that occurs while you are not current. It is each member's responsibility to ensure they remain current by renewing on time. RAAus assists in this by sending renewals out 4 - 6 weeks prior to the due date and by providing multiple channels for renewal, including a 24/7 online facility. This is not changing.

 

Delegation to the CEO does not preclude the CEO from delegating to the staff. This is how most organisations function - the board directs the CEO who in turn directs the staff. The board delegating directly to the staff is a recipe for the kind of chaos and dysfunction we had a few years back.

 

Your concern around 16(d) is unfounded. Registration (or membership) renewals are not "monies owed to the company". If we issued a renewal and you hadn't paid then they might be. But since we don't issue the renwal until after you've paid, you don't owe RAAus money (in the sense of having a legally enforceable debt) simply by not renewing either your membership or your aircraft's registration.

 

The cross referencing issues are acknowledged and I expect will be corrected in the next release. Personally I'm a little embarassed by these since I've reviewed the document a number of times. In my defence, having read the document 47.6 million times and picked up many issues that were corrected before publication, it's somewhat understandable if a tendency develops to only focus on the changes as each new revision comes along. I'll be giving this extra attention going forward.

 

I think you're misunderstanding 36.7. A director who has served 9 years or more (3 x 3 year terms) may only be re-appointed or re-elected by special resolution. That is, if they wish to continue, they won't face a normal election, they will have to be supported by a 75% majority of the members. This is to ensure renewal on the Board but still provide a mechanism for someone to continue if that is the wish of the members. I don't understand why you see that as illogical.

 

The members' charter will be published soon (within the next 2 weeks I believe).

 

RAAus already has email addresses for over 92% of members and this has resulted in significant savings in postage and stationery. We encourage all members to deal with the organisation by electronic means but recognise that is not going to be possible for everyone. The more traditional means of communication will remain. Our systems already have the capability of recording each members' preferred method of communication. This is not something that's technically challenging.

 

I hope that helps. Just one final comment. You and others seem determined to believe there's some underlying nefarious intent to create opportunities to disadvantage or disenfranchise the members, and that everyone involved is an incompetent fool (or worse). That is simply not the case.

 

 

[kasper]

Not believing there is "some underlying nefarious intent to create opportunities to disadvantage or disenfranchise the members" as I make plain - the issues listed are all basic drafting errors and/or interactions.

 

"Your concern around 16(d) is unfounded. Registration (or membership) renewals are not "monies owed to the company". If we issued a renewal and you hadn't paid then they might be. But since we don't issue the renwal until after you've paid, you don't owe RAAus money (in the sense of having a legally enforceable debt) simply by not renewing either your membership or your aircraft's registration."

 

I believe you are factually wrong on the current situation re money owed to RAAus and renewals ... we DO issue invoices before payment ... I have this sitting on my member portal today for the renewal for one of my aircraft

 

Registration Type Full Registration

 

New Start Date 31st Mar 2016

 

New End Date 31st Mar 2017

 

Due Date 2nd May 2016

 

Invoice No. 151299

 

Amount 70.00

 

It has an invoice number, an amount and a due date ... looks terribly like I will owe money to the RAAus and if I was under the constitution today and do not pay by the due date I will have not paid money owed to the Company ... current process falling foul of the new constitutional drafting - NOT me saying things to be a bastard but me pointing out the practical application of the constitution to the current operational administration process of the RAAus

 

And IF failing to pay does not equate to owing money then pray tell HOW under the constitution does a member ceases to be a member and loses voting rights? Other than resigning or falling off the perch the Company have me until death do us part ... I have all the voting rights until I die without paying a cent under the current drafting of the Constitution ... not intended I'm sure but this EXACT issue of when people cease being members under the draft constitution at the expiry of a paid membership year WAS RAISED DIRECTLY WITH THE CEO ON 9 OCT 2015 and has never been responded to ... what are we to think when we raise issues and then hear nothing and see no changes in later drafts?

 

A real consultation WOULD HAVE included a document with the current draft covering areas and issues raised and how/if/why not dealt with ... nothing like this exists so what are we to think?