Why I will be voting AGAINST the new constitution

[David Isaac]

Eloquent = appropriate expression.KP

And that was my point ...

 

 

[Yenn]

Not a good idea to vote yes in the hope that the problems will be sorted out later.

 

I got an email today from Michael, stating that he had my comments on the constitution and charter and he was looking at incorporating what I suggested. This says to me that the current draft may not be the final which we vote on. All my commnts have been posted on this forum.

 

As it stands I will be voting No, because I think it is a very poor document, but I am hopeful that it will be cleaned up so that I can vote Yes.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Too late to change it now. There must be 21 days from memory from the final document before the vote (whatever the required notice is under the current constitution). By my calcs too late for the 14 May vote.

 

It is still a better document than the current constitution. All it takes is a special resolution at the next meeting to sort the remaining issues, who wouldn't support that?

 

Where does this paranoia come from that it cannot be changed once adopted?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Too late to change it now.

Too true, many/some members have already voted one way or the other, can't change the proposal without calling another meeting.

 

 

[gandalph]

Eloquent = appropriate expression.KP

No Keith, Eloquence is not simply saying something appropriate, is is clearly expressing or indicating something. (Source: OED)

 

 

[DWF]

Here is a quotation I have just come across which may be of interest to those favoring the YES vote. They were having problems with change > 500 years ago! But it (reform) does happen if you keep at it - eventually.

 

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it."

 

Nicolo Machiavelli , (1469 - 1527)

 

 

[storchy neil]

how many off you have been involved in rewriting a constitution it is not easy

 

when I was told that I was brining raa into disrepute that I would thrown out and he didn't care who I was or what I owned he was the top guy {is this going to happen again }

 

when a letter off complaint to another on the board to hard for them to handle just keep flying {can this happen again }

 

is my opinion on something going get me banned

 

so now it is that at the end of three years you are off the board for one year this should stop the board from collusion

 

so we will have a new board every three years opp that aint going to work

 

at 6 months a general meeting should be called so as any mistakes and holes can be addressed (why not )

 

now why is there only one board member on this site willing to take a lot off flake

 

why was this site not adopted by raa because the the so called experts were to stupid not to take up the offer (idiots)

 

some off us sceptical as to the what has happened in the past off the members don't need to know attitude by the board

 

their are some bloody good ideas been put up by some keep it up neil

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Neil,

 

. . . is my opinion on something going get me banned . . .

No. Getting kicked out of RAAus is an extreme measure. I don't know of anyone who has ever been kicked out although there have been at least two people in the past that I know were on the hit list of a former Board.

 

. . . so now it is that at the end of three years you are off the board for one year this should stop the board from collusion . . . so we will have a new board every three years opp that aint going to work

Neil, the restriction is 3 terms not 3 years. Could be on the Board for 9 years.

 

. . . at 6 months a general meeting should be called so as any mistakes and holes can be addressed (why not )

We do that now and will in future continue to do so.

 

now why is there only one board member on this site willing to take a lot off flake

A good question. Look back over the years and you will see plenty of Board Members tried to maintain a presence on here but most went away after flack became relentless.

 

. . . some off us sceptical as to the what has happened in the past off the members don't need to know attitude by the board their are some bloody good ideas been put up by some keep it up neil

Thanks

 

Don

 

 

[DWF]

I recognise the need to amend or replace the current RAAus constitution, am comfortable with a change from Incorporated Association to Company limited by guarantee (although I think arguments put forward for it are vastly overrated) and applaud the reduction in number of directors and changes to nomination and voting procedures.

 

 

 

The devil, however, is in the detail.

 

 

 

I think the draft constitution that has been presented for voting at the next General Meeting is inadequate in a number of respects as listed in my comments and suggestions below. I feel it will be better to get the constitution right before putting it to the vote rather than trying to change it once the change in structure has been implemented.

 

 

 

Unless I can be convinced otherwise in the mean time I will be voting NO on the resolution and encouraging others to do likewise.

 

 

 

My main areas of concern are:

 

Clauses 6 “Objects”,

 

Clause 12 “Classes of Membership”,

 

Clause 14 “Membership Approval”,

 

Clause 17 “Dispute Resolution”, and

 

Clause 54 “Member’s Charter” and the charter itself.

 

 

 

The above is the introduction to the comments and suggestions regarding the draft constitution that I am sending to the President and CEO.

 

 

 

The document (6 pages) is attached if you wish to read it.

 

 

 

DWF

 

RAAus draft Constitution comments.docx

 

RAAus draft Constitution comments.docx

 

RAAus draft Constitution comments.docx

[DWF]

Another quote which may give cheer (or solace) to some:

 

"If no one is pissed-off with you then you are dead but just haven't figured it out yet."

 

Tom Peters

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . The document (6 pages) is attached if you wish to read it.

Thanks for taking the trouble David. I'll have a look at it and get back to you as soon as I can.

 

I'm having a bit of difficulty keeping up with the traffic at the moment

 

- not helped by my wife pulling the plug on the computer every so often so I'll talk to her.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

No Keith, Eloquence is not simply saying something appropriate, is is clearly expressing or indicating something. (Source: OED)

Well there's got to be a first time for everything....here's hoping.....FT Take note of Gandalph's post it s just as equally applicable to you!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Much of your post has been answered by others but I'll add a few more words below.

 

• Clause 14 - The lack of the right of appeal for membership rejection is not fair and reasonable given the CEO can reject the application. . . .
   
   
  

It is worth restating here that the new Constitution gives the same right to the Board as exists under the old Constitution - the right to refuse membership. The difference is the the legally defined term "Procedural Fairness". The procedure must be fair and that includes having the right to go to the highest authority in RAAus - the elected full Board. A rejected applicant could ask CASA to intervene, could appeal to the Ombudsman, their MP, the Dept., and all the way to the High Court if they had very deep pockets - that may be a just bit fanciful but it still leaves a lot of room for appeal.

 

. . .The Communication section identifies that RAAus will communicate via social media channels but the current facebook site is purely marketing and the CEO and board are unwilling to participate in a widely used recreational aviation forum (the occasional board member does so as an individual). The feedback received from this forum would appear to generally be open and honest and of benefit to the development of an acceptable constitution so why ignore it.

The CEO has used eNewsletters very effectively. The Facebook page is there and is used however anyone wants to use it. And yes it is an effective marketing tool.

Regarding participation on RecFlying, you can make your own assumptions why over a long period of time very few Board Members have posted here. Put the shoe on the other foot and see how comfortable it is. The fact is few do post.

 

One of the reasons given by RAAus Board Members for not posting on RecFlying is that all members should have access to information provided by RAAus. When you look at it, we have about 10 active posters in the "Governing Bodies" section and some of those are not even RAAus Members. We have perhaps another 100 "lurkers" who are informed and influenced by it. Even if it was reaching as many as 1,000 RAAus Members, that is still a very small proportion of the membership being advantaged. The other 9,000 choose of their own volition to participate even at the lurker level.

 

Some Board Members have in the past been very inactive regarding any form of electronic communication even with other Board members and Online anything is just not their cup of tea.

 

Not all posters on Rec Flying are as articulate or open to intelligent debate as yourself, DWF, pmccarthy, DavidIsaac, Kasper, ColJones, FactHunter and a few more. Some Board Members have expressed their dislike of being bombarded with negativity and suggestions of improper motives and hidden agendas which does get very wearing and eventually results in them walking away.

 

Some have been banned from the site being judged to have acted contrary to the Site's policies. No right of appeal there.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Have you worked it out yet Don?KP.

I haven't become any less thick yet.

 

 

[kasper]

Much of your post has been answered by others but I'll add a few more words below.

It is worth restating here that the new Constitution gives the same right to the Board as exists under the old Constitution - the right to refuse membership. The difference is the the legally defined term "Procedural Fairness". The procedure must be fair and that includes having the right to go to the highest authority in RAAus - the elected full Board. A rejected applicant could ask CASA to intervene, could appeal to the Ombudsman, their MP, the Dept., and all the way to the High Court if they had very deep pockets - that may be a just bit fanciful but it still leaves a lot of room for appeal.

 

The CEO has used eNewsletters very effectively. The Facebook page is there and is used however anyone wants to use it. And yes it is an effective marketing tool.

 

Regarding participation on RecFlying, you can make your own assumptions why over a long period of time very few Board Members have posted here. Put the shoe on the other foot and see how comfortable it is. The fact is few do post.

 

One of the reasons given by RAAus Board Members for not posting on RecFlying is that all members should have access to information provided by RAAus. When you look at it, we have about 10 active posters in the "Governing Bodies" section and some of those are not even RAAus Members. We have perhaps another 100 "lurkers" who are informed and influenced by it. Even if it was reaching as many as 1,000 RAAus Members, that is still a very small proportion of the membership being advantaged. The other 9,000 choose of their own volition to participate even at the lurker level.

 

Some Board Members have in the past been very inactive regarding any form of electronic communication even with other Board members and Online anything is just not their cup of tea.

 

Not all posters on Rec Flying are as articulate or open to intelligent debate as yourself, DWF, pmccarthy, DavidIsaac, Kasper, ColJones, FactHunter and a few more. Some Board Members have expressed their dislike of being bombarded with negativity and suggestions of improper motives and hidden agendas which does get very wearing and eventually results in them walking away.

 

Some have been banned from the site being judged to have acted contrary to the Site's policies. No right of appeal there.

And to add another aspect of not having this or any forum/bulletin board as an official part of the RAAus communication paths - we are an employer and owe a duty to our employees.

Might sound un-related BUT in the UK where BMAA (RAAus equivalent) has an official BMAA forum it has to be heavily moderated not just for relevance but as an employer they have an obligation to their employees to act fairly and equally in relation to them ... once the Forum is an official part of the communications of the organisation ALL content has to be cognizant of the employer duties and any even immoderate unsupported comment on an employee has to be removed.

 

As soon as you have two way open/public communications with members (or non-members) of the association on an official association forum you step into employment law issues.

 

At the moment I could call the RAAus Tech Manager a dick on here (in my opinion he is not a dick - this is an example) and it does not HAVE to be moderated out ... it probably should be as its attacking a person not the position/though/comment but as non-affiliated forum it is possible to say things like that here ... once its an official channel its much harder.

 

 

[Admin]

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 if and only if they do not abide by the site rules that are displayed for all to see including when they register. The main suspension has been for attacking another user. If my memory serves me only one board member was suspended who was from WA some time back for this very reason. Why would you come on here to push your agenda and attack the site at the same time in fact you did make very slanderous statement elsewhere publicly about me personally yet you were not suspended and this resource is available to you as you are using it now the same for everyone.

 

The main reason why board members don't come on here under their own name is that it is made very clear to new board members that they can not say anything here about RAAus and in fact that was reiterated to me in a recent meeting with the President and CEO. Also how can you quote figures about who is here and the number of RAAus members that are here...do you have access to the site's database, I don't think so...so whilst you are stating numbers as fact you are only guessing and an example of misleading members to the realms of pure fiction.

 

Now, if you choose to post on this site then please do so with common decency for the site/resource and respect for its members which you have no idea who is reading the content and what they are reading and all will be good.

 

In fact if you ever want to know who is suspended and why just look in the Announcements forum where each one gets posted. If anyone says they are and it is not listed in there then they are talking crap, sorry.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

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.

Clearly I have misunderstood the process for disciplining contributors to the site. For some reason I thought that you as the owner of the site had the absolute authority to ban anyone you wanted to. My mistake. How you say it works makes perfect sense.

 

. . . Why would you come on here to push your agenda and attack the site . . .

I was not intending to attack the site by my few words "No right of appeal" - I was simply stating what I thought was a fact. It is good to know that I was operating under a misconception.

 

The main reason why board members don't come on here under their own name is that it is made very clear to new board members that they can not say anything here about RAAus and in fact that was reiterated to me in a recent meeting with the President and CEO.

Looks like I'll be in trouble then!

 

Of course nobody can speak for RAAus other than the President (as directed by the Board) or the CEO (as directed by the President) and I made that point clear on here quite recently. While we have an obligation to respect Confidentiality, we are able to assist forumites with clarifications if they are operating under a misconception. We can even express personal opinions as long as we are not going counter agreed policy and express them as individuals not as a Board Member.

 

Also how can you quote figures about who is here and the number of RAAus members that are here...do you have access to the site's database, I don't think so...so whilst you are stating numbers as fact you are only guessing and an example of misleading members to the realms of pure fiction.

Agree completely that the numbers I stated were as you say, guesses, but I think I did declare that what I was saying was speculation. Happy to have my guesswork replaced with reliable statistics. It was not the exact numbers that were important it was the principle that all RAAus Members should have equal access to "official" information from RAAus. What I write is of course not "official".

 

Now, if you choose to post on this site then please do so with common decency for the site/resource and respect for its members which you have no idea who is reading the content and what they are reading and all will be good.

I am obliged.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

If we didn't have Don posting here we would all be groping in the dark. Please don't drive him away. I still miss Dafydd.

 

 

[Admin]

If we didn't have Don posting here we would all be groping in the dark. Please don't drive him away. I still miss Dafydd.

Ask him back, as long as the site rules are abided by anyone can come here, I miss him to...it is extremely hard to split your views between having to enforce the rules whilst also having a personal opinion that differs from the rules but without rules we have anarchy and this is to good a resource to have that

 

 

[Russ]

"ask him back"............wouldn't that be yourself to engage with him. Somewhere here his last words were " see you all the bias here is too much "......something along those lines from my ageing memory. The guy was a deadset wealth of info, and keen to share it..........our loss.

 

( no intent of disrespect alluded to here )

 

 

[Admin]

Perhaps we have a Moritorium May campaign but remember people leave if they feel there are to many biased one way or another that doesn't suit their bias...we all have to learn to accept each other's views that may be different to our own...and simply just have fun without getting tied up in anything. Users only get suspensions if other users lodge formal complaints/reports.

 

 

[gandalph]

Way back in November 1973 I watched the late President Richard Nixon giving his infamous "I am not a crook" speech on television. I was at work and the speech was being televised live. My office had two TV sets going that day and they were tuned to different stations so that on one set Nixon's speech was running about 10 seconds behind the other. One bright spark looked at the tv's and said " A perfect example of Nixon, two faced as always". The office staff cracked up.

 

It's curious how a word or a phrase can bring a flash- like that.

 

I miss him too.

 

 

[Russ]

I for one, never ever, felt a "bias" to any side, was dafydd"s operandi. I did at times feel he was irritated by yobos "questioning" his informed replies tho. ( we had the "best" with him........then ??? p!ssed him off )..............a big loss

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Don, I thank you for your input to this thread. I find your posts informative and appreciate the time you take to argue your case so well. Cheers.

 

 

[octave]

I would also like to publicly thank Don, it can't be easy. Oh and I am just about to fill in my proxy form and I am intending to vote yes, unless someone can convince me that something terrible will happen if the yes vote passes. I could change my mind if I could be convinced that the system that brought us failed audits is better than the proposed system.