Why I will be voting AGAINST the new constitution

[Admin]

Octave, i believe there is no relationship between the failed audits and the proposed vhanges. The failed audits can still happen

 

 

[frank marriott]

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

I think the main offenders have left or at least gone quiet (although now I think about it maybe I put them on my ignor list as just don't see their posts).

 

 

[octave]

Octave, i believe there is no relationship between the failed audits and the proposed vhanges. The failed audits can still happen

All I want to know is what bad things will or could happen if the yes vote is successful?????

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Same people in charge, just with less checks and balances

 

 

[octave]

Same people in charge, just with less checks and balances

Interesting could you please detail the differences between the present checks and balances as opposed to the checks and balances if the yes vote is carried? I have not filled in my proxy vote yet so you may be able to convince me.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The basic check is the numbers, with 12 you need 7 ppl to agree with 6-7 you only need 4.

 

 

[octave]

The basic check is the numbers, with 12 you need 7 ppl to agree with 6-7 you only need 4.

So 12 is optimal then?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

So 12 is optimal then?

No mate, 20 is better. With 20 you need 11 ppl to agree, with 12 you only need 7

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I reckon we need to do away with directors and just use the 10,000 members. I can absolutely guarantee then that no bad decision will ever be made.

 

In fact I'd guess that no decision of any type will ever be made but at least we'll be protected from poor decisions...........

 

Might be a bit squeezy though in HQ when we all need to gather there......

 

 

[fly_tornado]

No but put it this way in late 2012 the board was under extreme scrutiny, mid december the board released the financials late and there was a thread on this forum, I noticed that the revenues of the RAA where way out, like 250K missing. So Andy contacted a board member who was sympathetic to the idea that the board was under performing, that board member did some basic research into the financials, which exposed that the RAA was over reporting the number of members.

 

That was the start of the end for the old board. Would the board allow that to happen now? Most likely not. I asked about the MARAP decision and hit a brick wall.

 

The larger the board, the more likely you will have a conflict, which is good for the members when the board runs off the rails.

 

 

[octave]

Octave, i believe there is no relationship between the failed audits and the proposed vhanges. The failed audits can still happen

Not saying that it can't happen but I am just wondering if the new system would be any worse than the old system and again I ask what bad things will or could happen if the yes vote is successful? This is a genuine question.

 

 

[Fishla]

I just attended the meeting with the President and CEO at Devonport.

 

After speaking with them and understanding their decision making I have cast my proxy vote as a YES.

 

I suggest everyone attend similar meetings in their own neck of the woods.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So Fishla, what is stopping the board from making great decisions now? I really can't see how the current structure can be causing so many performance issues

 

 

[coljones]

I reckon we need to do away with directors and just use the 10,000 members. I can absolutely guarantee then that no bad decision will ever be made.In fact I'd guess that no decision of any type will ever be made but at least we'll be protected from poor decisions...........

 

Might be a bit squeezy though in HQ when we all need to gather there......

Andy, now that you are not burdened by the board you might like to watch "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer". Some might question my viewing habits but it was a movie staring Peter Cook (and I am sure Dudley Moore) with Ronny Corbet thrown in (as one does). A bitter comedic view of democracy and how it can be used to grind down a gullible electorate.

Throw decision making out to 10,000 members - not a real good idea as it will descend to the 100 activists and quite a few of those are in hiding along with their own secret agendas.

 

Don is unable, or unwilling, due to libel laws I am sure, to really tell us who the no hopers on the board are and there is nothing in the new arrangements that will raise the veil. It will, again, be a beauty contest except for a max of 7 (as the board might grant) rather than 13.

 

 

[David Isaac]

...... It will, again, be a beauty contest......

and some aint so pretty ... LOL

[DWF]

Not saying that it can't happen but I am just wondering if the new system would be any worse than the old system and again I ask what bad things will or could happen if the yes vote is successful? This is a genuine question.

Firstly, I agree with the general direction and philosophy of the current Board and what they are trying to achieve.

 

The current constitution needs updating; I am comfortable with the move to a Limited company and I applaud the reduction in the number of Board members and the changes to procedure and voting system for Directors.

 

 

 

The problem I have is with the details in the proposed constitution and its appendages (some of which we have not yet seen).

 

Despite the claims that members have been consulted I do not think it has been done widely enough or for long enough as there are still IMHO big holes in it - especially with the Objects and with the powers of the Directors (as expressed in many of the clauses). See my detailed comments at post 184.

 

I think the process has been pushed too quickly and the proposed constitution, and especially its appendages, is not yet at an acceptable standard.

 

 

 

The Executive (and Board to a lesser extent) have put a lot of time and effort into getting these changes through. I do not think that if the Special Resolution does not pass on 14 May that they will give up.

 

I expect (and hope) that if the NO vote prevails this time there will be more consultation and amendments and a revised document and SR will be presented to members for a vote - probably at the AGM in October 16.

 

 

 

If the YES vote prevails on 14 May then I foresee several years of fiddling with the constitution to get it near right and much waste of time and effort - or, if apathy strikes, we will be left with a dodgy constitution open to manipulation (despite the protests of Don and others to the contrary) by disreputable directors should that situation arise.

 

 

 

My suggestion is to vote NO now.

 

Get the constitution (and the Member's Charter and Disciplinary Rights and Procedures) up to scratch.

 

Then vote in a new constitution and system that is going to work for us, the members, in the long term.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[Keith Page]

I just attended the meeting with the President and CEO at Devonport.After speaking with them and understanding their decision making I have cast my proxy vote as a YES.

 

I suggest everyone attend similar meetings in their own neck of the woods.

Of course they will have their argument stacked to say they are making the greatest decision in the world.

They would not be running about saying they have made a very bad decision.

 

Still does not get away from the fact that the constitution needs alteration.

 

We do not start a journey with falts in our plan.

 

We start with a correct plan.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

If a no vote got up, I suspect it would be several years before volunteers would bother to try again. I also predict the demise of the organisation within a few years and the end of our flying privileges.

 

 

[Fishla]

So Fishla, what is stopping the board from making great decisions now? I really can't see how the current structure can be causing so many performance issues

I suggest you speak with them yourself.

 

I think you've already made a few wise cracks that show you have some idea already.

 

Three words. Conflict of interest.

 

 

[Admin]

If a NO vote wins I will be the first to put my hand up to assist in any way I can including the use of this site as one of the tools this time to communicate and consult to get a new constitution created that the majority are happy with as fast as possible, I give you my word on this. So, let's get it right by voting NO

 

 

[Fishla]

Of course they will have their argument stacked to say they are making the greatest decision in the world.They would not be running about saying they have made a very bad decision.

Still does not get away from the fact that the constitution needs alteration.

 

We do not start a journey with falts in our plan.

 

We start with a correct plan.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

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.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

The local council here is an object lesson in the failures of democracy. We have a council CEO who it paid $360,000 a year and was just given a $120,000 car. The mayor is openly trying for a parlimentary seat. Now you would think the voting ratepayers who are paying would chuck this lot out, but all they need to do at election time is to spend several thousand on advertising to get back in.

 

Surely RAAus has a smarter electorate than our council.

 

I must say that I was shocked to learn that there was once an attempt to shut this site down... what possible reason could there be?

 

And Don, your presence here is really appreciated.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I suggest you speak with them yourself.I think you've already made a few wise cracks that show you have some idea already.

 

Three words. Conflict of interest.

So the staff and the board are always in some sort of conflict. You can't get away from it, consider that the natural career option for the tech manager after RAA is going to work for CASA. Does the tech manager fight CASA and risk a better paying job in the future? No, he ensures the RAA members are part of CASA's empty skies policy.

 

Limiting board members to 2 terms would see most of the deadwood removed.

 

 

[kasper]

If a NO vote wins I will be the first to put my hand up to assist in any way I can including the use of this site as one of the tools this time to communicate and consult to get a new constitution created that the majority are happy with as fast as possible, I give you my word on this. So, let's get it right by voting NO

And my hand will be up as well. There is nothing that has ever stopped the board from asking/coopting general members into working groups on items that ultimately come from the board to the membership like this exercise ... its just that we have not previously opted for this.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Limiting board members to 2 terms would see most of the deadwood removed.

Or, FT ... Change one lot of dead wood for another. Any Board of Directors is only ever as good as the quality of the nominees and the intelligence or apathy of the elecotrate. Changing the whole board at any single time is potentially disastrous. 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.