Why every aviator should act to swell AOPA membership

[DonRamsay]

I am unaware of which you write.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

There was zero input from RAAus and RAAus was unaware of the document until after its release.The RAAus Board Member who signed did so, no doubt meaning well but perhaps without being conscious of the implications of his mentioning that he was a Board Member of RAAus. AOPA have been asked to remove the reference to RAAus Board Member from the Eureka document.

 

The RAAus Board Member who signed the Eureka document is well supported at elections because he is a very able person with more aviation experience than perhaps anyone in Australia still flying.

It is a matter of fact that he is a RAAus board member. He did not sign "for and on behalf of RAAus".

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Yes ....... misusePreviously, its thought a highly damaging report was sent from an RAA board member using his title to add effect to the complaint. Subsequently fierce denials it occurred.

The effects are still being felt today with millions of dollars damage.

 

I assume at the least, the board was advised of the seriousness of this issue at the time.

 

I have no interest dragging it up again.

Can't say I'm slow even if only now I finally figure out what you were referring to. I wasn't on the Board at the time that matter blew up (exploded!) and appreciate you leaving it to RIP now as it was never to my knowledge proven to be the case and cannot be defended.

Board Members should be crystal that they do not speak for RAAus. Only the President (representing the agreed Board position) and the CEO (in consultation with the President) can present themselves as representing RAAus.

 

Don

 

 

[jetjr]

Yep

 

RAA board member is a role or position. It isnt a title to be used as some think to add value to their name

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

YepRAA board member is a role or position. It isnt a title to be used as some think to add value to their name

So when your local member of parliament sends a letter to the local paper he shoudn't sign it "Joe Bggs, member for Somewhere Else"?

 

 

[jetjr]

If you dont get it Jim, I cant help you.

 

The use of their position title would depend if commenting personally or on behalf of the electorate

 

In this case RAA didnt even know about it so was clearly a personal view.

 

Are you indicating RAA board memebers equal to Members of parliament?

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

My point is this. We elect members of Parliament and that election carries with it the implication that they represent their electorate. In reality, often less than 50% of the electorate voted for them. Whilst there is a presumption that the views they express are those of the political party they represent this may not always be the case and we all know this.

 

There have been many cases where people use their office holding to promote themselves, for example, in standing for local government or other elected postion. That they are a member of the Board of RA-Aus is simply a matter of fact. To conflate this with representing Ra-Aus is like saying that Nick Xenophon represents all South Australians.

 

If the Board were to decide as a group that no member of the Board should use the descriptor "Board Member" in any communication it may be a backward step as it would make them virtually invisible.

 

 

[jetjr]

Many would believe the eureka proposal should have been brought to RAA at least for discussion by the member before lending their name to it

 

 

[facthunter]

It's hard to disagree with that statement. If you sign something that has your status in an organisation included you should consider what policies may be involved. We don't know the process in place here to be fair, but SOMEONE has printed it so that's the final gatekeeper. Nev