Query to RAA CEO

[Oscar]

Seems your mutt has been well trained...

It's taken him several years to get me trained.... but he takes his 'Hangar dog' duties seriously, being both QA and Security for the re-build project. There's nothing quite like having your groin bunted hard while torquing down the engine mount bolts, to get your attention..

 

 

[coljones]

ANY systems designer of decent experience has had tattoed on their forehead the phrase: '95% complete, only 95% to go'. This applies to the proposed constitutional changes.The proposals for change are NOT an announcement of position - they are an announcement of a decision yet to be taken. Whatever the outcome - it won't - unless there is an unimaginably vast change in membership participation - be 'democratic' in the true sense, no matter WHAT the outcome. It will simply represent the majority view of those who could be ars%d to vote.

 

SO: assuming that 10,000 members is the correct number: if 5,001 vote for one side, THEN it is 'democratic'. If the majority vote for either side of this argument is LESS than 5,001, then what you are seeing is the the MAJORITY don't give an intercontinental supersonic fur-lined flying f$$k for democracy, or the composition of the Board.

 

One might be forgiven for assuming that they just want to get on with flying their airplane, probably legally, and possibly, safely.

 

So let's see what the vote brings to the table...

And, to your way of thinking, 99% don't give a flying $#^&@ if we continue with 13 people representing a wide range of attributes and domiciles. Some might even think it is a great thing that we have a constitution at all and are thanking Jim for getting the board straightened out on in which direction the earth lay.

I am a great opponent of Citizen Initiated Referenda because its proponents think complex issues can be reduced to a single saleable slogan but on the flip side I get a little sick of politicians and directors claiming all wisdom (a bit like Joh) and hiding behind rubbish like mandates and future elections to forestall any criticism about their behaviour and direction. If I were a shareholder I could sell my shares but I can't and so I have to depend on RAA (the monopoly) in order to continue flying. Those in charge when RAA was heading towards the cliff may well still get control of RAA in whatever jurisdiction we reside - even with ASIC and their wet cardboard truncheon hanging around.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

yep there's that eternal vigilance thing....good thing that the old constitution and the new constitution both require the same reasonable numbers for a member driven reset to occur.....I may be biased but the needs for that reset right at the moment seem remote and getting remoter......

 

But perhaps I trust too easily......only time will tell, however the current team have to know that having shown that the members cannot be ignored, it would be at their peril to then rinse and repeat and expect anything but the same outcome....

 

Andy

 

P.S as an exercise Google ASIC and prosecutions, and then google ORS and prosecutions....the first has any number of hits....wet cardboard truncheons not withstanding......the second other than as ACT's consumer affairs pretty much zip

 

 

[gandalph]

It's taken him several years to get me trained.... but he takes his 'Hangar dog' duties seriously, being both QA and Security for the re-build project. There's nothing quite like having your groin bunted hard while torquing down the engine mount bolts, to get your attention..

Well if the he's a QA dog and he gives you a bunt in the berries then he's obviously telling you you're doing it wrong. You should hire him out!

 

 

[Russ]

Well just maybe......Ol mate here enjoys the "mutt" rummaging around down there......just sayin....

 

 

[Oscar]

Russ, he's 42 kgs of Doberman, built by the guys who did Schwarzenegger from materials left over from Stonehenge, so when he gives you a 'heads-up', you head, up...

 

But if your idea of fun is jumping out of first floor windows onto a bicycle and missing the pedals with your feet, then he's your dog, all right... and being amazingly amiable, when you are rolling on the floor in agony, he'll lick your face in apology until it absolutely gleams. Life just doesn't get much better than this.... maybe we should send him off to cheer up the SASAO and get them in the right acquiescent frame of mind to sort out the Jaburi mess...

 

 

[Russ]

Ok...so the "mutt" is over weight (42kg) phew......it's that layin about, that causes that BTW........anyway bet he could spell jabiru better than yourself ...just sayin..

 

 

[Oscar]

Actually, he's not overweight for his height, he's a bloody large Doberman at nearly 30" at the shoulder -over the breed standard, though his pedigree is so good he'd never talk to me if he knew.. My vet says he's in exemplary nick; he hits nearly 40Kph up the farm drive... and he CAN probably spell Jabbibleroo better than I.

 

 

[-Rod-]

When the Board uses its power under the Constitution to increase it to 7.

I am most concerned this indicates an intention to increase the Board size to only 5 before the end of 2016.

 

If the new Constitution is accepted by RAA members I am sure all would expect to be hearing now that the new, 3 man, Board would be calling for a total of 7 board members to be elected before the end of 2016.

 

Rod Birrell

 

PS I have had a total failure of my only real computer so "grounded" electronically, my apoligies for not contributing to this most important debate. Typing without a conventional keyboard is sooooo slow, The debate is not occurring through RAA channels, nor is it allowed to occur.

 

 

[-Rod-]

For all RAAus members today is the day to vote on Constitution change if you are not to attend in Canberra in person (with your membership card).

 

My view is the proposed constitution is not ready, the adverse changes outweigh the positive changes. This constitution is to be introduced without RAAus member representatives full support (the current RAAus Board), in fact the Constitution itself was never signed off or voted on by the RAAus Board at all.

 

Please take the opportunity to vote, download the Proxy form, fill in your details with a current member number (it will be checked) and email to [email protected] to ensure delivery before 2.00 tomorrow (in other words if you have the time, do it today).

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The Special Resolution requires the Board to cause an election to be held that increases the Board numbers to no less than 5 members. There is nothing to stop the Board from increasing the number on the Board to the maximum of 7. No doubt we'll be discussing this in Canberra tomorrow, Rod.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . My view is the proposed constitution is not ready, the adverse changes outweigh the positive changes. This constitution is to be introduced without RAAus member representatives full support (the current RAAus Board), in fact the Constitution itself was never signed off or voted on by the RAAus Board at all. . . .

This is a little disingenuous Rod, when you consider the amount of time you have had to lobby for changes to the draft before it even went public, not to mention the six months since it was exposed nationally in October 2015. Instead, you leave it until it could not be changed before being put to a vote to oppose the reform.

 

I have written something like 3 pages of suggestions and questions on the draft I read after being elected to the Board with the result that either the draft was changed or I was convinced that it was OK as it was. I was completely satisfied with that process, a process that was open to you long before it was open to me.

 

The only thing that I have seen you express concern about is the reduction in the size of the Board to a maximum of 7 as that will cause you to face an election against all comers from all over Australia within a month or so of the transfer of incorporation from state to federal jurisdiction. If I want to remain on the new Board I will have to face exactly the same election that you would have to face at the same time as you.

 

Don

 

 

[frank marriott]

At this late stage why not wait until the outcome of the vote on Saturday?

 

Agree or not the outcome will decide what happens next.

 

 

[Oscar]

I have yet to see any convincing argument as to why 7 members of the Board will be better than 5. While 7 happens to be emotionally a favourite number for people of Anglo-saxon descent ( in the same way that 13 is considered unlucky), I have not seen ONE cogent argument linking 7 to a more effective result for the management of RAA. No reconciliation of desirable skills/qualities vs. a demostrable RAA necessity for such skills/qualities.

 

IF I were to be persuaded in my vote ( which I don't have, so I have no immediate dog in this fight) that 7 is magically a better number, I'd want to see argument with justification as to why. Personally, I think that a small Board comprised of well-qualified people to steer the RAA forward, has a better chance of achieving that aim, than a larger Board. I am open to being persuaded that I am wrong.

 

Now, before I am jumped upon for inconsistency - in that I have simply 'thought of a number', just as others have - let me state unequivocally that I don't believe it is NECESSARY for the administration of the RAA regulatory responsibilities to have ANY form of 'democratic' management of this function. If an alternative service company were to come forward, to offer me the ability to fly my recreational-class aircraft in compliance with all of the applicable regulations for registration, pilot certification etc. at a reduced cost, I would take that option. I would ALSO join with and put my cash contribution towards an organisation that promotes the 'interests' of recreational aviators, because we need that function.

 

In terms of being 'legally' allowed to fly - there is NO - I repeat, NO - requirement by CASA that any organisation to provide compliance services, be 'democratic'. CASA could not care less if RAA is run by Vlad the Impaler, as long as it discharges its compliance functions impeccably. That the existing, marvelously 'democratic' Board of 13 (??) completely failed to do that, is a matter of record.

 

That something of the order of 90% of RAA members can't be ar$ed to vote, is proof that 'democracy' within RAA is not valued. What I suggest IS valued, is a professional, competent and efficient compliance service.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Well I have waited as long as possible to see if anything would change my mind, now it is to late as I have just sent my proxy.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I have yet to see any convincing argument as to why 7 members of the Board will be better than 5. While 7 happens to be emotionally a favourite number for people of Anglo-saxon descent ( in the same way that 13 is considered unlucky), I have not seen ONE cogent argument linking 7 to a more effective result for the management of RAA. No reconciliation of desirable skills/qualities vs. a demostrable RAA necessity for such skills/qualities.

And I have seen no arguments to convince me that 5 or even 3 in the short term would be better than 7.

 

Whilst I can concede that 13 is to many I believe that 3-5 is to much to quick. I have no logical reason for that but I just feel as though it is being pushed to hard for not enough benefit.

 

Middle ground may have gottton my vote but then the proposed company structure still bothers me.

 

 

[-Rod-]

Don,

 

I do respect your work on the Constution, and I recognize and appreciate your previous efforts of, in a single handed way I expect, putting forward many previous changes to the current RAAus constitution.

 

I hope you will respect I have a different view to you on this matter. I believe RAAus members should vote for caution and not change the constitution at this stage.

 

Without a "no" case not being presented to RAAus members from within RAAus I expect the "no change"case will not receive sufficient support to cause any upset. You should have no concerns. In saying this it is important that a notable number of RAAus members show that they have a different view.

 

Rod

 

 

[Keith Page]

Don,I do respect your work on the Constution, and I recognize and appreciate your previous efforts of, in a single handed way I expect, putting forward many previous changes to the current RAAus constitution.

 

I hope you will respect I have a different view to you on this matter. I believe RAAus members should vote for caution and not change the constitution at this stage.

 

Without a "no" case not being presented to RAAus members from within RAAus I expect the "no change"case will not receive sufficient support to cause any upset. You should have no concerns. In saying this it is important that a notable number of RAAus members show that they have a different view.

 

Rod

Hello Rod,

The voting will be very interesting. You mentioned caution do not stress there is a lot caution and thinking out in the members ranks. One of their concerns is what will happen in the long term you know those situation we can not see and envisage until we are bitten. Yep Don has put a lot of work into the re- write but still not stop us from looking in the distance and laterally as Don says all good sailing ahead, will it be? Now how can it be when there are know corrections already.?

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

And I have seen no arguments to convince me that 5 or even 3 in the short term would be better than 7.Whilst I can concede that 13 is to many I believe that 3-5 is to much to quick. I have no logical reason for that but I just feel as though it is being pushed to hard for not enough benefit.

Middle ground may have gottton my vote but then the proposed company structure still bothers me.

I just want to illiminate the temptation of vote rigging with the three. Remember there are alterations to the constitution to happen, so where can that end up with three driving the alterations?

KP

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Yep I agree Keith leave it as it is to avoid 3 being in control and under no scrutiny...we sure would never want that......

 

Of course the fact that the current constitution enables exactly that today is irrelevant and distracting to this argument, just like it was when we had a board of 13 that did something...or nothing....and the 3 in the exec at the time managed us into near total collapse with CASA, while the other 10 watched...or didn't...as they saw fit...or whatever.....

 

You guys talk as though we are reducing.....(and that is the case in terms of cost) but the reality is that we are actually increasing because the clause that says today that 3 can manage when they feel they need to, disappears in the same way that the horse and buggy did..... 3 is replaced by 3 that relatively quickly grows to 5 or 7 where once in place all of the 5 or 7 are required for decisions to be made. Today 3 are required for decisions as per the constitution but the team in place has avoided, as far as I know, using that approach rather trying ( somewhat unsuccessfully at times due to poor individual board member performance) to involve everyone in the discussion....

 

The only real difference today is that we have 3, as the 3 that are more capable and are working for our benefit, in the past they probably also felt that they ticked those boxes but its my personal view that they were not and knew no better.

 

Fear Uncertainty and Deception FUD rules the debate...... What I've stated, however is based in fact and personal experience. Oscar summed it up nicely when he said what is in place today allowed us to nearly be destroyed in the past, the same could also be true in the future but never again should we see board members stand in front of a GM and state for the record that they had NO UNDERSTANDING of decisions made by the exec in isolation to them...That was absolutely the facts in the past under our current constitution.

 

Andy

 

 

[DonRamsay]

So, Keith you have now added fear of an uncertain future to suspicion of motives to eliminating temptations. I guess if you can't find any real or concrete to protest about, you ca always attack the ethereal: Suspicion, temptations and prognostications of doom.

 

I truly despair about ever having a logical debate when all issues raised are just soeculations and emotions.

 

 

[kasper]

Yep I agree Keith leave it as it is to avoid 3 being in control and under no scrutiny...we sure would never want that......Of course the fact that the current constitution enables exactly that today is irrelevant and distracting to this argument, just like it was when we had a board of 13 that did something...or nothing....and the 3 in the exec at the time managed us into near total collapse with CASA, while the other 10 watched...or didn't...as they saw fit...or whatever.....

 

You guys talk as though we are reducing.....(and that is the case in terms of cost) but the reality is that we are actually increasing because the clause that says today that 3 can manage when they feel they need to, disappears in the same way that the horse and buggy did..... 3 is replaced by 3 that relatively quickly grows to 5 or 7 where once in place all of the 5 or 7 are required for decisions to be made. Today 3 are required for decisions as per the constitution but the team in place has avoided, as far as I know, using that approach rather trying ( somewhat unsuccessfully at times due to poor individual board member performance) to involve everyone in the discussion....

 

The only real difference today is that we have 3, as the 3 that are more capable and are working for our benefit, in the past they probably also felt that they ticked those boxes but its my personal view that they were not and knew no better.

 

Fear Uncertainty and Deception FUD rules the debate...... What I've stated, however is based in fact and personal experience. Oscar summed it up nicely when he said what is in place today allowed us to nearly be destroyed in the past, the same could also be true in the future but never again should we see board members stand in front of a GM and state for the record that they had NO UNDERSTANDING of decisions made by the exec in isolation to them...That was absolutely the facts in the past under our current constitution.

 

Andy

The issue as I see it is not that 3 replaces 3 which on a daily overview of management is the case BUT that the other 10 we have at the moment that CAN and SHOULD be across what the 3 have done between meetings are removed.

The fact that years ago the 10 looked the other way or were basically incompetent (however you like to refer to what led us to near collapse) is seperate from the fact that the 10 we have NOW can review the actions of the 3 between meetings at meetings of the 13.

 

That oversight review is completely gone under the new constitution until first elections become effective and even then it only increases to 2 more ... and sorry but in simple maths 3 existing can outvote 2 additionals

 

AND there has been NO direct clarification of WHAT power under the constitution is actually going to be used to bring the additional 2 in as directors BEFORE then end of the first AGM some time in September 2017 ... there remain legitimate concerns

 

 

[kasper]

Oh and as its 2hrs and 30 minutes left till proxies close anyone not going in person tomorrow or having already sent in a proxy had best get a wriggle on ...

 

 

[Geoff13]

Everyone keeps saying that it was the current constitution that got us into the mess we were in.

 

That is patently incorrect.

 

It was the people that got us into the mess.

 

The old constitution allowed the membership to step up and fix the problem.

 

In that sense the old constitution worked as designed.

 

No constitutionhowever good it is will overcome bad managers, but one has been shown to work for the members and by the members.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The old constitution allowed individuals with almost no support other than a few local mates to get into positions of power. People who had no experience or understanding of good governance. I want the right to vote for ALL board members.