Query to RAA CEO

[Admin]

Well Don, I am going home for the weekend so I will have other things on my mind so you can have a rest from me attacking everything

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Well Don, I am going home for the weekend so I will have other things on my mind so you can have a rest from me attacking everything

Have a good one!

 

Don

 

 

[Oscar]

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...

 

 

[Geoff13]

Geoff, if it is not too annoying for you, could you succinctly list the particular issues you have with the draft Constitution and I will respond with whether we can agree or agree to disagree.Regards,

Don

Don you have answered most of my queries, as they mostly reflect the opinions of others who have been vocal in this and other threads.

 

Although you have answered them I do not agree with your answers.

 

My 3 main problems are:-

 

1. I strongly oppose the change of company structure. I have seen your take on it and simply don't buy it. I have seen another member based organisation go down this path and it failed miserably.

 

2. The number of Directors should be set at a Minimum of 7 for the first 2 years (remember we are cutting from 13. 13 to 3/5 is to much to soon.) with an election to be held within 6 weeks from passing of the resolution and directors to immediately take up appointment after the vote. (There could be an option for that to decrease to 5 after 2 years, unless the members vote to hold it at 7). Many like me are happy to decrease the number but down to 3 and maybe 5 is not acceptable.

 

3. The members charter and disciplinary process needs to be part of the constitution, not an add on that can be change at the whim of a few directors. Both also need time for consideration and consultation. We are just today seeing the draft disciplinary process, with no time to consider it or have input into it. Even now it is a draft, and we are voting to approve it. Not going to happen, not by me. Show us the members charter and disciplinary process, tie it to the constitution and then give us time to consider it.

 

As I have said I am not against change per se. I am however against change without the complete detail and to be honest I do not feel there has been due consultation.

 

So I am afraid that at this time I will have to vote against all 6 resolutions even though I am convinced that change is needed.

 

I do not think from past experience that I could be convinced to change the company structure to the one proposed under any circumstances.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don you have answered most of my queries, as they mostly reflect the opinions of others who have been vocal in this and other threads. Although you have answered them I do not agree with your answers.

Geoff, thanks for writing this it is helpful in understanding why a person I think is a considered thinker comes to the a conclusion different to, until very recently, a 13 person Board that's been working on this for the last 18 months.

 

My 3 main problems are:-1. I strongly oppose the change of company structure. I have seen your take on it and simply don't buy it. I have seen another member based organisation go down this path and it failed miserably.

This is a matter of judgement and experience counts in forming judgement. I respect your judgement and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd be interested in the causes of the failure you mention - might help RAAus to avoid a similar fate. I, personally, could never support RAAus remaining an Incorporated Association under the ORS.

 

2. The number of Directors should be set at a Minimum of 7 for the first 2 years (remember we are cutting from 13. 13 to 3/5 is to much to soon.) with an election to be held within 6 weeks from passing of the resolution and directors to immediately take up appointment after the vote. (There could be an option for that to decrease to 5 after 2 years, unless the members vote to hold it at 7). Many like me are happy to decrease the number but down to 3 and maybe 5 is not acceptable.

Well, one thing is for sure that we've never, in my experience had a 13 active member Board. Apart from the fact that some are just happy to carry the title "Board Member", the three person Board Exec has a delegation from the full Board to act for the Board between the two face-to-face Board Meetings. The Exec does 95% of the governance and top level decision making. Under the reform, we would typically have 5 Board Members involved in every Board decision.

Again though we get back to a matter of judgement. Yours, for good reason, says 7, some others have argued for 6 and some say 5. Then there is the idea that we start at 5 and go to 7 if there is some demonstrated need to, or advantage in having 7.

 

Under the reform proposal, 5 to 7 not 3 will be the norm. Without the reform, we will remain an organisation that is run mostly by just three - the Exec. Personally I'd be comfortable with 5 or 6 or 7 but remaining at 13 with postcode voting is, for me, the stuff of nightmares.

 

Again, I guess we will have to agree to disagree

 

3. The members charter and disciplinary process needs to be part of the constitution, not an add on that can be change at the whim of a few directors. Both also need time for consideration and consultation. We are just today seeing the draft disciplinary process, with no time to consider it or have input into it. Even now it is a draft, and we are voting to approve it. Not going to happen, not by me. Show us the members charter and disciplinary process, tie it to the constitution and then give us time to consider it.

Geoff, the Constitution is already some 67 Clauses long. The disputes/disciplinary procedure is about that size again. The Members Charter is not a small document. Jam all these into the Constitution and it starts looking like a Sydney phone book. By tripling the size of the Constitution document the one certain thing you would achieve is that most ordinary (sane) members will never look at it. They would have difficulty knowing that the Members Charter and Disciplinary/disputes procedure were even in there.

 

I could accept the Members Charter requiring a Special Resolution to be amended and that requirement could be seen as an enhancement of Members Rights. If anything, I think it too early to have our first ever Members Charter being that inflexible. Perhaps with a few years experience with a Charter we would be in a position to do that but, at the moment we don't have one at all. What we do have is a badly worded constitution that is better suited to a bridge club than a 10,000 member aviation body.

 

As I have said I am not against change per se. I am however against change without the complete detail and to be honest I do not feel there has been due consultation.So I am afraid that at this time I will have to vote against all 6 resolutions even though I am convinced that change is needed. I do not think from past experience that I could be convinced to change the company structure to the one proposed under any circumstances.

(Strictly speaking there is only one Special Resolution sub-paragraphs were numbered to make it easier to reference what part of the SR you were talking about.)

Thanks again Geoff for taking the trouble to set down your concerns so coherently.

 

In the end, I keep coming back to the worry that we could be stuck, indefinitely, with no reform because we can't get agreement to do any reform. The indefinitely could become a very long time because if we fail to achieve it this time the desire for reform could just fade away and we'll be stuck in the mud.

 

But, that's the democratic process and we must all accept the outcome or else it is just chaos.

 

 

[gandalph]

Don!

 

12.26am!!

 

GET SOME SLEEP !

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Hmmm . . . the definition of "ironic": advice from an owl about limiting nocturnal activity.

 

 

 

[storchy neil]

trust is what is lacking one little 5 letter word but in my humble opinion is what this it is all about

 

the shit I personally when through with getting some one to listen at raa about the state off repair off my aircraft only two at the top called me personally and they where tossed out

 

accountability is not on the top of the list you do as I say or piss off

 

what is wrong with change nothing as long as it does not bring us undone can we as members trust three blokes to do the changes the way that I am reading apparently not

 

trust is needed new ideas needed input from all is needed and most off all a new constitution that we as members can trust the persons at the top to abide by it neil

 

 

[pmccarthy]

trust is what is lacking one little 5 letter word but in my humble opinion is what this it is all aboutthe **** I personally when through with getting some one to listen at raa about the state off repair off my aircraft only two at the top called me personally and they where tossed out

accountability is not on the top of the list you do as I say or piss off

 

what is wrong with change nothing as long as it does not bring us undone can we as members trust three blokes to do the changes the way that I am reading apparently not

 

trust is needed new ideas needed input from all is needed and most off all a new constitution that we as members can trust the persons at the top to abide by it neil

Neil I agree. I have voted yes because I think the proposed changes are all good, but I would have had trouble doing so if I didn't trust the current directors and management. I don't know them all, but I've seen enough to believe there is a majority of sensible and honest people who have done a lot of work for us. Can't say the same for all past directors and management.

 

 

[Oscar]

I don't think there is ANY constitution that could be guaranteed to be proof against serious abuse of trust (I think it is fairly obvious that the current one had holes that certain people drove tanks through!), so to a degree it will come back to, members making a judgement on the quality and good faith of the Executive Committee - in particular.

 

To slightly abuse an old saw about seeking tio unravel crimes: 'where's the money?' In this case, I'd suggest that you can replace 'money' with 'personal advantage'. What real 'personal advantage' can a Board Member gain by manipulating the operation of RAA? Perhaps someone with an obvious financial interest in some aspect of rec. aviation - say, the operation of a maintenance facility or FTF - could skew things their way, but I don't see - since the CAOs are the foundation of the applicable regs. with perhaps some tinkering around the edges left for RAA - that RAA members are ever truly likely to be chasing a Board member who has suddenly decamped to the Cayman Islands with an inexplicable fortune in hand leaving RAA coffers emptied out. I don't think there is a potential Clive Palmer-sized hole in Board appointments...

 

 

[storchy neil]

I don't think there is a potential Clive Palmer-sized hole in Board appointments...or vic liberal party to please his wife neil

 

 

[Yenn]

I have voted No because the constitution seems to be a rushed job, not satisfactory as it stands. If it had been amended and made acceptable I would have voted Yes. Why the great hurry? It should have been corrected before we are expected to vote on it.

 

 

[Russ]

Mail to dick..........what ya rekin pal, all's honkey doorey?? .....proceed as is, fix later....or wait till she's right.

 

Me.......iv'e got no issues with the principle of upgrading the constitution etc, good move, but the revamped x ?? times, do'es worry me tho, especially when each revamp starts to leak.

 

Moving forward here..........I've got no answers. The "yes" vote is my thinking tho.

 

 

[Oscar]

Russ, I don't have ANY answer to that. As I said early in ONE of the threads on this subject, since I'm not a current member, I haven't seen all of the stuff coming from RAA, and it certainly seems that what I am assuming has been a genuine attempt to provide on-going information as these changes have been developed, has resulted in people becoming unsure if this has proceeded in an orderly and well-thought out manner. That may - or may not - have been a good strategy; consultation will always produce a wide range of responses and without a vote, there is no genuine way to assess whether those responses are truly indicative of the 'democratic' process, or simply an example of 'squeaky wheels making the most noise'. And by saying the latter, I do NOT intend to denigrate the opinions of those on either side of the debate.

 

It's never going to be the case that ALL members of RAA agree that 'she's right'. That's the nature of democratic process! One only has to look at the range of opinions on ANY of the hot topic issues for our Federal Government to see that any proposition gets responses ranging across a wide spectrum... and ultimately, with our 'democratic' process, the vote will tell how acceptable the grab-bag of policies from any side is acceptable to the populace.

 

I have to say, that I consider Don Ramsay's continual flow of information to be admirable, in terms of effort at the very, very least. I personally have a slightly different view of what I'd like to see as the composition of the RAA management, and I believe that RAA could benefit from even more radical change to its whole operational milieu than is being proposed, but I do think that the general thrust of the proposed changes is positive for the future of RAA. If I had a vote - which I don't - I'd vote YES, and then become involved in the process of fine-tuning the result through the use of Special Resolutions etc. I DO believe that the current form of RAA has proven to be both expensive and regressive, and it has led to serious (and expensive) problems for members. Is there anybody who would promote the Runciman/Tizzard regime as 'good' for RAA? Those who appreciate the history of RAA will know that a major quantity of the serious f$ck-ups with things like CASA audits and financial control and the extremely high exposure to vastly expensive legal matters (a bullet only dodged due to a fortuitous Judicial ruling) were facilitated by a Constitution that allowed such matters to happen.

 

From what I have seen, my personal position is that the propositions to come before members of RAA are - on balance - an improvement. If I were a member - and I will shortly become one again - I will want to see refinements. But - most of all - I will want to see that the organisation is operating in an efficient and competent manner so that whenever I take off, I can have confidence that I am doing so legally and safely. And - I'd like to have that situation achieved at the lowest possible cost for the service.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've seen it all Oscar;

 

• ego is the number one problem, particularly people who have not been promoted in their workplaces; they make up for it with a vengeance in Associations. There's a saying "Give aa Australian a title and a blazer with his name sewn on, and he'll take on the world."
   
   
  
• Jealously/clique, where someone will be voted in to keep someone else out, or duds will be voted in so the "Secret Two, or Three" can run things their way.
   
   
  
• Control; some people just want to "run" the organisation and be seen to run it whether they have any skills or not, and they frequently put the real workers down to ensure their own position is safe.
   
   
  
• Money; one club in our Association had run short of money, there had been a few thefts from the clubrooms, and the old girl who was president asked us to help, throw in money etc. until one day a club member called in unannounced and there we the club fridge, the club deep freeze wit several years worth of beer/sausages and other canteen equipment, and the police subsequently found that about $30,000 in funds had been spirited away to her bank........but she was the loveliest person to deal with, ran race meetings light clockwork, and had a great safety record.
   
   
  

 

 

And the list goes on and on and on.

 

That's why I like to see:

 

• Financials getting better and better over the years
   
   
  
• All safety/risk management in place and operating
   
   
  
• Most "jobs" done on time
   
   
  
• A strong and growing support base of members, happy with the way their Association is being managed.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[David Isaac]

Cant argue with that Tubz. I am sure we all want what you would like to see.

 

 

[gandalph]

I don't think there is a potential Clive Palmer-sized hole in Board appointments...

I'm not sure they still make holes that big.....

 

 

[gandalph]

That's why I like to see:

• Financials getting better and better over the years
   
   
  
• All safety/risk management in place and operating
   
   
  
• Most "jobs" done on time
   
   
  
• A strong and growing support base of members, happy with the way their Association is being managed.
   
   
  

I agree Turbs! (That doesn't happen very often, best put a mark on your calendar! )

 

And I think the Association, under the current management, is achieving or at the very least striving towards achieving those 4 critical goals.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Pretty sure CASA wants those things as well.....which is why they are pretty satisfied with the current team....words count for something...delivery counts for everything!

 

 

[gandalph]

If I were a member - and I will shortly become one again -

Before May 14th?

 

 

[Oscar]

Turbs, if you want to look at the 'ego' question, those who know the history of RAA from its transition from the AUF will point a finger at one individual in particular. Someone who came TO RAA from a very unspectacular career in CASA - not one who left RAA and joined CASA. The current Constitution did nothing to prevent that happening, and frankly, without examining it in detail, I am not sure that the proposed changes will do a lot to change that situation.

 

HOWEVER: though I have NOT examined the details, I suspect that the law actually allows more avenue for redress for inadequate (or worse) performance for Directors of a company than it does for members of the Board of an Association. I happily yeild the field here to those with better knowledge. If that is the case, then I suggest that there is more safeguarding of Member interests in the proposed new form for RAA, than exists at the moment.

 

 

[Oscar]

Before May 14th?

Nope. I have no dog in this fight.... and my dog shows no inclination to want to fly anyway, though he does enjoy sleeping in a place that is precisely calculated to provide the most inconvenience to people working on my aircraft..

 

 

[Oscar]

I'm not sure they still make holes that big.....

Not since Chicxulub - but you might take note that Clive's Dinosaurs have ceased to operate..

 

 

[Russ]

I'm not sure they still make holes that big.....

Maybe not today.....but who knows further down the track.

 

 

[Russ]

Nope. I have no dog in this fight.... and my dog shows no inclination to want to fly anyway, though he does enjoy sleeping in a place that is precisely calculated to provide the most inconvenience to people working on my aircraft..

Seems your mutt has been well trained...