Query to RAA CEO

[Guest Andys@coffs]

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.

Actually Geoff the constitution as it stood at the time did not allow anyone to fix the problem, rather a group of concerned members, the vast majority of which are in the current board, got together and made the necessary changes to the existing constitution so that we the members could then step in and make the changes. From memory it was nearly 2 years from when a group of us got together and agreed that the then current team had to go...... I agree that no words in isolation will ever make humans behave a particular way, if they were keen to ignore words A then words B will equally be ignored......

 

But Kaspers assertion that the 10 other board members could have and should have stepped up and done the right thing is conceptually right, but technically wrong. Today the exec can make decisions and enact them without the rest of the board being aware or involved until the next face to face board meeting...... He is correct that a board member keen to do the right thing will never allow such decisions to remain undetected until the next board meeting, but we know for a fact that the few board members of the 13 at the time that wanted to do the right thing were isolated and prevented from finding out what was occurring...it was only that one of them, who was part of the group of concerned members brought pressure collectively to bear after nearly 12 months to unmask the disasters. I don't believe that people truly understand how close we were to disaster, I don't believe CASA would have allowed the organsiation to become insolvent rather they would have acted in advance of the failing and we know that they were within mm of making that move. If CASA moved to remove RAAus as an RAAO it is unlikely that a seemless transfer to another org would have occurred, or that a seamless transfer to CASA administration would have occurred. It was in our determination at the time likely that members would be unable to fly for at least 12 months and likely longer.......We also felt that while we were the few crying in the wilderness that the cry would have grown to howls amongst the membership......but all at a time too late.

 

I agree that the current document will need further revision, but I want it in place as soon as possible, the current board, as a majority, are in effect working for our greater good, lets make the change while they are and will continue to be in place, trying to make such a change when the last team, or the next, were in place would be likely impossible. we as a result of good luck rather than good management had a large financial surplus to tide us over for the years required to force the change...unfortunately that is unlikely to be the case next time because that surplus has dwindled as a result of the poor/no management stance taken in the past.

 

In some regards I get frustrated that other here cant see that, but at least, I hope, the vast majority of you will vote either for or against......which puts you and I in the great minority...most within RAAus will sail on blissfully unaware of anything here, but I'm sure if grounded would scream loudly.......when its all too late

 

Andy

 

 

[Geoff13]

Andy I did refer to the current constitution as it stands now not what we had.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy I did refer to the current constitution as it stands now not what we had.

Geoff, you said "The old constitution allowed the membership to step up and fix the problem."

 

Which is technically correct, and anyone not aware of the past history would suspect that the membership decided and got on with it....my point was that from the time we determined change was required to change was enacted was years in the making.....Years which we couldn't afford today....which may well be moot because the changes are made.....

 

But its still the reality that we are replacing 3 with 3 that grows to 5 or 7. If we take Kaspers point that 3 should be overseen by 10 others then its up to you to determine if 3 overseen by 10 others up to 6 months later is better or worse than 5 or 7 acting together immediately.....I guess its no surprise that I like the later better.

 

I don't believe any facts have been stretched or abused in the making of this post

 

Andy

 

 

[kasper]

Today the exec can make decisions and enact them without the rest of the board being aware or involved until the next face to face board meeting

And what I said is not in conflict with the bold underline - Yes the exec today can and do manage between meetings BUT at the next board meeting the other 10 can review those decisions (particularly if they have a public impact like say for example expanding inspections on homebuilts from 1 to 4 in a draft tech manual) and of course if there was contention on the actions of the 3 they alone could not hold a vote put to the 13

Compare that with the new constitution - the 3 can make decision ... and the next board meeting will still have just those three ... and even if it expands to 5 the 3 with titles Chair, Treasurer and Secretary hats basically run it and those 3 together can outvote the other 2 ... and its not until you get up to 7 in total that the non-'exec' board members are no longer numerically inferior to the exec board members ... legit concern

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Fair enough, I understand your point, but suggest that the 2 that may vote against the 3 are at least aware of the issue...if its shonky I doubt they will happily just sit on it......Nor should they ever accept decisions being made without their involvement, a decision isn't binding on the org until its been taken formally....

 

But I understand and respect your view, and I can see why you may not be as happy with the current team as I am.....

 

 

[kasper]

Fair enough, I understand your point, but suggest that the 2 that may vote against the 3 are at least aware of the issue...if its shonky I doubt they will happily just sit on it......Nor should they ever accept decisions being made without their involvement, a decision isn't binding on the org until its been taken formally....But I understand and respect your view, and I can see why you may not be as happy with the current team as I am.....

Its got nothing to do with the current TEAM ...its about not setting up a structure that allows an appearance of or potential for the voting limitations that I outline ... nothing against the current team, its not in any way personal its all about the structure and the appearance/operations that it could allow.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Andy play semantics all you like but the current constitution is the old one. That is the one we are being asked to replace with a new as yet unproven one that has been shown to have flaws.

 

 

[Yenn]

Abdy. If by the current document, you mean the proposed new constitution, I am with you, it does need amendments.

 

What I cannot understand is the great rush to get it passed and then amend it. I would prefer it to be amended before we have to vote on it. That is not going to happen, hence I have voted against it. In would really have liked to vote Yes, but not for a flawed document.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

If you blokes waited for a woman to be perfect before asking her out you would lead a lonely life. I have voted for improvement but don't expect perfection immediately.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

laws are expected to be written in stone to provide certainty not sort of dribbled out at the leisure of the executive.

 

The last thing on Don's mind post change will be fixing the mistakes the members have discovered.

 

Again he will be saying "Look, if you were unhappy with the new rules, why did you vote for them?"

 

 

[octave]

The last thing on Don's mind post change will be fixing the mistakes the members have discovered.

Phil, how the hell do you know what is on Don's mind?

 

Perhaps if you care so much about RA AUS you should actually join and then you could vote or even stand for election to the board.

 

 

[Oscar]

laws are expected to be written in stone to provide certainty not sort of dribbled out at the leisure of the executive.

And that is complete and utter Bullsh1t. Every piece of legislation that is passed by Parliament, may come under consideration by the High Court - and be ruled invalid.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Abdy. If by the current document, you mean the proposed new constitution, I am with you, it does need amendments.What I cannot understand is the great rush to get it passed and then amend it. I would prefer it to be amended before we have to vote on it. That is not going to happen, hence I have voted against it. In would really have liked to vote Yes, but not for a flawed document.

I think the amount of time that Don and others have been working on this couldn't be described as being a "rush" job, However releasing the first draft for comment to the greater populace was maybe left a little long BUT where do you draw the line?

IMO if everything was sent out to us members right at the start to get our thoughts then everything would come to a standstill. We have to let the board do the job that we vote them in for otherwise we will get nowhere yes yes consultation is important but just where should the line be drawn?

 

I think that a lot of work has been done on this new constitution, I don't think we would be as far along as we are if we all got to see a draft a year ago.

 

Does it still have mistakes? I don't know, I'm too lazy to read it all.

 

Should we fix the mistakes now or implement it and then amend? I think the vote will decide that for us, if it passes then we amend out the mistakes as we go forward and if it fails to get up then we need to make the amendments before putting it up again. Simple really.

 

I think from what I see that the majority of those voting NO still agree that we need to update our constitution so I do hope that if it does fail to get up that Don and others who have been working so hard on this don't get disheartened and keep working on it to get it right.

 

 

[gandalph]

laws are expected to be written in stone to provide certainty not sort of dribbled out at the leisure of the executive.

A: Factually WRONG. (Surprise!)

 

The last thing on Don's mind post change will be fixing the mistakes the members have discovered.

B: Unfounded speculation AND an unwarranted personal attack on a respected contributor

 

Again he will be saying "Look, if you were unhappy with the new rules, why did you vote for them?"

C: see B above.

Ian. This is the second time FT has made these unfounded slights and personal attacks on Don's ethics his character and his motives. I know Don won't complain so I will on his behalf.

 

I know it's still Moratorium May but I thought personal attacks were frowned upon by you and the Mods. Why have you allowed this rubbish to remain on the site? Or is that a rhetorical question?

 

Rubbish like his devalues both the arguments put forward by reasonable members on both sides of the debate and the site. What a shame.

 

 

[turboplanner]

However releasing the first draft for comment to the greater populace was maybe left a little long BUT where do you draw the line?

You don't ask how they want their pork done, you ask them what they would like to eat; you start consulting at the beginning, not the end.

 

Reading back over the threads on this, you can see how the focus was on quite a narrow band of issues relating to a completed (with errors) constitution/change of structure to a company.

 

That way, you get the commitment of the members to a justified change, and you keep going in steps with less and less disagreement.

 

If the consultation was started at the beginning, people would have been focused on the foundations of, if, and where change was needed. Now, if the whole change is a croc, but it gets up, it's going to take months if not years to unscramble the egg. The Constitution might be a small change, but the organization structure is not.

 

If you think about the current set of hot potatoes which, one way or the other, have to be addressed; from safety to specifications to operations to representation, what's actually been put up for a vote is interesting in terms of addressing these management subjects.

 

While local Councils vary in standards, they are a good example of how Consultation is expected to work these days; it is far better to have ideas torn apart looking for flaws at the very beginning, than realising too late that the mistakes thought to be minor, were not.

 

 

[coljones]

What legislation is without flaw. It might pass the high court test, it might struggle over the pub test but fall foul of the P&C test. Nothing is ever perfect but on balance this proposed constitution does no harm.

 

In general, I am supportive of the role that Don has played in rightsiding the organisation and very happy that he has had the energy to carry through. I am a bit leary of his proposal to reduce the size of the board, his mad clammering to engage with the toothless tiger, ASIC, hang out with the creeps who infest the dark corners of Corporate Australia, and his fear of spending 2/6 on a second set of accounts for our ACN.

 

I have sat down and thought about it and find that the major reason I have for voting against the new constitution would be churlishness. I think RAA has had enough of that to last for the next 50 years.

 

 

[gandalph]

You don't ask how they want their pork done, you ask them what they would like to eat; you start consulting at the beginning, not the end.

To carry your dining analogy forward I'd suggest that you decide what you want to eat then you choose restaurant. Having done that, you trust the kitchen staff to prepare the meal you've chosen.

I think the membership chose what they wanted way back at the Queanbeyan special meeting. They then chose (elected) the chefs. The Chefs took the extraordinary step of holding meetings around the country asking how members wanted the meal cooked and what ingredients they wanted included. They even sent out a series of newsletters to all potential customers explaining what was going into the meal and the way is was being prepared. Now as the meal is about to be served the critics from the Michelin guide arrive and complain that it's not how they'd do it and that everyone should have had a hand in the cooking.

 

You know what they say about too many cooks.....

 

 

[jetjr]

A camel is a horse designed by a comittee.

 

Oo and another one

 

A duck can run, swim and fly but does none of them well.

 

 

[Russ]

A camel is a horse designed by a comittee.Oo and another one

A duck can run, swim and fly but does none of them well.

the ducks out there, would be insulted by that. ( i will opologise to them on your behalf........)

 

 

[facthunter]

Ducks fly far and well as do all migratory birds. They would die out otherwise. They also repel water well, because they get up oily. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

Very interesting that a lot which was said in this thread has come to fruition so soon.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Such as . . . .

 

 

[Keith Page]

Such as . . . .

I thought you had disappeared Don.

Just have a read of the thread Don a couple of things will be brought to the surface.

 

KP

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Too lazy for that sort of waffle Keith. You'll have to spoon feed me if you really want a response.

 

 

[Oscar]

Specifics please, Keith.

 

What do you specifically see as 'having come to fruition?

 

You fly an aircraft under regulations (and at a cost) that required an organisation capable of providing a professional level of administration to its activities - that was the genesis of the AUF. CASA ( in its various previous incarnations) was NOT interested in 'recreational aviation'. Without the development of the RAA via the AUF, you would be restricted to a bloody plastic chair suspended on strings under a pair of cotton-clad wings with a Victa lawnmower engine spinning a pair of paddlepop sticks. Or you would be paying for a C150 at the minimum, LAME-maintained.. Had a look at the minimum cost of any new GA aircraft lately?

 

RAA ran for WAY too long under the dictatorship of a disgruntled ex-CASA employee who espoused the ideals of a 'cricket-club' management style that happened to appeal. Instead of evolving to meet the requirements of the modern age, it stumbled along until the CASA audit exposed the manifold faults.

 

PUT UP, Keith, the things to which you allude. Let's have it out in the open for all to discuss.