Query to RAA CEO

[DonRamsay]

WHY only two, who has defined or where is it stated that only 2 more directors where I was under the impression that the initial directors, amounting to 3, will be the Pres, Sec and Treasurer with a maximum of 7, not 5.The other issue is the constitution says there must be a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 7

5 is, for example, more than 2 and less than 7

 

. Have I missed something where it states WHO decides what number of directors we have between 3 and 7???

Perhaps you missed it in the Special Resolution, they are not easy to read and comprehend.

The answer to WHO is "the members of RAAus":

 

"That the President, Secretary and Treasurer of Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated shall be the initial directors of that organisation on registration as a company from the date of effective registration of Recreational Aviation Australia Limited by the ASIC. Those directors shall cause an election to be called as soon as is practical, and in any case no longer than six months after the end of the 2015/16 financial year, to bring the board size to no less than five members."

 

Also we will have just 3 people running RAAus for up to 6 months

True, and ably assisted by the CEO and the employed staff and bound by the Constitution.

You may also have missed the bit where it says "Those directors shall cause an election to be called as soon as is practical . . . ".

 

This is all about what is practical in the short run. You need a small number to sign the application for incorporation and kick it off. As you would expect from Directors bound by the Corporations Act to act in good faith and for the benefit of all members,we will be in "Caretaker" mode until the elections have been held. There will be no major shifts in policy other than executing the will of the members as written in the Special Resolution and the Constitution.

 

. . . of which YOU are one of them Don, talk about padding one's own pocket which is probably why you are pressing so darn hard for a Yes vote. A board member that will benefit from this (pres, sec and treas) should not have been a major contributing factor in its development . . .

Talk about "pressing so darn hard" what do you call that?

 

I don't see that serving the members of RAAus for no reward of any kind is benefit or in any way imaginable "padding one's own pocket". When I spend several days working through over 200 pages of Board Papers and then get out of bed at 0400 to catch a crummy flight to Canberra and spend three nights over the weekend in Canberra with my days taken up with intense Board and General Meetings and get home at 2030 on Sunday evening I find it hard to describe as "padding one's own pocket".

 

I find that crack totally offensive and would think that it would be fair for you to withdraw that comment as in breach of the site rules.

 

It also states that it will take a minimum of 100 members to force a general meeting so if you vote YES to all its warts the many changes that will be needed to get it right will take 100 members each time. WHY NOT CANCEL THE VOTE AND GET IT RIGHT NOW!!!

I'm having difficulty continuing this "discussion" but I'll try to answer this factually inaccurate allegation for the benefit of the members.

 

Firstly, in the current Constitution it used to require 5% of the Members (approx 500) to call a General Meeting. That was changed down to 100 members by a Special Resolution I personally wrote and put to a General Meeting. Without that change to the Constitution, the members would not have been able to demand the General Meeting that was held at Queanbeyan in 2013. We felt 100 was a reasonable number - too many for nuisance calls but not too many to address a serious problem. Anyhow, you do not need a General Meeting called by the members to move an ordinary or special resolution. You can do that at any General Meeting held by RAAus now and with the new constitution.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Why not call an annual general meeting before the end of 2016 (one is due under the current constitution). Why are we waiting 18 months and skipping the AGM this year?

Rhys,

An AGM for RAAus Ltd in 2016 does not make much sense to me as the entity would only have been operating for a few months - hardly and Annual GM.

 

What happens about the terminating RAAus Inc. is a topic the Board will consider at their Meeting in May 2016. There will certainly be audited annual financial results and reports from the Board.

 

 

[Admin]

As anyone can see in the constitution that we are being asked to vote YES for, the Directors control just about everything, from the number of directors (refer 34.1), HOW directors will be appointed (refer 34.4) right through to who THEY will choose (the directors will choose, not the members) to fill a casual position (ref 34.6)Directors

 

34. Number and appointment of Directors

 

34.1 The Company must have at least three (3) and no more than seven (7) Directors.

 

34.2 The initial Directors are the people who have agreed to act as Directors and who are named as proposed Directors in the application for registration of the Company.

 

34.3 A person is eligible for election as a Director of the Company if they:

 

(a) are a Member of the Company,

 

(b) are nominated by two (2) Members entitled to vote,

 

© give the Company their signed consent to act as a Director of the Company, and

 

(d) are eligible to be a Director under the Corporations Act.

 

34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body.

 

34.5 The Directors shall ensure that the process of calling for nominations and the election of Directors shall be made available to members and candidates and take account of the skills and experience reasonably required to have oversight of the Company.

 

34.6 The Directors may appoint a person as a Director to fill a casual vacancy if that person is eligible under Clause 36.

 

34.7 If the number of Directors is reduced to fewer than three (3) or is less than the number required for a Quorum, the continuing Directors may act for the purpose of increasing the number of Directors to three (3) (or higher if required for a Quorum) or calling a general meeting, but for no other purpose.

 

Just like the rest of it, the member rights are being dwindled away and open to manipulation by directors in the future...from the frying pan into the fire.

 

I'm having difficulty continuing this "discussion" but I'll try to answer this factually inaccurate allegation for the benefit of the members.

Don, for my information and the members, am I correct in interpreting the director clauses? as in 34.1, 34.4 and 34.6

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The constitution seems to suggest a directors term starts at the end of the AGM, so without an AGM to start their term how will the board numbers be increased to 5 before the end of the year?

Rhys,

This is a good one and a bit of a "chicken or the egg" question. Had me wondering for a minute. I think we all understand that there has to be a beginning and once-only transitional arrangements. These are as stated in the Special Resolution.

 

That the President, Secretary and Treasurer of Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated shall be the initial directors of that organisation on registration as a company from the date of effective registration of Recreational Aviation Australia Limited by the ASIC. Those directors shall cause an election to be called as soon as is practical, and in any case no longer than six months after the end of the 2015/16 financial year, to bring the board size to no less than five members.

 

It seems clear to me that the election "as soon as practical" is intended to build the Board to a workable number with immediate effect. The rules of the Constitution apply to all subsequent retirements and elections.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don, for my information and the members, am I correct in interpreting the director clauses? as in 34.1, 34.4 and 34.6

Ian,

 

Probably makes most sense to start at CL 38 Powers of Directors. Cl 38.1 and 38.2 state the Directors' responsibilities and powers. Essentially, they are responsible for everything and may use all the powers of the Company subject to The Corporations Act and the Constitution. That is the case now of course.

 

Cl34.1 is surely impossible to misunderstand.

 

Cl34.4 compares with By-law 1 of the Current Constitution but has much more clearly defined requirements for the process to be sound i.e. the process "shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body.". The Board does not have free range on this matter. The Board is also bound by the requirement to act in good faith and for the benefit of all members. I'd be amazed if anyone can find fault with the requirements for process.

 

Cl 34.6 This is a common practice and will save RAAus the hassle and expense of by-elections. Anyone appointed must retire and face an election before the next AGM.

 

Hard for me to know your understanding of these clauses. They seem reasonable and straightforward to me.

 

Don

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks Don so my interpretation is correct in:

 

"the Directors control just about everything, from the number of directors (refer 34.1), HOW directors will be appointed (refer 34.4) right through to who THEY will choose (the directors will choose, not the members) to fill a casual position (ref 34.6)" in that:

 

34.1 The Company must have at least three (3) and no more than seven (7) Directors.

 

- The directors will decide whether we have 5 or 7 directors, not the members

 

34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body.

 

- The directors will decide the process by which directors are elected and re-elected, not the members

 

34.6 The Directors may appoint a person as a Director to fill a casual vacancy if that person is eligible under Clause 36.

 

- The directors will appoint new directors themselves to fill casual positions, the members won't have a say in it

 

Sorry Don, but even more reasons why I am voting a BIG NO

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Thanks Don so my interpretation is correct in:"the Directors control just about everything, from the number of directors (refer 34.1), HOW directors will be appointed (refer 34.4) right through to who THEY will choose (the directors will choose, not the members) to fill a casual position (ref 34.6)"

Short answer is "no they don't" in the unfettered sense. We operate, as do virtually all organisations, a representative democracy. The Directors of the Company are elected by the members to run the show and so the only people who have anything like absolute power are the members. They elect the people who do the work. That's the point of having Directors - to do the work between elections. That's how any modern democracy works.

 

But, even the members have to have regard to the Corporations Law, CASA and Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice and any number of other controls. Nobody gets to "control just about everything" unchecked and without being held accountable.

 

in that:34.1 The Company must have at least three (3) and no more than seven (7) Directors.

- The directors will decide whether we have 5 or 7 directors, not the members

That's what it says. It gives the Board the discretion to decide if 5 (cheaper) works OK then go with 5. If that's found wanting go with 6 or 7. Not what I would call a huge amount of latitude. In any case, whether it is 5, 6 or 7, any one will be more cost-effective and efficient than 13 Directors!

 

34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body.- The directors will decide the process by which directors are elected and re-elected, not the members

Exactly as happens now under By-law 1 except that the new Constitution has the extra control that it must be a widely respected process approved by the AEC. Not the case for RAAus In. How could that not be better than the current situation? Under the new Constitution the controls on how Boards run elections is tighter not more in favour of whatever the Board wants to do.

 

34.6 The Directors may appoint a person as a Director to fill a casual vacancy if that person is eligible under Clause 36.- The directors will appoint new directors themselves to fill casual positions, the members won't have a say in it

No, the members will have a say in it - at the next election between 1 and 12 months away and if they don't like the appointment they can take out their displeasure on the Directors who made the appointment. In the relatively rare circumstances where the Board appoints a Director to fill a casual vacancy the Director so appointed would have an average term of less than 6 months. Under the current Constitution if there is less than 6 months to go there does not have to be a By-election. Which is a better practice? This is an entirely normal practice in most corporations especially ones that are cost conscious. Even large Corporations like BHP operate on this basis. Haven't heard them criticised for malpractice on that basis anytime in the last 50 years.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Thanks Don so my interpretation is correct in:"the Directors control just about everything, from the number of directors (refer 34.1), HOW directors will be appointed (refer 34.4) right through to who THEY will choose (the directors will choose, not the members) to fill a casual position (ref 34.6)" in that:

34.1 The Company must have at least three (3) and no more than seven (7) Directors.

 

- The directors will decide whether we have 5 or 7 directors, not the members

 

34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body.

 

- The directors will decide the process by which directors are elected and re-elected, not the members

 

34.6 The Directors may appoint a person as a Director to fill a casual vacancy if that person is eligible under Clause 36.

 

- The directors will appoint new directors themselves to fill casual positions, the members won't have a say in it

 

Sorry Don, but even more reasons why I am voting a BIG NO

It is worth adding that these are fairly standard clauses for constitutions. They certainly appear in other organisations that I am involved with.

There is nothing sinister about them. We elect a board, and they make decisions on behalf of the members, with appropriate consultation. If we don't like their decisions we elect other people. That's how all companies operate.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Don, has the board been given legal advice regarding these resolutions? I fail to see how a resolution of the assosicstion can override the constitution of the new company. Any resolutions passed prior to the assosicstion being wound up would have no legal effect to the new company.

 

The constitution implies directors are elected at the Annual General Meeting, and that their term starts at the conclusion of such a meeting. It's my belief if we require an AGM once the new company is formed to meet the constitutional requirements.

 

 

[01rmb]

What is the problem of calling the election for the additional 2-4 directors (or in fact all directors) immediately following the special general meeting and adoption of the new company structure and constitution? Of course the election would not be required if the resolutions are not accepted.

 

 

[Admin]

But Don, you are missing the whole point and to use BHP as an example is a bit out there when comparing them to RAAus, the directors of BHP are extremely professional and generally on the 'A' list.

 

You can't sit there and say to trust the board because facts are facts and history is proof of facts. You just have to look at the previous boards choice for CEO's, Tizzard, that one that we had to get rid of after 3 months etc. You also can not guarantee that the directors at the time will choose the right people...just look at Runciman as a director, and President for that matter. I have been on the board and seen absolutely FIRST HAND the collusion's that go one, the ways to try and circumvent the constitution, the policies, the procedures...moving to a corporate will not prevent the likes of Runciman, Tizzard etc again being on the board. Sure, we may have a good board now but history can always repeat itself so we need more power to the members to stop these collusion's and circumvention's because we will not get support from ASIC etc that you are putting so much faith in. Go to ASIC and say Runciman is not fit to be a board member, they will laugh but get the others from those days on the board one by one and POW we are right back in the middle of it for the duration they are there. Again I say, look at history and ask yourself could that slowly happen again and you would have to agree. Remember the outcry on Jobs for the Boys, again in the RAAus history.

 

A NO vote is the only way to do all this properly

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It is the role of the Chairman to ensure all board members are making a contribution and no one is sabotaging the business. You can get bad eggs on boards, dealing with them is one of the key roles of the Chairman. I have confidence that the membership will elect good people to the board. They will not usually be people that voters from a particular region know personally, but they will be able to demonstrate a track record of common sense and business experience that comes through in a short statement we will see at voting time.

 

 

[David Isaac]

What is the problem of calling the election for the additional 2-4 directors (or in fact all directors) immediately following the special general meeting and adoption of the new company structure and constitution? Of course the election would not be required if the resolutions are not accepted.

Correct, and even if the resolutions were successful, you would have to follow the notice process for a general election, so it could NOT occur at the 14 May meeting, but it is required to held as soon as is practical with a Dec 2016 date limit.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don, has the board been given legal advice regarding these resolutions? I fail to see how a resolution of the assosicstion can override the constitution of the new company. Any resolutions passed prior to the assosicstion being wound up would have no legal effect to the new company..

Yes, we have had total legal support from some highly qualified and experienced lawyers. As evidence of that, the Corporations lawyer rewrote our Special Resolutions in lawyerese including the latin bit that had us all diving for Google to know what "mutatis mutandis" means.

 

Seriously though, I see what you are saying. RAAus Inc in General Meeting is directing its successor RAAus Ltd to adopt the Constitution approved by the members of RAAus Inc. How can one corporation direct another corporation to do anything?

 

In law, RAAus Inc and Ltd are the same corporation - just registered by different bodies under different legislation. The process goes something like this:

 

• In passing the Special Resolution, the Members of RAAus Inc direct the Board of RAAus Inc. to execute a transfer process under s82 of the ACT Act:
  (1) An incorporated association may apply to the registrar-general for permission to apply for registration of the association under the Corporations Act as a company limited by guarantee.
   
   
  
  Note: Under this Act, we are not talking about 2 different corporations we are effectively talking about re-registering a corporation under a different piece of legislation.
   
   
   
   
  
• With the approval of the ACT, RAAus Inc applies to ASIC for registration of RAAus as a company limited by guarantee. It is more of a relocation exercise rather than one dies and another is born. So, a constitution approved by RAAus Inc can apply to itself in a different form of incorporation as RAAus Ltd..
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

The constitution implies directors are elected at the Annual General Meeting, and that their term starts at the conclusion of such a meeting. It's my belief if we require an AGM once the new company is formed to meet the constitutional requirements.

The Constitution does require Directors to be elected at the General Meeting. How that works in the real world is that the election process happens before the AGM and the people elected take up their directorship at the end of the AGM. That is the ongoing situation after the initial formation. There are two stages here, initial formation and ongoing. The initial formation is governed by the Special Resolution. The ongoing phase by the Constitution. The reason for the Special Resolution is to set out what happens in the peculiar, one-off situation at the beginning and the Constitution takes over once the corporation is set up and running as directed by the Special Resolution.

 

If you look at the old RAus constitution it requires a first AGM with in 18 months of incorporation and then one every year within 6 months of the end of the financial year. Exactly the same applies for RAAus Ltd. This recognises that there is an initiation phase and a continuing phase.

 

The initial Directors and the initial members of RAAus Ltd are established by a Special Resolution that has the same power as a term of the Constitution. The Directors to be elected before 31 Dec 2016 are similarly enabled by a Special Resolution. The first "General Election" happens because of the continuing rules of the Constitution.

 

There is thus no need for an early AGM. And there is no desire for an AGM (if it could be called that after say 6 weeks). We need some continuity of Directors to finish the initial phase and get the corporation up and running. After that the Constitution rules, OK?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For reference:

 

Associations Incorporation Act 1991 ACT

 

Part 6 Transfer of incorporation

 

s82 Voluntary transfer of incorporation

 

(1) An incorporated association may apply to the registrar-general for

 

permission to apply for registration of the association under the

 

Corporations Act as a company limited by guarantee.

 

(2) The registrar-general must give an incorporated association

 

permission to apply for registration of the association under the

 

Corporations Act as a company limited by guarantee if—

 

(a) the association has, by special resolution, resolved to apply for

 

registration of the association under the Corporations Act as a

 

company limited by guarantee; and

 

(b) an application lodged with the registrar-general by the

 

association under subsection (1)—

 

(i) is signed by the public officer and 2 members of the

 

committee of the association;

 

(ii) is accompanied by any prescribed documents; and

 

(iii) includes a statement to the effect that the special

 

resolution referred to in paragraph (a) has been duly

 

passed by the association.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Thanks Don, so is it the legal advice that the directors elected within 6 months as per the resolution are the initial directors with the former executive? If not then I don't see how any resolution can override the constitution (without replacing).

 

We couldn't say for example in 2 years time pass a resolution for Don Ramsey term to be extended to 5 years without actually changing the constitution. As far as I can tell there is nothing within our constitution that allows directors to be elected other then at the AGM regardless if it's within 6 months or not.

 

A better option would be to include the 2 directors as initial directors together with former executive, however this would require an election prior to the establishment of the new company.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Rhys,

 

Thanks Don, so is it the legal advice that the directors elected within 6 months as per the resolution are the initial directors with the former executive? If not then I don't see how any resolution can override the constitution (without replacing).

The legal advice is that the Special Resolution will achieve the relocation of RAAus from Inc to Ltd. Simple as that. We paid these people a substantial fee to be told how to do it and this is what they came up with. It makes perfect sense to me once you realise we are in effect just relocating what we do from one form of incorporation to another. It is not the clunky process many here seem to think it is. It is a smooth simple process. RAAus is not the first incorporated association to have done this. It is relatively common and the lawyers know how to do it.

 

So, no they are not initial Directors. The initial Directors are as defined in the Special Resolution. The Special Resolution empowers (and requires) the initial Directors to run a one-off election with the sole aim of electing no less than two extra Directors and to have it done t within a particular time frame.

 

If the Special Resolution did not require that one-off election, the Constitution would only require an election within 18 months of day 1 because from day 1 the Board has the Constitutional minimum of three Directors.

 

The Special Resolution does not override the Constitution it adds to it for a once-ever election.

 

We couldn't say for example in 2 years time pass a resolution for Don Ramsey term to be extended to 5 years without actually changing the constitution.

I think you could but firstly, it would have to be a Special Resolution passed with a 75% majority and secondly, my name would have to be spelled correctly . I don't remember enough Corps Law and can't be bothered looking it up to say such a resolution would be OK under the Corps Law but it would be OK as far as RAAus Ltd goes. It would be in the nature of amending the Constitution for a one-off change to the term of one particular Director. Can't imagine my going along with such a proposal or the members. So don't ask!

 

A Special Resolution appropriately notified and passed by at least a 75% majority of the members in General Meeting can do anything that is not otherwise illegal.

 

A better option would be to include the 2 directors as initial directors together with former executive, however this would require an election prior to the establishment of the new company.

Sorry, but I disagree on both counts. No, IMHO it wouldn't be better and no, factually, it wouldn't "require an election prior to the establishment of the new company".

When you think of it, RAAus Inc is currently run by three Directors between General Meetings, a period of 6 months. What would be different about three Directors running RAAus for between 3 and 6 months? With 5 Directors and no Executive, we will have more Directors on the job than is the normal situation now.

 

And it wouldn't require an election, just the Special Resolution being written to accommodate such a scheme.

 

The Directors elected within 6 months of the transmogrification (I was amazed to find this is a real word) are elected under the transitional arrangements defined in the Special Resolution:

 

that the President, Secretary and Treasurer of Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated shall be the initial directors of that organisation on registration as a company from the date of effective registration of Recreational Aviation Australia Limited by the ASIC. Those directors shall cause an election to be called as soon as is practical, and in any case no longer than six months after the end of the 2015/16 financial year, to bring the board size to no less than five members;

 

This requires simply that an election is held for one purpose - to raise Board numbers to "no less than five members".

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Thanks for your reply, I'm not convinced that once the new company is formed and the new constitution is enacted that any further directors can be elected contray to what the constitution dictates. A special resolution allows for an amendment to the constitution not to over ride it.

 

Why not just call the AGM prior to the end of the year? Surely it costs us no more then a standard general meeting and would save any future legal challenges of an incorrectly appointed board?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Rhys,

 

Not much point continuing to discuss the legality of what has been proposed is there, really? We've been over this several times and the facts are still the same:

 

RAAus asked qualified, professional corporate lawyers how we should do the transition from Inc to Ltd. They gave us advice and we are following it.

 

Would it be responsible or even defensible to override the legal advice RAAus has paid for in preference to the opinion of a nom de plume we read on an aviation internet forum? How would that look in a legal dispute?

 

I've done two years legal studies at University (more than half of that time on Corporations Law) and I've participated as Company Secretary in a billion dollar corporate group restructure for a large multinational with excellent advice from Allens (Allen Allen & Hemsley at the time) and all that that helps me to understand and question legal advice but I wouldn't say that I know more than the people for whom this is routine.

 

Rhys, I know from your posts you are serious and a thinker unlike a some on here (eh FT?) but, seriously, next time somebody asks a question about the legality of what is proposed my reply is going to have to start with "FFS".

 

Regards

 

Don

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Our way or the highway eh Don?

 

This begs the question Don, who will be stepping down from the board if the changes don't go through?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Our way or the highway eh Don?This begs the question Don, who will be stepping down from the board if the changes don't go through?

FFS FT why would that be necessary. If the resolution fails members & the board will have to work on whats needed to fix the impasse. No matter which way we go, we need a new constitution.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

FFS DI I was merely asking the question, you know because I don't remember the membership asking for this change. The board took it upon themselves as best as I can tell.

 

 

[storchy neil]

ft get the minutes of meeting I when there were you when all this was brought to head now the old so called experts cost me thousands so until you can produce the evidence of what you are saying who in the hell wants to listen

 

advancement off aviation in our book off rules needs to get a head its 2016 not 1985

 

some just went along with what they thought was right and proper as the leader of our organization said so how wrong he was when cassa done the audits we all paid a heavy price for following foolish advice

 

how could you question foolish advice you couldn't because of collusion was rampant

 

what has been very interesting is that now all off the question and answers are the same we all want the same a new constitution come hell or high water it has to be done

 

accountability by all that means members to take more off an interest in who you vote for is he or she only want the job for glory or are they going to follow shit advice or are they all for the advancement off aviation

 

what a pity that all members of raa arnt reading the discussions here it is very enlightening neil

 

 

[gandalph]

I was merely asking the question, you know because I don't remember the membership asking for this change. The board took it upon themselves as best as I can tell.

FFS FT Who do you think asked for the original committee to be set up review the constitution? Remember? That's the one that Runciman disbanded. Did that committee just decide to form itself or was there perhaps a groundswell of dissatisfaction from the membership that the Association was being run like a bowls club and not an enterprise with 10000+ members and assets running into the millions of dollars? What do you reckon those who attended the special meeting at Queanbeyan wanted, just to get rid of Runciman and not worry about dragging the Association into the 21st century?

Really?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Unfortunately, F (FFS) T has achieved his usual aim: say anything outrageous and attract as much abuse as possible. A weird but effective strategy.

 

As a fellow masochist, I put myself in the position to attract insults from F(FFS)T by demonstrating leadership and vision for a better future when he knows ALL members of RAAus really only want people on the Board who have zero initiative and are just sitting around waiting to be told what to do.

 

Isn't that so F(FFS)T?

 

But I jest of course, the question will not arise because the Special Resolution will be affirmed on 14 May. There is no way that the vast majority of RAAus members want to return to 2013 where years of poor governance had RAAus on the brink of extinction with recreational aviators staring down a chaotic and uncertain future.

 

If, in the extremely unlikely circumstance the democratic process rejected the proposed reform I would readily accept their decision and walk away happy in the knowledge that *I've* done what I can. It may or may not be the end of the push for a more robust RAAus but I will be very comfortable to leave it to the the multitude of members and the odd non-member, keyboard warrior who better understand what is needed.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Again with the Agro DR. If we are not happy to vote for the proposed Constitutional change as it is presented we are keyboard warriors and want a return to the bad old days.

 

Have you thought that maybe if people do not vote for the changes, then maybe they are simply not happy with the changes. I will be voting against the change not because I don't think change is needed, but because I am not comfortable with the proposed changes as written.