Query to RAA CEO

[Admin]

reform of RAAus will go on the back burner or even worse, in the "too hard basket"

Don, you can be assured it wont go on the backburner as I for one, along with others, have already stated that we would be putting our hand up to progress the change further to one that the members want as fast as posible. So you can rest easy on that

 

 

[facthunter]

There can come a point where the argument requires so much qualification to prevent people reading too much into it that the task of communicating accurately becomes practically unachievible. It's also a lot easier to find or allege faults than be part of a team that works through it.. Limitations of a website rather than face to face.. General comment not leveled at anybody in particular.. It's also possible some are only having a go for the fun of it (or worse).

 

We put people into these jobs and then assume their reputations don't count. We may come to a point where only Sado-masochist flaggellants are prepared to do it .Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

Not the constitution but policy which as told above if the yes vote wins the policies are transferred across. You may also like to do a search ont this site for the form and a very long discussion on it

Policies are much easier to amend than constitutions.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Wow - Board confidentiality on decision making and agreements is not required for these companies in OZ?

Bit silly there Kasp ... not what I said. Read my post #111.

[David Isaac]

Since Don also admitted signing this gag order, it appears to be fact.

Tubz,

I think you will find Don signed an agreement to maintain those things that had a quality of confidence as confidential, quite reasonable, but I would argue unnecessary. Directors have a duty to maintain 'confidentiality'. He didn't sign a 'Gag order'.

 

Don, please clarify.

 

 

[Admin]

Policies are much easier to amend than constitutions.

I tried to get some policies changed but met a brick wall. To get a policy change would then require an extraordinary meeting and a vote to change it, the same as a constitutional change.

In fact after hitting brick walls I had no other option but to go down the constitution change avenue which the current constitution allows but were denied by the then board even though I as a member had a right to do and absolutely nothing in the proposed changes would still over come this.

 

One of the change requests is for the board to state at the conclusion of each discussion to declare its confidentiality. This was laughed at with the reply from the then board saying it wasn't workable, whereas a simple declaration at the end of each discussion surely is workable and sets it very clear what can be disclosed to members

 

Attached are the 3 requests so you can see for yourself (Note, this was back in 2010 and is pretty close to what is being proposed now albeit what is proposed now is still incomplete):

 

Const Change - Board Makup.docx

 

Const Change - Board Max Term.docx

 

Const Change - Confidentiality.docx

 

Const Change - Board Makup.docx

 

Const Change - Board Max Term.docx

 

Const Change - Confidentiality.docx

 

Const Change - Board Makup.docx

Const Change - Board Max Term.docx

Const Change - Confidentiality.docx

[gandalph]

I am not in favour of change for the sake of change, and like most people I am sometimes uncomfortable with change because I am basically a conservative person. BUT I have enough to faith in the Board of the RAA in it's current make-up to believe that they have the best interests of the Association, but more importantly of the members at heart in proposing these changes.

 

I believe that the RAA is doomed to extinction if we continue to run it as though it is a country cricket club. The current Board, in my opinion, have demonstrated a level of integrity greater than in earlier iterations, and for that reason I'll probably accept that the changes they propose will generally benefit the membership. I also believe that those bits that don't work can and will be fixed in good time.

 

However, I still wish the Board had seen fit to put forward the case against the proposed changes so that we all had the opportunity, if we wished, to make a fully informed decision. (Don, that can still be done.)

 

 

[turboplanner]

I believe that the RAA is doomed to extinction if we continue to run it as though it is a country cricket club.

Ridiculous, and I know a couple of others have run this furphy as well.

 

As much as there have been criticisms of RAA, it's just insulting to put it down as being run like a cricket club.

 

If you want to make a comparison, a real-world example of a National body is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, with 175,000 members, 400 clubs, and 18 disciplines to administer.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Is this written into the proposed constitution or is it an assumption?

 

not an assumption as ian was very up set that when he was on the board he had to sign that order and was bitterly opposed to it to not sign it ment he heard nothing in camera or not

 

so now since 2010 6 bloody years later going down the same path thanks ian neil

 

 

[gandalph]

Furphy is an emotive word Turbs, however you are welcome to your opinion. Despite your outrage that I would dare to speak of an association that only one of us belong to in the way I did, I am happy to stay with the comparison I made.

 

You might not share my opinion. C'est la vie.

 

 

[Admin]

I was told by the then Secretary, in the back room of RAAus, that I would be excluded from many discussions. Now it was that long ago that I can't remember the exact definition of "discussions" but they could not exclude me from in-camera discussions but I do remember a comment being they would make the whole board meeting in camera but can't remember if that was a threat or a passing comment.

 

This is the way that boards can go and there is no surety that we are not in a similar position down the track with these changes or not as boards will interpret and manipulate things to their way and no ASIC or other governing body can stop it except for the properly formed constitution, policies and rules that we don't have now nor will we have with a yes vote. With a no vote we get another bite of the cherry that will attempt to address as many of these issues as possible first than to cross our fingers and hope they are addressed by a new governance. There is more surety in getting them addressed before than after

 

 

[gandalph]

Is this written into the proposed constitution or is it an assumption?not an assumption as ian was very up set that when he was on the board he had to sign that order and was bitterly opposed to it to not sign it ment he heard nothing in camera or not neil

Yes but Neil, but with respect mate, that was then - (6 years ago). Things can change. I was asking about the current proposal, not about the existing system.

 

 

[gandalph]

Ian, I'm guessing that was Middo? Most definitely one of the"Old Guard". I have much more faith in the new team's ethics.

 

 

[Admin]

Ian, I'm guessing that was Middo? Most definitely one of the"Old Guard". I have much more faith in the new teams ethics.

No mate, it wasn't middo

One thing that I do remember when on the board was that many decisions were made by the collective 7+ outside board meetings and when discussed inside the meeting it was already pre approved and no amount of my discussion or points from the other 6 were given much thought.

 

With a smaller board, which I agree on, it will be even harder as a smaller buddy group can be formed

 

 

[David Isaac]

..... With a smaller board, which I agree on, it will be even harder as a smaller buddy group can be formed

Hopefully not, when we can elect better qualified people from a larger gene pool that is NOT restricted to one or two per region. A smaller Board of shall we say 'experienced people' should keep the integrity stakes higher and be more efficient, but there are NO guarantees in life. we just need to set up the best structure we can.

[David Isaac]

Is this written into the proposed constitution or is it an assumption?not an assumption as ian was very up set that when he was on the board he had to sign that order and was bitterly opposed to it to not sign it ment he heard nothing in camera or not

so now since 2010 6 bloody years later going down the same path thanks ian neil

No, it is NOT and neither is it in the current constitution. It was a BS document drafted by a previous secretary that was never accepted by a formal resolution of the Board and wasn't even an official bylaw at the time. It was bullied upon all new Board members back then as Ian knows. Ian and John Mckeown were the only board members who refused to sign it at the time and they tried to bully John as well.

Don Ramsey was the one who called the Board to account and had it properly changed as one of the first 'new blood' directors.

 

 

[Admin]

Hopefully not, when we can elect better qualified people from a larger gene pool that is NOT restricted to one or two per region. A smaller Board of shall we say 'experienced people' should keep the integrity stakes higher and be more efficient, but there are NO guarantees in life. we just need to set up the best structure we can.

Agree David, which is why back in 2010 I was going for a mix of member representation and specific skill set titled representatives...best of both worlds, member representation along with some board members elected under skill set titles that RAAus needed in terms of management

 

 

[Admin]

No, it is NOT and neither is it in the current constitution. It was a BS document drafted by a previous secretary that was never accepted by a formal resolution of the Board and wasn't even an official bylaw at the time. It was bullied upon all new Board members back then as Ian knows. Ian and John Mckeown were the only board members who refused to sign ut at the time and they tried to bully John as well.Don Ramsey was the one who called the Board to account and had it properly changed.

David, I remember after all this that a list of things that potential Board members had to comply with was released and one of them to sign a confidentiality agreement. Now I can't put my hands on it right now, I am trying to work albeit from home due to my severe cold, but I recall it wasn't all that different and I remember it still prohibits board members from discussing with members what happens at a board meeting unless it is formally released by RAAus...I could be wrong

 

 

[David Isaac]

David, I remember after all this that a list of things that potential Board members had to comply with was released and one of them to sign a confidentiality agreement. Now I can't put my hands on it right now, I am trying to work albeit from home due to my severe cold, but I recall it wasn't all that different and I remember it still prohibits board members from discussing with members what happens at a board meeting unless it is formally released by RAAus...I could be wrong

You are correct, I have the disgraceful document somewhere. It was sent to me as I was a Board nominee at the time.

BUT, it no longer exists in that form thanks to Don, so no longer applies and will NOT apply to the new corporate structure.

 

 

[gandalph]

One thing that I do remember when on the board was that many decisions were made by the collective 7+ outside board meetings and when soscussed inside the meeting it was already pre approved and no amount of my discussion or points from the other 6 were given much thought.

Pre-approved or pre-discussed?

 

I don't see how the directors could pre-approve something without a holding formal vote on the matter. However I sincerely hope that Directors would receive, well in advance of any meeting, comprehensive briefings on proposals to be put to the Board and I would hope that Directors would discuss those briefings amongst themselves well in advance of the Board meeting so as to allow them to make a well informed and reasoned decision. Heavens! they might even use that time to canvass opinions from the membership if the sensitivity of the matter allows. To arrive at a meeting and be confronted with an agenda of items to discuss without allowing prior cogitation would be very poor practice and would reflect very badly on the CEO and administrative staff.

 

You are correct, the membership might elect a bunch of rogues and vagabonds, fools or ego-trippers, but given the minuscule perks of office offered to candidates, we are not likely to attract the treasure hunters to the executive. The fools and ego-trippers could be another problem entirely.

 

Note to all: I am NOT pointing the finger at any Board members, past, present, or presumptive future nominees when I speak of rogues, vagabonds, fools or ego-trippers.

 

 

[Admin]

Gandalph, board decisions can be made outside of a meeting and then ratified at a meeting by way of a vote in the board forum. Many subjects are voted on through email discussions and then electronically voted and I recall one case where I was able to find many emails going between board members that excluded other board members. Even at board meetings the collective 7+ would go into a different room together and when we return to the board room a vote resulted in the same 7+ deciding things. Nick Sigley and I always knew that no amount of us putting good arguments forward would have any impact...everything including rules, ones of today and ones of tomorrow, will be tried to be circumvented to suit the stronger personalities, that is nature. This is why we need to minimise this with a constitution that is better thought out

 

 

[pmccarthy]

This all sounds bad but it is in the past! Bad experiences from 5+ years ago are no reason to torpedo sensible changes today. There has been a lot of dredging up the past as an argument against the changes, but I think it is evidence that the changes are well overdue.

 

 

[storchy neil]

admin david don I have agreed and disagreed how come some are just learning off the bloody up hill battle to get change apparently they just take its their given right to fly never mine the logistics behind what is their organization

 

we as an organization need more up to date information from everybody none off the bloody whispering behind the sxxxhouse door I am hopefull

 

david I am quite aware of the amount work that don and others have done to bring our organization up to 2016 I am aware of what ian and john tried to do back in 2010 neil

 

 

[Admin]

This all sounds bad but it is in the past! Bad experiences from 5+ years ago are no reason to torpedo sensible changes today. There has been a lot of dredging up the past as an argument against the changes, but I think it is evidence that the changes are well overdue.

Totally agree but it is history that directs the future and if we are embarking on this great change then let's do it with the valuable hindsight from the past. There is very limited amount of changes in this huge change that has used this hindsight to better it, as been pointed out. That is why I am saying let's do it properly, we could do so much more to support these huge changes if we use hindsight and fix them first, instead of just hoping that some time they may, or even may not be done in the years to come.

Does it really matter if we take an extra 6 to 12 months to do it properly? I am sure you would even agree that if there is no extremely urgent need, of which there isn't one, then to wait an extra 6 months or so would be far better by doing it better, or do you want a semi solution that is not as good as it could be and just hope for the best putting members at risk for years to come, for the sake of 6 to 12 months?

 

 

[-Rod-]

The email was not from the RAAus .. it was direct from the Board Member.I have asked him for permission to repost here and if it is given I will repost in full.

I have been asked permission to give details on my article on the NO case for the RAAus constitution. As a response I have enclosed the text below.

 

 

 

A group of RAAus members have been working on a proposed draft constitution that it will be placing before its members on 14th May 2016. This change in then RAAus constitution is the most significant change we have considered since then AUF changed is structure to RAAus some years ago - its an important document!

 

 

 

As with all legal documents every sentence is important and every paragraph and subparagraph needs to be very carefully written and understood. The work that has gone into its creation is considerable and as an organisation RAAus should thank all those involved - it was a lot of hard work.

 

 

 

For acceptance any constitution should not have any problems or issues. I submit there are still current, real, remaining policy and administrative issues with the proposed constitution that should be resolved before it is accepted by RAAus members on 14th May 2016.

 

 

 

For those RAAus members voting the decision is yours. Ask questions, read the draft constitution, make up your own mind and please vote.

 

Regards

 

 

 

Rodney Birrell

 

CONSTITUTION CHANGE

 

RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA MEMBERS

 

RAAus CONSTITUTION - THE VOTE NO CASE

 

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc is proposing to cancel its current constitution and introduce a new one. The decision to proceed or not will be decided by RAAus members at the General Meeting to be held on Saturday 14 May 2016, 2pm at RAAus Head Office, 3/1 Pirie Street Fyshwick, ACT.

 

If you have an interest in this matter then please continue reading, if you are no longer a RAAus member, or are really not interested then I apologise for wasting your time. RAAus is to have a plebiscite, a poll or in reality a referendum on the new constitution. Both sides of the constitution debate should at least be made available to RAAus members.

 

The proposed YES case for the constitution change has been promoted heavily. So far the NO case has not been reported, in any RAAus correspondence.

 

A new RAAus constitution must be fair, reasonable and proven to be in the best interests of RAAus members. RAAus should be a member first organisation, democratic, open and accountable and it should foster, develop and protect our sport and recreational aviation as an industry. I submit the proposed new RAAus constitution does not yet achieve these goals.

 

On many important issues the proposed constitution remains silent. This leaves many issues unresolved, with the possibility of adverse rules being introduced without RAAus member approval. There are a raft of problems with this issue. These matters should be resolved, with the approval of RAAus members, before the new constitution is introduced as law.

 

Regional Board member representation will be lost if the proposed constitution is introduced. There will be no local Board member, no one to call, no one with any ability or authority to effect change, and no one to work with local authorities on any matter that may affect RAAus. This is not not a step forwards.

 

If passed at the meeting, the current Board will be removed. The new Board will consist of only 3 persons (The President, Secretary and the Treasurer) until elections are called to top up the new Board (to a minimum of 5 persons). This action does not represent good governance of our organisation and should not be supported.

 

In terms of accountability, the proposed constitution reduces the minimum number of general/board meetings that members can attend from the current two (23iv) to 1 each year. The first AGM under the new constitution is proposed to occur in October 2017. The current executive will not face any election for an additional 18 months term (on top of their current term) which raises the issue of having a self nominated executive moving to paid positions with no accountability in terms of an election until October 2017.

 

The Board will be reduced from 12 to a maximum of 7. This was proposed as a way to save money. The current RAAus Board is made up of volunteers who meet together twice a year, the new Board will be paid positions and meet as often as they chose - there will be no cost savings.

 

An individual or incorporated body can become a RAAus member (11.2) yet only members who are natural persons shall be eligible to vote (29.0). This represents a poor policy position and is clearly unfair. All members (club, school or private) who are financial and are bound by the rules of the organisation should be entitle to a vote. Also all members should be able to bring resolutions forward should they so wish. This will not be the case as defined in the new constitution (27.1). If you are an RAAus club or flying school and you pay the required membership fee, you should have the right to have your say and a vote.

 

The proposed constitution states (17.1) that RAAus shall have the right to “discipline” its members. Our new constitution should be a reform document. We really do not need this provision included in the constitution in the way it is, particularly when the Board and RAAus members have not signed off on what the disciplinary powers will be.We have no need to follow CASA along the path of defining every mistake as a breach of the regulations, and that every breach should be punished with a penalty.

 

With the current RAAus membership, 100 members will be the minimum number of members needed to call for a general meeting. Realistically future constitutional amendments by members will be difficult to achieve, due to the number of supporting RAAus members required to make a change. The bar remains set too high.

 

A further restriction to future constitutional reform will be in place with at least 75% of the votes cast by members required (para 65.0) to pass a special resolution. Allowing the current proposal to proceed with a plan to “fix it later” will be a challenge due to the high acceptance required for any future amendment.

 

To view the proposed constitution click here

 

There is no need for to be rushed here. A revised RAAus constitution is needed, however the proposed constitution is not ready to be approved by RAAus members. It's clearly not as it should be, a wise revision is needed. There are no urgency issues here.

 

A vote for caution is required, a NO vote is recommended.

 

Please don’t remain silent on this issue. Take the opportunity and vote NO, not yet, to the constitution proposal by completing a RAAus proxy form. It is most important that you state on the enclosed proxy form how you wish to vote and who you wish your vote to be presented by at the meeting.

 

Once completed it must be sent to RAAus by email [email protected] by close of business on 12 May 2016. I will be please to hold your proxy for presentation at the meeting, whichever way you vote. My details are listed below.

 

To vote a proxy form is required. It can be obtained here

 

Further information is available on request.

 

Rod Birrell

 

RAAus Member (Victoria)

 

0422 446622

 

RAAus member number 35

 

Background : I have served on the AUF/RAAus Board, on and off for many years. I was proud to be one of the foundation members of our organisation and strongly believe, in all situations, our organisations goal should be to serve our members needs first.

 

[email protected]

 

Our mailing address is:

 

PO Box 125, LOWER PLENTY,VICTORIA, 3093

 

Want to change how you receive these emails?

 

You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list