Query to RAA CEO

[Admin]

Well thats another thing that needs to change in my opinion by some more defined guides.

 

If you remember just a couple of years ago a big uproar by the members on this site on this very subject when unilateral decisions were made by a then executive. Do a search on this site. Obviously the board hasnt listened to the members by their own ignorance of not using this site as a means of getting members thoughts and opinions yet again. History always repeats itself so it can and very possible that it can happen again. This is why this reform has not been thought through enough

 

 

[TK58]

All directors will be directly elected under the new Constitution. The initial three directors will step down and face an election (if they wish to continue) in successive years - one in year 1, one in year 2 and the third in year 3. This is to ensure continuity.

 

Incidentally, all of the current Exec members were re-elected last October and still have 17 months in their term. So two of the three initial directors of RAAus Ltd will be up for election either before or no later than when the existing cycle would have seen them face election in any case. And the third will face election a year later than otherwise would be the case.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I can't speak for the night owl, but suspect that is not what he meant and certainly not what I would have expected from the board. . . .

I understand what you are saying David, but the simple fact is that I can see no downside for RAAus in moving from an unsuitable form of incorporation to one that better suits RAAus and requires less administrative work for the Office. If there were some trade off I'd be happy to declare it. The only group in any way disadvantaged that I can think of is the Board in that they have to be more rigorous in the standard of governance. But, as a Board Member I relish that and I certainly don't see it as a disadvantage for the Ordinary Members.

 

Can anyone tell me of a disadvantage here?

 

Don

 

 

[Admin]

Don are you saying that not one of the members posts here are valid enough to stop the vote and get it right first. If just one member has a valid point then the vote should be stopped and amended for all valid points. You have admitted that it isnt as good as it could be so make it as good as it could be first...simple yes or no will suffice

 

 

[TK58]

... the board hasnt listened to the members by their own ignorance of not using this site as a means of getting members thoughts and opinions yet again...

Ian, you seem to think the membership of this forum is representative of the membership at large. I don't share that view. The members of this forum are more active but also in general more negative than what I (and other Board members) encounter elsewhere. You may think we don't take the views of this forum into account, but I can assure you we do. We just don't accept that the views expressed here are the last or only word on any particular subject.

 

Representing all the members involves getting input from as many sources as possible then making a decision. It doesn't mean bending to the wishes of any group just because they make the most noise.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

 

 

[TK58]

Don are you saying that not one of the members posts here are valid enough to stop the vote and get it right first. If just one member has a valid point then the vote should be stopped and amended for all valid points. You have admitted that it isnt as good as it could be so make it as good as it could be first...simple yes or no will suffice

Ian, are you suggesting that unanimous support is required before this thing can be put to a vote? That anyone's ill-informed (or even well informed) opinion should be allowed to derail the process? As in most aspects of life, it's important not to let perfect become the enemy of good here.

 

 

[Admin]

Tony you wont find a larger cross section of RAAus members anywhere else. You only see the posts and not the thousands of lurkers, the quiet registered members, the spasmodic poster etc. All that read what is being asked and said

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The initial three directors will step down and face an election (if they wish to continue) in successive years - one in year 1, one in year 2 and the third in year 3. This is to ensure continuity.

Tony, that is not correct. Under the new constitution 2 directors must retire at each annual general meeting unless there are fewer than four current directors. At the AGM2017 there will be 5 current directors, in which case 2 of the longest serving directors will need to retire (and be reelected). This will need to be repeated in 2018 at which time all initial directors would have faced an election.

 

However it's my belief (and one I hope the ASIC will share) that in order for the initial directors to meet the requirement of the resolution to bring the total number of directors no less than 5 within 6 months, an AGM will be held in 2016 in which case all initial directors would have faced reelection in 2017).

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Is this a rule written down somewhere? It's not in the constitution. PS Annual doesn't mean after 1 year. It means once a year, could be the start, at the end or in the middle.

Rhys,

Having an Annual General Meeting at the beginning of a year would be novel if not a first-ever for any corporation (incorporated association or limited by guarantee). The whole point of an AGM, in my experience, is to review the year gone by. Remember when RAAus Inc first kicked off under the current constitution it was allowed up to 18 months to hold its first AGM. This is dead standard practice and is as per the model rules in the Regulations to the Incorporated Associations Act. There is nothing unusual or untoward about it.

 

Would you be more comfortable if I said that we expect to hold a General Meeting of RAAus Ltd at around the same time as our usual AGM timing (Sep/Oct)? That meeting would see the induction of the newly-elected, extra Directors as required by the Special Resolution. It would also involve a review of the last year of RAAus operating as an Incorporated Association registered in Canberra. It would feature reports from the Executive and the CEO.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Thanks Rod, it is nice to know that we both have similar thoughts...members first

I would have thought that putting members first would involve giving them factual information to support their argument not misleading them.

 

 

[Oscar]

To someone who is currently not affected by all of this - not being a current member - but is certainly 'interested' in that I wish to return to an effective, competent RAA, this seems to me to be getting down to a battle of wills between those who want to have the Association ( or whatever) run according to their precepts of what they feel is 'right' in the grand scheme of things ( Life, the Universe, etc.) and those who want RAA to just get on with the job(s) it has to perform competently, professionally and efficiently.

 

I cannot see that there is any real question of it being a case for applying the old 'if it ain't broke' principle - it WAS, by any objective measure, broke. 'Good Governance' is a qualitative statement, and it is obvious that there are contrary opinions as to what represents 'Good'. I believe that 'Good' can be better measured by outcomes than by postulating possible scenarios within which 'Bad' MIGHT occur.

 

That 'Bad' DID occur under the old (current) Constitution, is indisputable. RAA had not only the Registration debacle, from which the outfall and severe disadvantage to some members remains to be sorted - and some of which will never be redressed. RAA had evident problems with its financial management, a kerfuffle with Insurance, the complete failure to progress the Operations Manual ( wasn't it - that Tizzard was paid a considerable amount of money as CEO for several years to sort out, and failed completely to progress in any way?), the questionable 'SMS' project that seems to have produced nothing, though I may be wrong there and a period where the Board seemed to be monstrously dysfunctional - to be polite.

 

I believe that significant progress has been made by the current Board and just as a general principle, I am far more disposed towards supporting proposals for change intended to promote good management of the RAA's essential functions put forward by those who have gained my confidence than supporting concerns that appear to be rooted in a fear of 'the worst'. When that fear seems to suggest that maintenance of the status quo is more desirable than change, I cannot but look at what the status quo historically produced and be very, very unimpressed with that as an argument.

 

I particularly endorse the removal of geographical qualifications to be elected to the Board as being in any way productive. I believe that Board elections based on a statement of requirements for expertise in essential areas of RAA operation and voting for the candidate best suited to fill that requirement, would be a major improvement. We only have to look at any Australian government to see what happens when Ministerial functions have to be discharged by people elected on a geographical basis are selected to run 'the business of Government' on the basis - it would seem at times - of little more than being able to more or less spell some of the key words pertaining to their Ministry.

 

I would like to see a competent, professional and above all workable Board, capable of getting on with the job. I believe there is potential for RAA members to vote 'locally' on 'regional representatives', who become both gate-keepers of local matters affecting local members, who absolutely have a role to play in informing/alerting the Board to matters at a local level that affect/require RAA action as a whole to get results, and who are also able to be the 'on-the-spot' representatives for the RAA in general to their local community - but who can be relied upon to be consistent with RAA policy. That does not mean that those local representatives would be in any way barred from agitating for changes that reflect the wishes of their 'electorate' - but they would do so in accordance with whatever methodology is enshrined in the RAA organisational document (Constitution, or whatever).

 

The bunfight ( I almost used the words 'current bunfight' here, but levity is inappropriate) must have the SASAO laughing like open drains. Against that, of course is the fact that quite obviously, this forum is frankly NOT 'the largest cross-section of RAA members anywhere: it encompasses but a tiny fraction of RAA members. It IS serving as a valuable arena for debate, and that function is admirable - but let's not start to suggest, please, that it can be taken as a statistically valid sample of RAA members - that would be shot down in flames by any statistician.

 

 

[gandalph]

The bunfight ( I almost used the words 'current bunfight' here,

That would be "currant bunfight". You just can't trust spellcheck to get it right!

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Don, my point is the resolution calls for the election to bring the number of directors to 5. Our constitution (new) dictates how directors are elected. The resolution does not over ride that process (i.e. At the AGM).

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Don are you saying that not one of the members posts here are valid enough to stop the vote and get it right first. If just one member has a valid point then the vote should be stopped and amended for all valid points. You have admitted that it isnt as good as it could be so make it as good as it could be first...simple yes or no will suffice

I have not seen a single valid point or argument in favour of the no vote in all of the posts here, and I have been following each thread carefully. The anti brigade are riding on emotion and past grievances and are quite irrational in their arguments. I don't know the board member who emailed the load of horse manure, but his tenure is certainly under threat once all members get to vote democratically for board members.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Would you be more comfortable if I said that we expect to hold a General Meeting of RAAus Ltd at around the same time as our usual AGM timing (Sep/Oct)?...

It would also involve a review of the last year of RAAus operating as an Incorporated Association registered in Canberra. It would feature reports from the Executive and the CEO

As a member I would expect nothing less... However as the proposed constitution stands, we the members have no way to ensuring such actions are taken once the constitution gets up.

 

 

[Admin]

Against that, of course is the fact that quite obviously, this forum is frankly NOT 'the largest cross-section of RAA members anywhere: it encompasses but a tiny fraction of RAA members.

Oscar, do you have access to the site database or the google metrics this site captures, do you know how many unique vistors from Australian based devices visit the site every day, do you know the number of CASA representatives that are registered on this site or the number of users that have newspaper email addresses, yes even the users that have ministerial email addresses, the dates, times and ftequencies that registered users and specific lurkers come on the site, what each user and lurker reads on the site, he number of users that have put certain personal information about their flying in their registration details etc etc etc.

Sorry mate, with all due respect to all those that "think" they know, these people simply do not know and shouldn't be making statements that undermine their credibility, I can make accurate statements basef on fact in this area because I have the database and the information to support my statements.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Will all respect Ian, how do you know if a site user is a member of RA-AUS?

 

 

[gandalph]

this forum is frankly NOT 'the largest cross-section of RAA members anywhere: it encompasses but a tiny fraction of RAA members. It IS serving as a valuable arena for debate, and that function is admirable - but let's not start to suggest, please, that it can be taken as a statistically valid sample of RAA members - that would be shot down in flames by any statistician.

Absolutely correct!

This site is a valuable resource with contributions from enormously experienced and talented people but it is not, despite its masthead, the voice of recreational flying. To suggest that it represents the view of the majority of recreational flyers like saying that pprune represents the majority view of G.A and professional flyers. It is just puffery. They like us represent the vocal minority. We, like they, are the squeaky wheel of aviation. Sorry Ian, I don't mean to denigrate this site but really, we are a small itch on a much larger bum.

 

 

[facthunter]

PMC, If you suggest your comment is even handed, you are one with pre conceived outcomes. You just tag anyone who thinks different to you. There have been valid points made . Your OPINION of them is yours. It's not FACT because YOU state it.

 

Don (who I respect) knows there are faults. Some are more concerned than others about the importance of . them. Nev

 

 

[Admin]

Will all respect Ian, how do you know if a site user is a member of RA-AUS?

I don't specifically although some actually tell me the membership number but over the last 12 years I get to know who is who, plus their aircraft types and registrations, their posts etc etc etc...actually you could say I am a very sick person by spending every waking hour here, reading, looking, analysing data, users, registrations...every element of this site.

 

 

[Admin]

Absolutely correct!This site is a valuable resource with contributions from enormously experienced and talented people but it is not, despite its masthead, the voice of recreational flying. To suggest that it represents the view of the majority of recreational flyers like saying that pprune represents the majority view of G.A and professional flyers. It is just puffery. They like us represent the vocal minority. We, like they, are the squeaky wheel of aviation. Sorry Ian, I don't mean to denigrate this site but really, we are a small itch on a much larger bum.

Gandalph...I did not say "majority", I said

 

Tony you wont find a larger cross section of RAAus members anywhere else.

BIG difference, please read the post again

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I have been away doing some work hence a lot of time has not been utilised checking the happenings on the forum. However I have put a lot of thought to the issues and this post from another board member solidifies my thoughts on certain issues. So this proves a lot of members are aware this "Yes" is a manipulation.

And how do you feel about it now Keith, now that you know that most of Rod's post was wrong in fact and therefore misleading?

 

Remember there are some gag restrictions on board members however one member has broken ranks.

As I've shown in another post, the unreasonable restrictions that Ian referred to as a "gag" order were lifted by the Board, after Ian left the Board, in September 2011 at my first Board meeting. Say it as often as you like, Keith but there is no "gag" on Board Members speaking there mind on matters that any reasonable person can see is not confidential in the ordinary sense.

 

We have been told by Don that the board is rock solid on "Yes", ????????.

When I wrote that there was no evidence to the contrary. The views and factual errors written by Rod, after the closing time for changes, was the first anybody on the Board had heard of them. If he had put those thoughts to the Board, the factual misconceptions he was labouring under could have been corrected for him. Instead he went solo and published that email with its misleading, inaccurate statements.

 

To me it looks like Don has been vested the duty by the board to push the "Yes" vote in doing so Don has enlisted the help of a few buddies to push "Yes" as well.

Keith, as I have stated many times now, the views I express on here are my own personal views as an ordinary member and not as any kind of Board spokesperson. That they coincide with the unanimous (until yesterday) view of the Board is kind of predictable. Nobody has delegated to me the task of arguing the "yes" case. What I've been trying to do is to dispel the inaccuracies and misconceptions that have been put here, many quite genuine, a couple just stirring the pot and a few that are, at best, "cynical".

 

Another point has been mentioned to me - by having a smaller board that will get rid of the dead wood from the board. Now? One meaning of "Dead wood" we all know however the other meaning, Is it a disguise for those who are not partaking in the party lines which is a "yes" in this case.Looks like the smoke screen is falling down.

Firstly, that assetion is unfounded, no better than scuttlebut and beneath contempt. WE have a Board of very long serving members and some with shorter service but high energy. To suggest that any of these unpaid volunteers, who give up a vast amount of time to serve the members of RAAus, are your words "dead wood" is very uncharitable especially from those who like to sit in the grandstand and take potshots.

Even by your own assertion there is only one Board Member who has "broken ranks". We have a Board of 13 and we are moving towards a much more sensible number of max 7. Going to all this trouble to get rid of one particular Board Member is just not credible.

 

Reducing Board numbers is probably the one part of the reform proposed that has virtually no opposition from anyone other than, it seems, you and Rod.

 

What the Corporations Law requires (not the Constitution and not the Incorporated Associations Act) is for a report to be given to the ordinary members on the performance of individual Directors. Perhaps a current Board Member who rarely participates in Board discussions either at all or until well after closing time might be apprehensive about that level of scrutiny of their Directorship?

 

 

[gandalph]

Suggesting that because someone visits a site, their views are represented by that site is like saying that all readers of the Daily Telegraph have their views represented by the Tele. It's just not true. I sometimes read the Canberra Times but it would be wildly inaccurate to say that they represented my views in any way. I sometimes even dip into the Murdoch press (forgive me colleagues for I have sinned) but I do that mainly to see just how wrong they can be. Suggesting that you represent the voice of the lurkers, the sporadic posters, the keyboard warriors etc. is just wishful thinking. This site (enormously valuable, as I said before) is but one lens through which a small facet of aviation may be viewed. It not the Hubble of aviation.

 

 

[Oscar]

That would be "currant bunfight". You just can't trust spellcheck to get it right!

You are just raisin objections, no grape issue here..

 

 

[gandalph]

Gandalph...I did not say "majority", I saidBIG difference, please read the post again

Well to be pedantic, I think you'll find a larger cross section of RAA members mowing their lawns, watching telly, flying their planes and even being members of the RAA, doing anything but contributing to the Rec Flying site. Sad but true.

This site certainly presents a cross section of aviation interests. It is A voice but not THE voice.

 

But we seem to have drifted pretty much off topic.