Query to RAA CEO

[Admin]

Suggesting that because someone visits a site, their views are represented by that site

Gandalph, i don't know where you are pulling these statements and making up others but if you read the posts here the true statements are

 

not using this site as a means of getting members thoughts and opinions

 

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

I have no idea how you could make so left of field made up statements like "majority representation" or "their views are represented by that site"

To clarify it I will say it clearer and in one sentence:

 

The Raaus should use this site as a means of getting members thoughts and opinions...because it has the largest cross section of RAAus members outside of their own database and this is based on fact

 

Is that clear

 

 

[Admin]

I am starting to see why the board members don't like coming here but it is moritorium may isn't it

 

 

[gandalph]

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

Don't go beeting the messenger, that's borscht!

 

 

[gandalph]

Gandalph, i don't know where you are pulling these statements and making up others but if you read the posts here the true statements are

 

I have no idea how you could make so left of field made up statements like "majority representation" or "their views are represented by that site"

 

To clarify it I will say it clearer and in one sentence:

 

The Raaus should use this site as a means of getting members thoughts and opinions...because it has the largest cross section of RAAus members outside of their own database and this is based on fact

 

Is that clear

Clear but still wrong.

 

 

[Oscar]

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.

Ian, obviously I don't know the metrics. Yes, you are technically correct - I believe - that there is no OTHER venue that publishes as many opinions of RAA members. However, it is an invalid assumption that the issues being debated here do encompass the widest cross-section of RAA members' opinions/concerns - because we all have simply NO WAY of gauging those. But you may be able to prove your point following the vote on this issue.

 

There are how many ( you would have the figure, surely?) active participants in this thread? What is the approximate spread of 'Pro' and 'Anti' positions by those participants? If the vote to be had reflects that spread reasonably well, then you certainly have a representative cross-section of the' interested' RAA participants. But then comes the crunch - if the total of all votes turns out to be only a relatively low percentage of total RAA members, I believe that that would be indicative of what percentage of the RAA membership IS concerned, vs. what percentage of the membership simply couldn't give a damn as long as they can continue to legally fly their aircraft.

 

Let's see what transpires.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

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,

I've also said that I haven't seen anything that I would class as a "show-stopper". Letting "perfect" stop us from making a bloody good start on reform after more than 4 years of delay sounds like a very good move to me.

 

The overall strategy is absolutely the best way to go and there has been little debate about that. Reasonable commentators have come up with things they'd like to see different and that is absolutely their right. If we had feedback from 500 members instead of perhaps 20, we could find many, many differences of opinion on the details. What I'm certain of is that the proposed reform takes us a long way ahead of where we are now and that, guess what?, I'll be voting in favour of progress NOW instead of more delays.

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks Oscar but again I think people are missing the point of what I said. I said you would not "find" a bigger cross section of RAAus members and RAAus should make use if this. Whether a site member posts or not, I did not mention but the fact is that they are here for RAAus to communicate to, which may get them to post their thoughts for the RAAus to take on board but if not they sre still not only communicating to existing members but also all those potential members. And, as we know many people dont like facebook etc yet RAAus uses that medium.

 

Business management 101 is not just to survey existing customers because if you do you will stagnate trying to just please them. More importantly find out why you are not pleasing non customers and then you will grow. That is a good business manager

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks Don, I think we all have been having a good debate for everyone to see and to make up our own minds even tho it can get heated because of our egos, biases and the fact that as we get older we become more set in our ways.

 

As I explained to you the other night on the phone to make sure we can still sit down and have a beer together because in the end we are all in this together and we MUST still be able to sit down and have a beer together and talk our normal sh1t and have a laugh

 

 

[DonRamsay]

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

Of course, a simple answer to a complex question might suit you just like it would Perry Mason. Bit, I'm not going to fall that lawyer trick.

All I can do is reiterate what I said above, there is nothing in what has been raised here that I think is a show-stopper.

 

I'll go a little further and refer you back to the 10,000+ words I've written on here where I've attempted to explain the decisions the Board has made to get to where we are now and see if I've agreed to any significant change being necessary before the vote.

 

A difference of opinion does not make a document invalid. Something in the draft that, if adopted, would cause the constitution to be inoperable would. Just saying you don't like some aspect doesn't make a person right. We were democratically elected to use our judgement to propose reforms to the Membership for their consideration. I've been elected twice on a pro-reform agenda and I'm not going to step away from reform that until it is achieved.

 

Don

 

 

[Oscar]

Don't go beeting the messenger, that's borscht!

This is a serious thread, so if you wish to persist in being berry silly, you can jam it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There was an utterly unreasonable "Board Confidentiality" agreement that Board members were required to sign back in your day on the Board. The first order of Business at the Sep 2011 Board Meeting was to ditch the gag agreement and it was ditched.

 

In its place was an honest agreement to maintain ordinary Board Confidentiality.

I'm glad you explained that Don.

 

So the bad confidentiality agreement was replaced by the good confidentiality agreement.

 

What a load of codswallop!

 

One of the Key outcomes we wanted at that time was for the behind the scenes unilateral decisions to be stopped, and the board to operate transparently.

 

A very good example of the current status is the failure of the board to openly discuss and develop these two changes - the changes to the Constitution, but more importantly, the corporate change.

 

Another key outcome we wanted was for any reference in the Constitution for a three man "Executive" to run the Association deleted, but it wasn't, and look what's happening now.

 

Openness and transparency, may still have uncovered passionately opposed views, but that would have been in the early stages rather than at the embarrassing eve of a vote based on a basketful of errors and the hope that "someone' will come along and fix the fundamental errors.

 

 

[gandalph]

This is a serious thread, so if you wish to persist in being berry silly, you can jam it.

Cheese! Who's bean st'ring your pot? You really are pasta artichoke.

Lettuce call it quince.

 

 

[TK58]

...you would not "find" a bigger cross section of RAAus members and RAAus should make use if this.

Ian, what is the factual basis for your claim that RAAus does not utilise this site as a source of member opinion? As I said earlier, we do. We just don't treat it as the only source.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

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 override that process (i.e. At the AGM).

Rhys,

I can see where you are coming from but I disagree, not in opinion, but in fact. The key thread of logic:

 

• The Constitution requires at Cl 36.1 for either 2 (or 1) directors to retire at each AGM.
   
   
  
• The Constitution at Cl 20 allows up to 18 months for RAAus Ltd to hold its first AGM so the first AGM for RAAus Ltd will be late in 2017, after the end of the Financial Year.
  (this is exactly the same provision as in the current constitution for RAAus Inc. and is dictated by the Act)
   
   
  
• The election to increase director numbers to 5 is an obligation on the initial directors of RAAus Ltd imposed by the SR.
   
   
  

 

 

If you want to argue that the Special Resolution of RAAus Inc does not override the Constitution of RAAus Ltd, then the election to bring director numbers up to 5 could be ignored by the initial directors and there would be no need for any election until the one required by the Constitution in connection with the first AGM to be held in late 2017.

 

You can't have it both ways, either

 

• the Special Resolution is binding on the initial directors and there has to be an election in 2016 to bring Board numbers to at least 5;
  or
   
   
  
• the Special Resolution is not binding on the initial directors of RAAus Ltd and the first elections for RAAus Ltd will be in connection with the first AGM in the latter part of 2017.
   
   
  

 

 

Personally, I can't think of a single reason why anyone would not happily go along with the Special Resolution as written and approved by 75% of the members who vote. I imagine the 10,000 initial members of RAAUs Ltd would take a very dim view of any Board that chose to ignore the Special Resolution.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

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.

Tony, what people say to your face isn't always what they believe. It's also much easier to be critical [online] when you the time and other opinions to consider when assuming a position.

 

Superficially, the move to company is a good one but when you look closer at the detail and take in account of the various stakeholders bias, its easy to see how it could go for the RAA.

 

 

[Admin]

Don you keep referring to a board of 5 and yes the proposal is for between 5 and 7. Who and by what way and when does it become 7

 

 

[DonRamsay]

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

Or were you thinking of, salivating for, a currant-bun fight?

I thought Oscar's grammar was correct as in the current (of the moment) bun-fight as opposed to a food fight outside the tuckshop.

 

Clearly I didn't get enough sleep last night . . .

 

 

[TK58]

I'm glad you explained that Don.So the bad confidentiality agreement was replaced by the good confidentiality agreement.

 

What a load of codswallop!

 

One of the Key outcomes we wanted at that time was for the behind the scenes unilateral decisions to be stopped, and the board to operate transparently.

 

A very good example of the current status is the failure of the board to openly discuss and develop these two changes - the changes to the Constitution, but more importantly, the corporate change.

 

Another key outcome we wanted was for any reference in the Constitution for a three man "Executive" to run the Association deleted, but it wasn't, and look what's happening now.

 

Openness and transparency, may still have uncovered passionately opposed views, but that would have been in the early stages rather than at the embarrassing eve of a vote based on a basketful of errors and the hope that "someone' will come along and fix the fundamental errors.

What an outstanding demonstration of the fact that some people are entirely resistant to facts and logic.

 

Where is your evidence that behind the scenes unilateral decisions have happened in recent times? I'm certainly not aware of any.

 

What is the basis for your suggestion that the Board is not operating transparently? Is it because we haven't published transcripts of every discussion? Perhaps you've forgotten what it was like a few years ago when the minutes of Board meetings were published months after the meeting (if at all) and the organisation's financial reporting to members consisted of nothing more than a couple of photocopied pages handed out at a general meeting with no explanation? Had you ever seen a strategic plan from RAAus before last year?

 

You'll be pleased to know (if you care to read the document) that there's no three person executive in the new constitution.

 

In response to your suggestion that there's been a lack of openness and transparency in relation to the changes to the constitution I can only conclude you've been asleep for the past 18 months.

 

 

[gandalph]

I thought Oscar's grammar was correct as in the current (of the moment) bun-fight as opposed to a food fight outside the tuckshop.Clearly I didn't get enough sleep last night . . .

It was. I just thought Oscar was being far too reasonable and out of character so I thought I'd give him a friendly serve. TP had been very quiet so I thought I'd step in as temporary Oscar harrasser

 

Neither of is did!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

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.

That's because we will be in the initial/transition stage. It is kind of a chicken and egg process. We could have an AGM in say Oct 2017 but it can't be for RAAus Inc because it has morphed into RAAus Ltd. And it can't be for RAAus Ltd because it would only be a 2 or three months old.

In essence you would be relying on the goodwill of the Board to host a meeting primarily directed at the workings of an entity that no longer has a corporal presence. This will always be the case when any incorporated association gets big and national and morphs into a more grown-up form of incorporation.

 

Of course your "we the members" were the members of RAAus Inc and also form the initial members of RAAus Ltd. The members have absolute power in any corporation of any form. It would only take 100 out of 10,000 (1%) members to demand a General Meeting of RAAus Ltd. and put questions on notice for the Board to answer. You could even put forward a special resolution to change the constitution to be whatever you want it to be as long as you can get support for that. But you'd have to be prepared to contend with the people who work on suspicions and speculation rather than fact or logic. (You Rhys, are definitely not one of those sort of people.)

 

Once we get past the complexities of the start-up phase, things are simple and will work well.

 

Don

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Rhys,I can see where you are coming from but I disagree, not in opinion, but in fact. The key thread of logic:

 

• The Constitution requires at Cl 36.1 for either 2 (or 1) directors to retire at each AGM.
   
   
  
• The Constitution at Cl 20 allows up to 18 months for RAAus Ltd to hold its first AGM so the first AGM for RAAus Ltd will be late in 2017, after the end of the Financial Year.
  (this is exactly the same provision as in the current constitution for RAAus Inc. and is dictated by the Act)
   
   
  
• The election to increase director numbers to 5 is an obligation on the initial directors of RAAus Ltd imposed by the SR.
   
   
  

 

 

If you want to argue that the Special Resolution of RAAus Inc does not override the Constitution of RAAus Ltd, then the election to bring director numbers up to 5 could be ignored by the initial directors and there would be no need for any election until the one required by the Constitution in connection with the first AGM to be held in late 2017.

 

You can't have it both ways, either

 

• the Special Resolution is binding on the initial directors and there has to be an election in 2016 to bring Board numbers to at least 5;
  or
   
   
  
• the Special Resolution is not binding on the initial directors of RAAus Ltd and the first elections for RAAus Ltd will be in connection with the first AGM in the latter part of 2017.
   
   
  

 

 

Personally, I can't think of a single reason why anyone would not happily go along with the Special Resolution as written and approved by 75% of the members who vote. I imagine the 10,000 initial members of RAAUs Ltd would take a very dim view of any Board that chose to ignore the Special Resolution.

It is fact;

 

• the constitution allows for the AGM to be held within 18 months from the registration of the Company.
   
   
  
• the constitution (clause 36.4) states a director's term starts at the end of Annual General Meeting at which they were elected.
   
   
  
• the special resolution requires the initial directors to "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.
   
   
  

 

 

 

What the special resolution does not authorise is for the election (and thus appointment of directors) outside of the conditions set out in the constitution. In common terms, the members are telling (by voting YES to the resolution), that we expect such an election (as per the condition) to happen within 6 months.

 

Don, I put to you that the word "annual" in clause 36.4 may in fact be an error (clause 34.4 does not include this term). These "typo" type errors, which the constitution is riddled with are in my opinion show-stoppers.

 

Don you keep referring to a board of 5 and yes the proposal is for between 5 and 7. Who and by what way and when does it become 7

The resolution calls for at least 5 directors by end of 2016. After that time it's up to the board to decide it's numbers between 3-7. Members always have the option of bringing a resolution to a general meeting to override the board's decision (providing it's not against the constitution)

[DonRamsay]

. . . The Raaus should use this site as a means of getting members thoughts and opinions...because it has the largest cross section of RAAus members outside of their own database . . .

Ian, So, RAAus sends newsletters to the 95%+ of those on their database who have registered an email address and offer information and request feedback is not enough?

 

Don

 

Ian, do you find that magnificent ghost owl looking down his nose at you intimidating?

 

p.s. I know I do. He looks so wise and in control.

 

You should be thanked and congratulated on allowing this debate free reign. The debate has been robust but very little in the way of attacking the person rather than the idea.

 

But, I'd be getting more sleep if you did decide to shut it down

 

 

[rhysmcc]

That's because we will be in the initial/transition stage. It is kind of a chicken and egg process. We could have an AGM in say Oct 2017 but it can't be for RAAus Inc because it has morphed into RAAus Ltd. And it can't be for RAAus Ltd because it would only be a 2 or three months old.In essence you would be relying on the goodwill of the Board to host a meeting primarily directed at the workings of an entity that no longer has a corporal presence. This will always be the case when any incorporated association gets big and national and morphs into a more grown-up form of incorporation.

 

Of course your "we the members" were the members of RAAus Inc and also form the initial members of RAAus Ltd. The members have absolute power in any corporation of any form. It would only take 100 out of 10,000 (1%) members to demand a General Meeting of RAAus Ltd. and put questions on notice for the Board to answer. You could even put forward a special resolution to change the constitution to be whatever you want it to be as long as you can get support for that. But you'd have to be prepared to contend with the people who work on suspicions and speculation rather than fact or logic. (You Rhys, are definitely not one of those sort of people.)

 

Once we get past the complexities of the start-up phase, things are simple and will work well.

 

Don

Come 1st of July 2016 (assuming that's the day of registration), I nor any member will have any right to make the board disclose any of the "books" from RAAus Inc from the 2015/16 year.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don you keep referring to a board of 5 and yes the proposal is for between 5 and 7. Who and by what way and when does it become 7

When the Board uses its power under the Constitution to increase it to 7.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In response to your suggestion that there's been a lack of openness and transparency in relation to the changes to the constitution I can only conclude you've been asleep for the past 18 months.

Not enough to miss the months of pleading for the board to communicate projects like this one to the members right at the start, so the members can decided if they even want to go down the path, then the pleading to the board to slow down and get the facts, and get the constitution into some form of professional shape, before any voting which could lock in disadvantages in the future.