Draft Constitution (Final Draft)

[shags_j]

Ok,

 

So the final draft for voting on has been released. (https://www.raa.asn.au/our-organisation/our-constitution/draft-constitution/)

 

I am very pleased that all of my issues have been addressed. I am also in favour of a corporation as a new structure as I see only good outcomes and haven't seen an argument yet that shows why it would be a bad idea. So for the moment I think I will be voting to bring in the constitution.

 

I am interested to know everyone else's opinion and if you are against certain items in the constitution have you contact Michael Monck and discussed by phone. If so what was the outcome?

 

Cheers,

 

Shags

 

P.S. All the errors seem to be fixed. Small miracles can occur.

 

 

[Yenn]

I havn't looked at the draft for about 2 weeks so I suppose it has been fixed.

 

I looked at the Members Charter and it is supposedly written by legal minds.

 

I am not impressed, it looks amateurish and also all encompassing, but I havn't had time to really get to grips with it.

 

Reporting culture is mentioned in the mambers accesability, but not mentioned in the earlier visions or anywhere else.More later

 

 

[kasper]

And now we see the Member Charter for the first time - lets start from scratch and spot the errors/inconsistencies between it and the constitution because of course Constitution wins ...

 

First up I HATE the decision to move to the electronic mag. Not part of the constitutional change but as an Initial Member I AM (if it passes) going to exercise the right to NOT receive ANY communications under the Constitution by ANY form of electronic communications. I will NOT be required to accept email, the website texts etc and RAA will have to write to me for any and all communications under the Constitution ... for me the entirety of under Communications will be inapplicable as they cannot force me to accept any obligation to inform myself of anything listed and as the Charter is subservient and strikes down the Members Charter that does not apply.

 

Next up we come to the part on action being taken ... nothing unless

 

Terrorism - Good to see a nice motherhood statement ... but is that terrorism against RAAus or just generally terrorism ... limited to Australia or overseas ... and who declares something to be terrorism? And is it OK to assist terrorist so long as you don't do the terrorism itself?

 

Wilful violation of aviation law including Regulations, the RAAus Constitution, Operations Manual or Technical Manual has been proved .... So that's capitalised Regulations that are not defined (but assumed to Aviation Regulations ... one hoes Australian ones only) ... but not the Orders the aircraft we operate aircraft under not so much an issue? Nice to see its Wilful ... so clearly negligence is acceptable to avoid action.

 

On the threats and violence bits I have no quibble

 

What the RAAus can expect from me as a member is beyond the Constitution by requiring me to check communications channels regularly for updates and changes and as such its stuck down for me - sorry.

 

REALLY sorry but the RAAus is expected to be a political voice for RAAus ... you have to expect various opinions and you can't be expected as a member to represent RAAus in a positive light at all times because that in itself is antithetical to the concept of a political organization.

 

A draft charter should NOT refer to a Draft Constitution ... it MUST refer to the Constitution ... whoever wrote this really needs to to have another go ... and I am fed up to the back teeth with 'well we can fix it on the go and improve' - it should be internally consistent and referentially correct at the very least.

 

Just a quibble but if you refer to a "Chief Executive Officer" in once sentence and then in the next paragraph as "CEO" you would expect that the first would have "(CEO)" after it to identify that an abbreviation was to be used in any following reference ...

 

So there we go ... issue an important document for the first time as part of the final documents and you are going to start finding issues at a time when it really should not be happening.

 

For me its going to be a no vote to the change - not because change is not potentially good or desired but because the reasons for the change and the benefits to flow from it are not clear or accepted by me and the documents put forward to effect the change are not well drafted even after 3 revisions.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Silly and inconsequential criticisms.

 

 

[Nick Sieczkowski]

I'm very happy with it and will be voting for the change. I think it is well written as it keeps things simple and easy to understand. I appreciate that there are people out there who are working hard so that I can fly in a safe, fun and affordable environment.

 

Unlike kasper, I'm more than happy to receive communication by electronic means if it helps increase efficiency and keep costs down without impacting safety. I'm also happy to be required to (I do anyway) periodically check communication channels because;

 

1. I'm interested in my personal safety and that of my passengers,

 

2. I'm interested in all things aviation and want to keep up to date with whats going on in aviation, and

 

3. as a member who pays an annual fee to RAAus, has been provided a pilot certificate by RAAus and flies aircraft registered by RAAus, I want to know about any issues that could affect those things.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

And.....those electronic communications channels......CASA has them and I don't believe that today you can commit aviation legally without already using them...... How would people be aware of the CASA related legislation and its rules without the use of the electronic channels......

 

Personally I'm very glad they exist, makes trips away from home much easier in my view......and there is a degree of irony in using the very same channels to argue that we shouldn't use them........

 

 

[Keith Page]

As I have been away and I am doing some catch up..

 

What I have gleaned I am with you kasper..

 

I am concerned as to what is hidden behind those flaws.

 

KP

 

 

[Yenn]

I have just found more time to peruse the draft and I agree wholeheartedly with kasper, except about the threats. I don't see it as the job of RAAus to do anything about threats or violence except inform the police. It is not the job for RAAus to deal with terrorism or violence or wilful illegal flying. That is the job of the police and CASA.

 

As far as I can see this whole mess is very poorly written.

 

To say it was written by legal people certainly makes me wonder about the capability of the legal proffession.

 

There is a reference to "reporting culture" but I didn't see any previous mention of that.

 

Nor do I see any any definition of natural justice.

 

I also fail to see why space craft should come into the ambit of RAAus. I was under the impression that there were height limits to our operations.

 

What a complete mess of poor quality riting the whole thing is and if it is approved I would not be allowed to write this.

 

 

[shags_j]

definition of natural justice is a legal term defined in a case (can't remember the case name sorry).

 

Remember the members charter is not the constitution. It can have slightly less legalese terms. It is vague (I guess intentionally so) whereas the constitution is very fixed.

 

Outside of the members charter Yenn, what else is poorly written?

 

 

[shags_j]

Kasper there needs to be a sense of realism here too. If you insist on written correspondence, I guess that's fine, but I will be opting for electronic as this is beneficial for the environment and the bottom line of the association. Both of these things are things that will affect me (I know the baby boomers among us have profited from exploiting the worlds resources to the younger generations detriment, but that's a topic for another day... )

 

And as for informing yourself; I agree important things are to be written to members about (ie. the Jabiru issues etc) however if CASA makes a change, then you will need to inform yourself. If AIP is updated, same deal. So there are distinctions to be made here.

 

I'm not sure the documents are any worse drafted than those of some major corporations or trusts (trust me I know) but I'm not here as a delegate for the voting in of this constitution.

 

 

[kasper]

People miss my point - the PRACTICAL points sent to the RAAus on the drafts that have been unaddressed

 

1. All members (initial or otherwise) must positively elect under the Constitution to have communications under the Constitution provided by website, email or other electronic means ... I directly questioned HOW RAAus were going to achieve this for initial members ... it could have been in the resolutions - its not - it can't be inferred ... if they try that then someone will simply turn around when the poo hits the fan and say 'Where is my election to recieve that in that form?' and RAAus will not have it.

 

2. We have a Constituion where the FORM of words for membership application MUST be per the RAAus directed application in one section with a positive statement of support for the objectives YET it then becomes inferred to 'remedy' an application ... we set the wording then want to have the power to correct errors?

 

and I could go on.

 

I only say now that IF it is passed I will not be providing consent because it WILL force RAAus to actually walk through the damn admin nightmare the DRAFTING of this Constitution creates that is fundamentally different from today.

 

Still trying to be helpful ...but now its active non-conformity to better form the processes that we will need to operate legitimately within this VERY flawed document

 

 

[Fishla]

So who is actually attending the meeting and voting?

 

Anyone planning on taking proxies for a no vote?

 

I expect you can proxy the chairman if you want a yes vote.

 

I am still unsure myself. Haven't read the new version. Don't know history and why we need change in first place.

 

 

[kasper]

you can proxy the chair either yes or no. He/she will then cast them both ways

 

 

[Fishla]

Ah. I see. Thanks.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

At the risk of complicating things, a company constitution does not exist in isolation, it fits within a structure defined in legislation and like the ACT incorporated Association act, a company constitution can slightly (and no I'm not going to define what slightly means! If I can do that then I can accurately define shades of grey!) vary the intended rules defined in legislation, or it can be silent on them, in which case the rules exactly as defined in the legislated apply. A Company Constitution cannot take a rule in legislation and do a complete 180 on it and expect to get away with it if challenged.

 

So....the point of this rambling, unless you read this document in conjunction with the applicable legislation you may be forgiven for thinking that there is much that the constitution doesn't speak to. The reality is that constitution is like Part B of Araldite pretty useless unless applied in equal measure with the underlying legislation as Part A .....

 

So it may appear a mess, but in reality only appropriately chooses to make distinctions against underlying legislature where the board and their legal adviser felt is was important to make the distinction...

 

Do people understand that reality? It doesn't read like a book having a beginning an end and every single word in between rather you almost need to lay the constitution and the act side by side and only from that will you get your beginning, end and every word in between.....

 

As before Legislation is king, nothing in a constitution or any other document/practise can contradict the legislation and expect to survive close scrutiny.....

 

I'll be voting for it....

 

Andy

 

 

[peter]

It lost my vote in the opening statement of our "objectives" where it states "the promotion of aviation ". Maybe I'm cynical but this implies that if a few board members get it into their heads that they would like to support commercial aviation with my funds then they will be well within the charter. I thought we were/are a RECREATIONAL aviation organisation.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I think you may well wait for hell to freeze over before CASA feels the need to outsource "Commercial aviation" to an RAO that's, if you ask them, their absolute core business!.........

 

Also, the constitution allows for 100 members or 5% of the membership, whichever is lowest, to call a GM for the purposes of "Correcting Aberrant Behaviour" Its been done before and will happen again if we arrive at a similar or same location......

 

When ever we become prescriptive and try to deal with every possible option then we will simply fail because we'll never get to address every scenario and we'll end up tied up in knots (of nots as may be more relevant to this discussion!)

 

Their is a Deed of Agreement between CASA and RAAus that very clearly defines what it is that RAAus does, I don't see that we need to duplicate that degree of complexity/prescriptiveness in the constitution.....

 

My sanity check is, "Will this prevent me doing anything I want to legally do today? No...If it goes off the rails can I, with some likeminded members, get it put back on the rails.....Yes"

 

Tody's restrictions on what we can and cant do, may well be different in a months time (In fact lets revisit in a month!!!!!) If I write the constitution prescriptively to align to today then I'm going to have to rewrite it in a months time when it all changes....... Writing these things is not a fun thing to do, I'm all for getting a good one in place at day one and only changing it when we desperately need to

 

 

[Riley]

I cannot agree that the final Constitution draft is acceptable in it's current loose form. Any member who has seriously studied the various versions and read on these Rec Flying forums the many un-acknowledged contentious points raised by interested (NOT anti-RAA) members, must agree that it is folly to rush into a 'half-baked' Constitution. My request to the CEO to delay the ballot pending resolution of these many items has not gained a response so I will lodge my 'NO' vote by proxy with the Board. Unfortunately, I am enough of a realist to acknowledge that the majority of RAA members can't be stuffed in getting involved in what happens to their 'obligatory' association (all they want to do is fly) so the Constitution in it's incomplete form will most likely get ratified simply on the basis of those who couldn't be bothered to vote. Such is the price of democracy I guess (but I do despair)! With luck, I possibly might have 5 years of RAA flying ahead of me so won't be around when the inconsistencies of the present draft raise their controversial aspects in future. Good luck Ladies and Gentlemen, I reckon we'll need it. cheers all.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I have just found more time to peruse the draft and I agree wholeheartedly with kasper, except about the threats. I don't see it as the job of RAAus to do anything about threats or violence except inform the police. It is not the job for RAAus to deal with terrorism or violence or wilful illegal flying. That is the job of the police and CASA.As far as I can see this whole mess is very poorly written.

To say it was written by legal people certainly makes me wonder about the capability of the legal proffession.

 

There is a reference to "reporting culture" but I didn't see any previous mention of that.

 

Nor do I see any any definition of natural justice.

 

I also fail to see why space craft should come into the ambit of RAAus. I was under the impression that there were height limits to our operations.

 

What a complete mess of poor quality riting the whole thing is and if it is approved I would not be allowed to write this.

Wilful, illegal flying:- Hello ---- that is what I have been yelling about for ages. RAAus is not a police force and they should get that very clear in their minds. That even includes the certain members who think they can administer law. I have mentioned them running about playing police people, when they should be going about being diplomats fixing and expanding RAAus.

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

It lost my vote in the opening statement of our "objectives" where it states "the promotion of aviation ". Maybe I'm cynical but this implies that if a few board members get it into their heads that they would like to support commercial aviation with my funds then they will be well within the charter. I thought we were/are a RECREATIONAL aviation organisation.

Yes Peter they miss it.

It is members organisation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Wilful, illegal flying:- Hello ---- that is what I have been yelling about for ages. RAAus is not a police force and they should get that very clear in their minds. That even includes the certain members who think they can administer law. I have mentioned them running about playing police people, when they should be going about being diplomats fixing and expanding RAAus.Regards,

KP.

RAA is a self administering body; if you don't wish to self administer, which includes cleaning out the trash as well as having the excitement of flight, particularly at a time when around one a month are being killed, sure, go back to CASA, tell them you're not interested in administering your own affairs, give it up, and people will be flying GA.

 

 

[kasper]

RAA is a self administering body; if you don't wish to self administer, which includes cleaning out the trash as well as having the excitement of flight, particularly at a time when around one a month are being killed, sure, go back to CASA, tell them you're not interested in administering your own affairs, give it up, and people will be flying GA.

1. 1 per month on average are DIEING not being killed - too emotive

2. self administration of issue of certificates for pilots and airframes does not mean that you necessarily have a need or obligation to undertake investigation of breach of rules and regulations that are not under the control of the organisation and for which the organisation has absolutely no power to either investigate or prosecute

 

Facts are that the RAAus investigation and disciplinary should extend no further than our own documents - breach of constitution, member charter, ops manual and tech manual - they are the documents under the control of RAAus and frankly were ANYONE from RAAus call me up to chat about a potential breach of the Civil Aviation Act, Regulations, Health and safety or the roads traffic act I would politely thank them for their interest and decline to answer anything as they have no authority to investigate.

 

It might be nice if RAAus management and board sat back and worked out what is actually within their existing powers and restrict operations to those and IF there are areas that they legitimately need to have power over then they need to change the legislation to actually give them the authority ... and if CASA are not happy with the withdrawal of investigation/regulation in areas not within RAAus actual power they need to stand up to CASA and say 'sorry, not my power, you have it and you must exercise it'

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Right.....so we have the option of RAAus investigating, with the application of 3 slaps to the face with a cotton hanky as the worst punishment they can apply...or RAAus can refuse to do that specified in the Deed of Agreement and hand it back to CASA who as a minimum have a policy of "strict Liability" which can cost me a huge chunk of my yearly salary or a stay in prison..........

 

You know your right bring on the CASA alternative.........

 

Kasper you are right in law and yet so blatantly wrong it scares me......

 

As a member organisation doing what is done now is absolutely in the best interests of the members.....

 

Realistically, stupid comment above aside, RAAus can temporarily restrict your certificate rights and require more training as methods of member policing which is acceptable to CASA....I have seen members certificates removed, by application of forced resignation from the organisation only once, and in that case there were repeated breaches of CASA's regulations and repeated escalating application of RAAus policing, to the point that CASA decided, as is its right, that they were going after the pilot anyway....what RAAus could have done, and did do, in that case were almost irrelevant compared to what CASA were lining up for the pilot.....

 

 

[kasper]

Just because a deed of agreement MIGHT say it requires something of RAAus does not mean that either CASA had the power to actually require it within a deed of agreement OR RAAus must accept the power to operate under the CAOs.

 

Frankly the power to limit pilots certificates within the existing structure of the RAAus was in my opinion never used cleanly or set up transparently ... the powers RAAus already have within the scope of just the current structure are arguably enough to manage errant and/or misinformed members ...

 

And yes, CASA can throw all its toys out if RAAus say no and threaten to or actually change the CAOs ... but do CASA really want to do that, politically, with politicians already looking at them?

 

If RAAus are going to be a political organisation acting for and on behalf of the members then there are actually needs to draw lines and say no more.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I think you have missed my point.......CASA has and continues to have the right to penalise people whether GA or RAAus, today. They choose by virtue of the arrangement to allow RAAus to look after its own members....right up to the point that they form a view that in a specific case it isn't working......at which stage they bring out the tools they have available (at least in their belief that they have available ) and apply them.

 

If RAAus was to say, no CASA we believe that the right to police sits squarely with you, then nothing need change, no CAO's need to be rewritten all that changes is that today CASA finds out that Pilot X did something naughty and that he is RAAus so they throw the whole affair over to Ops or Tech within RAAus and move on to the next recalcitrant in their list......if that changed they would investigate and police themselves essentially exactly as they can choose to do today......would they do so, "Hell yes". They would argue, correctly, that nothings changed other than RAAus chose to not do what they had already agreed they would and that the resultant CASA Policing is in every way consistent with how they police those pilots that they are responsible for....

 

Drawing lines is something that artists do...... and something that people who can set policy do......RAAus doesn't set policy itself, it advocates for policy direction but in the end CASA sets policy...Its why we are called a self administering organisation....they set the rules and we administer them.......suggestion that we in our own right can set the rules is misguided and wrong. We can through consultation impact the final policy but never in our own right set it.