Saturday meeting

[Aldo]

Sorry Frank but I have already voted

 

Aldo

 

 

[coljones]

The editorialising is beginning to make the Murdoch press seem reasonable and unbiased

There is an election coming up - let's see how reasonable and unbiased the Murdoch press is.

I read the Sunday Telegraph (only for the comics) and pop on by to see what steaming pile of ordure the likes of Akerman, Devine, Blair and Bolt have had delivered from the fantasy factory to pour over their factional enemies this week. What is worse than a lying politician (a tautology) - a NewsCorp commentator.

 

 

[coljones]

To leave it up to your proxy to choose all you have to do is leave the form without ticks in either box. I agree a third box would have made this clearer.Don

The third box should have been "abstain". It should be included against all proposals to allow the member to abstain. My understanding is that a signed proxy provides two powers - 1. to vote in general on a member's behalf on procedural issues and 2. to vote (or abstain) from any ballot, as directed - unless when no direction is given, to allow the proxy holder to vote freely.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The third box should have been "abstain". It should be included against all proposals to allow the member to abstain. My understanding is that a signed proxy provides two powers - 1. to vote in general on a member's behalf on procedural issues and 2. to vote (or abstain) from any ballot, as directed - unless when no direction is given, to allow the proxy holder to vote freely.

I agree, making assumptions that members "know what they mean" is challengable, a blank or ambiguous mark on a ballot paper is by convention an informal vote.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Third box, not "abstain" but "allow proxy holder to vote at their discretion".

 

Not much use wasting the electrons to abstain, just don't vote.

 

 

[facthunter]

A request to note abstentions at a vote is usually complied with. Often minuted with names recorded. It's one form of statement you are entitled to make. It can be seen as a cop out (unfairly) but you may not wish to be recorded as voting for, or against. Some matters can produce that result as desired with some. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

Third box, not "abstain" but "allow proxy holder to vote at their discretion".Not much use wasting the electrons to abstain, just don't vote.

A proxy allows someone to generally vote on your behalf. I am sure that it can generally allow the holder to vote on procedural motions like "that the Treasurer inform the meeting the true purpose of the reserves". A directed vote to one of the motions on notice forces the holder to vote that way. There may, on occasions, be a number of motions for which due notice has been given, or even an election, where the proxy giver has no interest but does not want to permit the proxy holder to vote - hence the need for "abstain". Abstain is used in all the best companies, particularly when voting for directors.

If RAA doesn't use an "abstain" box someone should be asking why not.

 

I note that the writeup in the Magazine suggests that there are a number of motions when in fact the proxy form only lists one. Doesn't sound like the RAA expert legal advice is all that crash hot. Same solicitor that Runciman used? Where is the Runciman legal advice anyway and who paid for it in the end?

 

 

[storchy neil]

col must be hidden under other expenses or hoping no one asked neil

 

 

[Keith Page]

I believe this is more a case of true lack of understanding of the full content as I'm the first to admit I do not understand the full implications of either side ! I think for me it will be who do I trust !

It is a case of NO until there is a clear understanding.

If we vote it in where will it end up, so NO has to be the answer.

 

KP

 

 

[Admin]

Looking at the proxy form you can either vote yes or no for ALL resolutions, are we not suppost to vote per resolution, what about if you wanted to vote yes for some and no for others? Does this mean that the proxy form is invalid?

 

I thought each resolution needed a separate vote

 

 

[kasper]

Looking at the proxy form you can either vote yes or no for ALL resolutions, what about if you wanted to vote yes for some and no for others? Does this mean that the proxy form is invalid?

No.

There is ONLY 1 resolution and it covers all 6 actions required to move from where we are to where we are being asked to be.

 

It would have been impossible to have the 6 steps as 6 resolutions as you cannot get from where we are to where we are being asked to be without ALL 6.

 

So no, the proxy forms as prepared and made available by RAAus are valid and it is, as others have pointed out, an all or nothing single special resolution.

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks Kasper, just got up and had an awful thought as the eyes opened and brain wasn't fully engaged yet

 

 

[DonRamsay]

A proxy allows someone to generally vote on your behalf. I am sure that it can generally allow the holder to vote on procedural motions like "that the Treasurer inform the meeting the true purpose of the reserves".

Col, what you say makes sense but has never been a feature of RAAus general meetings. Because of the difficulty of all 10,000 members being, practically, able to attend, no motion can be put other than those that were on the Notice of Meeting. To do otherwise would be unfair to those than cannot attend. I suppose you could have your proxy, who attended the previous meeting, vote for you on whether to accept the Minutes of the previous meeting but it has never been an issue before.

 

The example you give would normally be handled as a question to the Chair and hard to see you ever being told you are out of order but I suppose it is possible.

 

A directed vote to one of the motions on notice forces the holder to vote that way. There may, on occasions, be a number of motions for which due notice has been given, or even an election, where the proxy giver has no interest but does not want to permit the proxy holder to vote - hence the need for "abstain". Abstain is used in all the best companies, particularly when voting for directors.

That makes good sense.

 

If RAA doesn't use an "abstain" box someone should be asking why not.

You have to go to the current Constitution which defines the proxy form content (not the format). We might need to take some legal advice on how your good suggestions can be accommodated.

 

I note that the writeup in the Magazine suggests that there are a number of motions when in fact the proxy form only lists one. Doesn't sound like the RAA expert legal advice is all that crash hot. Same solicitor that Runciman used? Where is the Runciman legal advice anyway and who paid for it in the end?

Numbers were assigned to make the reference to the explanatory note easier to follow. I can see why that was done but I didn't like it. Regardless, the motion was put on the Notice paper and proxy forms as a single motion and, in the end, that is what matters.

 

RAAus ceased using the Solicitor Runciman used a long time ago. I am told that RAAus paid for the legal advice and Runciman refused to refund even though he refused to allow the legal advice to be shown to the members. I have also been told that he left Australia. Appears to have ended up a bad debt, written off.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

It is a case of NO until there is a clear understanding.If we vote it in where will it end up, so NO has to be the answer.

KP

Keith,

Unless you are prepared to do the hard yards then you will never have a clear understanding.

 

To vote NO because you don't have a clear understanding is a cop-out.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

No.There is ONLY 1 resolution and it covers all 6 actions required to move from where we are to where we are being asked to be.

 

It would have been impossible to have the 6 steps as 6 resolutions as you cannot get from where we are to where we are being asked to be without ALL 6.

 

So no, the proxy forms as prepared and made available by RAAus are valid and it is, as others have pointed out, an all or nothing single special resolution.

Thanks Kasper.

 

I would add that the Notice of Meeting also has the Special Resolution as one, indivisible SR.

 

The numbers were added in one exposition as a cross reference to the explanatory note.

 

 

[kasper]

Keith,Unless you are prepared to do the hard yards then you will never have a clear understanding.

 

To vote NO because you don't have a clear understanding is a cop-out.

Bit harsh.

If the reason you have no clear understanding is you chose not to engage then yeah, might be a cop out

 

BUT

 

If the reason you have no clear understanding is that you did engage and have unanswered/clarified issues with the proposals then a No is reasonable based on the lack of clear understanding.

 

You can't assume that 100% of the members have got their mind across the issues even at this late stage ... after all I think even the most pro change board member would accept that the communications to members on this whole process were not the best ...

 

 

[Admin]

Keith,Unless you are prepared to do the hard yards then you will never have a clear understanding.

 

To vote NO because you don't have a clear understanding is a cop-out.

So Don every member that votes no because they believe what is being proposed is incomplete or doesnt suit them to their knowledge is copping out in your opinion...not the best way for a board member to talk to the members and shows to me your opinion of members. Is your opinion that RAAus would be better without members?

Sorry mate but your post isnt coming across very well

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith,Unless you are prepared to do the hard yards then you will never have a clear understanding.

 

To vote NO because you don't have a clear understanding is a cop-out.

What is if one has puts the hard yards in and still there are unanswered questions and still does not like the direction. Well it has to be "NO" till it is corrected.

One does not start a journey unles the plan is correct at the beginning. It is OK to change a plan when the trip indicates such but, no, to the faults at the start.

 

KP.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The first thing Don will say post election "Well look, if you didn't understand what the changes where, why did you vote for them?"

 

 

[Keith Page]

So Don every member that votes no because they believe what is being proposed is incomplete or doesnt suit them to their knowledge is copping out in your opinion...not the best way for a board member to talk to the members and shows to me your opinion of members. Is your opinion that RAAus would be better without members?Sorry mate but your post isnt coming across very well

Two things there Don is pushing his yes vote...

The other RAAus is a member based organisation.. What do the members want, not the board.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

The first thing Don will say post election "Well look, if you didn't understand what the changes where, why did you vote for them?"

So NO has to be the answer.

KP

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Bit harsh.If the reason you have no clear understanding is you chose not to engage then yeah, might be a cop out

BUT

 

If the reason you have no clear understanding is that you did engage and have unanswered/clarified issues with the proposals then a No is reasonable based on the lack of clear understanding.

 

You can't assume that 100% of the members have got their mind across the issues even at this late stage ... after all I think even the most pro change board member would accept that the communications to members on this whole process were not the best ...

Agree with most of that Kasper including that communication could have been better. But I believe enough has been done to allow a responsible member to seek clarification of any matter still in doubt. There will be some voting No, like Rod, for good reason like don't want less tha 13 on the Board. I respect their right to do that and even to encourage others who agree with him to also vote No.

What I do have a problem with is people voting No on suspicion. And, worse than that urging others to vote No as well on the same baseless grounds.

 

If you are not prepared to do the work, ask the questions and form a cosidered view then I have no issue with an abstention or even with giving your proxy to somebody you trust that you know has had a good look at the proposal. But to be in that particular position AND advocate others to vote is to my way of thinking unjustifiable.

 

 

[storchy neil]

(1) do the members (12000 at that time ) need a new constitution yes was the answer

 

members to form a comity to put this into look at the best way to do this answer was yes thank you to those that did this

 

(2) do the members (12000 ) need a new workable structure to bring raa to a progresive and updated regulations not some thing 20 years old and out of date and no accountability the answer yes

 

members to form a comity to implement the way off the best practice for the members

 

(3) members charter to be part of constitution

 

at that meeting it was advised the comity had an enormous task a head off them and to inform members and to take members concerns on board

 

with what happened at the start of that meeting and the crap and corruption was a complete shambles

 

in defence off don he has stated that what he is writing is not as a board member he has made that clear

 

don was rely keen to fix the bloody problems that some could not see when it was staring them in the face

 

an opinion is what you assume to be write or wrong walk in their shoes neil

 

 

[DonRamsay]

So Don every member that votes no because they believe what is being proposed is incomplete or doesnt suit them to their knowledge is copping out in your opinion

No Ian, that's about 180 degrees from what I said Ian. Better have another read:

 

"There will be some voting No, like Rod, for good reason like don't want less than 13 on the Board.

 

I

 

respect

 

their right to do that and even to encourage others who agree with him to also vote No."

 

It was the people who have not done the work to form a considered opinion that they would rather RAAus has 13 Board Members, voting for the Board by postcodes, no oversight by ASIC, etc.:

 

"To vote NO because you don't have a clear understanding is a cop-out."

 

not the best way for a board member to talk to the members and shows to me your opinion of members. . .

No Board Members here but if you read what I wrote correctly you wouldn't be making that assertion.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Two things there Don is pushing his yes vote...The other RAAus is a member based organisation.. What do the members want, not the board.

Dear oh dear. Sometimes it is hard to be polite.

 

Keith, for your information, 026026 says I am a member of the "Members' Organisation" and so are the other 12 Board Members and so will be all Board Members of RAAus Ltd. Why would I or they be pushing something that will be harmful to us as members? Some may think I'm a masochist for trying to move RAAus forwards but I assure you I am not. Just does not make any sense at all to change the Constitution so that I am personally disadvantaged. My time on the Board, in total will be around 2 years. I am hoping that I can be a member for a lot longer than that.

 

Also, you might like to reflect on the fact that if all RAAus did was to act as a members' advocate, all its other functions would go back to CASA and the CAOs. Is that how you'd like things to be? This member would not.

 

I am happy to be a member of an organisation that gets exemptions from the CAOs because RAAus has its own Ops and Tech Manuals approved by CASA. I would rather face RAAus disciplinary system than CASA's.

 

Incidentally, could you tell me the name of an organisation that is not a "member based organisation"?