RAAus Constitution Reform Result

[Admin]

The YES vote has it for the constutional reform of RAAus

 

 

[kasper]

Yep - proxies just announce 115 against by proxy with majority (about 4 time that many I think ) in favour ... not enough there to move against it.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

500? votes out of 8500 members, an outstanding result

 

 

[kasper]

Sorry - it appears there is around 1000 in proxy by total - not yet to the vote in the meeting just the announcement of proxies and I did not catch it all - juddering internet.

 

So by proxies its probably more like 7.5 in favour to each against ... and in the room there are less than 50 people so its a done deal.

 

 

[kasper]

Oh and the total number of members continues to decline - 8,500 only left

 

 

[Fishla]

Who are the 6 board members against the new constitution?

 

 

[Oscar]

Your smartarris and totally fatuous comment, FT, is expected. The number registering a vote is somewhat more than I personally expected, which to me indicates that the information campaign by RAA was fairly effective, in terms of reach to the membership.

 

So - perhaps 5% of members (to be generous) are 'concerned' about the proposed changes. About 12.5% - maybe 15%, are interested enough in the composition of RAA management, to be bothered to register any opinion. What I conclude from that, is that more than 80% of the 'Recreational' - by CASA distinction -aviators in Australia - DO NOT CARE about such issues as 'democracy' in the organisation that provides them with the services they are required to utilise to simply fly legally, and hopefully, safely. They just want that situation to continue.

 

Of those who DID vote, it would appear that 75% are sufficiently satisfied in the ability (or have trust in that) of the current Board to move RAA forward in the provision of the services they need. They are in no way interested in - let alone give any credence to - the sort of ranting of the FTs and Turbs's of the world.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks Oscar; clueless as ever.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Oscar you would expect that the vote would be high as it's a vote of "no confidence" in the current board arrangement.

 

Its not just me, after all the RAA has gone from 10,500 to 8,500 in since Dec 2012. That's a massive hole in revenues, $420,000 less per year.

 

Did the magazine get a mention?

 

 

[dsam]

807 for the resolution. 128 against.

 

 

[Oscar]

Just under 16% of the votes were against the move to a Company. So much for the desire for a 'club'.....

 

Oscar you would expect that the vote would be high as it's a vote of "no confidence" in the current board arrangement.Its not just me, after all the RAA has gone from 10,500 to 8,500 in since Dec 2012. That's a massive hole in revenues, $420,000 less per year.

 

Did the magazine get a mention?

FT - you need to have the doses changed - again.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

lol Oscar, you funny when you mad

 

Don't get mad Oscar

 

 

[Oscar]

Well, thanks for that, FT. We all need a laugh at times, and there are (brief) moments when you don't supply us with that essential element. Not - I am happy to say - in this matter - you've been a source of constant thigh-slapping hilarity throughout.

 

 

[Yenn]

That just goes to show that the Donkey vote has it all ways. I cannot see how any one could vote yes as it stands. now the constitution has to be brought to a sensible outcome. If you doubt my reasoning, I ask how we are supposed to be designing space vehicles?

 

 

[Downunder]

Perhaps those that did vote yes were impressed by the conduct (sales pitch) of the pres and ceo at the face to face meetings enough to give them support.

 

 

[Fishla]

It cant be a donkey vote as it wasnt compulsory. Every yes vote was on purpose.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

So if someone has a different point of view they are donkey voters? Look around, perhaps the no voters are the ones out of step.

 

 

[Jay_1984]

Little disappointing that so few voted. I can understand that most just want to fly, and not worry about 'politics' (I'm one of them, but still voted), but only 10% of the whole membership actually voting...There's something in that.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think a lot of people vote yes because the President and the CEO are telling them this is the only/best way forward.

 

It will be interesting to see how quickly the RAA grows under the streamlined management process.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I believe that 11% of a membership voting in a non compulsory vote is in fact an excellent result.

 

I in fact expected less than half of that, somewhere around the 5% mark.

 

So - perhaps 5% of members (to be generous) are 'concerned' about the proposed changes. About 12.5% - maybe 15%, are interested enough in the composition of RAA management, to be bothered to register any opinion. What I conclude from that, is that more than 80% of the 'Recreational' - by CASA distinction -aviators in Australia - DO NOT CARE about such issues as 'democracy' in the organisation that provides them with the services they are required to utilise to simply fly legally, and hopefully, safely. They just want that situation to continue.

Of those who DID vote, it would appear that 75% are sufficiently satisfied in the ability (or have trust in that) of the current Board to move RAA forward in the provision of the services they need. They are in no way interested in - let alone give any credence to - the sort of ranting of the FTs and Turbs's of the world.

For someone who is normally so pedantic about facts Oscar, you have drawn a very long bow. To assume that because someone did not vote means they are not interested is a long stretch in anyone's imagination.

 

Maybe they have enough confidence in the board to believe that they will make it work no matter the outcome.

 

Maybe they felt uninformed enough to not venture an opinion.

 

A small % would I dare say have been totally unaware of proceeding which could mean a dozen things on its own.

 

I personally am disappointed in the outcome however as democracy has had its chance it now falls to all of us to support the decision and make it work.

 

I hope that my own misgivings prove to have been unfounded and it appears the the majority of members believe that is the case.

 

What has been pleasing to me was the robust discussion on this forum that in most (not all) cases managed to leave personalities at the door and discuss the facts as each member saw them.

 

There were a couple of disappointing personal attacks but that will almost always happen in politics.

 

Oh and any discussion involving RAA would simply not be complete without someones sniping from the side hey F_T.

 

The beauty of F_T is that almost everyone is aware that he only fires Blanks. (Ooopps sorry was that a personal attack)?

 

 

[gandalph]

It would be interesting to do some research on total votes cast (as a percentage of members) over they he life of theAssociation. My impression, not backed by data I hasten to add, is that today's vote was the highest recorded thus far. While some people may remain unhappy with the result the mechanism for change remains the same: put firwars a motion or generate enough support for a special general meeting.

 

Or we could see how the new arrangement goes until the next AGM in Sept of this year.

 

I'm happy to wait a bit and see.

 

BTW. If I recall thefigures correctly, current membership is at 9700 not 8000. Not sure where Kasper got the 8000 figure from.

 

 

[SDQDI]

That just goes to show that the Donkey vote has it all ways. I cannot see how any one could vote yes as it stands. now the constitution has to be brought to a sensible outcome. If you doubt my reasoning, I ask how we are supposed to be designing space vehicles?

Well a bit over 6 to 1 seem to disagree with you Yenn.

I think calling those who voted, either yes or no, names is a bit shallow and comes across as either being a sore loser or a snobby winner.

 

Personally I think that now is the time for those who have legitimate concerns to start documenting them and start bringing them to meetings as amendments so that we can all improve this new constitution that we have.

 

As for the spaceship side of things, I am no expert on telling the future so I don't have the definitive answer as to if it is a silly idea or not. I would have probably left that out until a need arose and then amended it into the constitution but I guess having it in there to start with is proactive. Do CASA have a provision for spacecraft in their rec division?

 

 

[nong]

I hope that the next time we are called upon to vote, we can simply log on to the RAAus site, just as we do with our banking.

 

In my case, I didn't trust that the chairman would not 'misplace' my proxy.

 

 

[Admin]

I personally am disappointed in the outcome however as democracy has had its chance it now falls to all of us to support the decision and make it work.I hope that my own misgivings prove to have been unfounded and it appears the the majority of members believe that is the case.

Completely agree and well said. We all now need to support what the members have decided...well done to every membet that voted

 

 

[NT5224]

Hi folks,

 

I reckon this vote was very important for the organisation and although currently overseas I cast mine by proxy, as I expect most members would have needed to. I wasn't straightforward. I had to download the form print it out, sign it and scan it and send it back... No wonder participation was low!

 

Maybe if the board had considered that most members don't live in Canberra, and made voting simpler there might have been greater participation and a better sense of what the membership want from their organisation

 

Alan