RAAus Constitution Reform Result

[NT5224]

Ok

 

So 807 of registered members vote in support of the resolution and 8000+ do not. So we adopt the resolution.

 

Makes sense to me

 

 

[Geoff13]

OkSo 807 of registered members vote in support of the resolution and 8000+ do not. So we adopt the resolution.

 

Makes sense to me

Or you could say 128 voted against it and 8000 plus did not so we go with it.

 

As I said before lets get together and support what the majority of voting members wanted.

 

 

[DrZoos]

A clear majority? 807 of 9700??? or 128 v 807??? Either way seems a clear victory???

 

 

[Keith Page]

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.

As you say RAAus will have to grow and prosper.. If RAAus dose not do that, there will be a lot of people who will have a please explain note.

I am concerned as to what is not told to us, what generates this doubt more is that 6 board members voted against the change. Well it just got through at board level.

 

When one is out selling something they do not tell the bad points, they exaggerate the good points.

 

With a result like that RAAus could disintegrate because of the unhappy people. I have to say there will be adverse repercussions with unhappy people and there will be control on that behaviour.

 

Now is the time for the YES people to get out, sell and prove the yes and have no shonks in the would pile anywhere.

 

One good one, which has the membership riled up is how the magazine was restructured and that was put through as saving money. I hope no more shonks like that will surface.

 

KP

 

 

[pmccarthy]

A great result. If that alleged board statistic is true, perhaps the board members who are unlikely to win a democratic election knew who they are.

 

 

[DWF]

I voted AGAINST the Special Resolution. Not because I don't agree with its' general intent but because IMHO the draft constitution does not look after the interest of Members. (More on this in another post.)

 

 

 

I think the SR got such a large support was because it was heavily promoted by (most or at least the most vocal) Board members PLUS the CEO via the RAAus 'Newsletters'.

 

It was also my impression during the campaign that it was a Board resolution and appeared to be promoted as such.

 

Apparently (as explained during the General Meeting) it was actually a resolution of 2 Members (who happen to be members of the Board). Maybe some split hairs here?

 

If it was not a Board resolution it was a resolution supported by the Board as it is one of the objectives of the Strategic Plan which the board passed as its' last meeting.

 

I wonder how many members have actually read the draft constitution and understand its' implications.

 

 

 

I feel that to a large extent it sidelines members and their requirements, in the interest of expediency by placing almost total control in the hands of the Directors who can:

 

Choose (between 3 and 7) how many Directors there will be;

 

Determine the types/classes of membership and what rights each class will (or wont) have;

 

Determine the contents of the Members' Charter - If the charter has the same force as the constitution, why not include it in the constitution so it can only be changed by a Special Resolution of MEMBERS?;

 

Determine the Disciplinary policy and procedures - If these are binding on members why can they be changed at the whim of the Directors (and not the Members)?

 

etc

 

 

 

I feel/fear that there will now be a protracted process (fight?) now to get the constitution and its appendages more correct and acceptable to members.

 

We need to get the constitution as near to right as we can. It is virtually the ONLY thing that, in practical term, defend/protect members rights.

 

We have seen in the recent past what happens when the wheels fall off the governance trolley.

 

 

 

Anyone up to the challenge?

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

 

[DrZoos]

Surely the CEO and board will just want to get on with the business of running the show and building resumes....depending on age and career progress...

 

The real concern is some dim witted idiot that takes the reigns in future with ill intent. Although im sure 9700 members will make enough noise for any young up and comer to avoid complete self destruction...the biggest concern is some slightly elder person with an agenda assuming too much power, as they wont give a hoot about career progress or resume...they will be driven by axes to grind or perhaps selfish convictions for some other reason and they may be very dangerous to the future of RAA

 

 

[Keith Page]

Good on you DWF you are thinking about how the constitution can be manipulated.

 

I do not think those board members are that self interested they know what is store for us.

 

It is not water tight or there abouts, are places one can a drive double decker bus through.

 

I still can not see why the urgency (now), why not wait and have the constitution correct.

 

The urgency bit needs to be questioned.

 

KP

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Or we could do as other organisations do and elect a board to run the business.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Too late now its done!

 

 

[kasper]

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.

from the president in todays broadcast of the general meetin

magazine did get a mention ... interesting that the printed mag sales are around HALF that required to break even ... so all members are still subsidising the printedc mag from our subs even though we are not getting it.

 

 

[Admin]

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

As disclosed at todays meeting membership is now down to around 8,500. Thats where Kasper got the figure from

 

 

[fly_tornado]

wow! my 8500 was just an estimate based on observations of the historical decline, last I read in the magazine it was around 9100 mark and that wasn't that long ago < 6 months.

 

 

[kasper]

while the vote is over its a strange situation when at the meeting they were very clear to make the point that it was a special resolution from 2 members as members not as or on behalf of the board members ... yet the CEO and Chairman (not even ones putting the member resolution forward) spent months travelling around promoting it and using every communications from RAAus to promote it ... never once putting any counter or discussing the issues raised ... or was that really just a way of covering what was stated at the meeting that 6 board members did not agree with it ... and the fact that the constitution was never put to the board for a vote before being put forward to the members might also explain why it was positioned as a member resolution.

 

And this post is not a bitch or gripe because the vote went the way it did ... there where just some strange info presented that did not sit with the whole way this was handled ... if it was not a board special resolution it makes more sense why comments were not addressed ... but makes no sense why RAA member resources were used so extensively to run it and promote it ...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

It just goes to show when the executive want something how hard they are prepared to work. Lets hope this is the start of the new era.

 

 

[coljones]

Rod Birrell was the only board member to speak against the proposal at the General Meeting. Rod Birrell was the only board member to come onto this forum to oppose the resolution. The other four (as I understand it) were mute so it might well have been almost unanimous board support OR virtually no opposition.

 

Rod spoke well in defence of his position and is to be thanked for his contribution.

 

It now behoves us all to look around among the membership for suitable quality candidates for the board election later this year and encourage them to nominate.

 

 

[gandalph]

As disclosed at todays meeting membership is now down to around 8,500. Thats where Kasper got the figure from

Just reviewed the meeting tape & the CEO's report has the Membership down from 9700 to 8500. My mistake!

In my defence I did say "If I recall correctly" and clearly I didn't. That's what age and an insistent bladder does to ones ability to retain detail!

 

 

[DWF]

I am reluctant to be seen as a suspicious, glass-half-empty, grumpy old man but one wonders what is the reason for both the President and CEO making pleas to "trust me/us".

 

 

 

I have not problem with the way they are running RAAus at the moment (apart from their, in my view, misguided and spin-doctored Sport Pilot and Special Resolution promotions).

 

 

 

However saying "trust me" is a bit like saying "don't think about fluffy pink elephants". You immediately start thinking about fluffy pink elephants - or "why wouldn't I trust you"?

 

 

 

Remember the old Russian proverb popularised by US President Ronald Regan, "Доверяй, но проверяй {Doveryai, no proveryai} - trust, but verify.

 

 

 

The Board is there to keep an eye on the CEO and RAAus management. The members need to keep an eye on the Board - and ensure the Constitution is set up to facilitate that.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[DWF]

while the vote is over its a strange situation when at the meeting they were very clear to make the point that it was a special resolution from 2 members as members not as or on behalf of the board members ... yet the CEO and Chairman (not even ones putting the member resolution forward) spent months travelling around promoting it and using every communications from RAAus to promote it ... never once putting any counter or discussing the issues raised ... or was that really just a way of covering what was stated at the meeting that 6 board members did not agree with it ... and the fact that the constitution was never put to the board for a vote before being put forward to the members might also explain why it was positioned as a member resolution.And this post is not a bitch or gripe because the vote went the way it did ... there where just some strange info presented that did not sit with the whole way this was handled ... if it was not a board special resolution it makes more sense why comments were not addressed ... but makes no sense why RAA member resources were used so extensively to run it and promote it ...

One wonders if you or I put up a Special Resolution (to amend the Constitution say) would it receive similar backing and/or promotion from the Board and/or CEO via special newsletters, meetings, etc.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[Spriteah]

Or we could do as other organisations do and elect a board to run the business.

Our board tried to run the business. Was very nearly the end of RAAUS. Hopefully it's all beer and skittles going forward.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Our board tried to run the business. Was very nearly the end of RAAUS. Hopefully it's all beer and skittles going forward.

Could we say you were at wits end and let give this a go, would that be an appropriate statement to cover the situation?

KP.

 

 

[gandalph]

The Board is there to keep an eye on the CEO and RAAus management. The members need to keep an eye on the Board - and ensure the Constitution is set up to facilitate that.

DWF, Isn't that what's happening?

 

 

[DWF]

"The Board is there to keep an eye on the CEO and RAAus management. The members need to keep an eye on the Board - and ensure the Constitution is set up to facilitate that."

 

DWF, Isn't that what's happening?

Gandalph

 

I hope and believe that the first part is happening.

 

I think members have now largely been sidelined (sidestepped?) by the new constitution. See my post #31 above.

 

 

 

I fear that members and the Board will now be overcome by "Constitution Fatigue" and it will be an uphill battle to correct the situation (amend the constitution - again)!

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[gandalph]

DWF, You may be right about "constitution fatigue" but I am perhaps more optimistic than you in that I think, considering remarks made by the Chairman at yesterday's meeting, that the Board is very keen to get it fine tuned and operating to most members satisfaction. The mechanism for members to promote amendments remains the same so there should be the same opportunities for members to continue to put forward ideas and proposals for change.

 

Embracing change is always discomforting and sometimes dangerous. I'm confident that this time it's merely discomforting. Time will tell

 

I was saddened to hear that your namesake has stepped down as Treasurer. Losing his experience and skill at this time could be a challenge for the Board but Don assured me that his replacement is exactly the kind of person with the right skill set and mind set that the Board needs to take on the position. I hope Don R takes a short breather to recharge and then considers renominating for a board position at the AGM in September.

 

 

[gandalph]

I wonder why Russ got a warning shot across his bows for his post but Nong didn't?

 

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