RAAus Constitution Reform Result

[DonRamsay]

The reason I made my over-simplified post was that some people were not clear that a major change had occurred; it was a simple method of making it clear that there's no point in flogging a dead horse.On a forum you can always rely on someone festering with semantics, and while I'm not doubting you are factually correct, that wasn't the point; the point is that from the time of that vote, the existing era became the past era.

You say it is utter nonsense about being in the hands of three individuals for some time, then confirm it.

I should have known better Turbs after all these years that your comment was not utter nonsense and that I had simply missed your intent.

Perhaps it would have been a great deal better if I just said that I have great faith in the capability, direction and boba fides of the three initial directors. I am very confident that in 6 months fro now the fears and suspicions expressed here will have melted away and that all members will be able to see how well RAAus is functioning.

 

I forget that I have been very close to the centre and am in a much better place to be able to have that confidence. I admit that anyone looking from the outside in could reasonably be suspicious that things have not changed and that the trend of ineptness at Board level may continue.

 

Never a good idea to be posting after midnight.

 

Don

 

 

[Yenn]

Now we have the backslapping and congratulations of a job supposedly well done, can I ask the question?

 

Are we all happy with the constitution and its appendages? Are we going to see any amendments to the constitution?

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Just today there was the story of the Murray-Gouldburn CEO who got 3 million a year for stuffing up the members, some of whom are facing ruin. What is our CEO going to be paid? who decides?

 

 

[Geoff13]

Now we have the backslapping and congratulations of a job supposedly well done, can I ask the question?Are we all happy with the constitution and its appendages? Are we going to see any amendments to the constitution?

One would assume that 128 people are not. Hopefully they like me will accept the majority decision and see what happens.

 

 

[storchy neil]

One would assume that 128 people are not. Hopefully they like me will accept the majority decision and see what happens.

 

I can say for definite that two of that 128 will be watching very carefully and stated 12 months for positive progress

 

don being the man he is I feel that it will improve or he will pull it apart with a little bit of help after the amount of attention that he has received

 

bruce as I see it the members neil

 

 

[Keith Page]

Now we have the backslapping and congratulations of a job supposedly well done, can I ask the question?Are we all happy with the constitution and its appendages? Are we going to see any amendments to the constitution?

There is a one line statement which I never use but I hope I will never need to use it in this case.

"I told you so"

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I suppose if you create a billion BS statements that eventually one will turn out to be correct.......that doesn't then make you a superb visionary no matter how much you might wish it so....merely someone with an overactive mouth/keyboard.....just in case it wasn't clear... We're still waiting for the one to be right....

 

Meanwhile the RBA is considering dropping interest rates to a low not seen in generations......of course it goes without saying that rec flying....in fact any rec activity is unlikely to be affected by a weak economy.....NOT!!!!

 

However lift our MTOW so that suddenly we are a viable alternative to the lighter end of GA and suddenly the wallet will dictate a mass migration..... But I guess we'll find reasons to complain about that as well.............

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yeah, you can sit there and blame the economy, or you can survey and analyse the situation and find the precise causes BUT you have to take your own action if your own income falls off, and if you represent members, you have to tell the members rather than letting it all come out by accident.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ummm which bit came out by accident? Wasn't it disclosed at an association meeting?

 

And your right, letting reality ( the economy) get in the way is a problem.... For my own circumstances I'm working now but the last 2 years unemployed were the hardest financially of my life, had it continued I'd be an ex member through no fault of anyone but the economy and my intransigence to move from a rural setting..... Even now I'm being paid country $$$ and they are vastly less than city $$$$.

 

The economy, from my perspective is a very real thing that has real impacts and doesn't just affect a bunch of folk in government offices..... Brushing it aside as irrelevant is ignorant.

 

But your point about having to do something when income falls off is correct, but it doesn't suddenly allow you to do twice as much as before, you are still resource constrained and as such you focus on the most important things....just as RAAus has been doing.

 

 

[turboplanner]

One thousand five hundred people and their money walked out the day before the meeting Andy?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

A lot of people who thought they had saved enough for retirement with a bit of recreational flying are now finding their incomes cut by low interest rates and poor sharemarkets. There may be a move back to the low-cost end of flying in the next couple of years.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I noticed in this month's mag that the average has dropped from 53 to 50, so the oldies are dropping out. I don't think many of them will be back, even if interest rates pick up, health costs are going up a lot faster.

 

 

[Chird65]

Yeah, you can sit there and blame the economy, or you can survey and analyse the situation and find the precise causes

Add my vote to the Economy. I can't afford to fly that is economic. I live in hope that one day things will line up and flying will move up the list.

 

 

[coljones]

There is a one line statement which I never use but I hope I will never need to use it in this case."I told you so"

Regards,

 

KP.

Keith, you should try a bit of self deprecation. Milligan was very good at it. "I told you I was sick", "I have the body of an 18 year old, I keep it in the fridge", "Woy Woy, the world's biggest above ground cemetery". "I told you so!" is so déclassé.

 

 

[coljones]

I suppose if you create a billion BS statements that eventually one will turn out to be correct.......that doesn't then make you a superb visionary no matter how much you might wish it so....merely someone with an overactive mouth/keyboard.....just in case it wasn't clear... We're still waiting for the one to be right....Meanwhile the RBA is considering dropping interest rates to a low not seen in generations......of course it goes without saying that rec flying....in fact any rec activity is unlikely to be affected by a weak economy.....NOT!!!!

 

However lift our MTOW so that suddenly we are a viable alternative to the lighter end of GA and suddenly the wallet will dictate a mass migration..... But I guess we'll find reasons to complain about that as well.............

The problem with low interest rates is that a lot of wrinkly old buggers are seeing their super income streams being imperilled even further. The GFC did a lot of damage and low interest rates don't help. My understanding was that the 10,000 figure was always a bit rubbery and the invention of a board and CEO with minds elsewhere.

 

 

[facthunter]

No doubt the economy as well as other factors will affect who flys for recreation and pleasure. It's done with surplus money. If there's none you don't do it, or you won't for long. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Some of those figures and the income was distorted by having two year subscriptions. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The problem with low interest rates is that a lot of wrinkly old buggers are seeing their super income streams being imperilled even further. The GFC did a lot of damage and low interest rates don't help. My understanding was that the 10,000 figure was always a bit rubbery and the invention of a board and CEO with minds elsewhere.

I was always suspicious about the number of RAA pilots because most airfields are ghost towns, my theory is that a lot of older pilots would hold on to the RAA licence and membership long after they have stopped flying because it symbolized their freedom and youth. Now they seem to be leaving en masse.

 

 

[Admin]

[DonRamsay]

. . . Correct, and perhaps the above question will clear up whether the change to a Company structure was approved by the board of management.

The Special Resolution was approved by an overwhelming majority of voters who outrank the Board.

The SR was moved by individual members and the Board has no place in approving the moving of a SR.

 

Let's not make things up; there was no smear here, just advising a person there was no point in getting upset, he would just have to wait and see what unfolded.Poor expression on my part and regretted. Being a bit hypersensitive of late.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Actually, moving from an Association to a Company Limited by guarantee increased a member's liability from zero the the now guaranteed $1.00.[/QUOTE]Truly an infinite increase. How much is a postage stamp these days?

[DonRamsay]

If Mick Monck claimed no expenses for the length and breadth of Australia visits, then indeed you have a point. If the Board, at a meeting, by majority approved the payment of expenses for the President to conduct length and breadth visits of Australia, then you also have a point. On the other hand, unless there was a specific Board approval to use Members funds to pay for those trips, then there is a problem. . . .

1. The President, along with the Secretary and the Treasurer are elected by the full Board to those positions and are empowered by the Constitution to make decisions for the Board between face to face meetings.

2. The Board had approved that instead of running Natfly, the President and CEO would visit as many fly-ins across as they could get to to meet members and discuss current RAAus matters. Their exercise was characterised as informing, explaining and consulting with the members. To have stayed in Canberra and said nothing about the biggest change facing RAAus since its original incorporation would have brought howls of protest from the nay-sayers. And then when they do expose themselves in face to face meetings with members there are, what?, howls of protest? FOr me that is 100%, 24 carat BS./

 

3. Attending all those fly-ins cost the President, I would estimate of the order of >$10,000 in forgone consulting fees. There is not only no gain for the President but very considerable personal cost.

 

The participation of a paid employee, the CEO, in those trips, if he was involved in Board activities and campaigning, is of serious concern and warrants some action from the members in my opinion. Even if he totally covered his own expenses, where was the separation you endlessly extolled. So I think Kasper's concern is significant.

The CEO was involved in meeting members, learning from them and informing and advising them. The CEO was doing what a CEO is expected to do - get to know the members. He has been able to meet a great many more members than he would have at any one Natfly (if we had had one) and members who are unlikely ever to get to a Natfly held in the Eastern States. Would anyone have wanted that he stay in Canberra and not gotten out and about? IN the trip to WA, there was a very hot issue related to PPC and the Ops Manual. Lots of heat resolved to the benefit of all involved. Much more effective than the email war that had been going on.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

It might have been VERY responsible; in marketing doing noting never results in equilibrium, and the reduction member numbers from 10,000 to 8,500 which appears to have come as a surprise to some members is a stark reminder of that.

Well, if they weren't asleep at the wheel, they might have noticed that RAAus went through its worst period in its entire existence between about 2010 and 2013. The depth of the trouble was commensurate with all the inattention of 90% of members who just wanted to go flying and were happy to have the running of their organisation go unsupervised. The cause of the loss of membership is clearly attributed to at least a decade of mismanagement leading up to the failed audits starting late in 2011 and running through out 2012.

 

For stability, when unavoidable costs increase you need to get more income, not less.

No, this can just accelerate the departure of members. How with any credibility could you put up the fees when people were having their aircraft grounded? Why would members not walk away when their aircraft were grounded for many months? Why would members be attracted to join RAAus when it looked to the casual observer it was headed for a winding-up?

As it turned out RAAus had very substantial financial reserves and these have been prudently used to avoid substantial fee hikes while investing in modernisation of office systems. And, there was nobody on the Board or in management back then who knew anything about marketing. We now have a CEO with an MBA (Marketing) and a President with an MBA and we will soon have another member of staff with an MBA.

 

Who said you need to "launch into an expensive marketing promotion campaign? You can do this inexpensively with a marketing policy or marketing strategy, but you can't just sit there and watch the income sliding away

Do you recall the old management dicta: "When you're up to your butt in alligators it is difficult to remember that you set out to drain the swamp."? Surely you can see that there are times when swamp draining is needed and there are times when you can with credibility market your organisation as something desirable? Let me assure you that 2012 - 14 were swamp draining time. 2014-16 were building capability time, 2016 and forwards is the right time to be growing RAAus.

 

I'm intrigued that after relentlessly campaigning for the current change, you would walk away from it.

Frankly, I'm not sure that it is any of your business why I might choose to step down. No, I am sure it is none of your business.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . The changes to 'modernise' and 'align' the organisations control and regulation of members and operations with what was/will be required for part 149 had nothing to do with the move from Inc to Ltd - they were separate issues and could just as easily be done in the older Inc form.

Well, if it were that easy, why would we go to the trouble we've just been to? Let me suggest it was because we put our heads together, sought senior professional advice and, guess what, we took the advice and ACTED on it.

 

If you had wanted to do it differently, or if you now want to do it differently, then I suggest you do what we did: we worked our butts off for 6 years, spend thousands of dollars of our own money, gain the support of at least 1,000 like-minded members and, Bob's your uncle! If you are not prepared to take ACTION then your opinion remains just that, your opinion.

 

I happen to disagree.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I know I shouldn't but as this discussion is drawing to a close . . .

 

Because that's the sort of guy Don is.

Which means? Should I be offended? Well if that was your intent FT you just wasted a few electrons. I have zero respect for anything and everything you write and you are incapable on insulting me. It would be like being insulted by a 4 year old.

 

Am I the only that thinks the RAA restructure won't make a real difference? Apparently, under the old rules, the rules which restricted change and the board's ability to function, they were able to make the huge change of the RAA restructure. Surely this massive achievement disproves the theory that old structure was limiting any change. Just maybe, the board has fixed a problem that doesn't exist...

Is it possible for you to come up with anything more ignorant and less logical? If you had actually ever read the Constitution or knew anything about the Incorporated Associations Act you would be well aware that it is the MEMBERS that have all the power not the Board. The Members in general meeting can sack the Board or change the Constitution. The Board cannot do either of those things.

 

Please don't bother to answer my questions - take them as rhetorical.