RAAus Constitution Reform Result

[Oscar]

Then it would seem to me that Gandalph's suggestion that that correspondence be made public, in the interests of providing full information to forum members, is entirely reasonable.

 

If RAA management is being secretive, vindictive, unreasonable - Ian has the unfettered opportunity to present the evidence of that for forum members' elucidation. Let's have the evidence and allow forum members to judge the submissions for and against the case in point in full possession of the facts. That is the absolute sine qua non for the determination of 'natural justice'.

 

 

[Admin]

Don't worry Oscar, when the time is right but I will not shoot myself in the foot at this point in time

 

 

[TK58]

In response to a few points raised in this thread over the past few days:

 

There are two factors behind the drop in member numbers. A couple of years ago we stopped including non-flying members in the count. That reduced the count by about 700 as I recall. Secondly, we have seen a steady decline over recent years of about 300 per year. The reasons for this are uncertain however it's probably safe to say some of our major issues of the not so distant past (e.g. registration debacle) and the economy are both factors. Addressing this decline is a focus of both the Board and the CEO. Member numbers have not been kept secret - they've been reported at every General Meeting I've attended and discussed at every Board meeting.

 

RAAus has never had a marketing strategy until now. At its meeting last weekend the Board approved a marketing budget and strategy designed to arrest the decline in membership and promote growth. This is something the CEO indicated he wanted to pursue when framing the budget for the current year (this time last year) however the Board made a decision to focus on the major changes already in progress including the systems modernisation project, the new Tech Manual and the updated Ops Manual. Now that those projects have come to fruition we now have the capacity and the foundation to pursue growth. As Andy has pointed out, we don't have the resources to run with every good idea all at once.

 

RAAus does not restrict free speech. Members are free to hold whatever opinions they wish and to express them wherever and whenever they wish. They are also free to agitate against the decisions and directions of RAAus if they wish. However when dissent turns to misrepresentation or personal abuse a line will be drawn. One of the key responsibilities of the Board, the CEO and all the staff is to protect and enhance the RAAus brand. That should be something the members want as well. It's a brand that's taken a beating in the past, perhaps fairly so, and I have no doubt that underlies at least some of the membership decline. Part of protecting the RAAus brand is to address misinformation and misrepresentation. Don't be holding your breath waiting for anyone from RAAus to apologise for that.

 

Three Board members voted against the SR to adopt a new constitution and form of incorporation, not six as some have claimed. No Board member voted against anything to do with the new Constitution in any Board discussions prior to the General Meeting.

 

We are not starting a new organisation. We are changing the form of incorporation of our existing organisation which will remain and prosper. All the contracts, liabilities, members, staff, obligations and assets of RAAus remain unchanged. It is true that members are now exposed to a downside risk of $1 each should the organisation ever be wound up. But think about this; how likely is it that the organisation will ever be wound up and, if it was, how likely that an administrator or liquidator would spend the money necessary to pursue every member for $1? The cost of calling in the guarantee would far outweigh the amount that would be recovered so it won't happen.

 

It's true that the organisation will be overseen by myself and two others until we have an AGM later this year. So what's changed? Mick Monck, Don Ramsay and I have been overseeing the organisation since the October Board meeting last year. Prior to that it was Mick, Jim Tatlock and me since the May Board meeting last year and so on going back. There's nothing new in the Executive overseeing the organisation between Board meetings - that's what the current constitution mandates and that's why this was chosen as the transition strategy. What is new is that for the past 2 or 3 years the Executive has actually been paying attention and doing the job with diligence. That will continue. As will a spirit of openness and transparency. There are some things that must remain confidential, however if you want to know something ask any of us. If we can't tell you for reasons of confidentiality, we'll at least give you an honest explanation why.

 

Criticism of the President and CEO travelling to flyins and other gatherings to meet with members has been unfairly characterised as campaigning for a YES vote at last weeks's General Meeting. They've been attending flyins since the decision was made to not hold NatFly in 2016 - long before the new constitution was drafted. NatFly was a valuable opportunity for the staff, CEO and President to meet with members. But it was only once per year and support for the event was declining. The current approach has given several times more members the opportunity to meet face to face with the leaders of our organisation. What will the criticism be going forward now that the 'campaigning for a new constitution' has ended?

 

 

[Oscar]

Don't worry Oscar, when the time is right but I will not shoot myself in the foot at this point in time

Ian - I think that many might construe that as indicating that you are planning a campaign of some sort. I may be being naive here, but I thought that your intention is to offer a service to RAA members to improve their access to information and reasoned exchange of opinions on RAA matters, that RAA does not currently provide. Surely, with that aim in mind, it is desirable to open up the flow of information immediately, and if that exposes an obvious antipathy on the part of RAA to embrace your ideas, then the sooner RAA members are made aware of that, the smoother the path to its achievement it will be?

 

The concept of an independent information/discussion channel of value to RAA members surely means that an effective partnership need to be established. I can't see why you wouldn't gain support, by opening up that information channel ASAP?

 

 

[facthunter]

I'd be surprised if the building is that valuable. The last time I was there it shows wear, and It's not exactly a salubrious neighbourhood. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

There are two factors behind the drop in member numbers. A couple of years ago we stopped including non-flying members in the count. That reduced the count by about 700 as I recall. Secondly, we have seen a steady decline over recent years of about 300 per year. The reasons for this are uncertain however it's probably safe to say some of our major issues of the not so distant past (e.g. registration debacle) and the economy are both factors. Addressing this decline is a focus of both the Board and the CEO. Member numbers have not been kept secret - they've been reported at every General Meeting I've attended and discussed at every Board meeting.

700 should be easy to recover, at say $6-7000 per pilot that's a $4.2-4.9M windfall to the flying schools

 

 

[facthunter]

How many Flying schools are doing well? What is the average instructor being Paid? Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Here, on Earth, or on FT's planet???

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Oscar, I'm putting a positive spin on bad news.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I'd be surprised if the building is that valuable. The last time I was there is shows wear, and It's not exactly a salubrious neighbourhood. Nev

The Building was purchased before my time but, iirc, the historical cost was about $500k. Its valuation must be stated in the books conservatively and is audited by external auditors each year as part of the production of the annual financial reports. At one time its valuation was increased by valuer to $1 million. Its value has come down since then.

Fyshwick may not seem that salubrious as a residential area but that's not its niche. The redoubtable Canberra Times is located at the end of the street. There are some great takeaways and coffee shops handy to the office. What more could one want? A video rental outlet?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . I have mentioned two or three times that the management runs about playing police officers as where they should be running about promoting and playing diplomats for RAAus. Oh! Gosh should see the replies saying that is all not true, that is police officer roles. Just a question to help in some decisions:- Is the new constitution is up and running and we are operating under it? The other important point it is getting quite obvious why the disciplinary procedure is so important, just another avenue to whack the members. KP.

Keith,

 

Edited - Direct attack against another user and against site rules - mod

 

 

[facthunter]

Don. I think the area is OK for the siting of the office. You don't need high value sites. I probably question whether Canberra is the best place to operate from, but there would be some that could be worse. No need for change in the short term. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Keith,Edited - Direct attack against another user and against site rules - mod

Fair enough but I thought it better to respond with a joke than the vitriol aimed at me.

 

Seems like a joke has to go but all the crap that's been thrown at me over the last 6 weeks was OK?

 

Things like "just trying to entrench yourself on the Board and enwealthen yourself?

 

Things that are aimed at personal integrity like that are what needs to go.

 

 

[Admin]

I really really tried to let things go this month as an experiment but it seems without moderation things have got out of hand with users capitalising on this to attack each other taking leave of common decency degrading the site into a cess pool...no more.

 

Don I dont see a pist that says to another user to just stop your whining as a joke

 

 

[gandalph]

Yes Turbo, Don dose need congratulating for the intensity of his YES campaign, congratulations Don.However why did he resign the minute the YES vote wins.

Just like having a battle to arrive at your destination and not hanging around and enjoying ones efforts.

 

KP.

To be fair (and accurate) Keith, it was announced by the President quite early in the meeting that Don had indicated that he either had stepped down as Treasurer. That announcement was made well before the votes were counted and announced though I suppose you could say that the YES vote had suceeded well before the date of the meeting.

 

 

[turboplanner]

To be fair (and accurate) Keith, it was announced by the President quite early in the meeting that Don had indicated that he either had stepped down as Treasurer. That announcement was made well before the votes were counted and announced though I suppose you could say that the YES vote had suceeded well before the date of the meeting.

Do you really want to go down that little path?

 

 

[gandalph]

Things that are aimed at personal integrity like that are what needs to go.

Do you mean things like this Don?

 

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

I thought that would have been deleted by now but it's still there.

Perhaps that one wasn't brought to the attention of the Moderators?

 

 

[gandalph]

Do you really want to go down that little path?

What? Fairness and accuracy?

YES! Dont you?

 

 

[turboplanner]

....... though I suppose you could say that the YES vote had suceeded well before the date of the meeting.

Hmmm

 

 

[gandalph]

I'm not sure what you're hinting at there Turbs. What I meant was that the vote was NOT carried by a show of hands at the meeting. The majority of the membership that voted by Proxy voted in favour of the motion and those votes were cast (if not counted) some time before the meeting.

 

You're not trying to out pedant the pedant are you?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don. I think the area is OK for the siting of the office. You don't need high value sites. I probably question whether Canberra is the best place to operate from, but there would be some that could be worse. No need for change in the short term. Nev

Nev, I was for a long time an advocate of relocating the Office to an airfield. However, I've lightened up on that leaning as the excellent team of Michaels Monck and Linke are both tied to Canberra. I am certain we would not have been able to make as much progress as we have without being based in Canberra.

Being able to establish a good working relationship with the CEO of CASA has been a real plus in setting up a way forwards.

 

My argument used to be that being at an airfield would help the staff to be more focused on their reason for being - to help recreational aviators go flying. However, now I can't imagine how the focus of the office staff could be improved. They have come through a dreadful period with sense of humour intact and a willingness unmatched by any office I've worked in before.

 

I definitely would now not be looking to disturb that for many years if ever.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I really really tried to let things go this month as an experiment but it seems without moderation things have got out of hand with users capitalising on this to attack each other taking leave of common decency degrading the site into a cess pool...no more.Don I dont see a pist that says to another user to just stop your whining as a joke

Ian, I and others no doubt appreciate your moderate moderation during May. It must have been so tempting at times.

I knew I was sailing close to the wind but I thought asking somebody if they'd like Chees with that whine wasn't telling them to stop whining just trying to make them more comfortable while they were.

 

I suppose I felt aggrieved that of all the crap being thrown about, that the only pot to attract moderation was a pretty soft jibe.

 

Possibly, I'm too close to judge.

 

Happy to accept the edit in deference to better manners all around.

 

Don

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're not trying to out pedant the pedant are you?

No, you appeared to be suggesting that vote stacking may have occurred.

 

 

[gandalph]

No Turbs, I was not. That interpretation is bit a Machiavellian isn't it? IF I'd had any suspicions of that nature I would have raised them with the AEC not here. I think I saw only one poster who appeared to be voicing doubts about the legitimacy of the electoral process.

 

I hope that's cleared that up!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Certainly.