storchy neil Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 yea kas the brain just got older knew it needs replacing but cant find the spare neil
Keith Page Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 The leaders as you say was elected by a very small portion of the membership in just their own little areas. I did not vote for them to lead our Association neither did all the members that voted around most of the country. In fact the President that is leading our whole Association was elected by just a handful of votes only in the ACT, just a handful of people in our WHOLE Association. Think about that, how our Association succumbed to a hostile take over using our ever diminishing money and we let it happen. Well put Ian.. I like that one "Hostile take over". and that mob think they are so perfect. Members leaving.. Fees going up.. Members are not considered.. What next? KP
Admin Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 You and I know what's coming and these people will be left with egg on their face which is why I won't be drawn into their little games. RAAus as we have known it will soon cease to exist. The Runciman/Tizzard era is here again except the names and dates have changed. 4
SDQDI Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 Bull dust. While there are some things I don't agree with under the current leadership I think it is quite obvious that we are getting a lot more info out of them and I think we are miles in front of where we were in the not too distant past. Yes the cash reserves have gone down but take a look at the big picture, we are now using a lot more up to date system which wasn't/isn't free. Yes it may still have bugs in it but at least we are well on the way to a user friendly electronic system. As for a 5$ fee increase I think that works out to roughly a 2.5% increase which I think is reasonable, obviously it would be nice to know if further increases are planned or not. On the magazine increase side of things I don't quite agree with how that has ended but it isn't a deal breaker for me. At the end of the day we can say it is/was a fee increase but we do still have access to a digital copy which might not suit everyone (myself included) so an argument could be made that it wasn't removed. So to finish I am cautiously optimistic about the future of RAA, I do think we need to be careful going forward that we don't lose any privileges but I also like the idea of increasing our freedom/access to more aviation options. As for those who are all doom and gloom, I don't hold any hard feelings and I don't wish them to stop being negative but I would like to see them keep attending meetings and keep voting so that we do end up getting better and better. 3 2
gandalph Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 RAA as we knew it under Tizzard and Runciman has ceased to exist. That era ended at Queanbeyan and the new executive received the LARGE majority of the votes on May 14th this year from members who could be bothered to vote. It's a bit over a fortnight since that vote was taken and it seems that, according to some here, the sky is already falling. There will be an AGM in September this year. Find another 850 like minded members and vote the current board out. Until then, let's go with the majority vote. 1 4 2
farri Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 I wonder what the membership fees will be by then. DWF Well above what they are now!!!!!
farri Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 our Association succumbed to a hostile take over using our ever diminishing money and we let it happen. Don`t include me in the "WE"!....I`ve been a paid up member of the A.U.F now R.A-Aus, since the early eighties! The only power I have had, is, to cast a vote and I do. Please tell us how "WE" let it happen and what you think should be done that will benefit the membership! Frank. 3
coljones Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 The leaders as you say was elected by a very small portion of the membership in just their own little areas. I did not vote for them to lead our Association neither did all the members that voted around most of the country. In fact the President that is leading our whole Association was elected by just a handful of votes only in the ACT, just a handful of people in our WHOLE Association. Think about that, how our Association succumbed to a hostile take over using our ever diminishing money and we let it happen. Mike was elected from an electorate covering both NSW and ACT, not just a small block in ACT. Last year there wasn't even an election in Victoria. There are 2 from Vic, 3 from NSW/ACT, 4 from Qld, and 1 each from Tas, SA, WA, NT. 1
Admin Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 Don`t include me in the "WE"!....I`ve been a paid up member of the A.U.F now R.A-Aus, since the early eighties! The only power I have had, is, to cast a vote and I do.Please tell us how "WE" let it happen and what you think should be done that will benefit the membership! Frank. Frank, as I have said I can't say at the moment but in due time everything that I am saying will make sense, and the exact time is out of my hands 2
turboplanner Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 Mike was elected from an electorate covering both NSW and ACT, not just a small block in ACT. Last year there wasn't even an election in Victoria. There are 2 from Vic, 3 from NSW/ACT, 4 from Qld, and 1 each from Tas, SA, WA, NT. Used to be 1
Yenn Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 If you don't like it you are going to have to lump it. I have talked to members who voted for the changed constitution and they admitted that they didn't know anything about what it really was. they obviously trust the management to do the right thing. Hope they are right. 1 1
farri Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 they obviously trust the management to do the right thing And there`s the stumbling block!...What is the right to do? 1
Geoff13 Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 It's a bit over a fortnight since that vote was taken and it seems that, according to some here, the sky is already falling. There will be an AGM in September this year. Find another 850 like minded members and vote the current board out. Until then, let's go with the majority vote. Yep was happy to do that but as you say less than 2 weeks, and the first thing we see are fees going up. So I have been in RAA for just under 2 years and 2 fee increases. One by stealth. I guess at least this time they are honest about it. 1
Downunder Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 Yep was happy to do that but as you say less than 2 weeks, and the first thing we see are fees going up. Yes. It would have been more appropriate to wait until after the Sept AGM to announce a fee increase, if at all. It has obviously been pre planned to push the increase through between the constitution vote and AGM, which is a concern. 1
storchy neil Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 why no mention at agm on increase of fees in any way but no cover up hmmmm:construction: am I missing something jee must be old and loosing the plot:peep wall: neil 1 1
gandalph Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 Neil, the meeting on 14 May wasn't an AGM it was a special meeting to consider and vote one resolution only. I don't believe there was any cover up or gagging of the Board. Members present at the meeting were given plenty of opportunity to ask questions. Hard to see any gagging of either members or board members.
gandalph Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 Stepping back in time to the Queanbeyan special meeting, members called that meeting because they were very unhappy with the management of the Association and they wanted change. Most of the old guard were voted out and the new brooms were voted in and given a mandate to change the way the Association was heading and the way it worked. We didn't give the new board specific direction, we just asked to make it better and to make it work properly. Moving forward a bit to the general meeting at Natfly a couple of years ago when the then treasurer Jim Tatlock laid it out pretty clearly that the RAA was in dire straits and would be insolvent in, (I think he said) 3 to 5 years if major changes weren't made to the way the association was run. I seem to recall that he proposed a range of changes to a) keep the association solvent and b) return the Association to good financial health. If I remember correctly, his report was accepted by those attending and that he was given a round of applause after his presentation. Fast forward a couple of years and the Board has been working to implement Jim's proposals. That has meant that some things had to change and inevitably that some members would not be comfortable with those changes. That is always the nature of change. Now people are up in arms complaining that the board is making those changes they see as necessary for the survival (and improvement) of the Association; those changes we asked for but didn't specify. It seems to me that at Queanbeyan we asked that the governance of the be dramatically improved, that we modernise and improve the systems the Association used to improve registrations, and that the new Board do what was necessary to keep the Association afloat and make it better for Members. There was general disapproval that the Association was sitting on reserves of 3 Million and that that money was not being used for the benefit of the membership. So the new board spent money to upgrade, as asked, improve management, as asked, and do whatever was needed to stop the Association from going broke, as asked. Now we are complaining that the Board has spent some of the reserves, determined a budget and formulated a strategic plan to keep our organisation going and STILL people aren't happy (well about 15% of those who bothered to vote). 1 4 1
storchy neil Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 yep your right proves that I cant do two thing at once talk on phone and type yes that was a special meeting I was wrong in saying agm was there not a question about expenditure neil 1
Keith Page Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Oh! Gandalph the mob who wanted to get rid of the old board, looks like they just wanted to get rid of the old board because to me it looks like they are now stuck as to what to do next. As Ian said it was a hostile take over, because they are now stuck with their next move. Their idealistic views and plans are not the be all and end all. To me the only thing which has happened the surplus has gone the magazine has gone and there is glitz about the place. People are still moaning so something is not correct. Because there is a lot of shut up this is what we are doing, what members organisation? $2m dollars in two years is not bad going. I would like to know what the current state of affairs is. Regards, KP 1 1
Keith Page Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 What I did omit in my last post.. They wanted change because that what the small little mob of hostile experts wanted. Now they have it they are now struggling as what to do next. We will see.. What will be interesting is when the rest of the $1m has gone, then there will be massive fee increases. Regards, KP
gandalph Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Keith, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Are you saying that the Queanbeyan meeting was just a "mob" to use your word, who wanted change for the sake of change? Are the 'Queanbeyan "Mob" stuck as to what to do next, or am I misinterpreting your post? Can you clarify what you mean? And are you saying that the Queanbeyan meeting was a hostile takeover or that the May 14th meeting was a hostile takeover? What do you mean by "they are now stuck with their next move"? Who is stuck? The hostile takeover people? The Board? The membership? It might be more accurate and a whole less emotive to say that at the Queanbeyan meeting members exercised their rights. If you are calling the May 14 meeting a hostile takeover then words fail me. For me, it still comes down to the numbers (at both meetings)and the results of the votes. I don't have the figures from the Queanbeyan meeting but I seem to recall that the motions put by the membership to clean out the old board were pretty convincingly carried, but you might have a different recollection. At the May 14th Meeting 85% of the votes cast were in favour of the proposal to change the structure of the Association. I'd characterize that as a significant majority of votes by involved members in favour of change. I struggle to see how you, or anyone else, can characterize it as a hostile takeover. Who do you say has taken us over? If you want to know the current state of (I'm assuming you mean financial) affairs, the 6 monthly report finance report to December 2015 is available in the members portal of the RAA website: Home - RAA I suppose, if you wanted an up-to-the minute status report you could contact the office and ask for an update: Phone: 02 6280 4700 or email admin @ raa.asn.au or ceo @ raa.asn.au Regards G 3
Keith Page Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Some answers with my personal interpretation and views expressed by myself. I say yes for the first question. You should remember the noise on this forum the board at the time was not doing a thing correctly. The mob as I say were not saying anything positive all was wrong. Normally some things should be correct, in this case nothing. Yes again to direction it is only in their view that things are correct. Here step back drop your emotion get out of your area then have a look and listen. Things are not happy about the RAAus movement. Numbers at Queanbeyan well that is a high density area and easy for some people to get along, just a bit of a geography update Sydney down the hill, Canberra up the hill, Victoria down the road, west and north up the road a bit.. Now Nth. Qld two change of planes or two days drive. Rest of Qld a drive and one plane ride. WA that is an excursion as of SA as well. At the Queanbeyan meeting the number of people there was only a small representation, rest of the quiet majority were absent because of the great distances and cost to get there. What I can not work out, a lot of these people who live away from the high density area are happy and the ones in the high density area are disgruntled, Why? Hostile take over.. As I see the situation there was a number of people in a small area (Australian) who moved and were voted on the board. The board at the time was dead locked with their voting so really nothing could be done hence I think that is very unfair saying the board was no good. My interpretation of the Queanbeyan meeting - the members exercising their right organised the hostile. If I am thinking like this - there are other people who would have the same view. Hope this a sera your questions gandalph. KP.
gandalph Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 You should remember the noise on this forum the board at the time was not doing a thing correctly. Keith, that's not unusual, negativity on social media forums such as this one is the norm. Posters rarely take the time to write to tell how well things are going or how happy they are with their governing body or bodies. It's human nature that we keep silent about the good things and complain about the bad things. That's why it's not wise to assume that social media forums are truly reflective of the views of the majority. How much praise does RAA or CASA get on this site? Can they both be doing everything wrong? At the Queanbeyan meeting the number of people there was only a small representation, rest of the quiet majority were absent because of the great distances and cost to get there. Keith, Keith Keith! Hadn't proxies been invented in time for the Queanbeyan meeting? Was it really only votes from the floor of that meeting that got up? Really?? As I see the situation there was a number of people in a small area (Australian) who moved and were voted on the board Well it was, after all, the Recreation Association of AUSTRALIA, so you'd expect that the most of the votes, and the candidates for the board would be from Australia..... Have I missed something? If I am thinking like this - there are other people who would have the same view. You're probably right but we keep coming back to the fact that the votes cast at Queanbeyan including proxies don't support your view. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong but it does mean that your view didn't have the necessary support to carry the day.p.s. Thanks for the Geography lesson, I'll keep than on my kneeboard when I do my next Navex. 1
turboplanner Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Keith, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Are you saying that the Queanbeyan meeting was just a "mob" to use your word, who wanted change for the sake of change? Are the 'Queanbeyan "Mob" stuck as to what to do next, or am I misinterpreting your post? Can you clarify what you mean? And are you saying that the Queanbeyan meeting was a hostile takeover or that the May 14th meeting was a hostile takeover? What do you mean by "they are now stuck with their next move"? Who is stuck? The hostile takeover people? The Board? The membership? It might be more accurate and a whole less emotive to say that at the Queanbeyan meeting members exercised their rights. If you are calling the May 14 meeting a hostile takeover then words fail me. For me, it still comes down to the numbers (at both meetings)and the results of the votes. I don't have the figures from the Queanbeyan meeting but I seem to recall that the motions put by the membership to clean out the old board were pretty convincingly carried, but you might have a different recollection. At the May 14th Meeting 85% of the votes cast were in favour of the proposal to change the structure of the Association. I'd characterize that as a significant majority of votes by involved members in favour of change. I struggle to see how you, or anyone else, can characterize it as a hostile takeover. Who do you say has taken us over? If you want to know the current state of (I'm assuming you mean financial) affairs, the 6 monthly report finance report to December 2015 is available in the members portal of the RAA website: Home - RAA I suppose, if you wanted an up-to-the minute status report you could contact the office and ask for an update: Phone: 02 6280 4700 or email admin @ raa.asn.au or ceo @ raa.asn.au Regards G Were you there that day?
gandalph Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Were you there that day? Yes Turbs. Both days. I was taking notes for some absent colleagues.
Recommended Posts