RAAus election process

[Geoff13]

GeoffThe word "majority" should be included to be fair as it was not supported unaminously - but we are all sacked now so good luck with the new board whoever they may be (certainly not me).

Frank I stand corrected, yes it was pushed by the majority. But we only found out that it was not unanimous after the event. Which is the way it should be I suppose a board should stand by the majority decision.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's very nice to have a unanimous decision, but not a requirement. The rules cover what % is required for a motion to pass and It wouldn't stand scrutiny if they weren't abided by. It's frequently a simple majority that can include the chairman's casting vote in a tied situation.Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

It's very nice to have a unanimous decision, but not a requirement

Was not suggesting otherwise for a minute. Just some (including myself) hold strong opinions against the move, but that is all history now anyway - unless another group etc.

 

 

[facthunter]

I understand that, and appreciate your efforts Frank. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

1. We were told the old Ops Manual was outdated and unworkable. - So it was changed for a newer but unproved version that appeared to be rushed at the last moment.2. We were told that the old constitution was outdated and unworkable. - So it was changed by a board that really only pushed the new one and did not give a balanced opinion., And then rushed action before it was even legally implemented.

3. now we are told the the Old tech manual is dated and unworkable and as such has been replaced by an obviously untested new tech manual.

I thought the new CEO was a lawyer by trade?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Not sure a lawyer, accountant maybe?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I thought Don Ramsay was the accountant?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

He has a degree in Taxation Law, so maybe we are both right?

 

 

[-Rod-]

It is important to note here that the new RAAus Constitution was presented to RAAus members for their consideration, by the Board without the Board signing off on the document.

 

No vote was taken by the Board.

 

No vote was taken at a face to face Board meeting, and no poll was taken via the RAAus Board forum, the official means of correspondence for Board discussion and voting for periods between face to face Board meetings (either at or after the documents signed by the President were sent to RAAus members).

 

In advance RAAus members were told the new constitution had the full support of the Board when clearly this was not true.

 

For something as important as a completely new constitution I must admit I remain profoundly disappointed the new constitution process was not managed better with both the 'for' and 'against' cases being allowed to be presented before the vote was taken.

 

Rod Birrell

 

 

[turboplanner]

Very good points Rod, but I don't think it would have mattered because it seems to me that virtually no one has looked at it anyway.

 

If they had they would have instantly seen through the story that the Association was no longer a club and needed corporate governance.

 

 

[storchy neil]

It is important to note here that the new RAAus Constitution was presented to RAAus members for their consideration, by the Board without the Board signing off on the document.

 

No vote was taken by the Board.

 

Whats new governance as an association not being followed and yet here we have ex board member now stating it is fact

 

this what a lot of persons have been stating where in the hell would corporate governance got the members

 

several persons on this forum did advise person to read the drafts very carefully at that meeting I again was told not to make waves

 

in my opinion the cover up and none disclosure by the board makes a farce and corrupt neil

 

 

[ave8rr]

Hello Sue,On Finances, the biggest single outgoing was the IT/Website upgrade as a one off. It was a necessary expense. The ongoing costs are primarily wages, RAAus has reduced its administrative staff at the lower cost level as a result of IT efficiencies however it has employed more staff at a middle management level. We also have a notable budget allocation going forwards for marketing costs. The settlement of legal costs was significant however at this stage it is not an ongoing problem for RAAus. Magazine sales have been poor with members not taking up the forecast number of subscriptions and this has adversely effected our expected income. There are no 'bear traps' there for RAAus we are simply spending too much without sufficient income. On the income level we have a reduced membership base, I have no access to current numbers however from around 10,000 to a recent figure of an estimated 8,600. Unfortunately with reduced income we need to reduce expenditure. Yes we can run a balanced budget, it can be done.

 

Weight Increase, Yes, if we can gain an an increase in the maximum weight for our class of aircraft we will gain more members and our income will increase, a case of what is good of our members will be good for RAAus's bottom line. This matter is actively being actively pursued by RAAus.

 

Sport Pilot, I believe RAAus policy on making the hard cover version of Sport Pilot an op-in option, with a high fee to do so, was not a good policy. Many members have said they thought to move was sneaky, that they did not like the online version, that they would not read it online, and they would not pay the high fee for getting the printed version, something they received for "free" previously. My proposal is to be upfront with our members and include the distribution of the magazine (for members only) at cost. That is only charge for actual printing and postage costs, previously estimated to be around $45 per year. For those that have no wish to have the printed magazine they could 'opt-out' and save the $45 per year (approx). Even if the actual costs came to a higher $55 per year it would still be a good deal for everyone. I submit this would be a fairer way of distributing Sport Pilot magazine, more RAAus pilots would subscribe and those that would rather save the money could opt-out and continue to receive the electronic copy.

 

Insurance The insurance cover for pilots and maintainers it would not need to be compulsory, it could be an opt-in offer. Prices can be obtained for both options and presented to our members when the actual fee options are known. With our electronic communication the insurance options and the fees could easily be present to our members via an email survey - very little cost, with a very fast response - democracy in action!

 

Support to other Sport Aviation bodies, A mutually beneficial proposal, we have the professional skills in our office with a very capable and competent team including a CEO that performs at the highest level. We have the capability to provide administrative support and operational support to like minded bodies. We could offer our services at a cost that would be of value to other organisations yet profitable to RAAus, a classic win-win.

 

Cheers

 

Rod Birrell

Rod, would you support bringing the "Members Market" back under control of RAAus Ltd?

Were the OLD board in agreement to have it farmed out to Aviation Advertiser?

 

With the new Website up and running, the Members Market could be making money for RAAus instead of lining another business's pocket.

 

I was at the 1015 AGM at Bundaberg (Saturday) and on the Monday following an email was sent to members advising the move of the Members Market. NOTHING was said about this at that meeting.

 

 

[-Rod-]

Rod, would you support bringing the "Members Market" back under control of RAAus Ltd?Were the OLD board in agreement to have it farmed out to Aviation Advertiser?

With the new Website up and running, the Members Market could be making money for RAAus instead of lining another business's pocket.

 

I was at the 1015 AGM at Bundaberg (Saturday) and on the Monday following an email was sent to members advising the move of the Members Market. NOTHING was said about this at that meeting.

Personally I would have preferred the Members Market to have remained as an 'in house' service to members. Many RAAus pilots have said the me the first thing they would do when receiving their hard copy of Sport Pilot was to read from the back first to check out the Members Market. Now the majority of our members do not receive the printed magazine and from the feedback I have received, a significantly reduced number read the electronic version. Having RAAus take back the on-line presentation of the MM is something I would support.

 

Of course I can only represent my views, any decision on this mater would depend on the new Board, the persons selected and their support or otherwise for change.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I was shocked at the price of an Aviation Advertiser ad, and yet I would have been placated at the thought at contributing to RAAus.

 

So I'm going to advertise my son's paraglider on ebay. " self-taught pilot retired after one ten-second flight... suit new buyer".

 

Yes Rod, I am one of those who always looked to the member's market first in the magazine I no longer get.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't think the change to the constitution requires the board to agree with it, it was up to the members and that decision has been made.

 

 

[Admin]

Bruce, have you put it in the Classifieds here, it's free and Google picks it up

 

 

[-Rod-]

I don't think the change to the constitution requires the board to agree with it, it was up to the members and that decision has been made.

The important thing here is that the Constitution Change was put to RAAus members as a change that had the full support of the Board, and it didn't. If good Board governance is anything about due process then this action probably represents the single biggest failure of good corporate governance in our organisations history. RAAus members also expected an open discussion on the merits or otherwise of such a significant change in Sport Pilot, this did not occur and was not allowed to occur.

The presentation of the new constitution was very well stage managed and yet the end result, my view, was so disappointing.

 

 

[Admin]

The CEO and President went around Australia canvassing votes, getting proxies then and there, whilst only telling the members half baked truths and only their side whilst we paid for it out of our dwindling funds. They should be locked up and the key thrown away and to me they have given me a huge reason to never ever trust them again, just like the Runciman Tizzard era and looked what happened to them

 

 

[rhysmcc]

One could also argue it was the CEO and Presidents job to present the best course of action to the members, either way it's done. Those who are serious about change are standing for election, the rest I guess will sit here and judge over the next 12 months.

 

 

[Keith Page]

rhysmcc we were lied to.

 

There is a legal description for the CEO's and President's actions. They lied to us by "Fact of Omission" that is they did not tell us the truth - by omitting to divulge the "No" information. They are duty bound to present all views.

 

What they did was go and visit the close clubs in the south east and gather as many yes proxies as possible. They loaded their story for a "Yes".

 

With this demonstrated action we have every right to be suspicious.

 

This "Yes" action even goes to Don Ramsay pushing "Yes" on this forum, come on I am not that silly to fall for that one. He had permission/encouragement from the "Yes" brigade within the board. Circumstantial evidence regarding those actions is good enough for me.

 

Why would Don push "Yes" and when it got up he left like a robbers dog. He knew it was a red hot potato.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

One could also argue it was the CEO and Presidents job to present the best course of action to the members, either way it's done. Those who are serious about change are standing for election, the rest I guess will sit here and judge over the next 12 months.

The CEO and Pres. are duty bound to give a complete over view nothing slanted in anyway. that is called honesty.

KP

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I am perplexed that only Rod B, of the 10 candidates, has made any contribution here. I still don't have an answer to how any of them are going to pull RAA out of the financial spiral, except to increase fees. $159k for the website, when Ian offered $1 (if I remember correctly he made the same offer earlier when RAA accepted $13k which fell over). At the AGM in Bundaberg Myles said he had spent $39k on file digitisation that also evaporated. Are we so inept with IT management?

 

 

 

Rod's response is to raise membership by $45 to provide a hard copy of Sport Pilot to everyone, but this will go directly to print costs. The other saviour will be the increase in MTOW which will bring (presumably) more GA aircraft on board. The "modernisation" project may reduce staff, but he says the numbers have reduced but the wage levels have gone up - no savings there. Before I vote, I want to know what the candidates intend to do about dwindling reserves and operating losses.

 

 

 

Moving the Members' Market to a third party provider seems a mistake, at least, as I still have trouble getting the site to work.

 

 

 

Voting closes 31 August - to get your vote there in time it has to go by 23rd (Australia Post says up to 6 business days from remote Aust)

 

 

[Happyflyer]

The members elected the board, the board hired the CEO and the elected board members decided on a course of action that was put to the vote and won the backing of the majority of those who bothered to vote. Seems fair enough to me. Lets go flying!

 

 

[Keith Page]

You are correct Sue, the place is in a financial pickle. They are lucky that there was a $2m surplus sitting there.

 

They are clever operators why get rid of the revenue streams, advertising.

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

The members elected the board, the board hired the CEO and the elected board members decided on a course of action that was put to the vote and won the backing of the majority of those who bothered to vote. Seems fair enough to me. Lets go flying!

Look at the number of "YES' proxies, that gets the alarm bells ringing. For me that does.

KP.