RAAus election process

[storchy neil]

my opinion

 

the problem is to blame some one else pass the buck not my problem who cares

 

raaus were given a charter by casa to administer the ultralight persons the systemic failure to administer good governance led to the complete failure off raaus hence the big stick came out

 

at one time the board claimed that there were over 12000 members now when this was question in regard to financial irregularities the board could not answer and ducked the questions about this lost a lot off paper work went missing

 

of the board members that have been there is only three that showed any interest in being accountable I do accept that I had personal connections with them but get rid off em mentalatity prevailed

 

this crap that is taking place now should make you wounder

 

as stated here on this forum the systemic failure by raaus to listen to members who years ago stated that the regulations needed to be followed not some hearsay by xxx

 

black and white the rules and regulations have allways been there but because some wanted to step out side the bounderies they became a pigs breakfast

 

I site the grounding off aircraft neil

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Storchy, my aircraft was grounded, not for any sensible reason but for the most stupid bullying red-tape bit of nonsense you could ever imagine. Done by CASA not RAAus. What was the reason for having BOTH sides of the fuse in a photo in some filing cabinet in Canberra instead of just one side? This was just an awful bit of bullying red tape inflicted on me ( and the old RAAus board) by the nastiest overpaid and over-empowered bureaucrats imaginable.

 

How can you blame the old board members for this? Punishing the victim?

 

 

[Yenn]

It would be good if all the candidates posted on this forum, but they should not be unknown to us. The place they posted their CVs is the RAAus web site and that is where we should go for info. This is not the official site of the RAAus organisation.

 

The reason CASA called for more and more stupid information was because RAAus was not conforming to their requirements and no matter how much you dislike it we have to conform.

 

 

[Keith Page]

That is it Yen. Put in simplistic terms. CASA is a board which administers aviation in Australia.

 

CASA has made an agreement with RAAus to manage a section of recreational aviation. So every one is obliged to honor that agreement.

 

KP

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Counting the votes. I checked the Constitution - it says "Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body (34.4)". I had a look on the AEC website and I could not find a general guideline for our style of election, the House of Reps being the closest. That elects only one person, the first to reach 51%.

 

 

 

The ballot paper guidelines say you can vote for only one person, or up to 10. How is this calculated? The HofReps counts all first preference (No.1 or tick) and, if someone has gained over 50% the seat is awarded. If not, the lowest candidate is eliminated and their votes distributed according to the No.2 preference, and so on until one candidate has the majority.

 

 

 

In our Council elections (say 5 Councillors) the votes 1 to 5 are each counted as a vote. Preferences only come into it if there is a tie and the guy with the most No.1s wins. In reality the mediocre candidate gets the most as there are people at both ends that polarise the voters so the bland guy in the middle picks up the 4 & 5 spots from the majority.

 

 

 

So how does our RAA election work?

 

 

 

[coljones]

Counting the votes. I checked the Constitution - it says "Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body (34.4)". I had a look on the AEC website and I could not find a general guideline for our style of election, the House of Reps being the closest. That elects only one person, the first to reach 51%. 

 

The ballot paper guidelines say you can vote for only one person, or up to 10. How is this calculated? The HofReps counts all first preference (No.1 or tick) and, if someone has gained over 50% the seat is awarded. If not, the lowest candidate is eliminated and their votes distributed according to the No.2 preference, and so on until one candidate has the majority.

 

 

 

In our Council elections (say 5 Councillors) the votes 1 to 5 are each counted as a vote. Preferences only come into it if there is a tie and the guy with the most No.1s wins. In reality the mediocre candidate gets the most as there are people at both ends that polarise the voters so the bland guy in the middle picks up the 4 & 5 spots from the majority.

 

 

 

So how does our RAA election work?

Send an email to the CEO.

There is also the Senate, proportional representation, method where in this case you only need 16% of the vote, the multiple preferential where your first 5 votes all have equal value and prefs are only used if 1 of your first 5 are knocked out or repeated application of the preferential ballot eliminating successful candidates and re-allocating the voters next preference until 5 are elected.

 

The last 2 methods elects people most preferred by everyone so it is possible that a dominant group of electors can determine 100% of those elected - but majority rules (hmm! Those pesky Qlanders could dominate) but you could avoid fringe candidates. Proportional voting does allow for minor to have a say in the election and outcome in proportion to their strength. These election methods are all supported by the AEC. You might find them in the industrial elections section of their website.

 

 

[coljones]

Counting the votes. I checked the Constitution - it says "Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body (34.4)". I had a look on the AEC website and I could not find a general guideline for our style of election, the House of Reps being the closest. That elects only one person, the first to reach 51%. 

 

The ballot paper guidelines say you can vote for only one person, or up to 10. How is this calculated? The HofReps counts all first preference (No.1 or tick) and, if someone has gained over 50% the seat is awarded. If not, the lowest candidate is eliminated and their votes distributed according to the No.2 preference, and so on until one candidate has the majority.

 

 

 

In our Council elections (say 5 Councillors) the votes 1 to 5 are each counted as a vote. Preferences only come into it if there is a tie and the guy with the most No.1s wins. In reality the mediocre candidate gets the most as there are people at both ends that polarise the voters so the bland guy in the middle picks up the 4 & 5 spots from the majority.

 

 

 

So how does our RAA election work?

Bland in the middle works for me. The least hated person in the room is usually the do-er and can work with all comers.

 

 

[coljones]

It would be good if all the candidates posted on this forum, but they should not be unknown to us. The place they posted their CVs is the RAAus web site and that is where we should go for info. This is not the official site of the RAAus organisation.The reason CASA called for more and more stupid information was because RAAus was not conforming to their requirements and no matter how much you dislike it we have to conform.

Their email addresses are together with their statements in the magazine. Send each an email and ask you questions and invite them to contribute to this forum or ask if you can post the answers here. No magazine or only just arrived. Give the CEO a boot. You might also suggest the removal of the email addresses on the website was a bit disingenuous seeing that the statements were on the members side only. Now the email addresses are in the magazine and can be read by everyone and Mrs Grumpy down at the local doctors surgery where I leave my "Sports Pilot".

 

 

[facthunter]

You have to be prepared to accept that well informed people will generally vote for the best outcome, to believe in a democracy. If some choose not to bother, that is certainly their choice , but they can hardly complain at the result, if they don't take the trouble. The facility to vote has a $ price but it's a check on performance and gives the masses "ownership". Don't give it up easily as there are many who will try to deny you that "facility". Nev

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Counting votes - here is the reply from the CEO:-

 

 

 

Hi and thanks for your note.

 

RAAus Ltd is electing directors for the first and needs to allocate incoming board members to 1, 2 and 3 year terms. Five directors will be elected during this election while two of the initial directors will remain. In the following year, those two initial directors will be the directors who have been in office the longest and will thus be due for re-election. That is, they are effectively on 1 year terms from the date the new directors take office. Thus we need to allocate 3 directors to a 3 year term and 2 directors to a 2 year term. The following method of voting addresses this.

 

 

Each member can allocate votes on their ballot paper by numbering the boxes next to each candidate. They can allocate a vote to any number of candidates from 1 to 10. No member is compelled to number all 10 candidates, they can vote for any number they wish to.

 

 

The votes will be counted in the simplest method accepted by the AEC – most votes wins. Those candidates who receive the most 1 through 5 votes win the ballot. Candidates receiving a vote of 6 or higher are taken to not have received a vote for the 5 available seats.

 

 

All votes are considered equal and terms will be allocated based on the overall number of votes received. The top three candidates will be allocated a 3 year term and the next two will be allocated a 2 year term.

 

 

In essence you get five votes, one for each of the five vacancies.

 

 

I trust this answers your question.

 

 

Thanks

 

Michael Linke

 

 

So there is no point in differentiating between 1 to 5, or bothering to number 6-10.

 

 

[storchy neil]

You have to be prepared to accept that well informed people will generally vote for the best outcome, to believe in a democracy spot on nev

 

yes well informed persons is the answer I did my best to inform persons to read as to what was being put around so now by their shear stupidity off not reading suck it up princes

 

the majority raaus members could not give a dam about raaus by their refusal to lodge a vote leave it 800 or 900 or so to go out and get accountability good governance and above all safety instilled in the brain neil

 

 

[kasper]

Counting the votes. I checked the Constitution - it says "Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body (34.4)". I had a look on the AEC website and I could not find a general guideline for our style of election, the House of Reps being the closest. That elects only one person, the first to reach 51%. 

 

The ballot paper guidelines say you can vote for only one person, or up to 10. How is this calculated? The HofReps counts all first preference (No.1 or tick) and, if someone has gained over 50% the seat is awarded. If not, the lowest candidate is eliminated and their votes distributed according to the No.2 preference, and so on until one candidate has the majority.

 

 

 

In our Council elections (say 5 Councillors) the votes 1 to 5 are each counted as a vote. Preferences only come into it if there is a tie and the guy with the most No.1s wins. In reality the mediocre candidate gets the most as there are people at both ends that polarise the voters so the bland guy in the middle picks up the 4 & 5 spots from the majority.

 

 

 

So how does our RAA election work?

You and I do not have to worry about the constitution for this election as it is not being undertaken under the constitution at all.

This was directly confirmed by M Monke to me when I asked that the election process be halted as it was in direct conflict and against the constitution. I was told that as the new constitution was not operative at the time nominations were called and closed the process does not have to comply with the requirements of the constitution.

 

I was told that they had legal advice that it was in the spirit of what was passed by the members when they approved the new constitution so the fact that it was not under the constitution and did not meet the requirements was not important. And if you want to hold the board to the constitution it was up to me to take legal action to stop the election.

 

I am not prepared to spend that much of my own money at this point to stop what I see as a meglomaniac running the RAAus as he sees fit so I made a complaint to ASIC that the board directors were acting in direct conflict to the constitution of the association AND this was having a personal irect financial cost to me as I am a member and my funds are being used to run an election process .,.. I gather that printed magazines are being sent to all as part of this farce of an election.

 

If the membership simply keep ignoring the completely improper and unconstitutional election then I will have to consider my position closer to the AGM when the 'winners' are to be appointed as directors - I still have the option to seek an injunction against RAAus Ltd to block their appointment as its unconstitutional and/or move a motion at the AGM to have the election voided on grounds of unconstitutionality.

 

Monke and co banged on to 'sell' the need for the constitution the 'fact' that ACT regulation was ineffective and there was a need to move to ASIC regulation to provide strong oversight - well gents completely ignoring the constitution you got passed as part of the move to ASIC is not a good way of starting out

 

 

[JEM]

More from RA Aus

 

Our Constitution - RAA

 

 

[kasper]

More from RA AusOur Constitution - RAA

Yes ... and note the DATE it came into effect ... the day AFTER the nomination in the elections closed ... so clearly the nominations and election cannot be under the constitution for RAAus Ltd ... and the prcess does not comply with the requirements of RAAus Inc - the constitution that applied during the nomination period ... so hands up who wants to guess the legality of the actual process underway or the validity of any appointments ...

 

 

[facthunter]

That is the point you have always made. In a transition to a new constitution I could envisage a case being made to disregard the previous one where there might be a conflict on the grounds of practicality. The new one should be more appropriate or you wouldn't be going there. The AEC do have an oversight role possibly, but there are various models of how voting can be carried out and still be OK by them. I was involved where the rules we proposed were far ahead in principle of what they wanted but we ended up going to an inferior product, because their straightjacket had to prevail. It's a possible something to fall back on if needed and all else fails. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I'm not sure the CEOs plan of 3year and 2yesr term directors is legit either, who ever comes 4th and 5th may want to read clause 36.3

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes ... and note the DATE it came into effect ... the day AFTER the nomination in the elections closed ... so clearly the nominations and election cannot be under the constitution for RAAus Ltd ... and the prcess does not comply with the requirements of RAAus Inc - the constitution that applied during the nomination period ... so hands up who wants to guess the legality of the actual process underway or the validity of any appointments ...

That's good Kasper, if they're invalid you can boot out the ones you don't want.

 

 

[kasper]

That is the point you have always made. In a transition to a new constitution I could envisage a case being made to disregard the previous one where there might be a conflict on the grounds of practicality. The new one should be more appropriate or you wouldn't be going there. The AEC do have an oversight role possibly, but there are various models of how voting can be carried out and still be OK by them. I was involved where the rules we proposed were far ahead in principle of what they wanted but we ended up going to an inferior product, because their straightjacket had to prevail. It's a possible something to fall back on if needed and all else fails. Nev

Nev,

Absolutely agree that there are multiple models for elections and many variations could be fitted under the new constitution and it in fact does not straight-jacket the process.

 

The issue is that the two or three initial directors were not prepared with a process that was documented and complied with the new constitution and to make it worse then jumped the gun terribly by commencing a process that was stated to be under a constitution that did not at that time apply and when called on it say we know, it is not under the constitution so we do not have to comply with the communications requirements that would otherwise apply and do not have to have a process that is acceptable or aligned to any model rules that AEC might publish ...and on we go.

 

I personally will not be voting as this is in my opinion not a valid election under the constitution and I will be doing my damndest to get it stopped before the appointments go ahead at the AGM.

 

 

[octave]

I personally will not be voting as this is in my opinion not a valid election under the constitution and I will be doing my damndest to get it stopped before the appointments go ahead at the AGM.

So is the only remedy to cancel the election because it was called under the new rules a few days or weeks before the change of structure and then because the structure is now valid recall the election, call for candidates again, post out new voting forms most likely with exactly the same candidates. Sounds expensive.

 

 

[kasper]

So is the only remedy to cancel the election because it was called under the new rules a few days or weeks before the change of structure and then because the structure is now valid recall the election, call for candidates again, post out new voting forms most likely with exactly the same candidates. Sounds expensive.

Unfortunately yes. The only valid way to run an election under the constitution is to comply with the constitution.

Given that I raised this with the initial directors BEFORE nominations closed they had the opportunity to correct it without all the costs being incurred - but Michael was adamant that he was correct that he did not have to comply with the constitution in multiple areas (communications, rules published, rules that would be acceptable to the model rules of the AEC etc) and that the fact the constitution was approved in May by the members meant that he could go forward with an election that was not under the constitution and the resulting successful candidates would be appointed under the constitution.

 

Complete shambles from a procedural perspective no matter how you look at it and others have started to see and point out the process as it is being held is not exactly clear or what we might have expected.

 

 

[octave]

So is the only remedy to cancel the election because it was called under the new rules a few days or weeks before the change of structure and then because the structure is now valid recall the election, call for candidates again, post out new voting forms most likely with exactly the same candidates. Sounds expensive.Unfortunately yes. The only valid way to run an election under the constitution is to comply with the constitution.

Given that I raised this with the initial directors BEFORE nominations closed they had the opportunity to correct it without all the costs being incurred - but Michael was adamant that he was correct that he did not have to comply with the constitution in multiple areas (communications, rules published, rules that would be acceptable to the model rules of the AEC etc) and that the fact the constitution was approved in May by the members meant that he could go forward with an election that was not under the constitution and the resulting successful candidates would be appointed under the constitution

 

Complete shambles from a procedural perspective no matter how you look at it and others have started to see and point out the process as it is being held is not exactly clear or we might have expected.

But my question is, and forgive my naivety, is the only way forward to cancel and redo the election process merely to end up in the same situation but many thousands of dollars poorer?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

So is there actually someone who missed out on nominating because the rules wasn't followed?

 

 

[kasper]

But my question is, and forgive my naivety, is the only way forward to cancel and redo the election process merely to end up in the same situation but many thousands of dollars poorer?

Possibly we would end up with the same outcomes.

BUT a process is underway that is clearly NOT

 

1. understood clearly by all members (ask the directors for a copy of the written rules for the election - I asked and they do not exist so they are making it up as they go along)

 

2. in compliance with the nice new it will fix everything new constitution - pushed for by a group of people who had as their core values the need to improve management and compliance within the operations of RAAus

 

3. it will potentially appoint people as directors who under the constitution are NOT elibible to be directors ... and I would LOVE to see the legal advice on the liability and risks to both the initial directors who appoint them or the new directors who will be acting under a cloud.

 

Stopping the election at this point and getting a clear and compliant process in place and going again will avoid any doubt on the validity of the appointments to the company.

 

And personally as a member I would be quite interested in having the current initial directors who pressed forward with this asked to repay to the RAAus the full costs of the election process that have been incurred to date

 

Putting it bluntly I am seriously considering seeking an injunction against the directors to prevent the appointments at the AGM and if it has to will be seeking costs from RAAus as frankly this is a clear case of procedural failure.

 

From where we are at the moment I am sorry to say that it is likely that costs and delays will be incurred by RAAus in relation to this election.

 

 

[coljones]

Counting votes - here is the reply from the CEO:-  

 

Hi and thanks for your note.

 

RAAus Ltd is electing directors for the first and needs to allocate incoming board members to 1, 2 and 3 year terms. Five directors will be elected during this election while two of the initial directors will remain. In the following year, those two initial directors will be the directors who have been in office the longest and will thus be due for re-election. That is, they are effectively on 1 year terms from the date the new directors take office. Thus we need to allocate 3 directors to a 3 year term and 2 directors to a 2 year term. The following method of voting addresses this.

 

 

 

Each member can allocate votes on their ballot paper by numbering the boxes next to each candidate. They can allocate a vote to any number of candidates from 1 to 10. No member is compelled to number all 10 candidates, they can vote for any number they wish to.

 

 

 

The votes will be counted in the simplest method accepted by the AEC – most votes wins. Those candidates who receive the most 1 through 5 votes win the ballot. Candidates receiving a vote of 6 or higher are taken to not have received a vote for the 5 available seats.

 

 

 

All votes are considered equal and terms will be allocated based on the overall number of votes received. The top three candidates will be allocated a 3 year term and the next two will be allocated a 2 year term.

 

 

 

In essence you get five votes, one for each of the five vacancies.

 

 

 

I trust this answers your question.

 

 

 

Thanks

 

Michael Linke

 

 

So there is no point in differentiating between 1 to 5, or bothering to number 6-10.

Nothing quite like a lazy election method, which can result in the election of the least preferred rather than the least hated. So sad!!!

 

 

[rick-p]

Hey does somebody up there in their little white ivory tower realized that they have stuffed up. What I mean is this month, Holy Whiteman Batman, I received a magazine, the first in what, over a year, or more. I haven't read it yet but I suppose there in it will be contained a lot of back patting and subliminal suggestions about the direction of the elections, the new entity and the Board. The ceasing of the hard copy of the magazine being delivered to those who chose not to pay extra that is in the greater scheme of things a relevant fact as one could be forgiven for thinking that it was just a ploy on the part of certain people to treat the majority of members as mushrooms. The first that I heard about the elections and the nominated constituents was a week or two ago. I, as probably many did, relied on the magazine to keep abreast of the goings on as like many when it comes to computers they are used by me as a last resort. Too many people and organizations these days almost demand that everyone be computer literate and buy expensive hardware and programs to keep up with the times, that is their times not ours. It does appear, at least on the surface, that there has been some manoeuvring and misinformation in respect of the constitution and election process which now needs to be carefully scrutinized in attempt arrive at the truth of the matter which will either quell the rumours and angst of some or on the other hand vindicate those who have been protesting hard on these issues.