Political style election

[frank marriott]

I have seen a political style 'how to vote' sheet sent by (3) two candidates and a club, even with a slogan "five for the future".

 

I find it insulting that some believe they can promote a political style campaign for the election of board members to RAA.

 

Of the other 3 in the promoted "5" I only know one (who I find hard to accept would be part of this process, as I find him as as individual thinker) but short of a public statement to the contrary one can only assume that all 5 are on the one ticket. One would assume they were all contacted before using their names in a promotion? I certainly would not accept my name being promoted on a group ticket without consent.

 

That would only leave 5 others that have not formed a "clique".

 

Disappointing at least IMO

 

 

[Keith Page]

Frank.. They think we are not thinkers when they are coming up with this faction rot.

 

Factions do not go anywhere they end up in one big >*^\{~>#£%}{#*€~ fight.

 

When I get a bit of time I will put some history here and it will not be kind to this present board and previous segments of it before the Big constitution "reform".

 

Some of those gentlemen start their faction war from way back hidden and from the side line.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[jakej]

'they' will probably wonder why membership keeps falling when this apparent background crap is happening, many of those, who don't have to be a member to fly, will just leave the RA Aus.

 

What is happening to RA Aus is symptomatic of a lot of volunteer organisations (much worse in SAAA IMO) & it will take a quantum shift in attitudes & thinking before it changes, maybe a generational thing if we get enough 'new' people coming through the ranks.

 

I don't believe the present 60-70 year old group will see it in their lifetime - the present situation is too broke to be fixed any time soon.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I have not seen any 'how to vote' sheets, but it is not unusual, especially when most of the voters don't know the candidates. They don't need their permission either. When our local council was dysfunctional, the Rate Payers' Association (of which I was an active member) encouraged capable people to nominate and then after reading all the statements, talking with everyone etc, formed a list of the ones we thought most sympathetic to our cause and circulated it. 5 of the 6 got elected. The candidates need to get out and publicise themselves. Otherwise it will be a vote for a name you know, but not necessarily the best man for the job.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

No different then people suggesting on this site which are the "top" pick candidates, personally I don't see a problem with clubs or schools making suggestions.

 

 

[jakej]

no problems unless the "clique" make decisions without the rest of the elected, then it turns to crap & people give up on the whole process - I've seen it happen first hand. So.... nothing changes:whisper:

 

 

[Oscar]

Caveat - I am NOT currently a member of RAA; I was so dissatisfied with the performance of the previous 'Runciman Board' that I left in disgust. However, a mate alerted me to the changes, and passed on a link to 'Five for the Fiuture' 'poster,'-style web page.

 

I was then (and remain) a firm believer that the previous system of regional representation was entirely useless to produce a Board with the requisite spread of professional and management skills to run a complex organisation. I have been very encouraged by the changes to 'skills-based' Board member election; the 'election' CV's presented in the 'Five' document seem to me to be a good spread of expertise in areas that RAA NEEDS on the Board.

 

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that this information indicates the existence of a 'clique' or 'faction' - is it, realistically, likely that this group has any sort of personal connection, given the geographical distribution and disparate backgrounds indicated? The common factor here appears to be mutual recognition that the skills and background of each, individually, are likely to contribute to the forward progress of RAA towards being capable of responding to the necessities of managing the affairs of nearly 10K members to continue to operate in a technologically-challenging and increasingly 'business-oriented' environment.

 

If RAA cannot adequately meet the technical demands - as it obviously did NOT in the past, resulting in the CASA audit debacle - and do more than merely survive, it will fail. The suggestion, frequently repeated, that there are deep, dark political machinations within the present Board, are in the absence of any promised denouement, no more than tin-foil-hat fulminations.

 

Personally, I think RAA members would do well to look at the CV's of the 'Five' with an approach of 'do they present potentially good Board members?' - rather than ' why would we trust some 'ticket' faction'? The latter approach smacks to me of unrequited nostalgia for an RAA Board aligned to the old 'it should be run as a local Cricket Club' mentality that led the RAA into such dire straits.

 

I haven't seen other statements from other candidates for the Board, and it may well be that there are equally good prospects available for selection. Given that a remarkable small proportion of RAA members are, quite evidently from their disinclination to engage in voting for the Board, not in the least concerned with notions of 'cliques', cabals', 'oligarchies' or hegemonies, but simply want to be able to continue flying supported by an effective administration, just perhaps it is aimed at ensuring that the Board comprises 'effective' members - and the supposed 'political' machinations are completely irrelevant?

 

If it is, in fact, a better outcome that the Board ends up being comprised of members with appropriate skills to further RAA, then these candidates appear to me to be worthy of consideration. However: judge for yourselves: Five for the future

 

 

[facthunter]

"Skills of the Board"? what exactly are we alluding to here? Do we want IT experts? With 2 of them in a room you will have four fighting. Do we want an accountant? A lawyer? A business management qualified person? IF they are really qualified they will be somewhere out there working and when the $#1t hits the fan the advice you get must be the BEST, Not the best, that happens to be on the board, at the time.

 

Probably the "permanent staff " resent the board coming along occasionally and wanting to run the show. but "SORRY" that is the way this thing works, because they are the only ELECTED influence members have and this SHOW must remain responsive to member's wishes/needs or we can have a Frankenstein Monster. The permanent staff have the day to day skills and knowledge OR pay for them externally, when it's critical to have the BEST ADVICE to run the show "professionally". This is more management of day by day affairs, rather than POLICY.

 

Policy has to be from the members so comes from the Users. (Those who are affected), NOT dictated from the TOP down. There needs to be an acceptable process for that on an ongoing basis, as it has to adapt to changing circumstances. If some proposed action is clearly against the existing policy, either the policy is revisited,ina structured and democratic manner or the action doesn't happen. That's pretty fundamental to a proper process of governance, in this or any like organisation.

 

So .. The board members need wisdom above all else, the ability to work with others constructively. A good feel for the "ESSENCE" of the movement. A fair amount of experience in U/L and homebuilts and some experience of working with organisations like CASA and a large tolerance for people who offer lots of advice but don't do a lot otherwise.

 

The organisation should utilise the large amount of skills out in the membership, whenever possible. It's a valuable resource that shouldn't be ignored. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

is there a copy of this flyer online?

 

I am sure I predicted that the new board was just an vehicle for a small clique to gain control of the RAA.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Five for the future

[FlyingVizsla]

The link above, bottom of post #7. 1 WA, 1 SA, 2 SEQ, 1 FNQ, but I think someone read the electoral statements and resumes and decided - 2 good blokes who are past Board members (technical & knowledge of prior decisions), plus three with broad experience in law, governance, business etc.

 

 

 

I won't be voting for Eugine because he was the worst treasurer - he didn't know the difference between a profit or loss or where the reserves were. If there were less capable candidates I might have voted for him for his knowledge of the history AUF/RAA provided they kept him away from the till.

 

 

[Keith Page]

is there a copy of this flyer online?I am sure I predicted that the new board was just an vehicle for a small clique to gain control of the RAA.

F_T.. How could you think that. You will have Don after you.

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[facthunter]

If Eugene writes the definitive history of the AUF/ RAAus, you can decide to buy it or not.. We have to make sure it doesn't become history. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

The link above, bottom of post #7. 1 WA, 1 SA, 2 SEQ, 1 FNQ, but I think someone read the electoral statements and resumes and decided - 2 good blokes who are past Board members (technical & knowledge of prior decisions), plus three with broad experience in law, governance, business etc.  

 

I won't be voting for Eugine because he was the worst treasurer - he didn't know the difference between a profit or loss or where the reserves were. If there were less capable candidates I might have voted for him for his knowledge of the history AUF/RAA provided they kept him away from the till.

He wasn't much chop as president either.

 

 

[jakej]

.... that's a novel idea

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The worst thing about this gang of five is they aren't telling the members what they are planning to do to the RAA and members won't know about it until its too late. And probably won't care based on past performances...

 

 

[facthunter]

When each Candidate wrote his/her CV what limitations were placed on what format it had to have?. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the good bloke test.

 

 

[01rmb]

The web site domain is owned by Andrew Schox - the WA based member of the Five for the Future.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm referring to the ones published in the magazine. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

What an interesting set of responses.. with (of course), the 'Usual Suspects' chipping in their standard carping against any sort of change. Some can be dismissed as trolls, fighting against their increasingly evident irrelevance, some are expressing viable concerns.

 

Those with an appreciation of history, will recognise the term 'pan-xxx-ism' - an entirely spurious harkening back to some mythical time when 'things were better'. In this specific case, the 'case' expounded by those who are now posting (unsupported by fact or reasoning,)a time when the 'democratic' nature of RAA was a 'golden past' which has been lost but needs to be reclaimed.

 

To use a phrase well-understood by those of Anglo-Saxon descent: 'BOLLOCKS'. The transformation of the AUF into the RAA, saw the ascent of a very few Board members into a cabal or clique - or frankly, a one-person ( and we know who that was) fiefdom that produced at its zenith the CASA audit, a dire financial situation and the granting of very considerable financial reward for a small number of individuals favoured by the Prince(s) of the RAA - who produced NOTHING but negative outcomes.

 

The mythical 'democratic' election of Board members based on geographical (regional) representation was a monumental cluster-fark. That boil was finally lanced with the Queanbeyan 'Emergency' meeting, but to my mind, it remained as an open wound at least until the passing of the 'new arrangements' and constitution. That change was a result of a 'democratic' process -open voting by eligible Members - and was by so far the decision of the majority who voted as to be utterly beyond question.

 

Other, than of course, those on here who did not get their hoped-for result and who continue to snipe, alluding to conspiracies that they are unable to even reasonably enunciate, let alone 'prove'. For them the Earth remains flat, humanity was designed and created in six days and NASA faked the Moon Landings. And there IS a Santa Claus, Virginia.

 

In various posts above, the results of RAA having to put Board members into responsible positions for areas well outside their level of competency has been expressed. It is unfair to attribute 'failure' to someone who has been pressed by necessity (i.e a paucity of better-equipped candidates) into a position of responsibility for which they did not have suitable expertise. The failure was NOT on the part of the individual but on the part of the process that failed to generate the membership in its governance group of people with appropriate expertise.

 

The Board does NOT have to be comprised of people who DO the work - but it most certainly DOES need to be comprised of people who have the competence to set the policies for and judge the effectiveness of the work being done, to advance the RAA. The fact that a group of people have recognised that they would be suited to working together for RAA objectives and have combined to utilise a common communication medium, is to me highly encouraging. That these individuals have been able to work together to utilise current information-disseminating techniques, suggests that they are well grounded in the business milieu of the times - something that RAA most certainly needs.

 

Those who yearn for a pan-RAA past, where 'democracy' ,'regional representation' and possibly meat platter raffles on Friday nights down at the Clubhouse reigned supreme, ought to look at the results of the Constitutional vote. I think that more than 90% of your fellow RAA members - extrapolating from the voting numbers - don't agree. They want an effective and competent RAA.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So what's your point Oscar?

 

 

[billwoodmason]

There is no way I will vote for any of these 5. The whole idea of a clique on the board stinks. Surely people who are able to think for themselves is what is required.

 

It seems to me the whole direction of RAA currently is that of a CASA wish list.

 

I don't know why we have to pay the salary of a Safety officer - shouldn't that be CASA's role.

 

The President and CEO seem to be pushing CASA style agendas. I'm over it.

 

From the statements by the candidates in the mag you don't know what any of them apart from Rod Birrell actually stand for other than that they relish the opportunity to drive change and manage people. Megalomaniacs.

 

 

[coljones]

What an interesting set of responses.. with (of course), the 'Usual Suspects' chipping in their standard carping against any sort of change. Some can be dismissed as trolls, fighting against their increasingly evident irrelevance, some are expressing viable concerns.Those with an appreciation of history, will recognise the term 'pan-xxx-ism' - an entirely spurious harkening back to some mythical time when 'things were better'. In this specific case, the 'case' expounded by those who are now posting (unsupported by fact or reasoning,)a time when the 'democratic' nature of RAA was a 'golden past' which has been lost but needs to be reclaimed.

 

To use a phrase well-understood by those of Anglo-Saxon descent: 'BOLLOCKS'. The transformation of the AUF into the RAA, saw the ascent of a very few Board members into a cabal or clique - or frankly, a one-person ( and we know who that was) fiefdom that produced at its zenith the CASA audit, a dire financial situation and the granting of very considerable financial reward for a small number of individuals favoured by the Prince(s) of the RAA - who produced NOTHING but negative outcomes.

 

The mythical 'democratic' election of Board members based on geographical (regional) representation was a monumental cluster-fark. That boil was finally lanced with the Queanbeyan 'Emergency' meeting, but to my mind, it remained as an open wound at least until the passing of the 'new arrangements' and constitution. That change was a result of a 'democratic' process -open voting by eligible Members - and was by so far the decision of the majority who voted as to be utterly beyond question.

 

Other, than of course, those on here who did not get their hoped-for result and who continue to snipe, alluding to conspiracies that they are unable to even reasonably enunciate, let alone 'prove'. For them the Earth remains flat, humanity was designed and created in six days and NASA faked the Moon Landings. And there IS a Santa Claus, Virginia.

 

In various posts above, the results of RAA having to put Board members into responsible positions for areas well outside their level of competency has been expressed. It is unfair to attribute 'failure' to someone who has been pressed by necessity (i.e a paucity of better-equipped candidates) into a position of responsibility for which they did not have suitable expertise. The failure was NOT on the part of the individual but on the part of the process that failed to generate the membership in its governance group of people with appropriate expertise.

 

The Board does NOT have to be comprised of people who DO the work - but it most certainly DOES need to be comprised of people who have the competence to set the policies for and judge the effectiveness of the work being done, to advance the RAA. The fact that a group of people have recognised that they would be suited to working together for RAA objectives and have combined to utilise a common communication medium, is to me highly encouraging. That these individuals have been able to work together to utilise current information-disseminating techniques, suggests that they are well grounded in the business milieu of the times - something that RAA most certainly needs.

 

Those who yearn for a pan-RAA past, where 'democracy' ,'regional representation' and possibly meat platter raffles on Friday nights down at the Clubhouse reigned supreme, ought to look at the results of the Constitutional vote. I think that more than 90% of your fellow RAA members - extrapolating from the voting numbers - don't agree. They want an effective and competent RAA.

There should be a greater award for this other than "Winner". Rapier skewering of the hot air balloons set afloat by the supporters of the old world order deserves, at least, a "Skewerer suprememo" award.

 

 

[octave]

Megalomaniac f---wits.

That is rather a harsh a nasty assessment of people you presumably have never met, can I ask you if you have emailed any of the candidates and asked questions? Or are you somehow able to discern these candidates motives and attributes? Is anyone who stands for the new board a Meglamaniac (sic) f---wit?