RAAus general meeting

[apm]

Tom,I don't claim expertise in this area. You would get a better answer from Tony King or Trevor Bange.

Personally, if my life were to depend on an aircraft I had designed and built or just built from a kit or plans I would absolutely want somebody to do stage checks of my work - preferably a L4 but almost any other set of eyes could see things I had wrong..

 

Don't SAAA require stage checks?

 

Don

Don

 

No compulsory stage checks with SAAA for many years now, and rightly so. Most of us that have built planes do voluntarily ask other builders, LAME's etc to check our work. the build quality is 100% the responsibility of the builder,

 

By adding compulsory stage checks the inspector assumes responsibility for signing off on work done. this only happens when large sums are exchanged for the inspector to cover their liability.

 

Andrew

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper, I wonder why you did not submit your resolutions one day earlier and meet the deadline given when the AGM was advertised? Did you really want your resolutions to go before the board or did you submit them late, knowing the board had got the date wrong, hoping for rejection to give yourself more ammunition in your campaign? If you did the latter, well done, you got 'em.

No I was travelling in rural Spain and rushing to get a flight on the day before and could not get my computer charged - did not have the correct adaptor. when I got back to London the following day I gave up on the computer and turned on my phone and emailed from it - it worked in UK but not Spain.

The fact that it was received after hours in Australia on the Friday was a simple result of time zone differences UK to Oz

 

 

[planesmaker]

Tom,I don't claim expertise in this area. You would get a better answer from Tony King or Trevor Bange.

Personally, if my life were to depend on an aircraft I had designed and built or just built from a kit or plans I would absolutely want somebody to do stage checks of my work - preferably a L4 but almost any other set of eyes could see things I had wrong..

 

Don't SAAA require stage checks?

 

Don

Don

no stage inspections though it is encouraged to have others look over your work. Neither Tony and Trevor or you replied to my email.

 

You have missed my point that extra regulation and cost has been imposed on builders for no valid reason. Tom

 

 

[facthunter]

The 21 days notification is pretty "normal" . Making it less reduces member's protection from abusing the process. Members need a time cushion to assess and respond to changes that affect everybody and sometimes in a very significant way. Making statements is not moving a resolution to change RULES. There is a world of difference

 

The calling of an "Extraordinary" General meeting must be still available, under fixed rules.( I am pretty sure it is). The same amount of time and availability for scrutiny must apply.

 

The delegated AUTHORITY by CASA is a function that must be scrutinised at all times. It can't just be allowed to over ride what the organisation stands for without redress possible. This could be a death by a thousand cuts from within, if not handled properly. A fear I went strongly into print about some 8 years ago at least. You didn't have to be Einstein to predict THAT problem.

 

IF we do CASA's work why aren't we paid? We once were and it's part of the deal. We are talking of a fair amount of money .

 

Thanks for hanging in Don. I don't agree with all you say, but you don't deserve the comment some have levelled at you, and I don't think if those who indulge in it were on the receiving end, they would like it. Conspiracy theories abound here. We don't need them. They don't substitute for helpful comment. No one has gone close to drawing any criminal accusation in all the years I've been following this show. Any dysfunction is more the result of poor communication and lack of trust, stubbornness etc. Nev

 

 

[DavidB]

The 21 days notification is pretty "normal" . Making it less reduces member's protection from abusing the process. Members need a time cushion to assess and respond to changes that affect everybody and sometimes in a very significant way. Making statements is not moving a resolution to change RULES. There is a world of differenceThe calling of an "Extraordinary" General meeting must be still available, under fixed rules.( I am pretty sure it is). The same amount of time and availability for scrutiny must apply.

The delegated AUTHORITY by CASA is a function that must be scrutinised at all times. It can't just be allowed to over ride what the organisation stands for without redress possible. This could be a death by a thousand cuts from within, if not handled properly. A fear I went strongly into print about some 8 years ago at least. You didn't have to be Einstein to predict THAT problem.

 

IF we do CASA's work why aren't we paid? We once were and it's part of the deal. We are talking of a fair amount of money .

 

Thanks for hanging in Don. I don't agree with all you say, but you don't deserve the comment some have levelled at you, and I don't think if those who indulge in it were on the receiving end, they would like it. Conspiracy theories abound here. We don't need them. They don't substitute for helpful comment. No one has gone close to drawing any criminal accusation in all the years I've been following this show. Any dysfunction is more the result of poor communication and lack of trust, stubbornness etc. Nev

The 21 days notification is pretty "normal" . Making it less reduces member's protection from abusing the process. Members need a time cushion to assess and respond to changes that affect everybody and sometimes in a very significant way. Making statements is not moving a resolution to change RULES. There is a world of differenceThe calling of an "Extraordinary" General meeting must be still available, under fixed rules.( I am pretty sure it is). The same amount of time and availability for scrutiny must apply.

The delegated AUTHORITY by CASA is a function that must be scrutinised at all times. It can't just be allowed to over ride what the organisation stands for without redress possible. This could be a death by a thousand cuts from within, if not handled properly. A fear I went strongly into print about some 8 years ago at least. You didn't have to be Einstein to predict THAT problem.

 

IF we do CASA's work why aren't we paid? We once were and it's part of the deal. We are talking of a fair amount of money .

 

Thanks for hanging in Don. I don't agree with all you say, but you don't deserve the comment some have levelled at you, and I don't think if those who indulge in it were on the receiving end, they would like it. Conspiracy theories abound here. We don't need them. They don't substitute for helpful comment. No one has gone close to drawing any criminal accusation in all the years I've been following this show. Any dysfunction is more the result of poor communication and lack of trust, stubbornness etc. Nev

[DavidB]

It seems to me that the organization as a whole is working much more effectively and professionally than it was before, and that most of the complaints in this thread are big on rhetoric and short on fact. The membership spoke loud and clear on the reorganization of the institution. Let's let them get on with it.

 

If anyone has a legitimate complaint, just use the available channels to have addressed and stop the ranting.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So #70 is short on fact? Can you show us where Kasper is wrong, quoting the RAA Ltd constitution rather than making one up or using the old RAA Inc. constitution.

 

Are you saying it's better to work illegally?

 

 

[jetjr]

Seems some would prefer to work strictly legally and get nothing achieved.

 

 

[storchy neil]

yep my house on the line because I flew illegally wake up stupid

 

balled tyres 400 dollars to replace not replaced 650 dollars work it out

 

how in the hell do some persons come up with mindless assumption that we can get away with not following the law must have more money than common sense you want to be party to litigation good luck

 

davidb

 

If anyone has a legitimate complaint, just use the available channels to have addressed and stop the ranting.

 

inform persons give others what they have been inform off lack off information is what will cost we as members the bloody channels are blocked by persons who don't want to see hope you don't come into that category neil

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thats good advice Storchy about obeying the law, well at least about not getting caught. But you can't make me like it, the law that is. I reckon most crimes in the world have been and still are committed by governments, but they pass a law to make it legal.

 

Just look at your tax: if anybody else were to do this to you it would be called "demanding money with menaces" and be a crime.

 

But when it gets too much and I'm going to disobey them, I hope somebody like you is around to talk me out of it.

 

 

[jetjr]

Thanks for the insults Neil,we put up with plenty of garbage from you so have some patience with others point of view

 

Id say youve totally missed the point. Burning up members money and time just to teach someone a lesson on an argument about 7, 21 or 23 days for meeting discussion points is a waste.

 

Some transgression on consitution protciol isnt anywhere near safety issues youve compared them to, thats stupid.....

 

You of all should understand the law is interpreted different ways and how much can be wasted chasing whats strictly correct. THEN having to live with consequences once the magistrates make their ruling

 

 

[01rmb]

Seems some would prefer to work strictly legally and get nothing achieved.

Thanks for the insults Neil,we put up with plenty of garbage from you so have some patience with others point of view

 

Id say youve totally missed the point. Burning up members money and time just to teach someone a lesson on an argument about 7, 21 or 23 days for meeting discussion points is a waste.

 

Some transgression on consitution protciol isnt anywhere near safety issues youve compared them to, thats stupid.....

 

You of all should understand the law is interpreted different ways and how much can be wasted chasing whats strictly correct. THEN having to live with consequences once the magistrates make their ruling

Remember the rules in the constitution were set up by the board and voted on by the members. The problems and contradictions were identified by a number of people especially Kasper who said fix the problems before making them legally binding and now we are faced with the problems of not getting them right in the first place. You can't just pick and choose which rules we should follow - That is where we will really end up in trouble.

 

 

[frank marriott]

The membership spoke loud and clear on the reorganization of the institution. Let's let them get on with it

If approx. 10% vote of the membership is considered "loud and clear" I guess your are right. Why the other 90% didn't bother to vote is another issue.

 

Maybe more will get involved as a result but your guess is as good as mine. Surprising comments from members who had no idea or interest before are now commenting around airfields (at least locally).

 

I even received an insulting email from a member who stood against me in the election I was successful in stating that it was poor that I resigned so early. He also voted for the change! I had to explain that he obviously didn't know what he voted for as all bar 3 were stood down (sacked) in the change that he supported.

 

That is what we are dealing with.

 

 

[storchy neil]

yes bruce we all have broken at some time a law but when there is a critical factor in me being booked for speeding I pay for it

 

the critical factor here is that many will have to pay for the ignorance off poor governance failure to comply will burn all of us all at some time neil

 

 

[David Isaac]

It seems to me that the organization as a whole is working much more effectively and professionally than it was before, and that most of the complaints in this thread are big on rhetoric and short on fact. The membership spoke loud and clear on the reorganization of the institution. Let's let them get on with it.If anyone has a legitimate complaint, just use the available channels to have addressed and stop the ranting.

I agree the organisation is working effectively under the new Board. I dont believe the issue currently under discussion in this thread has anything to do with whether we should be an 'Inc'; or 'Ltd Co'. The issue has been somewhat confused by two separate threads. The issue at hand is clearly around the fact that a member appearing to follow the provisions within the new constitution attempted to put some resolutions to the AGM/GM in October and was denied that right as a member.This is a significant issue regardless of whether we support the resolutions or not. In any case I doubt they would get support except perhaps the first one; BUT that is NOT the issue here.

 

Seems some would prefer to work strictly legally and get nothing achieved.

Again this is not about stopping achieving anything. I think the new board are doing a great job in their endeavours to sort out the issues. The issue appears to be that either the board has incorrectly denied the resolutions, or we are not interpreting the constitution correctly, but I fear it appears to be the former.

 

Remember the rules in the constitution were set up by the board and voted on by the members. The problems and contradictions were identified by a number of people especially Kasper who said fix the problems before making them legally binding and now we are faced with the problems of not getting them right in the first place. You can't just pick and choose which rules we should follow - That is where we will really end up in trouble.

The simple solution here is to clear up the poorly worded constitution by a resolution to do so. Members on this forum agreed that was necessary, yet have not done that when we had opportunities to put special resolutions forward for this AGM and did NOT. So it needs to be done for the next General Meeting. We need to get the constitution right and no one would deny supporting a resolution that has support to do that. You simply cannot have a constitution that by its confused structure denies members rights to put resolutions of any kind.This isn't about costing legal money at all; so lets clear up our thinking on this and work towards some sensible resolutions to put forward to clean up the constitution and make sure we lodge them correctly which by my reading will need some clarification.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don,Much of what you write is what people MIGHT have wanted to be the case but NOTHING you wrote is what we actually have in the Constitution.

 

Factually the 21 day notice period is NOT a cut off for the submission of Member Resolutions - it is the cut off for RAAus paying the costs of sending it out to all members .. .and 21 days is 21 days even if due to work weeks and the fact the AGM is on a Saturday t would be more administratively convenient were it to be 23 days.

 

And FACTUALLY RAAus can communicate the Member Resolution to all members other than probably me by posting it on the website so there is and never was a question of wasting $10k+ of member funds with my resolutions

 

And FACTUALLY RAAus would have to put a member resolution calling for up to and including the dismissal of the entire board regardless of who unpleasant or baseless the reasons - thats the nature of a MEMBER organization. Provided the subject mater of the resolution is within the allowable coverage of a general meeting any member resolution that is not defamatory MUST be put to the general meeting is has been put forward for.

 

And I find it intriguing that NOW when a couple of hundred members or proxies MIGHT get up a resolution of two its all terribly unfair for the majority - I can see this word hypocracy being dragged out and considered for application here. When you have a generally apathetic membership and a relatively small active membership small numbers of votes are the norm - and just because a small number may be against what you might personally want does not mean you call foul of the result ... I have accepted the changes to the corporate form and the constitution and EVERYTHING I have been doing has been to the end of getting what we now have to work better AND to be actually applied.

 

And it is not defamatory to state that Mr X and Mr Y in calling an election factually failed to comply with items a-d of the constitution - factual failing being highlight and put forward by members is not defamatory.

 

And finally - I am not blackening the name of RAAus - I am calling the management of the organization to account for their actions and behaviors as measured against the requirements of the constitution under which they are required to operate ... and AGAIN I repeat I am not associated with the 'vapourware' alternate of ELAAA and have not even spoken to the person who is apparently putting it together.

 

Give it a rest Don, I am working WITHIN RAAus in an attempt to make it work better and operate as it is supposed to. I've said it before, if I was out to get an alternate off the ground I would not have spent the past year working within the RAAus as provided and requested by the RAAus management to review and apply the RAAus governance.

 

But yes, I am at the point where an alternate to RAAus does have appeal simply because I am nearing the end of my ability to deal with RAAus and the managements apparent intent to ignore members and disregard the governance controls that are supposed to exist.

Kirk,

This post of yours deserves a response from me but, at the moment, I am not well enough to spend time to do that. I hope within a few days to be feeling well enough to give you the considered response your well written post is entitled to receive.

 

01rmb,

 

Similarly, you raise some valid points that I would like to explore further with you and will as soon as I'm able.

 

Don

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Michael Monck discusses some of these issues in Sport Pilot Oct 2016 p.5 Chairman's Report - The Organisation It Should Be.

 

Download and read.

 

 

[-Rod-]

Michael Monck discusses some of these issues in Sport Pilot Oct 2016 p.5 Chairman's Report - The Organisation It Should Be.Download and read.

When I started on the board, I was critical of some decisions made by previous boards. These included giving every board member a free ASIC, paying for board members’ partners to fly-in to meetings and accommodating them at members expense and having an open bar for the board after meetings. SportPilot October 2016

 

The above comments really should not go unanswered. Every RAAus Board member did not receive a free ASIC card - and that is a fact. It was made available on request. I expect most Board members did not apply for a ‘free’ card (including myself when a Board member). Those that did may well have needed it to attend unpaid RAA meetings/events held at or via ASIC airports

 

Paying for commercial airfares for partners of Board members attending RAA meetings was never a Board policy. Travel with a partner in a car or sport aircraft in company with a Board member was not an additional cost for RAA nor a financial problem, just as occupying the same hotel room was never a cost for RAA.

 

Having staff and partners join the Board for a meal after an official RAA meeting has been considered a justifiable expense. The Board has a responsible drinking policy, this policy has been if force for years and i expect its constrains will continue to be followed in the future. Board members wishing to drink more were always expected to do so at their own cost.

 

Yes, there is a cost to have a Board of directors, this cost compared to the cost of running RAA as a whole or other organisations such as CASA are absolutely minimal. RAA is getting good value for its money (or lack of it).

 

My concern here is that is by implication the previous and ongoing financial loss by RAA, is to be attributed, even in part, to excessive spending by RAA Board members. For the record supporting this view is neither fair, reasonable or true.

 

Rod Birrell

 

 

[kasper]

interesting to read the editorial.

 

1. would it have made any difference if I had been a practicing solicitor and not simple an admitted solicitor who is not currently practicing?

 

2. Like Rod I have to take issue with the flavour/colour put to the telephone conversation with Mr Monke - bit hard to see how he could have done 'due diligence' on my credentials as stated as he gave me an absolute that the election process has going ahead regardless on the single call we had.

 

3. Why should it make a jot of difference if I am a solicitor or Joe Blogs member? I raised a fairly simple issue - you have opened and closed calls for nominations under a provision of a constitution BEFORE that constitution actually became effective - how can that be correct?

 

4. New red flag - under what power as written i the election rules did the directors have POWER to extend the voting deadline over that which appeared on the bottom of the ballot paper? Given no written set of election rules were ever produced to me despite being requested and being made available - another one of those pesky REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION - that now appears to have been ignored.

 

 

[Yenn]

I was vocally against the constitution before it was voted on, as I considered it poorly worded. It doesn't seem to matter as the constitution is being ignored.

 

One of the reasons for changing to a limited company, acording to the old board before the changeover, was that ASIC would nesure that the letter of the law was followed. I don't see that happening.

 

It appears that unless there is a really blatant disregard of the law ASIC will do nothing because they don't have the resources.

 

 

[gandalph]

I was vocally against the constitution before it was voted on, as I considered it poorly worded. It doesn't seem to matter as the constitution is being ignored.One of the reasons for changing to a limited company, acording to the old board before the changeover, was that ASIC would nesure that the letter of the law was followed. I don't see that happening.

It appears that unless there is a really blatant disregard of the law ASIC will do nothing because they don't have the resources.

Probably correct Yenn, lack of resources and the fact that in the scheme of things RAA would be a very small fish for them with no perceived public or political benefit to ASIC

 

 

[Riley]

I was vocally against the constitution before it was voted on, as I considered it poorly worded. It doesn't seem to matter as the constitution is being ignored.One of the reasons for changing to a limited company, acording to the old board before the changeover, was that ASIC would nesure that the letter of the law was followed. I don't see that happening.

It appears that unless there is a really blatant disregard of the law ASIC will do nothing because they don't have the resources

 

.

I too, had debates with Mr Linke prior to the Constitution being put to the vote. Apart from the poor wording, it was obvious there were too many gaps in specifics to accept it carte blanche. The gist of RAA response was, "we'll try to get this set down now and fill in the gaps as necessary later". My request for a delay in the ballot to have more time to thrash out /eliminate some of the areas of 'we'll attend to that later' went unheeded. What say we start a crowd-funding appeal so as to give ASIC the resources they need in order to attend to what they are supposed to be doing:wink:? This curious management has me both confused and wary but mostly I'm pissed off at having been led down the garden path (despite having voted against acceptance). I will seriously look long and hard at jumping ship if a realistic alternative to RAA were to be presented.

 

 

[Yenn]

Riley. i think the time for a long hard look is coming up fast. I also could not see the great haste to get a flawed constitution passed. It was done in such haste and with such poor preparation that I feel there was some unknown agenda. It got passed because the general membership was only interested in going flying, rather than looking at what was going on.

 

We now have a flawed constitution in my opinion and nothing has been proposed to correct it.

 

 

[jetjr]

Why not prepare to raise the resolution for next meeting if it missed the boat this time?

 

Assuming RAA has in fact done the wrong thing I'd say they have the message clearly - There are members out there who will pick up on every required protocol breach no matter how small or perhaps non critical. Not a bad thing if it is constructive and not used as a reason to beat up on employees on the whole getting good results.

 

Meeting at Narromine saw wholehearted support and several statements from members to the effect they are doing a great job.

 

Magazine was discussed at length, basically the $70 subscription covers paper, postage and printing, there is still a 1300 x subscription shortfall for paper version to break even, in loose numbers that's around $80k pa member subsidy to keep it alive or over half the current defecit.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Riley. i think the time for a long hard look is coming up fast. I also could not see the great haste to get a flawed constitution passed. It was done in such haste and with such poor preparation that I feel there was some unknown agenda. It got passed because the general membership was only interested in going flying, rather than looking at what was going on.We now have a flawed constitution in my opinion and nothing has been proposed to correct it.

There was plenty of talk about change but that wont happen unless the members do it and it will be successful if it has support. Most here agreed changes should be put forward and I am certain it would get Board support if it is fair and equitable. So unless we do it ... it wont happen.

 

Why not prepare to raise the resolution for next meeting if it missed the boat this time?

That needs to be done and should be done for the evidenced issues at least.

Assuming RAA has in fact done the wrong thing I'd say they have the message clearly - There are members out there who will pick up on every required protocol breach no matter how small or perhaps non critical. Not a bad thing if it is constructive and not used as a reason to beat up on employees on the whole getting good results.

If the rules are right, fair and balanced I think the issues will go away.

 

Meeting at Narromine saw wholehearted support and several statements from members to the effect they are doing a great job.

I believe theye are doing a great job in spite of all the innuendo here.

 

Magazine was discussed at length, basically the $70 subscription covers paper, postage and printing, there is still a 1300 x subscription shortfall for paper version to break even, in loose numbers that's around $80k pa member subsidy to keep it alive or over half the current defecit.

Maybe we should do a joint publication with the SAAA and defray costs.