RAAus general meeting

[Keith Page]

David.

 

Just a point which is not considered anywhere in all thes posts.

 

If a registered document is altered in any way that document has to go through all the accepting and registering process again as it is for the purpose of the exercise a new document.

 

Hence that will a another colossal task.

 

That is my reason for having it correct before registering the document.

 

KP.

 

 

[David Isaac]

David.Just a point which is not considered anywhere in all thes posts.

If a registered document is altered in any way that document has to go through all the accepting and registering process again as it is for the purpose of the exercise a new document.

 

Hence that will a another colossal task.

 

That is my reason for having it correct before registering the document.

 

KP.

Keith, IT has NEVER been a colossal task. It is a simple straight forward task we have done it many times with the old constitution. Re registering a constitutional change is a simple administrative process carried out by RAAus management the same as for all other changes such as the annual change of directors..

 

 

[jetjr]

A joint magazine was canned by SAAA some time ago, as of this morning they are more receptive

 

I see safety reporting systems also being shared shortly

 

Id see more cooperation between groups in future

 

I did hear some say how well RAA represented itself at the Narromine event. One of these guys has been very critical n the past

 

 

[coljones]

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.

The old constitution wasn't much chop.

 

No, the process wasn't to my liking. I would have preferred that they discussed the philosophy of RAA with the members first - the only dogma was "We hate the number 13!!!"

 

There is nothing stopping anyone proposing changes to the new one. Don has shown that change is possible.

 

If anyone wants to change the constitution then they could run a campaign here to get a groundswell up.

 

All I have heard is that some people don't like it but I have yet to see statements of philosophy, where the current constitution is sub-optimal and a proposed solution. If people were prepared to do that then even the new board might support it (and make life easy for the proponents)

 

I'm not sure that the election rule is much chop as the national parliament doesn't have multi-member electorates except proportional representation in the senate. I think RAA makes up the rules on the run and corporation law is very flaky in relation to elections.

 

 

[coljones]

David.Just a point which is not considered anywhere in all thes posts.

If a registered document is altered in any way that document has to go through all the accepting and registering process again as it is for the purpose of the exercise a new document.

 

Hence that will a another colossal task.

 

That is my reason for having it correct before registering the document.

 

KP.

Documents get changed all the time - the change gets proposed to the members, the mebers accept it, the secretary registers with ASIC - ASIC will accept it unless it is patently illegal. If it is only slightly illegal it would require a challenge, after registration by a stakeholder. Simple!!!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . .The gist of RAA response was, "we'll try to get this set down now and fill in the gaps as necessary later". . . .

Perhaps that should have been looked at as "Let's not let perfect get in the way of very good".

This is not to suggest that n near enough is good enough but you should appreciate that reforming the organisation was only one of a number of major projects going on at the time. Things like a new Tech Manual, a revision of the Ops Manual (turned out bigger then expected); negotiate with CASA for an improved Deed of Agreement, a removal of restrictions on RAAus pilots from entering CTA and a relaxing of the restrictions on the MTOW that RAAus pilots can fly. Did RAAus Board and Management bite off more than they could chew. Possibly, but I applaud them for taking on such a massive workload. Never before in the history of AUF/RAAus has so much been done by so few for so many - to coin a phrase.

 

A considerable number of qualified and experienced people looked hard at the proposed Constitution and judged it OK to proceed with knowing that if they missed something it was not going to be catastrophic and could be fine tuned over time.

 

Every one of the RAAus Members who didn't / don't like the wording of the Constitution have had the opportunity to:

 

• campaign and vote against it
  - done and lost.
   
   
   
   
  
• propose special resolutions to the upcoming AGM
  - no member used that opportunity.
   
   
   
   
  
• complain about the wording on an online forum
  - done, with the predictable outcome.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[DonRamsay]

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. . . .

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

After my near death experience with man flu, I am finally back on deck and will now attempt to clear up the misunderstandings surrounded the refusal of the Company to consider at the 2016 AGM the resolutions proposed by Kirk.

 

Firstly, as a long time agitator for the Board of RAAus to abide by the Constitution, I would the last person to defend any Board that did not abide strictly to the terms of the Constitution.

 

In this instance, I consider that the Board has acted properly and in accordance with the precise terms of the Constitution in refusing to consider the resolutions proposed by Kirk at the 2016 AGM and refusing to send out his Member's Statement.

 

I also contend that the current Constitution is a workable document and is quite clear on how elections and general meetings are to be conducted and the process for the putting and voting on resolutions including special resolutions. Having said that, it could be worded better to make it easier for members to see why Kirk's proposals should not and cannot be considered at the 2016 AGM.

 

Clause 21 requires:

 

• a minimum of 21 days notice of a general meeting (including an AGM) - Cl 21.2.
   
   
   
   
  
• the notice to go to ALL members (my emphasis) - Cl 21.1(a)
   
   
   
   
  
• notice to include any resolution to be considered at the General Meeting (including AGM)
  (my emphasis) - Cl 21.3©
   
   
  

 

 

It is critical to the fundamentals of a democratic organisation to accept that If a proposed resolution is not on the formal Notice it should not and cannot be considered by the general meeting.

 

Clause 27.3 sets 7 days as the minimum period that a request for the distribution of a Member's statement must reach the Company. However, if a Member's statement relates to resolutions that were not included in the Notice of Meeting then it would be false, misleading, confusing and pointless to send out such a Member's statement as it relates to resolutions that are not on the agenda.

 

Clause 27.5 states:

 

"If the Company has been given notice of a Members resolution under Clause 27.1(a), the resolution must be considered at the general meeting for which the resolution was called" (my emphasis)

 

Since Kasper's resolutions were not provided in time for them to be included in the formal Notice of Meeting, they do not meet the test of Clause 27.5 in that they were not proposed for consideration at the 2016 AGM. Kirk's proposed resolutions were received by the Company long after the Notice had been sent to Members.

 

In the olden days when I was proposing many motions for Special Resolutions to amend the Constitution of RAAus Inc., I was always mindful of the need to get the motions to the Company Secretary in time for them to be included in the Notice for the meeting at which I wished to have the motions considered. Despite facing a Board largely hostile to what I was proposing, I never had any issue with my proposed resolutions being accepted by the Board for inclusion in the formal Notice of the general meeting.

 

You can't just cherry pick a word here and there from the Constitution you must read it as a comprehensive document.

 

Don

 

 

[coljones]

After my near death experience with man flu, I am finally back on deck and will now attempt to clear up the misunderstandings surrounded the refusal of the Company to consider at the 2016 AGM the resolutions proposed by Kirk.Firstly, as a long time agitator for the Board of RAAus to abide by the Constitution, I would the last person to defend any Board that did not abide strictly to the terms of the Constitution.

 

In this instance, I consider that the Board has acted properly and in accordance with the precise terms of the Constitution in refusing to consider the resolutions proposed by Kirk at the 2016 AGM and refusing to send out his Member's Statement.

 

I also contend that the current Constitution is a workable document and is quite clear on how elections and general meetings are to be conducted and the process for the putting and voting on resolutions including special resolutions. Having said that, it could be worded better to make it easier for members to see why Kirk's proposals should not and cannot be considered at the 2016 AGM.

 

Clause 21 requires:

 

• a minimum of 21 days notice of a general meeting (including an AGM) - Cl 21.2.
   
   
   
   
  
• the notice to go to ALL members (my emphasis) - Cl 21.1(a)
   
   
   
   
  
• notice to include any resolution to be considered at the General Meeting (including AGM)
  (my emphasis) - Cl 21.3©
   
   
  

 

 

It is critical to the fundamentals of a democratic organisation to accept that If a proposed resolution is not on the formal Notice it should not and cannot be considered by the general meeting.

 

Clause 27.3 sets 7 days as the minimum period that a request for the distribution of a Member's statement must reach the Company. However, if a Member's statement relates to resolutions that were not included in the Notice of Meeting then it would be false, misleading, confusing and pointless to send out such a Member's statement as it relates to resolutions that are not on the agenda.

 

Clause 27.5 states:

 

"If the Company has been given notice of a Members resolution under Clause 27.1(a), the resolution must be considered at the general meeting for which the resolution was called" (my emphasis)

 

Since Kasper's resolutions were not provided in time for them to be included in the formal Notice of Meeting, they do not meet the test of Clause 27.5 in that they were not proposed for consideration at the 2016 AGM. Kirk's proposed resolutions were received by the Company long after the Notice had been sent to Members.

 

In the olden days when I was proposing many motions for Special Resolutions to amend the Constitution of RAAus Inc., I was always mindful of the need to get the motions to the Company Secretary in time for them to be included in the Notice for the meeting at which I wished to have the motions considered. Despite facing a Board largely hostile to what I was proposing, I never had any issue with my proposed resolutions being accepted by the Board for inclusion in the formal Notice of the general meeting.

 

You can't just cherry pick a word here and there from the Constitution you must read it as a comprehensive document.

 

Don

perhaps the board might give consideration to the timing of receipt of resolutions by the secretary so that the notice including proposed resolutions can be placed in the hands of the membership with at least 21 days notice.

As Kirk has pointed out some members don't/can't receive emails and thusly the use of 2nd class/ordinary mail would require a mailout at least 28 days prior to the meeting.

 

I can't find a formal agenda and the Annual Report and Financials are well hidden. It would appear that if there is no motions to accept the financials or thank the board then there is not an opportunity to censure the board.

 

There does not appear to be any proxy form either.

 

Bugger!!!

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith, IT has NEVER been a colossal task. It is a simple straight forward task we have done it many times with the old constitution. Re registering a constitutional change is a simple administrative process carried out by RAAus management the same as for all other changes such as the annual change of directors..

Changing the constitution after the implementation is another task. I can imagine the office staff are not running about tripping over each other, they are busy with their work things.

So why not, a case of work smarter not harder.

 

Most things in life, the fix is the easiest at the beginning of the journey not after the commencement.

 

So why not fix at the beginning.

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

You can't just cherry pick a word here and there from the Constitution you must read it as a comprehensive document.

You certainly can zero in on single words buried in a blanket of confusion.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is not to suggest that n near enough is good enough but you should appreciate that reforming the organisation was only one of a number of major projects going on at the time.

We're talking nearly a decade here aren't we?

 

A new Tech Manual

Was there a transparent opportunity for all members to input what they thought and wanted before the project started?

 

a revision of the Ops Manual (turned out bigger then expected)

Was there a transparent opportunity for all members to input what they thought and wanted before the project started?

 

negotiate with CASA for an improved Deed of Agreement

Was there a transparent opportunity for all members to input what they thought and wanted before the project started?

 

a removal of restrictions on RAAus pilots from entering CTA and a relaxing of the restrictions on the MTOW that RAAus pilots can fly.

Were all members consulted on this; were the associated costs pointed out?

 

A considerable number of qualified and experienced people looked hard at the proposed Constitution and judged it OK to proceed with knowing that if they missed something it was not going to be catastrophic and could be fine tuned over time.

This seems to be indicating that a select few bypassed the members; is that correct?

 

Every one of the RAAus Members who didn't / don't like the wording of the Constitution have had the opportunity to:

• campaign and vote against it
  - done and lost.
   
   
   
   
  
• propose special resolutions to the upcoming AGM
  - no member used that opportunity.
   
   
   
   
  
• complain about the wording on an online forum
  - done, with the predictable outcome.
   
   
  

And now they have the oppoertunity to react; it should comne as no surprose if they do.

 

 

[Yenn]

I pointed out to RAAus, before the constitution was voted on, what I thought were its shortcomings. I got replies from RAAus saying look at the latest version. I did several times and there were no changes. All I seem to have got from RAAus was something to keep me looking at the same old non amended constitution.

 

Now i wonder if there will be any change and what about the paperwarfare about how we interact with RAAus.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Let them get on with the job, then if they underperform lets look at the constitution in detail in a year or two.