RAAus AGM member resolution - request for proxy

[Geoff13]

Anything but Turbs. Keith is now hardly a non involved person. That's ok and I don't mind him being part of the new organisation but he has a vested interest in bagging the RAAus. It the RAAus bagged the new show I would be just as vocal. It falls into the category of " they would say that, wouldn't they"..?Some little time back I warned about bad vibes between groups sharing the same turf. People generally don't want this kind of thing all the time. It's not intended to stifle real figures and serious problems being aired if the need be. Nev

Totally agree. Don't tell us how bad the other guy is, Show us how good you are.

 

I wish Politicians could do the same thing.

 

 

[Keith Page]

So are we going to have more of this Keith, because you should leave it lie, at some point. You have your show and it will go or not go. What we don't need is ongoing sniping , for the sake of aviation and those who sail in her. Nev

Fact hunter you missed the point.. This is point I wish to bring to the front.

I touched on it quite strongly in my post, how Middo had legal help at a meeting now it is happening again. A number of the ones making a lot of noise back then are on the board now.

 

So what is the difference at least back then motions could be moved from the floor, however now all this can not happen. In Bundaberg motions could not be moved from the floor so it has been happening for a while.

 

I will not let that one go as life is worse in that respect as demonstrated in kaspers post, consider Ian's post there is more evidence. What has Rod a board member told us?

 

KP

 

 

[facthunter]

Doesn't matter Keith, Your credentials are lessened as you have a vested interest. That's how it will be seen. Nev

 

 

[bull]

So are we going to have more of this Keith, because you should leave it lie, at some point. You have your show and it will go or not go. What we don't need is ongoing sniping , for the sake of aviation and those who sail in her. Nev

You had better wear a lifejacket and carry some flares facthunter, because the FACTS are RAA is unseaworthy and entering a very rough bit of water..............And I don't think Keith was sniping, his and caspers replies are just in response to the seemingly disregard by those at the top of RAA have for members in a job that they do for the MEMBERS and I along with many members I know are disgusted with this attitude from people who actually work for the members not them selves,and are not listening to MEMBERS concerns,,,,The way RAA has now gone is like a private little club for those who want to do what ever THEY want without listening to MEMBERS the people they are working FOR..........................

 

 

[jakej]

You had better wear a lifejacket and carry some flares facthunter, because the FACTS are RAA is unseaworthy and entering a very rough bit of water..............

FWIW - Facthunters post #128 is spot on - it's about perception, not picking on Keith here.

 

 

[Yenn]

As usual facthunter I am in agreement with you. There is no need for one of the directors of ELAAA to be bagging RAAus here. It only lessens his credibility in my opinion. We can make up our own minds on the performance of RAAus without sniping from the opposition.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Doesn't matter Keith, Your credentials are lessened as you have a vested interest. That's how it will be seen. Nev

I am speaking as a member of RAAus. Hence I am entitaled to have an opinion or do you think I should not have a view and just go away and hide. I can remember what happened to the board members not that long ago and I thought the treatment was disgraceful.

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

As usual facthunter I am in agreement with you. There is no need for one of the directors of ELAAA to be bagging RAAus here. It only lessens his credibility in my opinion. We can make up our own minds on the performance of RAAus without sniping from the opposition.

Not bagging Yen.. high lighting some hypocrisy. Some people have forgotten these facts. One can not go about criticising in one instance and commit the same act just around the corner if not worse. ummmmmm.

KP

 

 

[Yenn]

Keith. Sure you are entitled to your opinion, all I am saying is that it may have been better if you hadn't aired it as we all know that you are also a director of ELAAA.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith. Sure you are entitled to your opinion, all I am saying is that it may have been better if you hadn't aired it as we all know that you are also a director of ELAAA.

If there is a wrong one has to stand up and endeavour to correct the wrong. Quite often there is a silent group and they have to be supported, we all can look the other way and walk on but nothing is corrected. Hence I am helping with a correction, so no one else has done much. I have been bagged for standing up for these people.

I can honestly say I have done my bit.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

See you all later I am gone.

 

KP

 

 

[David Isaac]

Here we go again Keith. More misinformation. Lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

You have NEVER been able to put any resolution to any meeting with out the required notice to members either when we were an association or now as a company and Kasper should have known this and has NO valid complaint about being shutdown attempting to put one at the AGM. But let's not let this fact get in the way of your invalid allegation.

 

By all means raise valid complaints, but it seems there is a plethora of invalid complaints and innuendos from a few on this forum.

 

Kasper's rubbing it in by complaining he was prevented from putting a resolution at the AGM when he knows you cannot put resolutions without due notice and particularly when he was told he would not be allowed to put it by the president is nothing more than mischievous.

 

He raised a valid technical point with the constitution and left the board in an impossible position to give the required notice and is now rubbing it in. Any sympathy I had for the issue is now gone.

 

Just get on and put a resolution to fix the technical notice problem with the constitution .. right .... no one seems to really want to solve the problem. No resolution has come forward from Kasper and he is accusing wrong doing at the AGM when in fact what happened was the correct procedure. And now he going to take his marbles and go fly with HGFA, with no apparent intention to be productive to fix the problem other than complain on this forum.

 

Then to add more BS to the overly inflated issue, let's have Keith cast more aspursions and allegations about a lawyer being present at the AGM and link it to the ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of circumstances of the now infamous Queanbeyan meeting.

 

If you want support for genuine issues from most of us, may I suggest you start behaving a little more professionally and factually. If you want to make allegations about meeting notice and process, do your home work and read the constitution and do a basic ASIC model rules Google search before you make absolute fools of all of us.

 

 

[Admin]

Please I refer everyone to the site rules about attacking other site users...thanks

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're a bit too late.

 

 

[coljones]

Here we go again Keith. More misinformation. Lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story.You have NEVER been able to put any resolution to any meeting with out the required notice to members either when we were an association or now as a company and Kasper should have known this and has NO valid complaint about being shutdown attempting to put one at the AGM. But let's not let this fact get in the way of your invalid allegation.

 

By all means raise valid complaints, but it seems there is a plethora of invalid complaints and innuendos from a few on this forum.

 

Kasper's rubbing it in by complaining he was prevented from putting a resolution at the AGM when he knows you cannot put resolutions without due notice and particularly when he was told he would not be allowed to put it by the president is nothing more than mischievous.

 

He raised a valid technical point with the constitution and left the board in an impossible position to give the required notice and is now rubbing it in. Any sympathy I had for the issue is now gone.

 

Just get on and put a resolution to fix the technical notice problem with the constitution .. right .... no one seems to really want to solve the problem. No resolution has come forward from Kasper and he is accusing wrong doing at the AGM when in fact what happened was the correct procedure. And now he going to take his marbles and go fly with HGFA, with no apparent intention to be productive to fix the problem other than complain on this forum.

 

Then to add more BS to the overly inflated issue, let's have Keith cast more aspursions and allegations about a lawyer being present at the AGM and link it to the ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of circumstances of the now infamous Queanbeyan meeting.

 

If you want support for genuine issues from most of us, may I suggest you start behaving a little more professionally and factually. If you want to make allegations about meeting notice and process, do your home work and read the constitution and do a basic ASIC model rules Google search before you make absolute fools of all of us.

The Qeanbeyan meeting was famous. What was infamous was the behaviour of the, then, board, who gamed the system.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Please I refer everyone to the site rules about attacking other site users...thanks

I accept the kick in the bum and apologise to Kieth first for my inappropriate comment and also to the other forum users for my error.

 

 

[kasper]

Here we go again Keith. More misinformation. Lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story.You have NEVER been able to put any resolution to any meeting with out the required notice to members either when we were an association or now as a company and Kasper should have known this and has NO valid complaint about being shutdown attempting to put one at the AGM. But let's not let this fact get in the way of your invalid allegation.

 

By all means raise valid complaints, but it seems there is a plethora of invalid complaints and innuendos from a few on this forum.

 

Kasper's rubbing it in by complaining he was prevented from putting a resolution at the AGM when he knows you cannot put resolutions without due notice and particularly when he was told he would not be allowed to put it by the president is nothing more than mischievous.

 

He raised a valid technical point with the constitution and left the board in an impossible position to give the required notice and is now rubbing it in. Any sympathy I had for the issue is now gone.

 

Just get on and put a resolution to fix the technical notice problem with the constitution .. right .... no one seems to really want to solve the problem. No resolution has come forward from Kasper and he is accusing wrong doing at the AGM when in fact what happened was the correct procedure. And now he going to take his marbles and go fly with HGFA, with no apparent intention to be productive to fix the problem other than complain on this forum.

 

Then to add more BS to the overly inflated issue, let's have Keith cast more aspursions and allegations about a lawyer being present at the AGM and link it to the ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of circumstances of the now infamous Queanbeyan meeting.

 

If you want support for genuine issues from most of us, may I suggest you start behaving a little more professionally and factually. If you want to make allegations about meeting notice and process, do your home work and read the constitution and do a basic ASIC model rules Google search before you make absolute fools of all of us.

David,

As I am not trying to fix RAAus anymore I make no suggestion of comment on what I consider need to be changed.

 

However as you in the post above ask to talk about facts and correct procedure so here is my position and perception of the facts.

 

The election - nothing in this relates to the AGM and correct process but it is entirely on the election

 

1. The Members passed a resolution at the General Meeting in May 2016 to replace the Constitution with an effective date of the registration with ASIC

 

a. the effective date of the Constitution was the registration date of RAAus ltd. with ASIC

 

b. factually the registration date with ASIC was, is and always will be 26th July 2016 - doubt me? look at the first paragraph of the Directors Report in the audited financial statements

 

 

Outcome is that nothing under the new Constitution was effective or able to be operationally used until that date

 

Without saying

 

- 'that's what we meant' or

 

- 'thats the intent of the general meeting' or

 

- 'near enough is good enough'

 

Factually it was not permitted for the board and management of RAAus to call for nomination for elected directors under the new constitution as they did at the beginning of July 2016.

 

Equally and factually no election process under the new constitution can just adopt closed nomination ... an election process that HAS to comply with processes that are acceptable the AEC must include end-to-end and at BEST the election process under the new constitution can only apply to the voting and counting part of what was done.

 

2. Factually within the new constitution (and in my opinion any valid process that would be acceptable to the AEC) the process of the election must be documented and made available to the electorate - pretty basic eh?

 

Well without trying to piece together a process please explain how an election process that started at the start of July with closed nominations and statements going out to print in the magazine was undertaken under a known process when the rules for the election were approved by the Initial Directors at their board meeting on 10 August 2016 - check the register of board minutes on the RAAus website to confirm that date

 

So no process documented before the process started, members when asking for the document being told it does not exist just look at the magazine and a process stating its under a constitution commencing before that constitution and in fact not complying with the very clear requirements of that constitution is factually NOT a valid process and the outcomes of the process are not valid under that constitution.

 

There are some facts and without a variation on the theme of that's what was intended or near enough is good enough it cannot stand the scrutiny of the Constitution.

 

Now the facts around the AGM

 

1. the election and any changes in directors is a standing item for any AGM under our constitution - discussion an resolutions relating to the election are legitimate within any AGM

 

2. factually under the Corporations Act there are only limited areas of resolutions for meetings that factually must have a minimum 21 days notice to all members ... elections and appointments of directors are not within those limited areas

 

3. Our new constitution specifically provides for Member Resolutions and specifically allows them to be put to a any general meeting for which member resolutions are called in the 21 day period ... I refer you to 27 and 28 of our constitution ... if members can never raise a resolution during the 21 days leading up to the general meeting please explain how these sections of the constitution are ever to have effect.

 

a. please do not counter this by referring to 21© of the constitution on board requirements to provide the agenda and any resolutions 21 days prior to ... factually they are separate areas with different requirements

 

b. please answer me where the directors actually did anything on the 22nd day before the AGM to practically mean that member resolutions provided on that day were impossible to include ...

 

c. factually if the constitution allows 21 days for something 21 days is it - if from a procedural perspective 22 or 23 days would actually work to address the fact you have two items falling on the same day which is inconvenient and practically impossible to deal with in a single action it is factaully not permitted for the directors to impose a process that has a greater than 21 day requirement on one area ... if they do that process to the extent is disallows actions that are allowed under the constitution is invalid.

 

Sorry but the failings of the drafting in the constitution to actually recognize that the notice to AGM should be 24 days before (to accommodate the weekend nature of our AGMs) and that member resolution notices to be distributed at the companies expense should be at 26 days before ( to allow everything to be processed and collected into a single communications to members for administrative ease) is what needs to be changed in the constitution - the facts are that these day limits do not exist in the constitution in the two areas and factually the day limits are the same creating a situation where RAAus is stuck with requiring separate communications at its own cost for any resolutions raised on day 21 before a general meeting.

 

d. Member resolutions can still be communicated even if raised after the 21 days provided the member pays for the distribution - I offered to pay and was told that as they had not been provided before 22 days they cannot and will not be distributed - look at your constitution and tell me have factually that sits with the constitution.

 

4. Member resolutions on items within the AGM agenda are permitted except where they are deemed defamatory - that is the very limited basis allowed under our constitution for directors to actually refuse a member resolution.

 

The resolutions relate to the validity of the process of elections for persons proposed to be appointed as directors of the company - show me how that is not valid as a resolution either as a member resolution with notice OR from the floor of the AGM when the agenda item of the board elections and appointments were being discussed?

 

When you see the video of the AGM you might note that I was VERY careful to raise points of order on items are very specific times in the meeting - the lack of member resolutions was at the top of the meeting when opened as it related to the lack of them on the agenda while the substative issues with the election were only raised once the meeting had moved the agenda item of the election results.

 

So there are my summary of facts.

 

As I am now in run off as a member of RAAus and will not be doing any assistance in addressing these and other issues with RAAus documents like Group C pilots not requirement medicals, RAAus Membership or 2 yearly flight reviews I am bowing out.

 

But David factually neither the directors nor any member can

 

1. say that direct application of the constitution to a member resolution is not factually allowed even if the communicated process the directors would like is different

 

2. say that near enough is good enough because that's what as intended - the members approved a constitution and set a start date that was contingent and triggered by registration - you cannot factually avoid that.

 

Thank you and good bye.

 

Moderators - as this thread was specifically on the AGM and request for proxies and FACTUALLY the AGM has occurred can I ask that this thread be locked

 

 

[Admin]

Thread now closed