Update to new tech manual?

[Admin]

You had me really worried there for a moment

 

 

[kasper]

But there is the little problem of all members paying around $1/month to not received the printed magazine ... thats how much the printed mag is losing each year and being subsidized by general membership fees.

 

The $1 is a best estimate given the mag printing/distribution and mag sales are not split out from merchandise ... but given the sales of magazine and merchandise is more than $150k lower than the costs of merchandise and printing ... CEO and board PLEASE EXPLAIN ... around $100k less loss from printed mag continuing would have halved the loss this year ...

 

 

[01rmb]

You had me really worried there for a moment

Still think you should be worried because if you do take the loss of $227k and add on the trade payables of $232k of which $225k is for the new software, the loss is really $459k. This would drop the cash to $688k.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I recently dealt with Telstra and soon after received an e-mail survey to see what i thought about Telstra and my dealings with them. It seems to be a common way of large businesses keeping track of how they are meeting their customers needs. Apart from some "Survey Monkey" items for specific things from RAAus I dont recall any time they have actually tried to survey the Membership to find out what they actually think about how RAAus are going and if they are meeting the needs of its membership, I don't think it would be too hard to do and at least give them a better idea of whether or not they are heading in the right direction rather than just relying on a vote at an AGM.or the views of a few Board Members (directors) who may not be consulting too widely with the members. Too much to expect??

 

 

[coljones]

Still think you should be worried because if you do take the loss of $227k and add on the trade payables of $232k of $225k for the new software, the loss is really $459k. This would drop the cash to $688k.

Back in the old days RAA had my $130 stuck in the bank for no apparent reason. Then CASA came in and showed us why RAA had my money (and increasing) stuck in the bank. It was because RAA wasn't spending any money worth a damn on qualified staff, infrastructure and systems.

Basically they were doing nothing!!

 

I didn't like the fee increase by deception (charging for the magazine) but recognised that something had to be done to bring RAA to a condition fit for the future.

 

I don't have a problem with the last board running down the reserves to build a better RAA because that is what they should have done years ago.

 

People maintain and renovate their houses, and families, and so one should with RAA and a short term loss of a reasonable magnitude should allow this to happen.

 

There is no published policy on adequacy of reserves, there should be.

 

I am not quite sure why we need in excess of $1mil in net assert backing but I do expect that the board would know an should publish this to the membership.