Who to vote for RAAus election

[kgwilson]

I finally got my magazine and ballot paper today so I have time to digest the information, discuss issues with other RA-Aus members around here, make my choice and get the envelope in the mail. I think in future voting should be done via email or a web portal.

 

I have no idea if the constitution or Companies Act allows this but the pathetic state of Australia Post is the best reason to adopt this as a strategy. I normally receive mags in the first 10 days but got the June one on 3 July & a second copy on the 5th after complaining to RA-Aus. The last CEO of Aust Post Ahmed Fahour got 5.6 million & dramatically increased postal charges & even more dramatically reduced services & sacked 900 staff. He is gone & the new CEO Christine Holgate gets 1.4 million with the potential to double that with bonuses. In comparison the head of US post gets around 415K.

 

I have no problem with anyone in the industry throwing their hat in the ring so long as there is full and complete disclosure & by this I don't mean just a 1 liner saying I am a LAME or I own a FTF

 

 

[facthunter]

Competition will take care of the excesses of the Flying school influence (if any). Declare your interest and refrain form voting on affected issues. It's an accepted practice. Way back the "organisation" Leaked like a sieve. If you put in a report you ran the risk of being ostracised. That of course must not happen if it's a professional show. We lack aeronautical knowledge in the top echelons. Pilots are the ones who know what's happening more than management in all fields of aviation. They are not necessarily the best managers but it is a FLYING organisation. IF you haven't the required knowledge it will show. You could of course survey the members and take notice of what they contribute. Nev

 

 

[SSCBD]

Competition will take care of the excesses of the Flying school influence (if any). Declare your interest and refrain form voting on affected issues. It's an accepted practice. Way back the "organisation" Leaked like a sieve. If you put in a report you ran the risk of being ostracised. That of course must not happen if it's a professional show. We lack aeronautical knowledge in the top echelons. Pilots are the ones who know what's happening more than management in all fields of aviation. They are not necessarily the best managers but it is a FLYING organisation. IF you haven't the required knowledge it will show. You could of course survey the members and take notice of what they contribute. Nev

Just like the government and how well it runs.

 

 

[Yenn]

I believe all those standing for election are pilots, at least that is what is inferred in their resumes. What worries me is that some of them don't seem to have any idea of what a director of a business is supposed to do.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yenn, without decrying your comment at all, I have got the opposite impression, which is that they are all well qualified in business.

 

In fact I have wondered if they were so successful that they thought big fees would not be a problem for anyone.

 

 

[coljones]

Just like the government and how well it runs.

Government is entirely different. There are whole groups of journalists running the ruler over every politician and their proposals. Business is different, no body is watching what the directors are doing behind closed doors and very little is said about director performance for fear of libel suits. Among directors you will find the greatest range of unhung bastards screwing over the lowly shareholders, members and employees. Despite ASIC directors can and do get away with murder.

 

 

[coljones]

I believe all those standing for election are pilots, at least that is what is inferred in their resumes. What worries me is that some of them don't seem to have any idea of what a director of a business is supposed to do.

Exactly what is it that a director of a business is supposed to do - and how do you enforce it.

 

 

[frank marriott]

We lack aeronautical knowledge in the top echelons. Pilots are the ones who know what's happening more than management in all fields of aviation. They are not necessarily the best managers but it is a FLYING organisation. IF you haven't the required knowledge it will show. You could of course survey the members and take notice of what they contribute. Nev

You have identified a major problem in one Nev. Over inflated egos, unbelievable belief in university qualifications (not remotely connected with aviation) we have seen it kill other businesses before. It dove fits into an internal email debate (which I will not go into) with Monk over unjustified changes to the Tech Manual. Quite insulting comments really, but as they were "internal" I will not go into details (unless someone involved in the process denies the process happened and refers to details - I naturally kept copies of the discussion to protect my integrity should it be necessary).

 

 

[SSCBD]

Government is entirely different. There are whole groups of journalists running the ruler over every politician and their proposals. Business is different, no body is watching what the directors are doing behind closed doors and very little is said about director performance for fear of libel suits. Among directors you will find the greatest range of unhung bastards screwing over the lowly shareholders, members and employees. Despite ASIC directors can and do get away with murder.

Agreed - BUT don't forget - the pollies and lawyers taught them!

 

 

[coljones]

Agreed - BUT don't forget - the pollies and lawyers taught them!

Not really. Some of these people are entirely self educated or learned it from mates why copy an inept politician when you can screw over the world on your own.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's called "Rat Cunning" with added ego and a full blown superiority complex. The "unaware of the cost to members" of FEE increases comes with it. Easy come easy go. They are a breed to themselves and often completely lack human empathy. Deceive and exploit for the cause is universal. The end justifies the means. High profit low wages, ( for others not themselves) and costs cut assets stripped . regardless.

 

How do I know this? In a past life I did a Tertiary Psychology subject at UNSW and was one of two teachers amongst a class of mature age Business managing types, (total of about 25) Almost universally they conformed to the description above. Quite an eye opener. (and disappointment) but confirmed through life experiences since. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

steady there nev truth hurts educated

 

caution for plane on the scrap heap that's were its going neil

 

 

[pmccarthy]

This is very dismal thinking. My experience as a company director on profit and non profit companies is that the directors work hard to do the right thing and behave ethically. Sure there may be some crooks who get in the news but they are the one percent, don't label everyone else. Every company and organisation has whingers who don't like decisions. Fortunately they are also the one percent and can be ignored in the interests of the majority. Their behaviour self-selects them to be ignored, even if some of the points they make are valid. I am saying there are constructive ways of engaging with an organisation and there are destructive ways. The destructive ways include sniping from the sidelines instead of directly communicating valid observations or concerns.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't and didn't tell these people what to do or say. I've been to plenty of PEP talks and met and dealt with lots of BIG movers but you have to be very focussed (read ruthless) to get there and stay there. Even public servants are affected by the culture they work in. Everybody adapts as needed to survive, or doesn't and universal trust only exists in the imagination of the naïve who don't fit in there. The saying " They are so confused at head office they are running around stabbing each other in the Chest" still has relevance. It's a jungle, not a paradise. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

I read this thread with great interest. I would like to know some facts - because a great deal of truth is missing.

 

I do like Frank's comments as those comments would be factual as he was on the board when all the manoeuvring was happening.

 

Frank is telling the truth.

 

All the snippets about the place as how the 800 yes votes were collected -- the truth would be good to know, how this was done and by who.

 

The other goodie is as I understand from readings -- Spencer Ferrier was the designer and engineer of the new structure of RAAus.

 

Is this quite honest as he was on the board AOPA at the time?

 

As I see the situation this will fit into conflict of interest.

 

KP.

 

 

[facthunter]

Spencer Ferrier was consulted by RAAus plenty of times. He's considered to have a good knowledge of aviation related legalities and this was never a secret matter. I contacted him a few times myself re medicals RPL and avmed. Nev

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

The result has been announced:

 

The count of votes in the RAAus 2017 Board Election took place on 16 August 2017. Max Brown was the independent scrutineer.

 

A total of 1038 ballots were lodged, of which 925 were valid. Invalid votes comprised 99 ballots that were postmarked after the closing date of 4 August, and a further 14 ballots were deemed invalid. Two candidates were selected by 867 voters (1734 votes) and one candidate was selected by 58 voters (58 votes) for a combined 1792 votes cast.

 

With two positions available on the Board, Mick Monck and Alan Middleton were elected. Mick Monck is a serving Board Member and his term will continue for a further three years. Alan Middleton will also serve a three year term and will take office after the forthcoming AGM being held on 23 September 2017.

 

Congratulations to Mike & Alan. 99 ballots post marked after the closing date (presumably because the magazine was delivered late) - Australia Post has some questions to answer - I hope RAA lodge a complaint with AP and postal ombudsman.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Sue, do you have any recollection of what was the normal volume of votes back in the pre-corporation days? wasn't it in the 2-3000 range?

 

 

[gandalph]

There you go FT. I found the numbers in the RAA newsletter dated 15 May 2015. I've put the numbers in bold font so it's easier for you to see the dramatic change in voting numbers pre and post incorporation.

 

"On Saturday 14 May 2016, RAAus achieved a significant milestone in its history. The members overwhelmingly supported an initiative to restructure the organisation to reinforce the hard work of the board and the management team over the past three years. Some

 

928

 

votes were cast with a strong majority of 87 per cent supporting the change.

 

The number of votes cast is a record in a poll for RAAus and is a clear indication of both the engagement and support of our membership for change."

 

 

[turboplanner]

There you go FT. I found the numbers in the RAA newsletter dated 15 May 2015. I've put the numbers in bold font so it's easier for you to see the dramatic change in voting numbers pre and post incorporation.

 

"On Saturday 14 May 2016, RAAus achieved a significant milestone in its history. The members overwhelmingly supported an initiative to restructure the organisation to reinforce the hard work of the board and the management team over the past three years. Some

 

928

 

votes were cast with a strong majority of 87 per cent supporting the change.

 

The number of votes cast is a record in a poll for RAAus and is a clear indication of both the engagement and support of our membership for change."

That was the vote for restructuring; he's talking about a normal ballot for new board members.

 

 

[gandalph]

Perhaps he was. Who can be sure?

 

 

[facthunter]

They are both indicators of "something" I suggest it's apathy. You don't get a vote with CASA. IF you don't vote, how can you complain.(legitimately). Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

Caution Keith? Have I offended you?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

It's good to see 8000 RAA members happy enough not to worry

 

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

It's good to see 8000 RAA members happy enough not to worry

Hi Phil, did you vote?