Who to vote for RAAus election

[fly_tornado]

I updated my address with the AEC last week and I will be voting. How about you?

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

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?

I have the old Recreational Aviation Australia magazines (before Sport Pilot). The latest election was held 2008 for 7 positions. Remember, this was Regional Representation - each area voted for their State, Territory or Area Representative. There were 9,240 members (annual report), but no break-up of numbers within each area - however that's about the same number in 2014, where I do have a State break-up. Approx 718 members voted. Lee Ungerman was CEO and Returning Officer.

 

Now, before someone says only 7.7% bothered to vote .... Regional Representation meant that many Did Not Get the Chance to Vote. Only half the Board was up for election. WA & SA reps were not among them (about 1,700 couldn't vote). South Qld, North Qld and Tasmania were all unopposed (another 2,700 couldn't vote). NSW/ACT had 5 candidates for 2 positions 11% voted, Victoria had 4 candidates for 1 position - 19% voted, unfortunately Ian Baker was defeated by Rod Birrell by 61 votes. The anomaly - Northern Territory - about 110 voters, one position, 3 candidates 22% voted - that's 24 votes - Mark Christie won by one vote. Overall half couldn't vote; of those who could, 14.5% voted.

 

RAA Ltd allows all to vote; 925 valid votes were received - another 99 were too late - 14 invalid (incorrectly marked, no membership or lapsed etc) = 1,038 bothered to vote = approx 11% = approx 9.8% valid.

 

So the answer is - About the Same. But more get to vote now.

 

Sue

 

 

[Keith Page]

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

OR Are they just past caring.??

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

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."

I am interested as to which is the correct version.. One can not assume which version is correct. "overwhelming" :- or is there a silent group who has given up caring?

KP

 

 

[Happyflyer]

There is a silent group who have never cared. Thet have no choice but to join RAAus to fly their aircraft. They just want to fly and not play politics.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Yes Happyflyer you are so correct, well said.

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes Happyflyer you are so correct, well said.KP

I guess that would be about 8000 members Keith.

 

 

[gandalph]

I am interested as to which is the correct version.. One can not assume which version is correct. "overwhelming" :- or is there a silent group who has given up caring?KP

I'm not sure I understand your comment Keith. What do you mean when talk about a "correct version"? Correct version of what? I copied and pasted the section in quotation marks in post # 69 from the Official RAA newsletter. The only thing I changed was the bold font for the numbers. Is that why you gave that post a caution?

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I have been through a number of years of AUF/RAA elections. There has never been an election with 2,000+ votes.

 

The best return I found was 1993 - 1,240 votes (37%) from a pool of 3,345 members - it was a bit messy - it was noted some member numbers appeared more than once (duplicate voting), some non-financial (you were allowed 6 weeks to get yourself paid up), informal etc. Possibly because of the early enthusiasm and that people were voting for President, Secretary, Treasurer etc. There was pre-election talk of it being "conducted in a less than honest fashion" which was strenuously denied. Letters to the Editor were rather "robust" in those days. One complained his membership was $75, plane $50 and he had to do a BFR! Nothing has changed.

 

A lot of elections were unopposed, meaning more than half the members didn't get to vote each year.

 

2009 election - 6 positions - 4 unopposed.

 

1997 - 5 unopposed, only those in South Qld could vote - numbers were not disclosed. 1997 the President was talking about a weight increase to 750kg

 

1994 - 13 positions - only 3 contested. The election report - Nth Qld 29% voted out of a pool of <200.

 

Sue

 

 

[gandalph]

Thanks Sue. Good solid information there backed up by research. When they create a position of RAAus archivist you'll get my vote. Thanks again

 

 

[Admin]

I didn't vote because I just don't simply care about them any more..just like around 90% of the members (oops shareholders).

 

 

[peter]

Didn't vote as I have let my membership lapse. RAAus to me is heading into defacto GA so I have voted with my feet and gone GA even though my MTOW is less than450kg, my engine is not certified, I don't have CTA endorsement, my panel is as simple as it gets, and I just fly for fun, ie recreation!

 

As an owner builder under the SAAA/CASA my build required less inspections than an RAAus plane, which to me is bizarre. A weekend course to understand the paperwork requirements and maintenance is my responsibility. What does RAAus offer other than an easier medical to get?

 

 

[Yenn]

The drivers licence medical for GA is not all that much of a burden to get. GA works out cheaper than RAAus for homebuilders.

 

 

[Yenn]

A year since the last post here and we have a new election under way. I am not sure if it complies with our constitution. Sorry. Not our constitution, but RAAus constitution.

 

Does anyone know any of the candidates.

 

Rod Birrell is a present member. I am wondering if that is a point in his favour or against.

 

I couldn't find out anything more about Luke bayly.

 

Scott Bretland is part of Matt Hall Racing and mentions making board comply with requirements.

 

Ken Flower. He is a councillor in Namoi Shire, Ford Dealer and cotton farmer I think. CFI of local flying school.

 

Hans Gouws I couldn't find anything more than on RAAus info , Same with Philip yates.

 

Andrew Schox is a WA Podiatrist, fairly succesful it looks.A member of the Aust Institute of Company Directors, is that good or bad? He wants legal compliance. Maybe he has been looking at what the present board does.

 

Barry Windle was unsuccesful at a previous election even though I think I voted for him.

 

Does anyone here know anything about any of these candidates?

 

I am leaning towards a my choices, but more info would be a great thing.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I was about to do a similar post Yenn.

 

I honestly don't know who to vote for. Are there any who frequent this forum?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Each gets a lengthy bio in the latest mag.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

None of the candidates mentioned reining in spiralling costs of membership or registrations or for that matter anything else. All seem happy to follow along the companies line of relying on price increases to pay for ever increasing empire building. Its very hard to make informed decisions about who to vote for because all of these people are like faceless men. Who knows any of the candidates well enough to confidently vote for them. We will probably never meet any of them nor have any interactions with them. The only person I’ve spoken to or know anything about is Victorian Rod Birrell.

 

People are concerned that increased compliance means greater cost to members and less rights and freedoms, the ideals that spawned the Ultralight movement have been morfed into GA mk 2 by stealth with “compliance” being the new byword. We need a board that advocates for members rights and privileges not one that takes rights away and imposes restrictions. The current board are only advocating changes that suit their end game.(empire building)

 

The results of the member surveys have never been published to my knowledge so how do we know if the board are complying with the members wishes or are just being directed to follow a CASA wish list (or even get a say).

 

I really don’t know who will get my vote at this stage.

 

 

[storchy neil]

bill nothing changed the truth might get told one day well those that just go along with the crap just to fly are going to pay dearly I told you so neil

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I wouldn't be as hard as bill but I sure agree about costs. The 3 big things things that matter to me are owner-maintenance education and rights, lessening the amount of unused (or underused) controlled airspace, and keeping costs down.

 

It is far too easy to pass costs onward and downward, and this has happened to the point where 2 people I know well reckon its cheaper to remain VH than go to RAAus. Not that I trust CASA to avoid fee-raising themselves under the guise of "user pays".

 

SO... who to vote for?

 

 

[Dave English]

I just voted for Rod Birrell who taught me to fly and who has been instrumental in building the organisation from the early days until now. I know he wants greater member input and participation.

 

Apart from that, I dont trust the executive or their yes men. The stuff I would like to know about is:

 

The total lack of risk management over the Jabiru affair. They knew about it for 2 years and sat on their hands. If Jabiru went down, half of the RAAus flying schools would have had to close.

 

The $250 000 spent on the website last year which is now apparantly an "asset". How many more "assets" can we afford to blow a quarter of a million bucks on?

 

The bagging of the old organisation by this executive while they happilly spend the hard earned savings of the former without any stated rational. From memory, we had $16 mill in savings in 2012, now it is about $ 12 mill, and shrinking.

 

Last year, membership fees went up and member numbers went up but revenue from memberships shrank??? How do you pull that one off? Are the extrra members on scholarships? There was no membership category breakdown in the annual report.

 

The complete stuff up over the Runways affair at last years airventure. They managed to alienate the SAAA and lose $30 000 (which we had to pay for) and there was no explanation, nobody said sorry or admitted stuffing up.

 

I want an executive who will tell it like it is and admit it when they stuff up. The constant spin and lack of accountability by the executive just teklls me not to trust them.

 

 

[octave]

My mag only arrived today - not much time to vote and send back in time.

My magazine also arrived today. The closing date is 28th of September, seems like plenty of time!

 

I will be carefully reading the candidate statements and be considering which of these candidates may best represent my interests. My own personal experience of flying RAAus has been mostly positive, but this perhaps is coloured by the fact that I only hire and do not own an aircraft.

 

I understand that some people are pessimistic and angry. Although I am reasonably happy with my flying pursuits I am always open-minded and if those who feel things are going downhill I would clearly and rationally present their case and if at least some of them would stand for election I would certainly weigh up their arguments and perhaps even consider voting for them, but this will never happen.

 

 

[facthunter]

Dave, I agree with most of your statement with the exception of your comment s on the Jabiru "Affair" which I won't open up again now but it's ALL on this site if you wish to research it further... Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Are you suggesting they posted information in their magazine that didn’t occur?

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not suggesting anything, but to do your own research. . That's pretty clear in my post.. I think most have had enough of the matter and enough damage has been done already. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm not suggesting anything, but to do your own research. . That's pretty clear in my post.. I think most have had enough of the matter and enough damage has been done already. Nev

Which is a good reason not to pour petrol onto an election. The RAA figures, which no one has contradicted cover 43 aircraft published in the RAA magazines from Feb 07, to March 12 and includes 2 engine makes and is included in the information you are referring to.