RAAUS election deadline extended.

[storchy neil]

kasper is write I also asked as a member the rules for the election got the run around again why have they not sued me wake up this organization is still pulling strings

 

GET THE CEO TO SHOW YOU THEM RULES in writing

 

failure to disclose the rules to a financial member in my opinion is a bloody big no no neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is a link to the Constitution: https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/constitution-raaus-ltd.pdf

 

Clause 34 refers to the appointment of Directors; it is on page 14

 

Those of you in various Incorporated Associations might be interested in comparing that detail with your own Constitutions, whether you're in the Sporting Shooters Association or the local gem hunting club.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Kasper and Storchy, when you read Clause 34, you are reading the rules for the conduct of elections, so this would be why you didn't get any answers as to what the rules were, even though it would have taken the recipient a just a few moments to refer you to the Constitution.

 

The Constitution does say that any voting method shall be consistent with the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body.

 

Only the AEC conducts federal elections.

 

The AEC operates to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

 

Clause 157 of that Act says:

 

"The date fixed for polling shall be not less than 23 days nor more than 31 days after the date of nomination."

 

While there is provision to fix a date within that envelope, once the polling date is fixed, there is no provision for it to be changed.

 

 

[gandalph]

Turbs, you old scallywag! If you are going to quote the constitution you should QUOTE it, not paraphrase it

 

You said:

 

The Constitution does say that any voting method shall be consistent with the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body.Only the AEC conducts federal elections.

The constitution says: "34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body." The additional emphasis has been added by me for clarity.

 

 

When you "forgot" to include the words that I have highlighted in the quote, above you changed the whole complexion of that clause and that could mislead people reading your post about what the constitution ACTUALLY says.

 

You then muddy the waters further by implying that as the AEC operates the Federal Elections ACT 1918, section 34.4 of the RAAUS constitution must comply with clause 157 of that Act. I would argue that the words "consistent with those methods accepted by the AEC do not necessarily tie us to all the clauses of the Federal Elections Act 1918 but allow a degree of latitude by the AEC to accept other methods. The question people might want to ask is has the AEC accepted the method used by RAAUS in this instance.

 

I'm sure you didn't mean to mislead members but as you regularly contribute to these discussions, some readers could take what you say at face value and thus be misinformed.

 

Surely the bigger question we should be asking is: Has any member suffer harm by having the deadline for the election extended?

 

A supplementary question could be: Would we rather be flying?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

andolph, when was the last time a Federal election was called and then had the date changed due to the wrong candidate winning?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, you old scallywag! If you are going to quote the constitution you should QUOTE it, not paraphrase itYou said:

 

The constitution says: "34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body." The additional emphasis has been added by me for clarity.

 

When you "forgot" to include the words that I have highlighted in the quote, above you changed the whole complexion of that clause and that could mislead people reading your post about what the constitution ACTUALLY says.

 

You then muddy the waters further by implying that as the AEC operates the Federal Elections ACT 1918, section 34.4 of the RAAUS constitution must comply with clause 157 of that Act. I would argue that the words "consistent with those methods accepted by the AEC do not necessarily tie us to all the clauses of the Federal Elections Act 1918 but allow a degree of latitude by the AEC to accept other methods. The question people might want to ask is has the AEC accepted the method used by RAAUS in this instance.

 

I'm sure you didn't mean to mislead members but as you regularly contribute to these discussions, some readers could take what you say at face value and thus be misinformed.

 

Surely the bigger question we should be asking is: Has any member suffer harm by having the deadline for the election extended?

 

A supplementary question could be: Would we rather be flying?

Thanks for the corrections, and I'm sorry if I misled people in those areas.

Having said that, I don't believe creeping polling dates would be accepted by the AEC or anywhere else.

 

In answer to your question about whether any member has suffered harm by having the deadline extended, you can go to a bigger picture again where someone has been appointed outside the boundaries of the constitution, and ask the same question for the future. If the person's appointment was invalid, then what is the status of ongoing decisions?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Why is Gandolph always championing RAA lowering performance standards? Didn't the lessons from the registry audit sink in?

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Why is Gandolph always championing RAA lowering performance standards? Didn't the lessons from the registry audit sink in?

He obviously has vested interest. Gandolph who are you. The thing with anonymity on forums such as this is people can push any barrow they wish with impunity.

 

 

[Yenn]

Fly Tornado asks."How can the members sue themselves in court Randalph?"

 

We may be members as we like to think, but really we are not members, we are more shareholders. We do not have any say in how RAAus is run, except to elect the directors. We can moan and bitch about what the directors do as much as we like but we still cannot tell them what to do. Which is apparent now that they have changed everything to suit themselves.

 

 

[terryc]

Turbs, you old scallywag! If you are going to quote the constitution you should QUOTE it, not paraphrase itYou said:

 

The constitution says: "34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body." The additional emphasis has been added by me for clarity.

 

When you "forgot" to include the words that I have highlighted in the quote, above you changed the whole complexion of that clause and that could mislead people reading your post about what the constitution ACTUALLY says.

 

You then muddy the waters further by implying that as the AEC operates the Federal Elections ACT 1918, section 34.4 of the RAAUS constitution must comply with clause 157 of that Act. I would argue that the words "consistent with those methods accepted by the AEC do not necessarily tie us to all the clauses of the Federal Elections Act 1918 but allow a degree of latitude by the AEC to accept other methods. The question people might want to ask is has the AEC accepted the method used by RAAUS in this instance.

 

I'm sure you didn't mean to mislead members but as you regularly contribute to these discussions, some readers could take what you say at face value and thus be misinformed.

 

Surely the bigger question we should be asking is: Has any member suffer harm by having the deadline for the election extended?

 

A supplementary question could be: Would we rather be flying?

It's the vibe

 

 

[Oscar]

Turbs, you old scallywag! If you are going to quote the constitution you should QUOTE it, not paraphrase itYou said:

 

The constitution says: "34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body." The additional emphasis has been added by me for clarity.

Well, well, look who is kicking the 'accuracy' can down the road now, Randolph!. The wording you highlighted would only be significant to someone with legal training or at least understanding. That is like picking at the use of a term such as 'a little bit pregnant'.

 

Give Turbs a break. He was just spicing up the conversation here, no need to be insalting.

 

 

[gandalph]

He obviously has vested interest. Gandolph who are you. The thing with anonymity on forums such as this is people can push any barrow they wish with impunity.

Bill, You've got me! I admit it, I do have vested interests. In the interest of full disclosure let me detail them here for all to see and pick over at their leisure.

 

1. I own a light aircraft.
    
    
   
2. I want to be able to fly it utilising the Pilot certificate rather than having to migrate to a PPL and.
    
    
   
3. I am a paid up member of RAAus and have been for about 10 years now.
    
    
   

 

 

Other than that I have no relevant vested interests.

 

As to who I am, I prefer to keep my name out of the public eye. I work in an industry where the having my details publicly available presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of me and my family. If it would give people some comfort I could change my name here to a fictitious one and no one would be any the wiser. I doubt that Mr Tornado or Mr Neil or Mr Planner are using their real names nor are many other frequent posters here. A quick look at the "Members" pages here suggests that only about 5% of members choose to use a name that doesn't appear to be a nom de plume or perhaps more correctly a nom de guerre . Does that change the value of their posts?

 

p.s. I am not a Director, past or present of RAAus. I have never been a board member of the RAA. I am not nor have I ever been an employee of wither the RAA or RAAus. My sole connection to RAAus is as a current member. If you have any other questions feel free to PM me and we can what you feel you need to know about me and what I feel I want to disclose.

 

Regards

 

Gandalph

 

 

[fly_tornado]

and your legal training goldoph?

 

 

[Oscar]

He obviously has vested interest. Gandolph who are you. The thing with anonymity on forums such as this is people can push any barrow they wish with impunity.

BWM: you surely must have noticed that some people here can push their barrow with impunity no matter whether they are using their name or a forum nom-de-plume. According to the forum rules, one is only allowed to comment upon 'governing bodies' if one is a member of that body, so as things stand - and they have stood that way for over twelve months now, despite promises from a competitor to RAA of its existence - de facto only RAA can be the subject of adverse criticism.

 

I am not a current member of RAA, so by the forum rules, I cannot comment on its performance. Fair enough, those are the rules and I accept that I must abide by them. Those rules are entirely the prerogative of Ian Baker and the value of the site for the exchange of information and opinion is great to our community. Ian Rules - OK?

 

BUT, does it matter WHO is saying things, rather than the content of what they are saying? I can easily think of many, many posters here who use nom-de-plumes, and whose input is of great value. Here's a few: Facthunter; djpacro, HITC - and that just scratches the surface.

 

Forum members are generally intelligent people ( though we've had /have a few who are somewhat outside that envelope), and they can recognise 'vested interests' readily.

 

Personally, I look at the quality of the commentary rather than the persona of the contributor. I admit that there are some who almost by history, are on my list of 'ignore' forum members, they just irritate me and reading their stuff is inevitably a waste of life.. But that has nothing to do with whether they use a non-de-plume or a (possibly - do we know?) actual name.

 

 

[gandalph]

and your legal training goldoph?

and your reason for asking is....?

 

 

[gandalph]

andolph, when was the last time a Federal election was called and then had the date changed due to the wrong candidate winning?

Every fibre of my body shouts at me to remember the warning given in Proverbs 26:4 , but sometimes one has to act to protect a fool from causing harm to themselves and to others.

FT, it seems to me that you are implying that a Director or Directors has manipulated the voting process to achieve a particular result contrary to law. You might ask someone to explain the general ideas spelled out in the link below. You might then consider asking someone more learned than yourself whether you would be wise to withdraw the imputation you make in post #80 .

 

The moderator or administrator might consider whether the allegation made here by FT at post # 80 could be damaging to this site.

 

What is defamation? - The Law Handbook

 

 

[turboplanner]

and your legal training goldoph?

Cut it out FT, none of us are required to present certificates, and he did give a reasonable explanation

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ah, too late; Gandalph, he posed a question about the Federal Government; your mind might twist that around to something which suits your agenda, but he was talking about the general subject.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

gendaplh again I ask you, are sure you know what you are talking about?

 

I like did declare that an honest mistake by good blokes, ie Leviticus 11:12

 

 

[gandalph]

Ah, too late; Gandalph, he posed a question about the Federal Government; your mind might twist that around to something which suits your agenda, but he was talking about the general subject.

Nice try Turbs, but if his comment is taken within the context of this thread then he is clearly NOT talking about a federal election but about the recent RAAus election.

But if those claiming to be aggrieved by the conduct of the RAAus election are not willing or don't have sufficient confidence in their evidence to mount a challenge in any meaningful forum then I think the horse has received enough of a flogging here.

 

I'm interested in facts, fairplay and decent honest discussion not defamation and innuendo. That's the extent of my "agenda" in this matter.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I am starting to feel like Balaam and goldulph is my "If the goal posts need to be moved to get the "right result" then move them" donkey

 

I suspect that a very very low turn out for the vote isn't going to be fixed by extending the deadline

 

 

[turboplanner]

It is very clear that the recent election polling was delayed as a result of slow delivery by Australia Post.

 

Unfortunately there has been a lot of obfuscation today, when we could have been talking about more important things.

 

There are serious downstream issues if the election of a person is invalid.

 

Here’s the link to the full RAAus Ltd Constitution

 

https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/constitution-raaus-ltd.pdf

 

Here’s the link to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

 

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

 

 

[Oscar]

I am starting to feel like Balaam and goldulph is my "If the goal posts need to be moved to get the "right result" then move them" donkeyI suspect that a very very low turn out for the vote isn't going to be fixed by extending the deadline

What is to be 'fixed?'

 

Just POSSIBLY, the low voter turn-out is an indication that the vast majority of RAA members have no problem with the management of RAA and find it satisfactory to keep them happily flying.

 

I see plenty of whinging and bitching from people about RAA management, decisions and costs - led by a cabal who seek to make a business ( and therefore profit) from providing compliance services to the recreational aviation community. Yet - I wonder how many of those spend the same amount of time, effort and possibly money into combating the impositions placed upon them by the authorities who register their cars?

 

It costs around $1k to register anything these days, even if you only drive it for a few k's a year. Your 'vintage' car toy - that you drive maybe 200ks a year, in a club rally? Your 'track-day' Lotus that does even less, and is nothing but a sports toy? Your Ducati Desmosedici RR - a $US 72K track-weapon, that is utterly impracticable as road-going transport, but needs to be registered to ride to the track for your fun.

 

You can bitch all you want about RAA - but RAA is a necessary, by CASA decree using its legislative authority - agent for the operation of our class of aircraft and the number of hours flown per year by recreational aircraft says that service is in considerable demand.

 

Assuming that there are around 7500 members of RAA, then on here, there are around 15 disgruntled members. That equates, I think, to about .002% of RAA membership. Or, in less precise terms, a flea-bite on the backside of an elephant.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If I was a losing candidate in this election I would feel justified in calling this election a farce.

 

The RAA needs to count the votes received before the original deadline separate to those received afterwards.

 

I find it spurious, that a handful of late ballots, and its only a handful, can be used to justify this action when the vast majority have received their ballots within the original time frame.

 

All this delay has done has given some candidates extra time to campaign.

 

 

[Oscar]

If I was a losing candidate in this election I would feel justified in calling this election a farce.The RAA needs to count the votes received before the original deadline separate to those received afterwards.

 

I find it spurious, that a handful of late ballots, and its only a handful, can be used to justify this action when the vast majority have received their ballots within the original time frame.

 

All this delay has done has given some candidates extra time to campaign.

Why SOME candidates 'extra time to campaign'? ALL candidates were nominated by a specific cut-off date, ALL candidates have had the same time to campaign.

 

Your comment is complete, utter, and demonstrable organic fertiliser. Show me where I am wrong..