RAAUS election deadline extended.

[kasper]

ClippedBut 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. .

Sorry but that's complete horse manure.

1 ask for the rules of the election and not receive them.

 

2 have the election changed on the hoof which to ANY election process screams not within the rules

 

3 this is the second year running the election has procedural issues

 

4 last year the executive and board used MEMBERS MONEY to have a solicitor at the meeting to derail any discussion of ANY potential issues with the changes and election

 

And YOU say any member should throw their own money up against he ENTIRE funds of the ENTIRE membership the board has to frustrate any discussion?

 

Get real - either the RAAus has proper enforced rules or they may as well stop pretending they are other than a company for their own purposes and stop bothering "members" with elections because there is just as much theoretical legitimacy to low turnout because it means nothing to the member because they have no respect in the organisation and just belong because they have to by law to fly.

 

 

[turboplanner]

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

Can't argue with that Gandalph.

 

Based on what's written in the RAAus Ltd constitution, and what I've seen on the AEC site, I suspect the extension of the polling date may have made the election invalid, in which case the best course of action would be to re-run it.

 

Are you able to supply any information that would confirm that extending the polling date was permitted.

 

 

[gandalph]

And YOU say any member should throw their own money up against he ENTIRE funds of the ENTIRE membership the board has to frustrate any discussion?

No Kasper. That is not what I said. Please do me the courtesy of not twisting my words. I expected better of you.

 

Based on what's written in the RAAus Ltd constitution, and what I've seen on the AEC site, I suspect the extension of the polling date may have made the election invalid, in which case the best course of action would be to re-run it.

You MAY be correct. A letter to the AEC might provide a definitive answer or at least get them interested in the process. But that's a job for those that feel aggrieved enough, not me.

 

Are you able to supply any information that would confirm that extending the polling date was permitted.

No. It's not me that's making a fuss about it.

 

People say they suspect, this or believe that but no one seems willing to get some proof. KP says he asked some questions but the answers he got didn't agree with answers from another source but he has declined (as is his right) to disclose what the questions were, what the answers were and what the dissenting opinion was, so it is difficult to treat that information as anything more that rumour. Kasper says he doesn't have a copy of the rules but seem certain that the election has not been conducted according to the. He may well be right but at the moment it just an opinion. You say that you suspect that the election process in flawed and contrary to law but you haven't provide anything other than an opinion. You may be right. Neil has been engaged in the debate but I haven't been able to adequately parse his posts. FT is just being FT. Not much more to be said there.

 

Someone, I can't be bothered at this time of night to trawl back through the thread to determine who, suggested that the voting period had been extended to ensure that the "right" candidate could continue to campaign and get got elected. Is anyone able to name this mysterious "right candidate" that the board is allegedly colluding to have elected? Has any member here had additional campaign material sent to them that they would care to disclose and add some veracity to those claims? I know I haven't received any additional material

 

And finally after much grumbling about bad financial management and squandering of funds by the new board, some people are arguing that they should spend another bucket of OUR funds to run another election.

 

I ask again, what harm has been suffered by the membership?

 

Kasper said: "Get real".

 

I agree. Let's get real!

 

 

[kasper]

No Kasper. That is not what I said. Please do me the courtesy of not twisting my words. I expected better of you.

 

You MAY be correct. A letter to the AEC might provide a definitive answer or at least get them interested in the process. But that's a job for those that feel aggrieved enough, not me.

 

No. It's not me that's making a fuss about it.

 

People say they suspect, this or believe that but no one seems willing to get some proof. KP says he asked some questions but the answers he got didn't agree with answers from another source but he has declined (as is his right) to disclose what the questions were, what the answers were and what the dissenting opinion was, so it is difficult to treat that information as anything more that rumour. Kasper says he doesn't have a copy of the rules but seem certain that the election has not been conducted according to the. He may well be right but at the moment it just an opinion. You say that you suspect that the election process in flawed and contrary to law but you haven't provide anything other than an opinion. You may be right. Neil has been engaged in the debate but I haven't been able to adequately parse his posts. FT is just being FT. Not much more to be said there.

 

Someone, I can't be bothered at this time of night to trawl back through the thread to determine who, suggested that the voting period had been extended to ensure that the "right" candidate could continue to campaign and get got elected. Is anyone able to name this mysterious "right candidate" that the board is allegedly colluding to have elected? Has any member here had additional campaign material sent to them that they would care to disclose and add some veracity to those claims? I know I haven't received any additional material

 

And finally after much grumbling about bad financial management and squandering of funds by the new board, some people are arguing that they should spend another bucket of OUR funds to run another election.

 

I ask again, what harm has been suffered by the membership?

 

Kasper said: "Get real".

 

I agree. Let's get real!

The AEC actually has nothing to do with governing or overseeing RAAus - the only govt authority is ASIC ... and they are not interested as there are general meetings to control companies.

What harms done? Well not setting fair rules or following rule would be an intangible harm.

 

But frankly if you're not going to follow what YOU set out as election timetables and change them at the last minute then I'd rather they give up pretence and just get rid of elections and simply run the RAAus either into the ground or into a better version of what it is.

 

The ultimate control is that the type of company it is and the restrictions on wind up mean they can't make a profit for themselves or distribute to shareholders so there will be less loss of member money through any election do they can just get on with it

 

 

[storchy neil]

09 50 hrs on the 7/8/2017 have email confirming raa still receiving votes neil

 

 

[gandalph]

Neil, do you have confirmation that votes to which your e-mail refers will be counted in the election? My flying colleague next door to me tells me he forgot to vote. He could post his vote in today but that doesn't mean it would count.

 

Now if you can confirm that votes post marked after the cut-off are being counted then you have clear evidence of electoral fraud and I'm sure the whole membership (me included) would be in uproar. But without that evidence, your information is just that - information. The test is: is it relevant information?

 

 

[turboplanner]

The AEC actually has nothing to do with governing or overseeing RAAus - the only govt authority is ASIC ... and they are not interested as there are general meetings to control companies. What harms done? Well not setting fair rules or following rule would be an intangible harm.

 

But frankly if you're not going to follow what YOU set out as election timetables and change them at the last minute then I'd rather they give up pretence and just get rid of elections and simply run the RAAus either into the ground or into a better version of what it is.

 

The ultimate control is that the type of company it is and the restrictions on wind up mean they can't make a profit for themselves or distribute to shareholders so there will be less loss of member money through any election do they can just get on with it

The AEC doesn't govern or oversee the Association , however this is what the Association constitution Section 34.4 says (includes Gandalph's bolded correction (Constitution link appears to be down on the RAAus site).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."

 

My experience with the AEC methods includes being made to stand out in the rain until virtually the exact second advertised polling was is due to start, and seeing the doors snap shut until virtually the exact second advertised polling was due to end.

 

 

[storchy neil]

gandalph seeing as you are sutch a nice bloke I wont send you the email why in the hell don't you ask raaus if I do have said email

 

kasper yep it was sent to me read post 32 neil

 

 

[gandalph]

gandalph seeing as you are sutch a nice bloke I wont send you the email why in the hell don't you ask raaus if I do have said emailkasper yep it was sent to me read post 32 neil

Neil, I'm not doubting your word that you have the email as you said. What I was asking was whether you have credible information that votes postmarked after the close of poll are being being included in the poll. That would be a crucial bit of info.

Regards

 

G

 

 

[Yenn]

ASre there postmarks nowadays. The mail I receive has no marks sometimes.

 

 

[storchy neil]

yep yenn so how in the hell can that be LEGAL to extend the closing date neil

 

 

[gandalph]

ASre there postmarks nowadays. The mail I receive has no marks sometimes.

Good point Yenn. Most of the snail mail I receive has a post mark/date stamp but very occasionally there's one without. I assume (now there's a dangerous word to use here) that the scrutineers will have a process to deal with that. If I was a scrutineer I would exclude any postal votes received after the closing date if it didnt have a validating post mark.

If I recall, the votes at the last general meeting were collected and counted by a solicitors engaged for that purpose. If that's how it's being handled this time I'd hope they would have a process that complies with general principles in these matters.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's normal to have a secretary put a date stamp on incoming mail. The other doesn't actually tell the date of delivery. It cancels the stamp by overprinting it and gives you some idea how long it took in postage. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's normal to have a secretary put a date stamp on incoming mail. The other doesn't actually tell the date of delivery. It cancels the stamp by overprinting it and gives you some idea how long it took in postage. Nev

Almost all the major contracts I've been involved with specify the postal service date stamp on the envelope as proof of postage date. With Tenders, that's also usually accepted as being acceptable provided it was date stamped by the time for Tender Close. (Disclaimer, not all are this fair; some require the mail in their possession, which gives them the upper hand in deciding if you met their deadline).

 

 

[Oscar]

This thread has, frankly, degenerated into a squabbling brawl with about as much relevance to the vast, vast majority of recreational aviators as a screaming match over who owns the sandpit by a kindergarten group of ADD 'special needs' five-year olds.. Any reasonable person not having any connection with recreational aviation, would come to the conclusion that recreational aviators are a mob of self-obsessed social misfits.

 

Those who have followed the travails of RAA over many years, and the political ( and commercial) machinations over the past several years, will recognise the agendas of many of the posters here. I won't even suggest who those may be, for the various protagonists, because those who care enough to keep informed, know them and know them well.

 

However, it is an incontrovertible fact that the vast, vast majority of RAA members do not give a fur-lined intercontinental flying F$ck about the 'politics'; they simply want to be able to fly, legally. They want to be able to pay their annual fees, and therefore be able to get in their aircraft and fly.

 

I count myself as one of those, and though I am not a member of RAA at the moment, it is where I will go when my aircraft is back on the Register. There is no alternative - despite all the noise made now about 12 months ago, of an alternative coming into being, but that has not happened and history says it may never happen - the alternative has had many false starts and promised much that has never occurred. I know a lame dog when I see one, and I won't be putting my aviating into a chimera.

 

For me, the bottom line to all of the debate in this thread is: even if there have been 'irregular' circumstances, what harm has that done to me? ( taking the hypothetical position that I was a member of RAA).

 

I don't see it.

 

 

[facthunter]

In reality, It's all you've got. My prob. is the "New GA" bothers me. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I ask again, what harm has been suffered by the membership?

I can understand from your background you would be assessing a past event, but in administration the question you have to ask yourself is, "if I make this decision, who will it affect"

If a poll for directors is invalid, the first people likely to be affected are the people who thought they had just been elected directors. The "house of cards" factor then kicks in. Where their votes have carried a decision, that decision is invalid, where they have signed a document that document is invalid, where decisions have flowed from those decisions or those documents, those decisions are invalid and so on. From time to time I've seen corporate situations implode, sometimes after several years.

 

 

[johnm]

1st time Ive read this thread - not an overly interesting subject ...... what !

 

Figured the conversation would be about where its at !

 

......... Sex, politics and religion - tsk tsk tsk0

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Incompetence and mismanagement

 

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

Incompetence and mismanagement

Question for you Phil (aka Fly_Tornado)

 

Are you a current member of the Raaus ?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

this BS again?

 

 

[gandalph]

1st time Ive read this thread - not an overly interesting subject ...... what !Figured the conversation would be about where its at !

 

......... Sex, politics and religion - tsk tsk tsk0

Oh! Well said, that man! Well said!

 

 

[gandalph]

True Turbs, But that scenario is predicated on the first word of your 2nd paragraph.

 

If.

 

 

[turboplanner]

True Turbs, But that scenario is predicated on the first word of your 2nd paragraph. If.

Correct

 

 

[coljones]

[MAP]

 

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.

I don't see a problem in facilitating voting by all who are entitled to vote. Given the delays inside Australia Post it is not unreasonable for RAA, within the rules, to extend the time of closing of the ballot to ensure that all those who might miss out because of delays don't. In times past a time 7 days after postage was indicative of receipt - I read here that some people are still waiting for ballot papers.. my preference is to enfranchise people, not disenfranchise them.

[/MAP]