RAAus Board Election 2019

[turboplanner]

Turbs I am probably one of those people you write of. As part of a large group very disillusioned with the state our association had been allowed to get into, we pushed the management to reform.

 

Were we wrong? I'm not happy with some aspects of our current direction, but would we have been any better had we not rebelled?

 

No. you weren't, just people with big egos and nothing to back them up.

 

RAA got from where it started to change its direction to where it is today in about five waves.

 

I've seen plenty of cases where Associations have had a good clean out and started off again to bigger and better things, but the chain of events was more complex here, and so much of it was in secret where those of us who did find things out couldn't put them into print.

 

The disadvantage of this Association was that it didn't conduct monthly meetings where the concerned members could front the problems, bet the truth and take appropriate action.

 

You can argue that RAA was spread all over the Country, but rotating meetings by State would have fixed that.

 

RAA is still healthy, but if your sector is being disadvantaged you have to stand up and do something; if you fail, you have to do some self-searching; were you wrong in what you were trying to do?; are there real issues which are not being fixed?; how were we beaten last time and how could we approach things differently?; did we know what we were actually pushing for?; did we actually do any research before we voted?; did the membership know what was at stake and why they should have voted?;  and so on.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... it will appear in the August issue of the RAAus magazine.

 

I will open a separate thread for candidates statements/discussion and will post my statement and will engage with queries etc that people may have through there.

 

Is there a separate thread?

 

Can I ask of Kaspar here?

I'm tired of the narrow-minded squabbling between aviation organisations in this small country. We need a united approach to the regulators.

 

I'm particularly impressed with the energy and positivity of Ben Morgan's tireless work with AOPA.  

 

Will you work to get RAA cooperating with all other Au Aviation organisations?

 

 

[Downunder]

I tend to agree. United we stand and divided we fall and all that.....and the aviation organisations are too small to push hard for changes by themselves.

 

But casa must love the in-fighting, favouring those that kiss casa's @rse.....

 

As I see it, the RAA and AOPA are taking different aproaches to implement change.

 

The RAA is "going with the flow" and buddying up to casa, hoping for some favours to flow down.

 

AOPA is "in their face" and confronting casa for change..

 

I think past history shows confronting and demanding anything from casa is perhaps counterproductive. 

 

 

[kasper]

Is there a separate thread?

 

Can I ask of Kaspar here?

I'm tired of the narrow-minded squabbling between aviation organisations in this small country. We need a united approach to the regulators.

 

I'm particularly impressed with the energy and positivity of Ben Morgan's tireless work with AOPA.  

 

Will you work to get RAA cooperating with all other Au Aviation organisations?

 

Yes there is a separate thread  but I'll give a short answer here.

 

My position - united approach is my preference - particularly where we have two or more organisations regulating the same areas eg HGFA and RAAus and potentially ELAAA.

 

Initially I'd love to see complete recognition and transferable use between organisations where a pilot from 1 organistion would fly another organisations registered aircraft within their endorsements without having to be a member of the registering organisation - that would require changes to the CAOs, renegotiation of insurance and suchlike but no reason logically why that could not be a goal - same for RPL and PPL holders flying appropriate RAAus aircraft with only payment to the group insurance so all pilots in all non-G aircraft are operating on an equal footing ... and yes I can see that membership revenue and airframe registration revenue will be hit potentially as people shop around for the lowest cost membership/registration ... but if you are seen as a good organisation you will retain members ... and everyone will belong to at least 1 organization and subject to their scrutiny and regulation so I'm ok with that.

 

On AOPA and any perceived difference between the attitude to regulation that RAAus has I will only direct you to you my election statement on teh other thread, the RAAus member website or the printed magazine.  I am not going to attack or praise any person (as I say on the other thread) but only offer my position.

 

 

[facthunter]

 AOPA does what no other organisation does or can do in this Country.. It can stand up for Aviators as it's not beholden to anybody, but it's members. Someone has to be able to contradict silly or damaging policy by Governments and the Bureucracy both incredibly resistant to logic at times.  IF you are beholden to CASA for favours and money, you have to suck to them and your member's rights come second if at all. That should NOT be the case  but empire builders don't like their plans upset by what they regard as whingers and trouble makers.. If the management aren't "IN TOUCH" with members, all sorts of unpleasant outcomes are likely, CASA is not built of the practical experience it forebears DCA etc had. It's  a very legalese interpreter of it's AUTHORITY  in it's current form and not likely to change without the  "Change " coming from an enlightened Government so don't hold your breath. Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

@kasper what are your ballot recommendations for number 2 and 3 selections? 

 

 

[kasper]

@kasper what are your ballot recommendations for number 2 and 3 selections? 

 

Sorry but I’ve been clear on the other thread I am

 

not commenting adversely on any person and there are no political groupings or parties in the candidates so I like others are just working on the statements in the election and my limited experience with a couple of candidates. 

 

 

[Admin]

I dont think he was asking you to comment adversely on any candidate, which would be wrong, but he was just asking if you have a preference on who you feel you could work with i.e, have similar beliefs as you

 

 

[kasper]

Ok. Well I know Eugene from having flown with him and hired thrusters from him years ago and  he will be getting my vote.  Of the others I do not know them and have read profiles just looking for change - Dave Tapan seems to be outward looking at clubs and associations so he has my third vote.

 

ive not spoken to either Eugene or Tapan so please do not take my comments as their having any endorsement of me or any of us being a group.

 

My votes are mine and my reasons for voting are equally personal. 

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

In the past I have found it frustrating that I had no idea of how our elected representatives were performing, and if it was worth re-electing them.  The election statements, naturally, would say "Hey, I'm a great guy" but are they really worth my vote?  Fortunately RAAus paid for independent consultants to do a review of the Board performance (Sept 2018) and published this.

 

From the 24 page report (plus attachments)

 

As noted at the outset of this report, an overriding theme of the board evaluation was that the board is currently factionalised.  Other themes relevant to board dynamics included that:

 

• the level of contribution to the board’s work is not equally spread with some directors seemingly having no real engagement in the board’s work other than being physically present at board meetings

 

• some directors are not asking questions in a constructive way, and

 

• it is queried whether all directors are acting in the best interests of RAAus (Page 16)

 

 .. struggle to engage several members as they do not respond to emails, return phone calls and so forth. Alan Middleton often criticises the engagement of board members but fails to return calls and takes an aggressive tone in email (on one occasion I called him 4 times in relation to some out of session matters with no reply). Rod Birrell and Eugene Reid are similar.

 

Alan is not up for re-election but appears to be diametrically opposed to the Board.  With only 7 on the Board RAAus cannot afford to have 3 who are not fully contributing.

 

Kirk Sutton has been a "thorn in the side" querying the finer points of the Constitution at RAAus meetings and on this forum.  You can see his previous by searching here.  My feeling is that he will engage with the Board, not just ignore or have a hissy fit and take his bat & ball away.  He has his own thread, where you can ask questions of him.

 

I have sent an invitation to Alex and Tapan to join this forum and contribute their thoughts.

 

I am not endorsing any candidate.  Please VOTE!

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

An excellent post! Thanks, Sue for expressing what so many of must feel. Beyond their election blurbs, how do we know what they will contribute?

 

Local government is the same; I know of people getting elected on the basis of a high-profile protest campaign, in doing so displacing quiet achievers from the council. They have then been overwhelmed by the workload and contributed little to council deliberations.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Not wanting to get to fine points but..

 

.

 

Why is it necessary  for board members to be in public agreement with the decisions of the board. And not make comments?

 

And what about having gag orders?

 

There should be no gag orders nor should solidarity be a requirement.

 

To be restricted in commenting here  or anywhere else is  completely unacceptable.

 

Why no ability to have dissenting opinions? 

 

That would seem self defeating. If the board makes a stupid call and some members  of the board disagree they should be able to express this.

 

To have anything else means it is completely undemocratic to members and gags proper administration. The board are elected to represent the members not the board itself or CEO.

 

They must be able to justify their decisions and should be open to dissent. Otherwise it becomes a dictatorship of those with the casting vote majority. 

 

Silence is not a solution. 

 

As far as the rules for elections go?

 

I would be incredibly surprised if the board is legally allowed not to provide a full documentation on the process and rules for election of members. There are laws about this. If the AEC is been slack or does not care enough does not negate the law.

 

Additionally there are other laws under the corporations acts and incorporated bodies dependant on structure.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

The election procedure is in the Constitution.  In this one, we have 6 candidates for three positions.  There is no preferential voting (1,2,3 ..), you mark the three you wish to represent you.  The votes are opened and counted independently and the results are published.

 

No Board will be in complete agreement on everything.  The biggest problem identified by the Report was dysfunction, where some members are not contributing or being uncivil.  It's an unpaid job, but Board members MUST be willing to take an interest, contribute to discussion and decisions and do so in a way that is acceptable to others.  Once a Board decision is made, a Board member must abide by it.  It happens all over the country, a Council decides one thing, then an individual Councillor can't direct the staff to do something else, regardless of his feelings on the matter.  Similarly, if the members are overwhelmingly telling the Board member what they want, he shouldn't be peddling his own minority opinion, he should represent the members.

 

There are Minutes of meetings to see what transpired.  Members are entitled to attend, and I have.  The AGM is live streamed and you can pick it up later to view at your leisure.  Board members can, and do, talk with members.  There are some things that are confidential and should remain that way; to do otherwise would give a competitive advantage or injure a reputation.  This is why people with experience on Boards, Councils etc already know their obligations in this regard.  That was also highlighted, that RAA should be providing training for Board members on their legal obligations.  It is no longer a Club, it's a Company.

 

I am hoping we will hear more from the other Candidates.  I want to make my vote count.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Thanks Vizsla, 

 

But that does not address the gag rule or inability to express a contrary opinion to that taken by the board in public.

 

I am not suggesting the member can make unilateral directions. But merely to be able to have their view known. That does not effect the issue of defamation- reputational damage. Nor confidentiality where absolutely necessary. However your reference to competitive advantage has no bearing on the issue. 

 

They have no competition nor are they in business to make products or services that can be offered by another body. The very nature of the organisation  is very different to a business irrespective of its newer status.

 

They are a self regulation body that by law cannot be bypassed and must receive a fee to allow the legal right to fly. The have a monopoly with government permission.

 

None of what you have stated should make a director feel gagged or even the impression they are. To do so damages the process of governance and reputation of the body.

 

If the election rules and process are clear and transparent then why does a member seeking election find it unclear and the responses he was given unsatisfactory?

 

Thanks Phil

 

 

[Downunder]

Some may say, a dysfunctional, passive and corralled board is exactly what RAA management want?

 

 

[Litespeed]

Indeed,

 

some may at the very least have that impression.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

While RAA are not exactly Microsoft ... they do award tenders for services such as auditing, the magazine, fly-in venue etc.  The magazine is worth >$100k's + advertising - possibly a quarter of a million.

 

If the election rules and process are clear and transparent then why does a member seeking election find it unclear and the responses he was given unsatisfactory?

 

I think you are referring to Kirk Sutton, who was asked to change one word in his election statement.  Only Kirk can tell you what that word was and why he agreed.  Because they are published in a magazine, the editor and organisation must be careful with what they allow.  Kirk has, in the past, been pedantic about the letter of the law, which has put him at odds with the Board, the RAA legal advice and Spencer Ferrier who assisted with the wording of the Constitution.  Lawyers disagree about the intent of legislation, that is why we have the courts; to rule on the interpretation and set a precedent, on which further interpretation relies.

 

My concern with this election, as with others in the past, is that too few members even bother.  "I just want to fly ..." We need to engage these members to get them to take an interest in their organisation.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I'm sure many members are on a not for profit board or a council. They will know that when a board member comes with a personal agenda it can be very disruptive. The best members come with an unbiased ability to assess and decide upon the matters that come before the board.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Thanks Vizsla,

 

But how does the need to gain such services as auditing or any other for that matter require matters of confidence? Or gaining revenue for the magazine?

 

 None of those functions require commercial in confidence nor should the organisation be in any activities that require it.

 

Commercial in confidence deals with government bodies or regulators only serve to ensure a complete lack of scrutiny of contracts made and the obligations of the parties involved and financial risks and costs. They remove the ability to be accountable and even if things are correct and the best deal, it gives the impression of the complete opposite. The use of a tender process only requires you do not divulge the contents of tender bids until they are closed.

 

I was referring to kirks concerns, but not so much the change of a word if it is clearly defamatory to a individual. However we must know the opinion and platform of the candidates. 

 

If the board does not agree with a stance taken by a candidate, that should not allow them to censor a candidates election page.

 

The very notion that someone stands for election is they believe they can do a better job- assuming its not for a vendetta or power trip.

 

Please note I have no particular grudge or emnity to any on the board nor do I wish to be pedantic.

 

I merely want to see the success of our sport and for members to feel they are getting the best they deserve and are engaged including in elections.

 

Cheers

 

Phil

 

 

[FlyBoy1960]

This is the recommendation from our club President who has also been an RA-Aus Board Member before

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

President’s recommendations for RAAus board elections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trevor BANGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tapan DAVE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barry WINDLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gold Coast Sports Flying Club Inc.

1638 Jacobs Well Road

NORWELL  QLD  4208.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Downunder]

Barry is just a shill for management.

 

They say jump.....he says how high......

 

 

[frank marriott]

I'm sure many members are on a not for profit board or a council. They will know that when a board member comes with a personal agenda it can be very disruptive. The best members come with an unbiased ability to assess and decide upon the matters that come before the board.

 

Consideration should be given to process and when actions are taken BEFORE board approval then the individuals responsible should be held to account - a prime example is the Tech Manual which was being strongly debated about its present form when it was submitted to CASA for approval.    BAD management and the only way they got away with it was the bastardised constitution where half the board was effectively sacked.  Not interested in standing again with this type of behaviour but you can rest assured the individuals will never be forgotten.

 

 

[facthunter]

Proper process is basic to order and conduct of a show such as we have. Where time constraints preclude this  ( a hopefully rare occasion), a proper record and explanation of the why's and wherefore's should be prepared  and agreed  by  the full management, not a small cabal. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

 duplicated and deleted. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

On the issue of lack of rules for elections and being asked to change my statement or have it countered by the board ... the to my mind pathetic behaviour of the board is that what they actually published was exactly what I submitted.  They did not change the word I’d agreed to at their request.  

 

And I agree I’m pedantic on process... the one bit that’s on the nomination for was the statements were to be published in alphabetic order ... magazine and website decided to use different alphabets and the ballot paper seems random.

 

And i have the ability in this election to really test the lack of rules ... my membership expires in the middle of the voting period.  Where would you like to deal with a fairly fun idea of my letting it lapse for a day.  I was a valid nominee at close of nominations and by the close of ballots or appointment if I’m elected I’d be a member again. 

 

A board of a company is not a or a board or management but a board or policy,  direction and oversight. 

 

RAAus management need a very good dose of oversight and governance from the board.