Recreational Aviation Constitution Amendment - URGENT!

[FlyingVizsla]

Qld's Office of Fair Trading wasn't interested in the workings of Clubs, such that clubs I was a member of complained to them that someone was depleting the funds, not seeking approval, misappropriating assets, ignoring the Constitution etc, etc and they said "see a solicitor".  The only issue they took interest in was an accusation that an office bearer was a undischarged bankrupt (he wasn't). 

 

The Legislation has changed, to put more responsibility on Clubs to settle disputes.  The threshold for auditing has also been raised to about $200k.  I'ld like a dollar for every time someone said "The Auditor will pick that up" meaning the President buying the mower for the Club from his bro-in-law; in reality the Auditor is matching invoice with cheque, with bank statement only.  The Club has to sort out How, Who, Where, What. 

[FlyingVizsla]

The news from the RAAus AGM

 

This Resolution was WITHDRAWN by the Board due to the concern by the Board in relation to the validity of some of the proxy forms received in a manner that was not fair and reasonable or consistent with the prescribed proxy form approved by the Board in accordance with the Company’s Constitution as issued by the Company with the AGM Notice of Meeting and in the interests of giving all Members the opportunity to vote.

 

Perhaps the "Reform" group were collecting Proxy votes like a petition.  Only someone at the meeting would know, if they saw them.  It also appears a knee-jerk reaction to then call for the "sacking" of the Chair.  This motion was found to be Not Valid.  I could not find any "No Confidence" provision in the RAAus Constitution.  He is nominated by the Board and elected by the members.  I would be very disappointed if I was not allowed a vote on dismissing a Board member, particularly one who had been returned with a majority of votes, and not found guilty of doing anything wrong.

[facthunter]

It's common practice to move a motion to disagree with the chairman's (president)  RULING and It's just debated and voted on like any other and you  carry on. A vote of no confidence is not a lot different but the POSITION of the committee  would be to take the best way of doing it's job and elect another person who they do have confidence in perhaps only till a new election is held to give that committee the members ( rank and file) a chance to be heard . It must be recognised that being unable to work with the chief is a problem and there has to be a way through to continue functioning. In those circumstances the "Public Officer" has functions of process and communication to perform.  IF the Chairman ruled it Out of Order  you'd apply my line one.  You can't have a chairman over ruling the committee. Nev

Edited December 22, 2023 by facthunter
clarity

[turboplanner]

59 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It's common practice to move a motion to disagree with the chairman's (president)  RULING and It's just debated and voted on like any other and you  carry on. A vote of no confidence is not a lot different but the POSITION of the committee  would be to take the best way of doing it's job and elect another person who they do have confidence in perhaps only till a new election is held to give that committee the members ( rank and file) a chance to be heard . It must be recognised that being unable to work with the chief is a problem and there has to be a way through to continue functioning. In those circumstances the "Public Officer" has functions of process and communication to perform.  IF the Chairman ruled it Out of Order  you'd apply my line one.  You can't have a chairman over ruling the committee. Nev

What counts is whether the Constitution of Recreational Aviation Australia Limited has a procedure for a No Confidence vote (or Sanction with the same effect), and a Natural Justice appeal procedure. If it doesn't it's not legal anyway.

Edited December 22, 2023 by turboplanner

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, FlyingVizsla said:

Qld's Office of Fair Trading wasn't interested in the workings of Clubs, such that clubs I was a member of complained to them that someone was depleting the funds, not seeking approval, misappropriating assets, ignoring the Constitution etc, etc and they said "see a solicitor".  The only issue they took interest in was an accusation that an office bearer was a undischarged bankrupt (he wasn't). 

From about the mid 1980s when there was a meeting of State and Territory Ministers who decided they were sacrificial goats when it came to lawsuits they all offloaded legislation where they were responsible for governance (such as sending Inspectors around checking factories to ensure their lifting gear was safe etc) and handed day to day management decisions and risk liability over to the participants. So what you are describing there is the result. In Victoria the Secretary of one club was using funds to buy household appliances so the club reported her to police who then took action. In other cases injured parties sued Associations which very quickly obtained Public Liability Insurance.

 

Ws discussed this extensively here about ten years ago.

 

2 hours ago, FlyingVizsla said:

 

The Legislation has changed, to put more responsibility on Clubs to settle disputes.  The threshold for auditing has also been raised to about $200k.  I'ld like a dollar for every time someone said "The Auditor will pick that up" meaning the President buying the mower for the Club from his bro-in-law; in reality the Auditor is matching invoice with cheque, with bank statement only.  The Club has to sort out How, Who, Where, What. 

Same for all State and Territory Associations. Governments stepped out of it; You fly, you pay.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, FlyingVizsla said:

The news from the RAAus AGM

 

This Resolution was WITHDRAWN by the Board due to the concern by the Board in relation to the validity of some of the proxy forms received in a manner that was not fair and reasonable or consistent with the prescribed proxy form approved by the Board in accordance with the Company’s Constitution as issued by the Company with the AGM Notice of Meeting and in the interests of giving all Members the opportunity to vote.

 

Perhaps the "Reform" group were collecting Proxy votes like a petition.  Only someone at the meeting would know, if they saw them.  It also appears a knee-jerk reaction to then call for the "sacking" of the Chair.  This motion was found to be Not Valid.  I could not find any "No Confidence" provision in the RAAus Constitution.  He is nominated by the Board and elected by the members.  I would be very disappointed if I was not allowed a vote on dismissing a Board member, particularly one who had been returned with a majority of votes, and not found guilty of doing anything wrong.

If it's not in the Constitution you can't use it.

A kindergarten committee; 1 member a frustrated Hitler, the rest all women was having trouble with the Hitler acting unilaterally against Council staff and the other members which saw them coming home in tears. His decisions existed to measuring out detergent the cleaners were allowed to use and abusing the Lollypop woman on the road crossing, so I went to the next meeting, offered to volunteer as a Kindergaten Committee Member,  was voted in, moved a resolution to toughen up the Constitution including a No Confidence clause. The Hitler guy seconded the Motion, it was passed, and I moved a Motion of No Confidence in him and he was out. He appealed to the Council, and the Council took advice and found the dismissal was lawful and the Commitee and Council employees got back to work without the stresses. You can see the key thing in that sequence was to lawfully build a No Confidence clause into the Constitution. In that case, the Members did it.

[kgwilson]

As RA-Aus changed from an Incorporated Association to a Limited Liability Company a few years back I assume it is governed by ACT Companies legislation. The discussion here seems to relate to incorporated associations and of course each State has its own legislation and rules vary. I assume this also applies regarding Companies legislation.

Edited December 22, 2023 by kgwilson

[facthunter]

Usually the chairperson only gets a vote when it's tied and if you  want to address the meeting on the topic in question you appoint a temporary person to the "chair" position. These rule's all make sense if you use and understand them.  Nev

[turboplanner]

27 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Usually the chairperson only gets a vote when it's tied and if you  want to address the meeting on the topic in question you appoint a temporary person to the "chair" position. These rule's all make sense if you use and understand them.  Nev

One of the cases Flying Visla has been referring to  is a Club or Incorporated Association under Queensland regulations. In the Other Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated, so the procedures that count are either in their constitutions or not. If they're not then hopefully the people invoved will learn to either campaign to amend the constitutions, or learn from the incident they are alleging.

[coljones]

corporations - I think that it all boils down to - if the organisation couldn't run a chook raffle - that your problem for being involved - but there is sure to be a lawyer out there prepared to take your cash if you want to have a fight.

[turboplanner]

6 minutes ago, coljones said:

corporations - I think that it all boils down to - if the organisation couldn't run a chook raffle - that your problem for being involved - but there is sure to be a lawyer out there prepared to take your cash if you want to have a fight.

Well yes, you can just sit back and take it if they can't run a chook raffle or you can step forward, find out what happened, check that against the relevant constitution, and if necessary get rid of the chooks. 

[kgwilson]

35 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

One of the cases Flying Visla has been referring to  is a Club or Incorporated Association under Queensland regulations. In the Other Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated, so the procedures that count are either in their constitutions or not. If they're not then hopefully the people invoved will learn to either campaign to amend the constitutions, or learn from the incident they are alleging.

Recreational Aviation Incorporated does not exist. It is Recreational Aviation Australia Limited and has been since 2016.

 

https://raaus.com.au/about/

[turboplanner]

8 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

Recreational Aviation Incorporated does not exist. It is Recreational Aviation Australia Limited and has been since 2016.

 

https://raaus.com.au/about/

Sorry, typing too fast; Recreational Aviation Australia Limited.