Evening Gentlemen and of course Ladies if present.
I'm generally not one for supporting the potentially destructive functions that forums can have but I do read and watch to see what is happening and I feel compelled to make a number of comments at this time.
Having had significant experience in the executive management of Not For Profit organisations and consultancy in business structure and development, I am dissapointed to see a familiar pattern developing with our governing body that is not healthy for its own existance, its staff and certainly its membership at large. If what I am reading and and hearing is correct then there needs to be some serious consideration given to how the whole deal operates for the future.
Whether we like it or not RAAus is a 'business' and the elected directors have a duty of care to ensure that the organisation is conducted properly in all areas. This does not mean that the directors should manage the organisation from the board table. Their role is oversight and policy development and the day to day management of the 'business' is the role of a competetent CEO/General Manager (or whatever label you want to attach) who is a business manager in every sense and has no conflicts of interest percieved or otherwise. In many cases recruiting a person from outside the industry is a better option as they are clean and fresh.
Too many organisations feel the need to reinvent the wheel and not take advantage of successful models that are already in place. I hate comparisons with the US but EAA IS a successful model and many parts of it would certainly be adaptable and applicable to RAAus.
An organisation needs to have a relevant mission statement, a 'business' plan which outlines short, medium and long term goals and objectives and in our case due recognition and promotion of all facets of the industry - its an old cliche but hell its true, if you fail to plan you plan to fail!
Apologies if I offend anyone with my following comments but please take them as constructive and not personal attacks. I guess I will be tarred and feathered by some but lets look at the issues clinically.
To many individuals, the election and appointment as a director of a not for profit organisation is seen as a position of status and power - somewhat like a CFI needing to wear four bar epaulets to prove who they are or a veterinarian having the need to call themselves doctor. It is also seen as the opportunity to go to town a clean up a mess - actual or percieved. Many people have agendas, generally short term personal ones and not necessarily progressive or visionary for the organisation.
In many cases those who seek election are highly passionate and well intentioned for which they should be acknowledged but they may not have the business maturity and acument to fulfill their role which sees them at a disadvantage. Simply, the appointment as a director is an appointment to a lot of damned hard work for no return other than the satisfaction of playing a part in success and growth or the pain of ridicule in the case of membership rejection.
There are a number of areas in whic RAAus as an organisation has to step up to the plate and some of these are being addressed but certainly well overdue - the magazine is one but the main areas that need the most attention right now is corporate professionalism and efficiency for the sake of members and newcomers to the industry.
I'm happy to expand any comments that I have made and again, please do not take them as derogaotory or personal attack, they are more to motivate discussion on the bigger picture.
Sincerely
Hunter Jones
RAAus 019706