coljones

I was going to mention the Roman, Irish, Angle, Saxon, Jute, Frisian and Norman invasions but I won't

Irrespective of the form of the company the concept of mutuality and membership control can be vested by the rules. Just because NRMA (and like state RACs) and mutual health funds have been turned into narrow little nepotistic regimes doesn't mean that RAA has to go the same way. In fact NRMA actually believes in regional representation.

The board meetings, under the rules, are open to members unless, for a small period, they are closed to examine a narrow range of interests. "Commercial in Confidence" is more an excuse to hide the truth than a fair tool of business in a democratic society. Right up there with "National Security", "Operational Matters" and "Cabinet Confidentiality". I urge all those attending the AGM to hang around and hear the Board meeting.

Below are the voting results for the recent election: NSW Don Ramsay 284 votes Barry Wrenford 95 votes Informal votes 4 SA Barry Windle 112 votes Jim McDowall 85 votes Informal votes 2 There were 29 invalid votes A goodly turnout and thanks to all who continue to make democracy possible (although I do worry about the other 2700 odd in NSW who didn't vote)

looks good!

It is 1.18am on saturday morning and still no result- obviously the ban on overtime is working

And in the case of previous some CEOs, Execs and Boards - rocket scientists they weren't.

We actually need a constitutional and governance schema first so that the constitutional drafting committee can prepare models for the board and rank and file. There appears to be a strong push from some sectors for a reduction in the board, an easier method of constitutional change such as postal ballots. There is also the issue of incorporation method such as via an incorporated association model (which state has the best process eg ACT Law does not permit postal ballots for rules changes) and whether ASIC provides a better model. As far as I can see none of the proponents for change have elucidated on any of these scenarios except saying "IMHO ...." and let the lawyers sort it out. Clearly not enough thought has been expended on the fundamentals to even consider any change at the moment.

Yet the rules around RAA imply conscripted membership. No ticket - no start.

Most of the extinction is financial - miserable banks, lousy or nonexistent business plans, government fiscal and monetary policies (reserve some income for paying taxes and other bills) and the worst of the lot, aviators who don't pay bills when due and payable. Some aviators think that the rest of the industry owes them a living. It wasn't DCA who did the damage to GA. Vale, Peel Valley Air Services - died of starvation in 1961.

Most of the extinction is financial - miserable banks, lousy or nonexistent business plans, government fiscal and monetary policies (reserve some income for paying taxes and other bills) and the worst of the lot, aviators who don't pay bills when due and payable. Some aviators think that the rest of the industry owes them a living. It wasn't DCA who did the damage to GA. Vale, Peel Valley Air Services - died of starvation in 1961.

Voting finishes on the 28th @Fyshwick. For NSW and SA reps.

Voting finishes on the 28th @Fyshwick. For NSW and SA reps.

Interesting. Who went to Curtis? Which Dave are you talking about? Does Curtis do RAA Training? I can't see it on their website

Interesting. Who went to Curtis? Which Dave are you talking about? Does Curtis do RAA Training? I can't see it on their website

Before RPL there was a misbegotten beast called GFPT which essentially allowed one do do what an RPL now permits. There were few (one?) in the Sydney basin that did both RPC and PPL (inc GFPT) and I donøt think that has changed except that the RPL has replaced the GFPT. There is probably a bit more encouragement for the RPL because it offers incremental endorsements that offer greater freedoms. Personally I would recommend Dave's Flying School and the Sydney Recreational Flying Club at The Oaks for RAA training leading to an RPC or for PPL/RPL I would recommend Schofields Flying Club at Bankstown. All 3 organisations have excellent instructors.

Before RPL there was a misbegotten beast called GFPT which essentially allowed one do do what an RPL now permits. There were few (one?) in the Sydney basin that did both RPC and PPL (inc GFPT) and I donøt think that has changed except that the RPL has replaced the GFPT. There is probably a bit more encouragement for the RPL because it offers incremental endorsements that offer greater freedoms. Personally I would recommend Dave's Flying School and the Sydney Recreational Flying Club at The Oaks for RAA training leading to an RPC or for PPL/RPL I would recommend Schofields Flying Club at Bankstown. All 3 organisations have excellent instructors.

They could get rid of the bloody football stadium and reinstate Broadmeadow.

They could get rid of the bloody football stadium and reinstate Broadmeadow.

The Sydney Jab School acting CFI is Anthony Coleiro and I understand that the Jabs are being flown out of Camden. Anthony can be contacted on 0427 213 030. If that doesn't work you could try Dave Rolfe at The Oaks on 0414 740 766. Dave's is a Jabiru House and he has a satellite school at Wollongong Airfield or for Foxbats, also at The Oaks try Sydney Recreational Flying Club on http://www.srfc.org.au/

The Sydney Jab School acting CFI is Anthony Coleiro and I understand that the Jabs are being flown out of Camden. Anthony can be contacted on 0427 213 030. If that doesn't work you could try Dave Rolfe at The Oaks on 0414 740 766. Dave's is a Jabiru House and he has a satellite school at Wollongong Airfield or for Foxbats, also at The Oaks try Sydney Recreational Flying Club on http://www.srfc.org.au/

It all depends on your business model. The advertising pays for the editorial stuff, the pre-print material and layouts - just like the electronic copy. The $400,000 paid for the printing and distribution - $40 a year per head - what a bargain. The magazine was never losing money and depending on the funding model used - let's say $6 value a copy printed and posted - meant that RAA was making a cool $260,000 notional profit on the magazine each year. Of course scrapping the magazine meant that the magazine notional profit increased to $400,000. At least Honest John and Big Pete gave us some of our taxes back (too bad about the revenue base though). If we didn't have the advertisers that part of the revenue would go down, potentially requiring a subsidy from RAA which would cut into that notional $400,000 magazine profit.

Camel suggested that he had asked the right questions via FoI and got some right questions. It appears that RAA hasn't pursued the FoI route, asked the right questions of the wrong people and got fobbed off. FoI does work quite a lot of the time, which is why pollies are getting cunning and claiming Cabinet paper, working paper, never wrote it down, commercial in confidence or some such.

And as I recall, CASA was taken to the AAT who ordered a change in how CASA AVMED handled diabetes.

Democracy can be a bitch can't it. Based on other elections, you can in on year be dished up a pile of drongos, deadbeats and d1ckheads and in another election a dream team. The difficulty with a seven member board is that in a bad year you don't have the other 6 (in a 13 member board) picking up the slack. If we could asses the amount of work to be done divided by the effort reasonably provide by a good director. You would arrive at the size of a good board. Double that for the vagaries of democracy and you have the unique size of a FAQ board. Too strong and they harass the CEO, too weak and the CEO becomes the puppet master. Corporate boards work, not because of democracy, but through nepotism and patronage, where cliques has control over a large bundle of shares, usually trustee companies and superfunds associated with the current board and a swag of proxies controlled by the chair. Or in the case of NewsCorp by a division between A shares and nonvoting B shares. But don't expect Corporate Boards to be pure and lilywhite as they are just as likely to be of the opinion that what is good for the company and board is good for the shareholders and staff. One can tinker with the voting system all you like but the major game changer is not the size of the board or its mode of election but the degree of transparency about board activity and director and candidate quality.