TK58

Rod is being somewhat disingenuous here. He knows very well that Board member contact details are published in Sport Pilot.

I'm sure if RAAus came up with a way to provide free aircraft to everyone with no strings attached there would still be people on this forum complaining about what a lousy job RAAus was doing. The Tech Manual is out for member consultation NOW. The 6 month phase in period is the time for members to digest the manual and let RAAus know what works and what doesn't. At the end of the 6 months if changes are required they will be made. So don't just have a whinge on here. Write your concerns or suggestions for improvement down and send them in. In regard to stage inspections, they are required by SAAA as well (so it's incorrect that they've been abolished in GA) and they are not that onerous. All that's required is to get another person with a L1 (i.e. an RAAus owner/maintainer authority) to look over the work. It is NOT a requirement to get an Amateur Built Inspector to do stage inspections. Is anyone seriously suggesting that a first time builder getting all the way to final inspection without anyone else having looked over their work at various points is a safe approach to amateur building? Very few people would actually do that. Nearly everyone would be showing it to their mates as the build progresses. All that's required is for one of those mates to have an L1 ( or higher) and the requirement's been met. As for Frank's concers in relation to instrument calibration, the requirements haven't changed. All that's changed is the new Tech Manual is much clearer about what the requirements are. Is it perfect? Of course not, there will always be room for improvement. But improvement will only come from members providing constructive feedback to RAAus, not just having a whinge with their mates.

RAAus's position on giving out members' details is driven by the collective wishes of the members (who by and large don't want their details disclosed) and the requirements of the Privacy Act (which says that personal information may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose(s) disclosed at the time the information was collected except in response to a lawful request from an authority - for example CASA or a coroner, or if the person concerned gives explicit permission). RAAus believes members should pay landing fees and any other charges they may incur. However providing contact details to airfield operators in order to facilitate debt collection is not part of the role of RAAus and members repeatedly indicate they don't want their details made available. Having said that, Part 149 will require the RAAus aircraft register (and HGFA and ASRA, etc.) to be public the same as the VH register. So change is coming.

In response to a few points raised in this thread over the past few days: There are two factors behind the drop in member numbers. A couple of years ago we stopped including non-flying members in the count. That reduced the count by about 700 as I recall. Secondly, we have seen a steady decline over recent years of about 300 per year. The reasons for this are uncertain however it's probably safe to say some of our major issues of the not so distant past (e.g. registration debacle) and the economy are both factors. Addressing this decline is a focus of both the Board and the CEO. Member numbers have not been kept secret - they've been reported at every General Meeting I've attended and discussed at every Board meeting. RAAus has never had a marketing strategy until now. At its meeting last weekend the Board approved a marketing budget and strategy designed to arrest the decline in membership and promote growth. This is something the CEO indicated he wanted to pursue when framing the budget for the current year (this time last year) however the Board made a decision to focus on the major changes already in progress including the systems modernisation project, the new Tech Manual and the updated Ops Manual. Now that those projects have come to fruition we now have the capacity and the foundation to pursue growth. As Andy has pointed out, we don't have the resources to run with every good idea all at once. RAAus does not restrict free speech. Members are free to hold whatever opinions they wish and to express them wherever and whenever they wish. They are also free to agitate against the decisions and directions of RAAus if they wish. However when dissent turns to misrepresentation or personal abuse a line will be drawn. One of the key responsibilities of the Board, the CEO and all the staff is to protect and enhance the RAAus brand. That should be something the members want as well. It's a brand that's taken a beating in the past, perhaps fairly so, and I have no doubt that underlies at least some of the membership decline. Part of protecting the RAAus brand is to address misinformation and misrepresentation. Don't be holding your breath waiting for anyone from RAAus to apologise for that. Three Board members voted against the SR to adopt a new constitution and form of incorporation, not six as some have claimed. No Board member voted against anything to do with the new Constitution in any Board discussions prior to the General Meeting. We are not starting a new organisation. We are changing the form of incorporation of our existing organisation which will remain and prosper. All the contracts, liabilities, members, staff, obligations and assets of RAAus remain unchanged. It is true that members are now exposed to a downside risk of $1 each should the organisation ever be wound up. But think about this; how likely is it that the organisation will ever be wound up and, if it was, how likely that an administrator or liquidator would spend the money necessary to pursue every member for $1? The cost of calling in the guarantee would far outweigh the amount that would be recovered so it won't happen. It's true that the organisation will be overseen by myself and two others until we have an AGM later this year. So what's changed? Mick Monck, Don Ramsay and I have been overseeing the organisation since the October Board meeting last year. Prior to that it was Mick, Jim Tatlock and me since the May Board meeting last year and so on going back. There's nothing new in the Executive overseeing the organisation between Board meetings - that's what the current constitution mandates and that's why this was chosen as the transition strategy. What is new is that for the past 2 or 3 years the Executive has actually been paying attention and doing the job with diligence. That will continue. As will a spirit of openness and transparency. There are some things that must remain confidential, however if you want to know something ask any of us. If we can't tell you for reasons of confidentiality, we'll at least give you an honest explanation why. Criticism of the President and CEO travelling to flyins and other gatherings to meet with members has been unfairly characterised as campaigning for a YES vote at last weeks's General Meeting. They've been attending flyins since the decision was made to not hold NatFly in 2016 - long before the new constitution was drafted. NatFly was a valuable opportunity for the staff, CEO and President to meet with members. But it was only once per year and support for the event was declining. The current approach has given several times more members the opportunity to meet face to face with the leaders of our organisation. What will the criticism be going forward now that the 'campaigning for a new constitution' has ended?

I have seen both sides of the correspondence in question. There was definitely no request or requirement for secrecy so far as RAAus is concerned.

Kasper, be careful accusing me of dishonesty.

Don has already addressed this in post #236. The directors elected later this year will take up their seats as soon as the election is declared - the same as Frank Marriott did after the by-election for NQ earlier this year.

Rhys, the plan at present is to hold a General Meeting of RAAus Ltd later this year (probably October) at which the final annual reports of RAAus Inc will be presented. Note it will not be an AGM of RAAus Ltd because there won't be any annual reports for that entity at that time, and it can't be an AGM of RAAus Inc because that entity will probably have been wound up by that time.

Setting aside that you've contracicted yourself in the first paragraph, your basic argument seems to be that we should have set this whole thing up with an immediate board headcount of seven? You're entitled to that opinion, as are others who share it. Personally I'm not opposed to having a Board of seven and, as far as I know, neither is anyone else involved in this process. But whatever the number it needs to be soundly based on a rationale that benefits the organisation. It's not sufficient to just say "because Ian Baker and others think that's a good number". How does it benefit RAAus to have a Board of seven rather than say five? What downsides might there be? Do the benefits outweigh the downsides? The decision was made that the new Board should have the opportunity to consider that and act accordingly. And there has to be a transitional arrangement. The approach that's been adopted is to have the Executive of the day (which is elected by the Board) be the initial directors and require them to hold an election to increase the numbers as soon as practicable and not longer than 6 months after incorporation. It's certainly true that other approaches could have been taken. It's also likely sections of the membership would have objected to those as well.

Ian, the fact that RAAus is presently an Incorporated Assosication does NOT mean we are not governed by the Corporations Act, we are. We are in fact presently governed by both the Incorporated Associations Act (ACT) and the Corporations Act (Cth), which is why we have to report to both the ACT and the Commonwealth regulators. We are listening, but what I'm hearing is that you want us to take advice from people who clearly don't understand the relevant law over that of the legal experts who have been working on this for over a year? Am I hearing you right? As to the argument about numbers, once again you clearly do not understand the new constitution. Members do have a right to have seven directors if the members decide that's the magic number.

That's just nonsense. The Board minutes have been published promptly after each meeting and are available online at https://members.raa.asn.au/governance/the-board/meeting-minutes/. Likewise any resolutions that have been passed between meetings. The Board also has not held an in camera session for at least the past 2 meetings, so there's nothing that was on the agenda that's not in the minutes. And unlike times past, the voting record is published for each resolution. Any member can attend Board meetings as observers. Typical attendance by members ranges from zero to one. I'm guessing you are not the one person who turned up last time.

The numbers on the board should be driven by the needs of the organisation, and the key question is what would RAAus gain from a 7 member board that it couldn't get from a 5 member board? A follow on question is are the benefits worth more than the costs? There are both advantages and disadvantages to any particular number. Even numbers are gererally avoided due to an increased likelihood of deadlock, although that's not an insurmountable problem. The larger the number the less effective a group is at making decisions and the more it costs to convene meetings, the smaller the number the more likely a clique could hijack the agenda. The actual number can be set by the Board or the members can pass a special resolution at a general meeting to set a particular number. The Board has no power to remove or not accept a person voted as a director by the members - only the members can appoint and remove directors with the one exception being that the Board can appoint someone to fill a casual vacancy until the next General Meeting.

What an outstanding demonstration of the fact that some people are entirely resistant to facts and logic. Where is your evidence that behind the scenes unilateral decisions have happened in recent times? I'm certainly not aware of any. What is the basis for your suggestion that the Board is not operating transparently? Is it because we haven't published transcripts of every discussion? Perhaps you've forgotten what it was like a few years ago when the minutes of Board meetings were published months after the meeting (if at all) and the organisation's financial reporting to members consisted of nothing more than a couple of photocopied pages handed out at a general meeting with no explanation? Had you ever seen a strategic plan from RAAus before last year? You'll be pleased to know (if you care to read the document) that there's no three person executive in the new constitution. In response to your suggestion that there's been a lack of openness and transparency in relation to the changes to the constitution I can only conclude you've been asleep for the past 18 months.

Ian, what is the factual basis for your claim that RAAus does not utilise this site as a source of member opinion? As I said earlier, we do. We just don't treat it as the only source.

Ian, are you suggesting that unanimous support is required before this thing can be put to a vote? That anyone's ill-informed (or even well informed) opinion should be allowed to derail the process? As in most aspects of life, it's important not to let perfect become the enemy of good here.