JohnMcK

Hi Ian, I am having trouble here with one hand in the hospital. Can you please correct the typo. It should be Censure. The system won't let me edit the mistake. I intend no further action on this matter. John McK

Hi all I have proposed the following Censor motion against RA-Aus President Ed Herring Motion. - RA-Aus President Ed Herring is to be censored for his recent action in unilaterally, and without any involvement of the full board, and total disregard for our Constitution and rules, made a new salaried staff position, and committed the Association to an un-budgeted financial commitment that he, or the Executive had no power to make. Further, against good judgement and perceived nepotism he appointed the previous Treasurer to the new position. Moved: John McKeown Seconded: Jim Tatlock We all belong as individual members of RA-Aus. We are, or are suppose to be a democratic body with elected regional representatives. I am one such elected Director, or Board Member, representing the members in SE Qld. I have put in my past election statements that I stand for Honesty, Openness, Transparency, and ACCOUNTABILITY. Sadly this once great Association has been brought to its knees over the last few years, and there is no doubt in my mind of the cause. The cause, was and continues to be that attitude displayed above, together with excessive secrecy. There are some who will be violently opposed to me for informing the general membership what they have a right to know. They will use the term "dirty linen", "wrong timing", and "not with CASA watching" to cement their argument. They may very well be right, but I must call it as I personally see it. But to me you can only do bad things in secret. Openness and honesty provides the much needed checks and balance required by society. It is with great distress that I find myself writing this at a time we most need stability, but to do nothing now, will only create far worse issues for us later. Below is an edited post I have made on the RA-Aus Board Forum in support of that motion. "Hi All, First my apologies for the delay with this. After a recent boating accident I find myself in a Turkish Hospital partly paralysed down my left side and until now I only had email access and no web access on my mini iPad. I proposed this motion as this was no "error of judgement" that all of us make from time to time, but a considered, blatant and wilful violation of our Constitution and rules. Ed was advised by Rod and others, I believe, to do it properly. This could have been easily done with an emergency vote on the matter. Only a simple majority was needed and it could have been done in a day or so. As for the appointment itself, this also could have been done in a day as a temporary or interim appointment. There is also no need now, or in the future, as Ed has stated, to to go through the long and costly service of an employment service for the employment of our Managers. Only the CEO appointment needs this more formal process. Ed has stated that we all must agree to do it "His Was". This is Dictator stuff, and our rules and constitution just do not allow for this to occur legally. If all of you want to be "yes" men and rubber stamp everything the new President asks or demands, that is OK by me, provided you follow our Constitution and rules and vote formally and correctly, even if you all just tick yes as demanded. I would also have no issue with a one person "Elected Dictator" running RA-Aus, provided the Constitution was changed by the Membership to reflect this in a formal and legal manner. Let us not forget, that our current problems can be traced back to similar actions by former President Reid and his executive, where out of expediency and nepotism, they appointed a totally inappropriate person to the position of our CEO without prior Board consultation or approval. ST is a lovely guy, and I understand he is highly qualified in Ops, but he was an absolute disaster for us as our CEO. Couple this with the secrecy and and lack of information to the Board from the Reid and Runciman executive where they ran the show with a minimum of full Board involvement or dissemination of information. (As an example, Reid and Cabin ran the show for some two years without an approved budget, and for the life of me I can not comprehend how the Board under Runciman were not informed by the Ex for a full five days about our fourth audit failure, and the CASA withdrawal of registration authority. To say nothing of our staff being told to lie to the members about our registration issues) Might I remind you gentlemen, that we are a democratic aviation association, and each of us is elected, or should be, to represent the interests of the members of our particular region, and we are individually responsible to the members in our region. If you so choose to be total "yes" men to the President of the day because he demands it, then you should say so in your election statement. But this matter goes well beyond that. As I have stated previously this action was a considered and a blatant violation of our Constitution and our rules. A society, Association or even a Country has rules that must be abided by or you have anarchy. If the rules are restrictive, or stupid then change them. I also acknowledge that all things in life are not black and white, and there are many shades of grey. But in my moral code there are some things to me that are pure black and white. When this occurs I feel duty bound to speak out. This action by President Herring is one such an occasion. His action cannot be condoned or let slide. A censor motion must be actioned Ed has stated if he doesn't get his way he will resign from all positions. My view is never give in to threats of this nature. If that is his choice, then so be it. We have some capable people on the Board who could see us through on a temporary basis until September. As I said previously, if the Memberships wants one man rule, I will support it, but currently we have an elected Board that is paramount, and it is not only there by Constitutional rule but to also to provide checks and balance to the Executive actions. My other concern is this attitude of Ed's shows "form" I feel this will not be the end of Ed ignoring or defying our rules to get things done "his way", and I believe we will see more of this from him in the future, if we do nothing now.(To curb this tendency) Also remember it was Ed, who was the prime mover for the massive pay increase to our past (non performing) CEO, and he also pushed for, and achieved large increases in salaries to the Managers, (perhaps deserved) but without any trade off's in efficiencies whatsoever. It was also Ed who was charged to look into a problem, which directly relates to this current matter. What has been done? (Note. In Ed's defence here there appeared more pressing issues at the time, and our accidents hadn't spiked at the time) Even if this new position was so critically important to CASA at this very moment, Ed could have told CASA he will immediately recommend an urgent Board vote, and proceed lawfully. Ungerman, being a past CEO knows RA-Aus procedure and would accept this. My view is it is a bureaucratic move by CASA on us, using our recent spike in accidents, without any evidence to the contrary. The average Government bureaucrat tends to empire building, and using the "Safety" or "national security" word seems to be able to achieve these goals with no checks or balance. (Look at the Iraq War) My personal attitude would have been to be totally open with CASA and show them the causes of the recent fatalities. It may just be a statistical spike, as the information I have to hand would suggest, or it may be from some deep underling problem we have. Whatever the cause, we must be totally open, honest and transparent to CASA and our Members about our accidents. I would have asked CASA to come in and show us where we were going wrong, and get them to recommend a course of action. If they said "Training Manager" (Actual part Ops Job) then I would tell them we just can not afford the added expense of a special Training Manager at this time, but could when we resolve our other problems. I would ask them to allow us more access to their current training staff. Many of our clubs are currently doing this. If told we must have our own person right now, I would ask for full CASA funding. Alternatively, if this was denied I would go political. I would go to the Director the Government, the Opposition and the media and show what we are achieving with a pittance from CASA, (around $100K /year) and when we need this vital "safety" facility CASA will not fund it or allow us more access to their safety person, and I would make it known they are even withdrawing the level funding from us at a critical financial time for us. (Because we have failed to meet the requirements of the Deed of Agreement. And they are totally correct. We have failed here dismally. I also really believe, that Lee and the Director do not want us to fail and would come on side if put our problems and issues to them in an open and honest way. I would also ask them to cut us some slack on the Rego issue and allow us far more access, or funding for the safety issue. But full honesty and openness must occur, and I believe the Direcor would not condone the violation of the Associations as has been recently done ) As for the person selected, Myles might be the most perfect person. I am not qualified, nor do I have enough information at this time to comment. But I will make this one statement. There is an old saying that goes something like this. "The right course of action must not only be done, but it must be SEEN or PERCEIVED to be done". Myles appointment, where as an Executive Member, he was fully involved in the discussion and approval, of a decision to have a new Staff position created, and one where he was to be personally given this unadvertised and paid RA-Aus staff appointment, shows a gross lack of judgement on Myles part, and it will be seen and perceived by the Membership to be pure NEPOTISM, Sadly, I don't see this motion being passed, But in conscience I must move the motion and vote for it. John McKeown" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx All RA-Aus members have been really let down by the the Board as a whole in recent times. I have personally witnessed members suffering verbal and written abuse and good people being bullied into resigning or retiring from the Board. This is totally unacceptable. But I must remind all of you, as I have been saying for some years now, that final accountability for this Association lies with YOU. - Yes, You, the general Member. You must take an interest in your association and stop this member apathy where half the Board are not even elected. (Because no one could bother to nominate) You must also demand honesty , transparency, and above all accountability of your elected member. You must demand to see the Board minutes which is where the main business of your Association is carried out, and demand to know how your representative voted on important matters. Those of you who are capable must put up your hand for a Board position and give something back to the Association that has given us all so much. The attitude of "I am not interested in the politics, I just want to go flying" is the real cause of our current mess. Lastly, I say to those who do get elected to the Board, do the right thing by the Members who voted you in, and apart from serious health or financial issues, see out your term. You must never, never, ever, ever, resign if all does not go your way (it never will) and never resign from bullying or intimidation. That is the best way to allow a dark side to win. John McKeown

Hi All, Thanks for the feedback. I will let this one go. There are other more important issues to concentrate on at the moment. John McK

Hi All, I was asked by a well respected member to bring a proposal to the Board to set up a fund that would make an immediate small payment (say, $500) to Next of Kin to help with out of pocket expenses after a fatal. We currently average around 6 fatals a year. Well such a simple request got complicated, and I told the Board I would take it away for discussion. What name will you call the fund? Do we fund it from an RAA grant, or from member donations like GIFTS? Will a payment from RAA be seen as admission of guilt? etc, etc. Guys may I please have some feedback. What do you think of the idea for a start? If a positive answer, what form do you feel it should it take? Thanks, John McK

Hi All Just a quick post to clear up some misconception, like post 58 "But so far I don't share the enthusiasm of some. It seems that our Board were still playing secretive games as mentioned by Admin:- " "unofficial" Committee meetings were held just prior to the meeting and 3 Committee Members were purposely precluded..." so I, for one, don't see any likelihood of the necessary changes actually coming to pass. For my money, that one act has shown that our Board intend to do 'business as usual'. No Board members were "purposely precluded" from a Board meeting. There was a meeting on the Friday, but it was not an official Board meeting. All the Board were invited to attend. I chose not to attend. On a positive note. The first day of the Board meeting was very positive. John McK

Guys, there are some silly statements here. Please ask if you don't know. This matter has been discussed on this forum in other threads in the past. I don't know if Ian has a search engine that can bring this past info up, but it would be great to have. Now adding to John Gardon's info. ATSB "own" most accidents in Australia, not just Aviation. They also own "marine and railways" to list another two. Now due to budget constraints they pick and choose which accidents they can investigate on a cost benefit basis. If the accident was unusual, had a new safety matter, or was of political concern, ATSB will investigate themselves and issue a very prompt preliminary report. If ATSB choose not to investigate, the accident falls to the State Police. RA-Aus have a number of trained volunteer accident investigators who are available to assist the police in this matter. The key word here is assist. The police may choose to use RAA investigators, or they may choose not to use them. The choice is theirs, not ours. If our investigators are asked to become involved all information gained goes to the police and eventually to a Coronal Inquiry. If we find important safety matters, we can, and do, issue safety alerts to affected persons without naming the root cause. We cannot issue any accident reports. That can only come from the Police and the Court. Since being on the Board, I have found this matter lacking and have made it a pet project to get our Accident Investigators back under the umbrella of ATSB. In September 2011 I had informal discussions with the Director of ATSB in Canberra about this happening. He told me it could be possible, and there was a small window of opportunity. I formally brought this matter up to the Board as an item on notice at the Feb 2012 Board meeting. (Item 12.2) I gained approval for this matter to proceed. Discussion was to be actioned by CEO Tizzard, Ops Manager Tully, and Secretary Middelton. To the best of my knowledge, only an introductory letter has been sent to ATSB. As in all things in life, there has to be a will to make things happen and you need the support of the majority. Others do not see this matter as important as I do. - Now, in the interest of balance, I do not see some projects of others as important as they do. John McK

Alarm Bells did go off Turbo, but no one listened. I was Treasurer at the time, but only served one year due to large philosophical differences to the then President and Secretary. (No association wants discord in the Ex.) I made a great effort at the time to bring this matter to the attention of the membership. But in the end it is up to the General Membership to set the direction they want their Association to follow. Any business must look at its cost per unit. In our case the unit is the member. So we must look at the cost per unit member. This should always be fairly static, or even decrease slightly with member increase, as the fixed cost component of our business, is spread wider. One issue I always look at is the employee cost per member. This is the most important number of all. Many a great business has been brought down by employee costs getting out of control. And it is not just a business that can be brought down. Nations or states will be bankrupted by excessive public employee costs on the nation. We, as taxpayers should also be very concerned at the cost of Government per individual citizen. But back to the issue at hand. The employee costs per unit member, instead of remaining static, have exploded over the past few years. I think some of us have the mentality of spend, spend, spend, and then increase member fees to pay for the excessive spending. (Just like our Government) Treasurer’s Special Report to the members at the 2009 AGM November 2009 special AGM This is a special update report I would like to bring up to the membership. I am concerned that the rate of increase in Employee Expenses is unsustainable. Our mission statement says “Minimum Bureaucracy” yet in the last two years we have allowed a significant increase in bureaucracy to occur, without a similar corresponding increase in our membership. I must state here that some of this increase in bureaucracy has been forced on us by CASA, but the majority appears to be of our making. In Fiscal 08 our employee expenses were $508,729. In Fiscal 09 these costs jumped to $651,410, and in Fiscal 10 they are estimated to reach $825,000. This is an increase in two years of over $361K. Or an increase of 62%. All this with our membership remaining fairly static. Of real concern to me as Treasurer, was the large salary increases granted by the Board at the recent September meeting. When most Australians received little or no wage increases in 2009 due to the economic climate, the board, as a whole chose to approve increases of between 8% for junior office staff, and up to 25% for managers. On top of these increases we must now budget for all the “add on” costs. I am the first to agree that our staff are our greatest asset, but we are a non profit association, funded in the main by member fees. It is my personal belief that we must live within our means. However it can also be argued that we need to pay the right money to gain and keep the right staff. I see it as my duty as your treasurer to bring this matter to your attention. What you choose to do with this information is entirely up to you. You are the membership. You are the association. To bring this into perspective we really must look at the cost per individual member. In previous years our employee cost per member was running at around $56 to $57 per member. This jumped to $68 per member in F09 and I now estimated this to hit $90 per member in F10. An increase of over 60% in just two years. As treasurer I believe we must seriously address the rate of increase in our employee costs. If it can be shown that some of the increase is due to CASA requirements then I believe we need to seek some cost recovery from CASA. But we, as an association need to “own” this issue, and deal with it appropriately. Graph of employee costs per individual member over time. Finally, I won’t be seeking re-election as Treasurer, but I would urge the incoming treasurer to be very vigilant to prevent our costs getting out of proportion to our membership levels. However, we are an association, and you people, our membership, may be quite comfortable with these increases. But I believe, as unpopular as it may be for me, it is my duty as your Treasurer to bring this matter to the attention of the membership. John McKeown RAA Treasurer. Nov 2009

Hi Webbm. The full text of the CASA Audit reports are Confidential between CASA and the RAA Board and Senior Management. The reports are very detailed and quite long. The latest report is 132 pages. The reason CASA wants it confidential is it names names of individuals, aircraft registration numbers and issues with those aircraft. There are also other matters that should not be made public in the interest of Natural Justice until the other party has had a chance to explain. However the Board are aware of a FOI request to CASA, and as soon as a sanitised report is produced by CASA, the Secretary has stated he will immediately publish it on the RAA Web Site. John McK

MEMO to RA-Aus Members in SEQ Good Morning all. Late last night I was made aware of a memo from Secretary Paul Middelton placed on the RA-Aus website. Please be aware that this post does not represent the thinking or views of the entire Board. I can't speak for the others, but I for one, was never consulted, or was aware of this Memo before its posting. Also, please be aware I am NOT seeking Proxies. I have been given some, but my personal view is this coming General Meeting is about the performance of the Executive and the Board. If there is a problem with the Board, then I, as a member of the Board, am also part of the problem. I have no idea of what motions may come from the floor and I don't believe it ethical of me to use member proxies to protect myself or the Board from member motions. I also don't believe it ethical for me to use member proxies I may hold against other Board Members, even though I may totally disagree with their actions. It is my duty to do the best I can for my constituents, and vote accordingly inside the Board. Externally it is the General Member duty/right to use their vote in motions concerning the Board. If you do give your proxy, and all of you should do this; please make sure you do give it to someone who has the same views, and opinions as yourself. That way your vote is used to achieve a result you would want. John McKeown Rep. SEQ Ph. - 0438728311

Oh Andy. - This is not correct. - "And yet that is exactly what your board is trying to do. Have a read of the following exchange between myself and the board (bottom up):-" Andy, a better choice of words could perhaps be - "Some Board Members ..........." Guys, (and Carol) the last reply was not acceptable from a Board Representative to a general Member. Full stop. Perhaps the hour of the post clouded the judgement. It is normal that there will be many different opinions on the one subject, and it is so vitally important that there is civil discussion, and civil argument, about those opinions. After all we all belong to the one Association, unlike Parliament, where the antagonist belong to different political parties. Regards, John McK

Hi Carol, The word Guys, up here in Qld. is gender neutral. It refers to male and female and they. (Those who are not quite sure) Secrecy has been a big problem, and still is. But you can change it. Demand transparency from the elected ones. If you don't get it, you now have the power to get rid of those who don't follow the membership wishes at a GM. You now don't have to wait for the next election. As for someone being the only candidate in a region. Who's fault is that? Carol, you have already answered some of your own questions. You have a special meeting in a couple of weeks. Use it wisely. Ask questions of the Executive and the Board Members. If one were to grossly lie to you, take serious action against them on the spot and boot them off the Board right then. I very much doubt the Natural Justice clause of the Associations Act will cover a deliberate lie by a Director to the Membership. Either way it is up to the Board Member concerned to take legal action to reverse the action taken against them. But what would be the point? The Membership has spoken, and there are no back wages issues. On the Board it is a numbers game. Sometimes you have the numbers to make change, sometimes you don't. For reasons I don't know, it seems to always be the good ones who resign. (You and Don included here) I don't think you and your bunch of trouble makers are distractors. I think you are doing a great thing for the association. - Its a joke Carol. Seriously Guys, (and Girls Carol) This coming meeting will be very positive for the Association. It will show some of the Board Members that they can no longer take the membership for granted, keep them in the dark, and ignore the wishes of the average Member. It will show the Executive and some others that you are not just a winging minority, but a very large group of concerned members. Concerned about some very serious issues. I just suggest to you all, that you use this meeting wisely. John McK

Hi Guys, Some comment and clarification on above posts. Reduced Board size - Perhaps a good idea, perhaps not. You guys out there are the Association. You elect a person to represent you. The elected person should represent your interests, if not, vote them out. Currently the representation is State Based. Perhaps it should be post code based, and that is entirely your (the membership) decision. Now, if you reduced the Board size to, say seven members, then in all likelihood, Tasmania, WA and NT would not have a Representative. Would this be satisfactory for members in those states? Once again your decision. In the early days of the Association, (In the old AUF days), voting was totally democratic. That is "One vote, one value". However this gave Queensland absolute power at the time, as they had more votes than the rest of the other states combined. Great for us Queenslanders, but bad news for every other area. This caused a lot of bad blood, so the system was changed and weighted as we have today. If you want change, then you, the Membership, have the power to do this. However please think out the long term ramifications. Representative. - Now I see posts of this qualification, or that qualification to be a Board member. Not in my humble opinion Guys. To me, it does not matter what education or qualification your Board Rep has, providing he/she is there with the primary purpose of representing the local membership. You should not be on the Board for self interest, you should not be on the Board for kudos, and you should not be on the Board for money. You guys want someone on the Board who is independent, a communicator, honest, transparent, their own person/makes up there own mind and who will not toe the "party line" as there should be no "parties" in our Association. What you don't want is everyone the same. You need balance and different opinions. In my opinion, a successful business has an ideas go getter CEO. but this person will bankrupt the business. So as balance, you need a very conservative, and independent CFO (chief financial officer) who can say to his Boss. "Hold up Boss. we cant afford to do that." or "Boss, that wont work because of ......." The Board is there to set policy that the Membership wants. It is the paid management that is paid to implement that policy. It is the management that is paid to have the knowledge and expertise to put systems in place to pass CASA audits. It is the management that does the financial reports, budgets, cost control etc. It is the quality of management that can make or break a business. The Executive is there to oversee the management, not do the work themselves. The Board is there to oversee the Executive, and you guys are there to oversee the Board. Management. - Guys, the quality of the CEO/GM is so vitally important. Recently I read an article how the wrong person in a critical job could totally destroy a very successful business or company. Those with a business background could name names and businesses this has happened to in Australia in recent years, and it has nothing to do with the salary. Some of the greatest failures were caused by CEO's on the highest salaries. Anyway I really liked this USA authors example. He said imagine you are sitting down to a big plate of your favorite ice-cream at your favorite restaurant. Then before you start the Waiter comes around and says. "One moment Sir." He then takes out a small eyedropper and places one drop of highly toxic nuclear waste on top of your ice-cream. In percentage terms the amount of toxic waste is very minor, but no one (With the possible exception of Kiwi) would eat that ice-cream, or even eat at that restaurant again. Expenses. - The President has an expense account, and the Executive are reimbursed for Executive business. The Board expenses are covered to attend Board Meetings, but all other expenses like attending club meetings, going to Natfly or other fly-ins, or things like mobile phone calls etc are not reimbursed. Future. - Everyone, I am very positive, with the right new GM who has ability with systems, finances, budgets, etc. and who can implement policy, will have us back on track in no time. What you people must do is demand openness and transparency from the elected ones so you become aware of issues early, and steps can then be taken for early corrective action. John McK

Gee Ian, follow that policy and the other side will always win. No my policy is to do your best for your members, and to stick it out through good and bad for your term. But the bright side is, that on many issues all the Board are generally on the same page. John McK

Thanks for your comments Airsick John McK

Hi Guys, Trying hard to do some catch up reading here. A couple of points 1. " Heard today that a QC is to be involved by the board. Just what are they scared about????????" - post 178. Guys don't do this. If you are not sure, please ask before posting things like this. The Executive have often used the word "misinformation" This is exactly what they are talking about. There will be no QC employed to be at the GM in February. In all likelihood Jason Parkingson, the RAA solicitor will be there at some point. (This is not uncommon) But there will be no QC or any other high paid barrister employed. Nothing about this has been discussed at Board level. Having said all that. If the rumour is true, which I totally doubt, then we would have a most serious matter before us. It would mean both Jim and I have been left out of official Board policy discussions. An extremely serious matter, and one the Ex would be fully aware of the consequences of such an action. - Therefore this is a bad rumour Guys. 2. The Resignation of the President. - Yes the President did resign as President and as Nth Queensland Rep. Mr Rat was given a copy (not from me) If the resignation letter posted by Mr Rat on this forum elsewhere was not factual, I definitely would say so in writing in that thread. (I have not disputed the letter) What the issue here is, if after resigning can the Board accept a withdrawal of resignation. The Board had written legal advice from Slater & Gordon in the JG resignation. It confirmed what many say here. When you resign, you have resigned. Full stop. The difference is JG was not President when he resigned, and he post dated his resignation by some days. The written advice to the Board was the Board did not have to accept a retraction inside the post dated period. Once that date arrived, the resignation was complete. With the SR resignation, it became effective the moment he pressed the send button. Now, can the Board accept the withdrawal of the resignation? That is the legal issue. The Executive claim that they received verbal legal advice from Jason Parkingson (RAA solicitor) that the Board could vote to accept a withdrawal. Here again the issue is not the President bit, as the Board clearly has that power, but does it have the power to accept the withdrawal of the Nth Qld Rep? - That is the disputed bit. As most of us know, who have more than a 3 at the start of our age, verbal legal advise, when it comes to the crunch, is worth as much as the paper it is not written on. The Secretary informed the Board before Christmas that Jason would be asked to put in writing his verbal advice when he returned to work on Jan 15 (yesterday) I would expect something in the next couple of days. But Guys, as I mentioned before, Jason will be at the GM at some stage, so put your questions to him directly. After all he is your solicitor also (Assuming you are a member of RAA.) He is employed as the RAA solicitor, not the Ex solicitor, or any individual member solicitor. A formal vote was taken to accept a withdrawal. The vote was carried. The housekeeping was perhaps sloppy. Once accepted back on the Board, there perhaps should have been a vote to make him President again. But perhaps the vote to accept a retraction of the resignation letter, covered both matters. Edit addition. For the record (again) I voted no. I believe all voting of your Representatives must be transparent to all members. I believe it is my duty to inform the members in SEQ of how I vote on all matters. I am then prepared to be criticised, praised, or ridiculed for my decisions. I am also prepared to learn. Sometimes there is an opposite valid view that I did not see. I can learn from this being pointed out to me. 3. Email lists. - In years past, Board Members did have personal access to the Membership list for their area. However some years ago this right was removed after some incumbent members used the list for electioneering purposes, hence giving them an unfair advantage. Board members can still access the list for special RAA related purposes. An example may be to get support for a political campaign against some proposed atrocious legislation. Some long term members would have an old list, but I would doubt if they would use it for internal political purposes. I have a copy of an email sent out to members from Myles that is exactly the same as that from Gavin. In fact Myles states they are working together to collect Proxies. Myles did not use "to undisclosed recipients" so I could see the email list of recipients. It was small, and it was not the RAA list. There has been no wrong doing here. Guys, I have no issue with other Board members soliciting Proxies for themselves. I have been given a few unsolicited proxies, but I am not seeking proxies for this GM. If people talk to me first, I direct them to give their proxy to a local club, or other member who has told me of definite attendance at the GM. The reason I am not soliciting proxies for this GM, is because this GM is about member anger and disappointment with the workings of the Executive, and the Board. Although I have done my best to question the actions of the current Executive, and vote against actions and motions that I believe, are wrong or not in the best interest of RAA, I am still a member of the Board, and as such, I am part of the problem. I do not think it ethical to collect votes to use to protect myself from genuine member anger. On the flip side I also do not consider it ethical to use those votes against fellow Board members, even if I disagree with their past and current actions. I believe it is for the General Membership to take action on these matters. The hope is, those giving proxies, give them to the person with similar views to themselves. 4. Left out. - Yes Jim and I have been left out of some internal communication, but to the best of my knowledge it was not official Board communication. Those with similar policy or beliefs, will always talk amongst themselves. That is normal and acceptable, provided it does not include formal Board business. Normally when there is new information or a vote on the Board forum, members are sent an email directing them to the site. When it came to a vote for Runciman's resignation withdrawal, I was left off the notification list. Petty? - perhaps. But it is the duty and responsibility of every Board Member to regularly access the Board Forum so you remain current. It is only a courtesy to be informed of new postings, not a right. More concerning to me was being left out of the election for the Office Bearers at the September 2012 Board meeting. But my vote or discussion would not have made a difference, so I took the issue no further than expressing dissatisfaction. What happened was the Secretary told me and others that due to the late finishing of the AGM at Heck Field, there would be no Board Business that night and we would all meet later for dinner. I stayed back at Heck Field talking to members and personally thanking the club President (through an oversight there was no formal vote of thanks at the meeting). Halfway down the road to Tweed Heads in the car I received an urgent phone call from Rod asking where I was as they were about to vote for the Executive positions. I discussed it with Rod on the phone, but there was nothing I could do and my vote would make no difference. (Yes I was using hands free guys) John McK