farri Posted September 1, 2012 Author Share Posted September 1, 2012 The power contained in that clause is all-encompassing...without limitations. The direction doesnt even need to be lawful. If the Board tells you to stand on your head and you refuse, you risk being found to have brought the Association into disrepute and can be expelled.Kaz Thank you Kaz. Precisely what I thought. I posted that section in an attempt to allert others and you have helped me do that. Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Have a look at the introduction to Rule 9(i) And then ask yourself why clause aa doesn't seem to fit with it. It seems to me it has been added by someone who hasn't a legal background or even a good command of English. It immediately raises the question as to whom the author was and by whose authority was it added to the Rule, and when?The power contained in that clause is all-encompassing...without limitations. The direction doesnt even need to be lawful. If the Board tells you to stand on your head and you refuse, you risk being found to have brought the Association into disrepute and can be expelled. I think the Board needs to provide answers to those questions because they raise some very serious issues as to the integrity of the Constitution. Kaz When I joined the Air Force, my Dad told me, "The military can make you do anything, Son. Except love the baby." My Sons tell me the thinking hasn't changed much over the years... Perhaps that's where some would lead us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 ...The whole Constitution and By-laws need a good comparison between the original, what's on paper now, and the procedures which led from one to the other.This should be a priority of concerned members, and the people the voted in to represent them. Exactly, turbs The next question on that sub-rule is how it fits with the purpose of the organisation which is all directed toward implementing the deed with CASA? I don't think it does. There is a real tension between the licensing and registration functions (the "delegation") and the ordinary stuff of being a club with members and rules relating to that. The two things actually don't sit we'll together especially when personal agendas from the latter overshadow the responsibilities of the former. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 And another question... What is the basis of the relationship that exists between the president, the secretary and the CEO? Are all three of the military; is that why they are so close? Or is there something else that seems to create a very special relationship transcending ordinary governance responsibilities? I found it extraordinary that the CEO had apparently made submissions regarding policy and governance changes to the coroner which appear to have not been endorsed or even discussed with the whole Board beforehand, yet neither the president nor secretary has made any pubic comment disabusing us of the notion that the CEO now makes the big decisions rather than the BOard. Really odd! Kaz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Don't military people work under a code of silence? Google DLA Piper to see it in action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Exactly, turbsThe next question on that sub-rule is how it fits with the purpose of the organisation which is all directed toward implementing the deed with CASA? I don't think it does. There is a real tension between the licensing and registration functions (the "delegation") and the ordinary stuff of being a club with members and rules relating to that. The two things actually don't sit we'll together especially when personal agendas from the latter overshadow the responsibilities of the former. Kaz When the governments were offloading motor sport to rid themselves of a potentially huge public liability obligation, I was lucky enough to get complete stand alone control for speedway, and the Victorian Government dismantled its regulations totally. So for example the track specifications, inspections, approvals, certificates operated through the Department of Labour and Industry disappeared when the Department was liquidated. So the Victorian government achieved their goal, and we achieved total control of our destination, covering public liability via the location of the events, and auditing the operations. The transport industry started to do the same with the liquidation of some departments and laws, but the temptation to hold on to some control was too strong, and while Self Registration puts the acid on Dealers to register compliant vehicles, I've always felt that the other strings they attached re-connected them to public liability responsibility. I got agreement with this from a State Authority on a matter only a couple of weeks ago. The CASA/Self Administering Bodies has a partly pregnant atmosphere about it, and I believe CASA and the Minister currently have re-inherited some obligations they used to control, but are now reliant on the performance of separated bodies. One spark and the panic will set in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Please correct me if I`m wrong. The only power that an ordinary RAA member has, to implement change, is through their area rep. If any member wishes their rep to act on their behalf,they need to submit their request, in writing, to their rep, however, that alone does not gurantee that the members request or change to the organisation will occur as it needs a majority of the reps to agree,in the first place. If an area rep is not acting on behalf of his/her members then they are only acting on their own behalf and not the wishes of the members. Frank. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 As the constitution stands now Frank, you would do that first i.e. ask your rep. If your rep doesn't submit your request or the board rejects your request, you then have the option of sending a letter to the Secretary requesting that your request to change the Constitution be submitted to members for a vote at the next General Meeting which at the latest would be the next AGM. At the moment just 1 single member can ask for their changes be submitted to a membership vote and the Secretary must oblige...the board can NOT stop it going to a membership vote in that scenario. One way that the proposed changes that you are voting for at this upcoming AGM is so important is that if the issue is important enough, a "Special General Meeting" can be invoked at any time with 100 members agreeing to it instead of potentially waiting for over 1 year for an important change to be voted on. One thing I personally disagree on is that the number of members required to enforce a membership vote on a Constitutional change is only just 1 member...I think that should be changed to say 20 members and not just a single member. I further believe that all you members should perhaps get together with those that are driving the Constitutional change and say "Hey, I think "x" is unfair or not right...what can I do to help you guys"...this helps to bring about the "doing" part of what we talk about here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Thank you Ian. One of my objectives to this discussion is to bring out as much factual information as possible so that those who are interested will be better informed. Frank. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 That's true Franco, but you could contact other reps on the board. The thing about area reps is that there is rarely a situation that needs to be addressed by area alone, but you would be putting your case anyhow to more people. I can't imagine any RESPONSIBLE board member just throwing it in the waste paper You have the issue of vested interests. If a person on the board has a pecunary interest he should abstain from voting on that issue. The minutes will record the abstinence. I think the size and area of responsibility of the organisation, has outgrown the management process and structure here. Individuals faiing to perform an appropriate role is a secondary effect. Different people may have been able to carry the day but that hasn't happened. Another factor is the protection that being an incorporated body has. There are stipulated rules that must be adhered to. I don't think the board could just change a lot of the constitution without being outside the law, particularly as regards basic things like financial reports and voting processes, and hopefully other matters , as we may find out. All people in this equation need to understand their role, function and powers. A CEO is there every day as is most of the staff. If an IMPORTANT move is made there should be a policy clearly being followed or a process where more than the CEO is involved Ie reference to the board via president etc. I'm not talking of day by day stuff, but if the CEO is charting new territory, he should, being prudent and wise , "cover his tail". The BOARD IS the governing body in this organisation. You elect that body. You don't elect the CEO. The board has to be watching what the CEO does and conversely the CEO answers to the board. HE and other staff make reports to the Board which have to be passed/accepted. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Ian, can you quote the section where one member can put forward a motion for a change to the Constitution. I skimmed through it but couldn't find it. That would be most unusual, because it would be unstable to have the Constitution dancing around depending on who had a bee in their bonnet about a particular issue at a particular time. The Constitution is supposed to be the skeleton of the organization. It is quite normal, and right, for a paid up member to move anything in any meeting, but usually there area checks and balances before the few people attending a meeting can change the Constitution, and these are usually spelled out. I had many issues with the RAA Constitution, but they are matters for quieter times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 TP, I will try and find it but as an example the calling of the vote in the change of board members of a couple of years ago (removal of a Qld rep and the appointment of a 3rd Vic rep) was forced by 2 people, one of them being the consultative person on the initial constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Par 3 Turbo regarding moving of motions... Notice of any agenda item has to be in the hands of all financial members a period of time before the AGM. This notification is required to prevent something being raised without notice and affecting members. "general business" is not done at the AGM . This is the normal process as I understand it. You can have a general meeting afterwards if you want to. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Let's say a couple of years ago was 2010 Appendix B Issue 10(3) - September 2007 says in Regional Definitions and Representatives: Victoria 2 Representatives So, no change to the Constitution, and a third rep could not lawfully have been appointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 How about a system that seems to work well in NZ. All aircraft are ZK-xyz registered. NZCAA certifies two organisations to run Microlight (Ultralight) Training, Certification and Maintenance etc. One is a club type organisation RAANZ (Recreational Aircraft Association of NZ) similar to RAAUS and has an annual membership fee and committee etc. The other is a Corporation and is run as follows: Sport Aviation Corp was established in 1995 to provide service to sport and recreational aviation in NZ. Sport Aviation Corp (SAC) looks after Microlight (Ultralight) Aircraft activities via a structure set up through out the country of Authorised Testing Officers - Instructors and aircraft Inspectors. SAC is certified under the Civil Aviation Rule Part 149 and is responsible for the flight standards and training of Microlight pilots and Instructors, as well as aircraft maintenance standards and training for aircraft inspectors. SAC is a seven day a week aviation business. The direction of the company is under the control of the CEO and two other Directors. The day to day operations of SAC are audited by the Civil Aviation Authority of NZ in line with the SAC Exposition or procedures manual approved by CAA. The aim of SAC is to provide a high standard of training and safety, a fast efficient service, and keeping the fun in aviation with minimum regulation. Our representatives throughout NZ are of the highest calibre, many from commercial backgrounds and general aviation, some are early pioneers of the sport, drawing from more than twenty years experience in NZ Microlight Aviation. There is also an annual Fee to the Corporation similar to the RAANZ membership. As all Ultralights are ZK registered they can be flown by anyyone issued with a pilot certificate by either organisation. Cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 TP Even if one person can ask for constitutional change it still requires 75% of all members present at the AGM to vote in support of that request for change. I personally dont see that 1 or 100 asking for change is the problem. We havent had that many constitutional change requests that I can recall over the years. The 75% requirement is as difficult an ask for the members of the board as it is for the ordinary member. The 75% requirement is mandated in the act and is there to hopefully prevent bad changes making it through when apathy in the membership means a small splinter group can drive unreasonable change otherwise. Members have only the constitution they can set about to change while at present the board has the By-Laws as a vehicle for change that doesnt have the same burden of requiring membership acceptance. This is the area that I'm concerned about. The By-Laws are IMHO a dangerous vehicle to have as they are at present with no checks and balances on anything other than a brand new By-Law. Its the same as having a deadlock on the front door (the constitution) and no lock at all on the back door (By-Laws). At present the board could take an innocuous existing By-Law and add a whole bunch of things we as members really take offence to without any checks with the members. In the proposed changes we are asking that any changes to By-Laws require notification to the members and then 30days to pass before they are enacted. That has the effect of at least putting a lock on the backdoor, even if it is only a $20 lock covered by a sensor light so we can at least see when someone wants to play with the lock. Can anyone ever remember being advised that a new By-Law was being created? The last By-Law, being 12, apparently was notified in the August 2007 magazine. I cant remember it, but Im sure someone has a copy lying around somewhere. I find it interesting that some of the By-Laws have a date of enactment in the individual By-Law, and the remainder dont. I wonder when they came into being. I would think for the future including in the By-Law the date the By-Law was ready for member advise, the method of member advise and the day the By-Law came into effect would be useful things to have on the law itself. Furthermore any changes or deletions to the By-Law should have similar records present in the change history for that rule. If part or all of a By-Law is deleted it should be struck through in the By-Laws rather than being completely removed, so as to have the same effect as deletion, but there for the membership to see what was in place and when and how it was removed. BTW, I know you understand this stuff, but perhaps some of the others arent aware Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 TP: 24. Notice (iv) A Member desiring to bring any business before a general meeting may give notice in writing of that business to the Secretary who shall include that business in the next notice calling a general meeting given after receipt of the notice from the Member. (the above bolded and underline text is done by me - Ian) 33. Alteration of objectives and rules. No alterations may be made to this Constitution except by special resolution, (i) passed at a general meeting of the association, being a meeting of which at least 21 days notice, accompanied by notice of intention to propose the resolution as a special resolution, has been given to members of the association; and (ii) it is passed by at least ¾ of the votes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Ian, now would be a good time to email blast the recrational flying userbase and try and motivate the rank file RAA users to get involved. A big part of the problem is that a lot of people just aren't aware of the problems within the RAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 There isn't a definition for a special resolution, but other than that: Any decision of a body starts with a single person moving a motion The checks in the case of a Constitution change are the requirement for a Special Resolution, and Plenty of notice to all members that a special resolution is coming up, and Guaranteed debate, and A 75% majority to pass the Special Resolution That's tougher thatn the Australian Constitution This thread, with its ambiguous title, is already splintering focus off the main thread While debating various models, and formats is very interesting (It took Australia 50 years to finalise the format of our Commonwealth as a single Country), widening the discussion is only going to muddy the waters and confuse people, when there is already a simple and non-controversial proposal for changes, which need the support of a lot of members. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Ian, now would be a good time to email blast the recrational flying userbase and try and motivate the rank file RAA users to get involved. A big part of the problem is that a lot of people just aren't aware of the problems within the RAA. See above, if you send too many messages no one can remember which were the important issues. This discussion needs to be kept well clear of generalised accusations because the proposal stands up on its own two feet and will make it easier to correct any perceived issues more regularly in the future. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 This thread, with its ambiguous title, is already splintering focus off the main thread. This thread, with it`s ambiguous title is the main thread. Members of the RAA, me being one of them, are being asked to vote on changes to the constituation. The ambiguous title is because I wasn`t sure that change is needed. I would like my vote to count so I want to be better informed before I cast my vote. The request of my first post! "Can anyone please tell me the reason/s why we need the changes and why I should vote in favour or against the resolution". Doesn`t seem to be anything ambiguous about my request. I didn`t ask for a great debate on thetechnicalities of it all. Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 If it had been asked in the thread which was active, we would all still be following that thread and focusing on the central issues which were the proposed changes. The only issue with a new thread is that it splits or diverts the discussion at hand, and a split thread can often become the main thread with the original reasons being lost. On the issues leading up to the present proposal I wouldn't be surprised if valuable information was not contained in at least 20 threads, so how do we get to that valuable information? The ambiguity was the question mark. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 TP, You are correct with what you have said above. I`m guilty of not having read the original thread. I`ve taken a look and see that there is some very informative information. I originally started this thread in General Discussion and it was redirected here. I sincearly appologise to everyone for any inconvenience. Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 You are both correct to bring your points to our attention. There are 2 issues. The rules and the way they are changed/formed. and the process with Ian's membership that is being dealt with through legal avenues, in response to what might be called "strange" behaviour by the RAAus, in refusing to process it. ( as I see it) Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Yes, there was no harm done, and we gained more information anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now