turboplanner Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You could say that people who WANT the job are unsuited. You should find someone who can DO the job and twist their arm. I don't think Steve Runciman needed the job. I think he perceived a NEED for a job to be done properly. I think events have overtaken him. Nev You're speculating FH. If you had bought the Annual Reports like I did, and like he had access to, then 18 months ago you would have known there were issues with the financials, and that would have indicated that some delving was needed in the financials and that would have uncovered poor administration in other areas. The evidence was glaring, so I'm critical of him there. He also could have made things a lot easier for himself, and got volunteer support if he'd communicated with more transparency, and ended the Executive/board secrecy which many members had been loudly complaining about. He had substantial support here from many people when he started out, but he lost it. None of the above relates to events overtaking him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Its always been in the back of my mind, is SR aiming for the CEO spot? Maybe im wrong...you know, Army career going no where looking for a nice slot to slide in to... Is anyone going to believe that rearranging the deck chairs is going to stop the ship sinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbleboy Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Is anyone going to believe that rearranging the deck chairs is going to stop the ship sinking? God no! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You're speculating FH.If you had bought the Annual Reports like I did, and like he had access to, then 18 months ago you would have known there were issues with the financials, and that would have indicated that some delving was needed in the financials and that would have uncovered poor administration in other areas. The evidence was glaring, so I'm critical of him there. I think a new treasurer will be a very good start. The current treasurer, as evidenced by his "Treasurers Report" (and i use the term very loosely) has absolutely no concept of financial preparations and analysis. Hell he looked at me like a twit at the AGM when I asked for the notes to be provided with the financials. What I have seen of the financials it would seem that there is no efficient monetary management policy or analysis of various financial factors and that a review of the whole fiscal policy and fianncial health of the organisation is undertaken. Of particular interest is how much provision has been made for the outstanding litigation and what analysis of the potential of loss has been undertaken. Or maybe this is just the accountant in me talking... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You saw the big pot of "Office expense" with no breakup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Spot on Shags (I'd love my accountant to be known as "shags"), And the existing governance, even within the Executive triumverate, still doesn't appear to be able to get the Treasurer to do his job and issue the reports. Based on the lack of financials, surely at this stage we can only assume that the auditors haven't signed them off ........... which is an even bigger worry than a dysfunctional executive and board. And I must respond to the recent comments in this thread about our President. He obviously doesn't or didn't understand what the various responsibilities are around the Board and Executive and I sight the Temora Meeting or members as an example. When Don and David's questions started to press home on a few issues and the then President (Reid) looked like a rabbit in a spotlight, the then Treasurer (Runciman) jumped to his feet and made some extraordinary statements about how RAA had got it all wrong and he/they would put it right etc etc ad-norseum, and he plainly made those statements without previous discussion with, or the approval of, the Board. But it did go a long way to getting him elected to replace Reid. However I have to say that the present President's performance since that time has been poor, I understand that his attitude to, and treatment of, Don Ramsey was poor, & he has been unable to resolve the communication & structural issues between the Board, the Exec and the members, while at the same time he has presided over the biggest disasters to strike RAA for 10 years, or during the RAA/AUF lifetime ........... and he still can't direct or inspire the Treasurer to issue audited accounts or the Secretary to issue the Minutes of the AGM. Based on that performance and the lack of real data flowing to the members on items that will surely have a direct effect on the membership (audit failure after audit failure after audit failure after audit failure, and the legal + insurance issues) I rate this President's performance as poor to terrible (on a good day). Surely the above are just facts. And I haven't even touched on the numerous other issues associated with the ongoing culture of Exec & Board secrecy that has been debated in these forums for years. Regards Geoff 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 If that IS what Thomas Jefferson said, he said it in remarkably modern English compared to most of his other statements - English that wasn't around at the time - and it was an extraordinary statement for someone who was one of the founders of the push for ex British immigrants to democratically break from Britain and introduce democracy to their own new Country. Another quotation from the same esteemed gentleman which, again, is in remarkable modern English: The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. So that's where the Incorporated Association has the advantage; you own it, you run it. The current slide over the last couple of years is not related to the structure of the organization, it is related to a little clique doing their own thing in secrecy - in fact much like a company. Members just need to take back control and vote in some skill. Great summary Turbo, this member-centred concept still appears to be lost on many RA-Aus members for some reason. Having said that, the alternative of a public company, limited by guarantee should not be overlooked. I was a board member of such an organisation for a number of years in Australia. The government requirements, including having an auditor sign off in a timely manner (late returns incur fines) would good for the organisation and above all, its members. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Ah sh$t, you meant Thomas Jefferson SEAGULL! Yes, I think Peter's model vs Incorporated Association should be revisited, analysed and debated, but after the fires have been put out, otherwise the animal has too many heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot Pete Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 We few, we unhappy few, we band of brothers.................................. Its seems we are a minority in this debacle. Can we not use OUR magazine to outline the proposed general meeting and what is required by the members to help get this organisation back on its feet . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Yeah Right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot Pete Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Am I just dreaming?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman1238 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 ... The existing President related how he had inherited this disaster & assured me that he would tackle the issues head on as seen this week by the CEO & Technical Officer resigning. The tech manger was sacked not resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman1238 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Sorry all I am a bit forum illiterate, I meant to reply to John and say the Tech manager was sacked with no reason and did not resign. Will work out what went wrong and fix the formating - Mod Done - Use the report post button if it's not to your satisfaction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Am I just dreaming?????? Don has letters to the editor in most magazines, however magazines by nature and by involvement of RAA process take a long time to go from proof to siting in you letterbox. The current set of circumstances is 1 week and 1 day old...... which is only a fraction of the cycle..... Dont get me wrong I like our Magazine its a great resource for useful info that is relatively static. For dynamic communication its no longer an acceptable medium in my view. Unfortuantely no work on alternates like mailing list (email based) has been put in place (or perhaps more accuratley no visible work) means that we rely on slow methods of communication when these days Im pretty sure we shouldnt be Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 The existing President related how he had inherited this disaster & assured me that he would tackle the issues head on as seen this week by the CEO & Technical Officer resigning. For President Runciman to say that he inherited all this is a nonsense and another attempt to spin what has been going on. He has been involved, emersed and embedded at Executive level for a number of years. To say that the issues were "inherited" is just another way to say that he really didn't have a clue through this period that all this was out of control, and further, in his time on the Executive he appears to have had no ability to put things right. I can recall, not so long ago, that Runciman was a staunch defender of the (so-called) CEO and Runciman was reported to be at the forefront of leading in the efforts to brand us members who vented issues here, as trouble-making stirrers & general malcontents that should not be listened to, when a number of us have been critical on a number of these issues over recent years. And worse than that, this President lead the push to shoot the messenger by being involved in legal moves against, and denying the membership of, Ian Baker because Ian & his family provide this website. And finally, Runciman has been firmly at the helm and presided over the lack of Treasurer's audited Report and the lack of AGM Minutes at and since the last AGM. If Runciman can't get Reid and Middo to perform as required by the Constitution, then he can't be trusted to another term. And I have to say that if I had been President and all this mess had happened during my watch, I would have resigned in an attempt to show some personal honor and responsibility. But for Runciman to now say that all issues were inherited is a cop-out and for him to then say that "he would tackle the issues head on" is exactly the spin and crap that he gave to the Temora Meeting of Members a number of years ago in his implied "Roll Reid and elect me" speech. Based on the evidence given above, my conclusion is that the guy is an amateur politician, not an effective administrator or President. Regards Geoff 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot Pete Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 So who does want a go at being President or CEO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot Pete Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I notice that the president has appologised on behalf of RAAUS for the delays in registrations. Why not appologise on behalf of himself and the CEO for the mess. I dont like to think I'm partly responsible for the delays as a RAAUS member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 So who does want a go at being President or CEO? Time to call in Dick. Has all the qualifications required.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 By my reading the tech was sacked. It appears that the CEO was (pushed) into resigning. Ultimately he fell on his sword. Why isn't the President doing the same for that is the done thing when the troops go, so does the top brass 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilby54 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 And all this started from a little Ibis being grounded Still no official notification........ Still no paperwork ....... Still nothing to show the bank manager.. Quite frankly, RAAus sucks big time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 And all this started from a little Ibis being groundedStill no official notification........ Still no paperwork ....... Still nothing to show the bank manager.. Quite frankly, RAAus sucks big time I'm not sure is did start with the little Ibis Bilby - I saw other names mentioned before that, but for some reason these people are laying low, and that's not a good look. Self certification is normal within the Department of Infrastructure and Transport in Australia, and the processes work very well in the automotive and transport industries with very little criticism, apart from a bizarre PBS system. However, the DIT systems assume that people know what they are doing - that they are qualified to design, test, and complete paperwork. The chalk on the floor cowboys were weeded out years ago. i think the ripples from this are going to get wider. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 i think the ripples from this are going to get wider. No matter which way you slice it and dice it, and no matter which way Runciman tries to spin it, Reid, Middo and Runciman have been in the Executive for long enough to be held fully responsible. Next thing Runciman will blame CASA for it all, whereas I'll wager that CASA cut these idiots some slack when the 1st Audit was failed, as auditors usually do. Well, the RAA failed 4 of them .......... not just one. Now go back and read the past 6 magazines and see whether you feel, in retrospect, that Runciman and Tizzard kept the members fully informed. And if you all think the consequences of this mismanagement are over yet, then think again, as we still have the insurance issues, we still have the Court case (and maybe more than one), we still have considerable questions over the accounts (what Reid produced at the AGM shouldn't really be elevated to that level, as they were really just a few figures in a column), we still don't have audited accounts, we still don't have a set of AGM Minutes, we still have the Ibis grounding, and I'll wager that the mismanagement went further than those items and all hasn't yet been disclosed. The (so-called) management by Runciman, Reid, Middo, Tizzard and this Board have gone very close to destroying RAA and they may well succeed over the coming months when all of the issues come out. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burlc Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 There you go Captain. Really I think everyone should try to accept RA is finished. Why, because of the law suit and the ones that follow will give RA no choice but to file for bankruptsy. Its pretty obvious CASA audited RA because of the law suit and found a complete mess which tells me they will probably lose. Then all the other widows out there will jump on the band wagon leaving RA no choice. The Board and management of RA are part timers really using RA as a stepping stone for something better,really what did you expect. RA isnt paying all that much to keep anyone who knows there stuff and would want whats best for the organisation. We live in a world of greed and selfishness peoples. If I owned a aircraft id be registering it GA and getting a GA licence. If you want to keep flying. Id be surprised if RA is still around in 6 months to a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 There you go Captain. Really I think everyone should try to accept RA is finished. Why, because of the law suit and the ones that follow will give RA no choice but to file for bankruptsy.Its pretty obvious CASA audited RA because of the law suit and found a complete mess which tells me they will probably lose. Then all the other widows out there will jump on the band wagon leaving RA no choice. The Board and management of RA are part timers really using RA as a stepping stone for something better,really what did you expect. RA isnt paying all that much to keep anyone who knows there stuff and would want whats best for the organisation. We live in a world of greed and selfishness peoples. If I owned a aircraft id be registering it GA and getting a GA licence. If you want to keep flying. Id be surprised if RA is still around in 6 months to a year. Well there's a bunch of us that are going to try damn hard to make sure that doesnt happen, or if it does that there is another alternate path we can use. If people give up on RAA then what you say will happen. So, I suggest that people fight as hard as they can to resolve the problems. We will all be the worse for failing and not having a plan B ready to go.... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 It should be remembered that we are not flying airliners or even certified planes. There are design and build rules that for simple structures are quite adequate. The planes that push the boundaries are the high performance "carbon" monocoque types. Even CASA's resources would be Hard pressed to cover those structures ar reasonable cost, and you would have to heavily rely on the manufacturer remaining in business and having done the job right at the outset. Saying just go GA is not the answer. The main centre of activity ( the numbers, around 13,000. ) are with us. The growth is with us. The formula is less management interference, Simpler planes, more owner onus.( responsibility) but restricted privileges, ( mainly only ONE pax who shouldn't be able to expect airline standards of safety in a basic plane any more than a jetski should have safety equipment to match an ocean liner. Balance one against the other. Has CASA got this balance right or are they just imposing requirements on us that we can't meet, and perhaps shouldn't have to? I'm not convinced that they understand the nature of this operation or care whether we fly or not. Perhaps any management of RAAus would be pushing sh8t up hill, in this environment. I'm not suggesting that we don't have management problems but that is a people and personalities, problem. Even if they were running perfectly as a team, there may still be difficulties.,because they may be being made to jump over a raised bar. Why would CASA let us struggle under the burden of a potentially financially crippling court case to which they are co-joined if they wanted the show to have a good run, and chance of success.?. Nev 5 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