facthunter Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 It is always up to the members ultimately, Pete. Many of us here have racked our brains for quite a while and have not really expected this particular situation to be so bad for so long. I have my views as to the principal causes and have been able to communicate with many significant players for their opinions over the years. Frankly I thought we have always had the talent. The structure and team application was lacking. Too many people working in a disfunctional way, so we have distrust and defensive, stubborn reactive behaviour. The board could be considered to be able to run with 3 (only) people getting the inside running. That situation wouldn't have the transparency, some want. Paul Middleton has been very active for a long time and has expressed the view that he didn't think the members were that interested in the day to day running of the show and generally I would agree there was a fairly good reason to believe that. We grew rapidly in numbers and complexity. I think things like the LSA category and the build of some planes caused some concern. Some people supplied false weight data, etc even from authorised people with signatures and all. No -one can physically check every detail. If people perjure themselves that is a pretty serious matter, especially to do with certifying aircraft. I am talking about the applicants, not the techman. I don't know whether there has been an over-reaction by the powers. I believe that is possible. We lost one Techman. Now we have lost another. Are these guys being sacrificed ? There was a barrier between the normal office staff who do an excellent job with the general office processes, and the board. I blame Steve Tizzard for this because it is his area. I also think he resented his position vis a vis the board. Enough for now. It's old news but may aid someone. I could be completely wrong. Nev . 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 When due process is not followed, for whatever reason, someone still needs to take responsibility. It would appear that a mixture of ignorance of certain legal responsibilities under the "Incorporations Act", and the interpretation of what constitutes a 'Committee of Management" has combined, and contributed, to a less than professional approach to both governance and management. We should however be careful in our condemnation of board members, who in good faith, put themselves forward only to find they were operating in a broken system that was dominated by apparently assumed "executive" powers that stifled good governance and managements practice - an organisational culture that can be well meaning and well intentioned, but a disaster when required to operate at a level, that will not only satisfy the laws of the land and formal contracts with government, but more importantly its responsibility to fee paying members who should, via their elected representatives, be able to have some say in the shape the organisation that represents them.The coming months will be subject to some difficult processes as the board, by necessity, reclaims its position of leadership and governance and management is given clear directions as to its role in the now diverse operations of RAAus. What ever legal structure we operate under, the above, applies to all. It does however offer the exciting opportunity to reshape the organisation to better serve all stakeholders. Its now up to the members, nobody else! Pete Pete, I agree with you & I feel that the Board should be cut some slack if they are willing to be educated on their failings and adjust their ways. However I suggest that the membership should not be prepared to cut the Executive or the CEO any slack ......... at all. With an Executive that has done what this and previous ones have done (or not done), which plainly has been unable to adequately monitor & manage the CEO, who practiced what has been reported as intimidation of Board Members (by the Executive) who dare to question the Executive structure, or move to inform members (I know of one existing Board Member who desribes his recent treatment as "being shot full of holes" for getting in touch with members on a frank & honest basis), and the Executive's overall attitude of secrecy on items that clearly do not need to be considered "in-camera", this Executive structure and the individual people involved in the last few Executives are and have been part of, or the crux of, the problem. This is further evidenced by the fact that they still don't recognise it, they still don't make any substantial moves to genuinely keep the members informed, and they still fail to perform adequately on constitutional matters associated with the AGM (as one example). Regards Geoff PS I am also sure that only 2 formal Board Meetings per year creates a position where the Executive think that they have (or can grab) the power to run things in between, even though the board does get together when called. I recommend that the members insist that the Board meets monthly by phone, video or WebEx type meetings & face-to-face say 4 monthly, and that the Executive all formally report to the Board at those meetings. Regular monthly reporting to the Board by the Prez, Seco and Treasurer is just part of regular (and good) governance. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 . ....i'm buggered if i am going to forgo the priveleges i have now...for the sake of a cheap win at a meeting....there are troubles...at the moment..CASA is giving RAA time to sort it out...if we don't....we become part of history.. Phil, Do you think calling a General Meeting is a mistake? I am uncertain I understand what your are saying in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryc Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 good post Nev...there are major problems looming at the moment...personalities are clouding the issue...and..(unfortunately)..a bit of 'bloody mindedness'is creeping in.... i'm buggered if i am going to forgo the priveleges i have now...for the sake of a cheap win at a meeting....there are troubles...at the moment..CASA is giving RAA time to sort it out...if we don't....we become part of history.. ALL elected members need to reflect and ask themselves.."..do/can I represent the people of this organisation...and do my actions strenghen our position???"" RAA has reached the crossroads......is it going to be the HIGH road.....or the low road?..... Get your head around this members! so cficare are you saying your prepared to allow raa to continue to run in a incompetent manner, operate without being covered properly with insurance, operate outside of the constitutional guide lines set down, bring raa into disrepute and all manner of failings and you don't care so long as your privileges are not affected. Well I got news for you, if only some of the things we've heard about are true you can kiss your privileges goodbye with or without a meeting. Geee what is it about this you don't get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cazza Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 "there are major problems looming at the moment...personalities are clouding the issue...and..(unfortunately)..a bit of 'bloody mindedness'is creeping in.... i'm buggered if i am going to forgo the priveleges i have now...for the sake of a cheap win at a meeting....there are troubles...at the moment..CASA is giving RAA time to sort it out...if we don't....we become part of history.." CFIcare, I really am troubled by what you are thinking? The Board has been training on their governance roles and responsibilities for a couple of years at great expense to the members. I was on the Board when this was initiated and Don Ramsay was on the Board when it continued. There are many members of the Board who have served for many years and would know the Constitution by heart, but often they have ignored it. This is a fact. I am happy to send you many examples. I was on the Board, I saw, it, I tried to prevent it and I tried to understand the idea that Board members have the right to ignore it. And I continue to see that mis-use of power and control and the consequent intimidation and bullying of anyone who raises objections. So what is a "cheap win at a meeting?" Do you really think that people like me have sacrificed years of our life in service to the organisation, for a cheap win???????? Firstly the Board has to acknowledge they are there for the organisation, not their own agenda or we are doomed. If the organisation (which is the membership) is not valued or respected, and our voices are not heard, then we are doomed to a downward spiral. We have a large membership andhave a huge pool of expertise for them to draw on, but they resist using people with expertise who are not part of a particular philosophical framework. As dissenting members, we are labeled as troublemakers. I reject that scenario and I reject that I have worked my *&^^%%%$ OFF for several years for a 'cheap win at a meeting". I am only interested in securing the long term viability of this organisation and the values and mission statements it embodies. cazza 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 People A bit more info to put around CAzza's comments. Im told that CASA strongly suggested some risk mitigation and corporate governance training some years ago (stuffed if I know why??? )so eventually it was undertaken at cost to the organisation and a 2-3 year plan of actions was set up to drag us from where we were to where we needed to be both from our broader perspective and also CASA's narrow requirements perspective. So, after a great chunk of time between when the training occured and now you could be forgiven for thinking if we are 1/2 way through a 2-3 year action plan then its fair to assume around 1/2 of the actions would have been undertaken......or at the least substantial progress would have occured. You'd be wrong. It was reported at the AGM that indeed no action towards the outcomes had occured and since the AGM things have gone completely haywire and so IMHO its a pretty fair bet that in a few weeks when we will again ask what progress? the likely answer will be none. As current situation shows Governance and risk managemwent are of minor consequence to RAAus....NOT!!!! Andy Did people understand that, have you heard it before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Carol has been there and I have supported her stand. I concur with her views. When Tizzard called her "that woman". he lost me forever.I was present at the board meeting when that was said . It's not an appropriate way to deal with an elected board member or anybody... period!!!! Nev 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Carol has been there and I have supported her stand. I concur with her views. When Tizzard called her "that woman". he lost me forever.I was present at the board meeting when that was said . It's not an appropriate way to deal with an elected board member or anybody... period!!!! Nev It is disgusting... what action did the Employer take against the Employee after this Gaff? At least a talking to officially I imagine? Is it on record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Of course it is. I have just published it here and plenty of others will testify as to it's having occurred The minutes may not necessarily record it specifically, but John Mc Cormack and Carol will I am sure.Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Don't worry... The monster seems to really be awakening this time. Have been wrong before but it seems that when flying schools are giving out Urgent Members Meeting Request forms rather than Ra-Aus Membership forms something BIG is on the horizon for better or for worse... I don't think these matters will wait until next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Greed Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 If a special general meeting is called by RAAus as a result of membership action, a board commitment to change needs to be at the top of the agenda. From what I am hearing from people on this thread who are clearly passionate, concerned and long-time supporters of the organisation, this is not likely to happen by osmosis. There is really no excuse for the board not to meet monthly if the new technologies are applied (an organisation of which I am a director uses teleconferencing on a regular basis). If this could be achieved, the role of the Board/Chairperson and the CEO, would move back to a more defined, and constructive, relationship with membership; with the so called current"Executive Committee" being made redundant. I would be interested to see how much, in real dollars, it currently costs to maintain the "Executive". Of course with 13,000+ members, the critics will say that there is no way we will get consensus, and I guess there are many just in it for the service (flying certificates and aircraft registration) they get by belonging. However even with a membership that is now so varied and diverse, all who wish to, should have the opportunity to contribute. It is a right, that some will choose to take up, while others probably could not give a a tinkers curse. That is the reality of operating under a community based structure as opposed to a government department - the ability to self regulate or be regulated. Pete 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 CFI, maybe try another version of last night's effort this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 The Board has been training on their governance roles and responsibilities for a couple of years at great expense to the members. I was on the Board when this was initiated and Don Ramsay was on the Board when it continued. There are many members of the Board who have served for many years and would know the Constitution by heart, but often they have ignored it. This is a fact. I am happy to send you many examples. I was on the Board, I saw, it, I tried to prevent it and I tried to understand the idea that Board members have the right to ignore it. And I continue to see that mis-use of power and control and the consequent intimidation and bullying of anyone who raises objections. Carol, Thanks for that post. It adds 1st hand substantiation of what a number of us have been urging action on for a number of years, it supports what Don Ramsey, Ian Baker & one existing Board Member have reported ..................... most of which has been denied or swept aside by one or all of the present Executive. Intimidation and bullying of elected member's representatives is intolerable and should demand resignations or immediate member action. I understand that our illustrious President calls this "robust discussion" when referring to how he treated Don Ramsey, but I think one reading of that is that it is actually an admission. Similarly the fact that this CEO (so called) is in place for another 5 weeks when Adam got it in the neck. Regards Geoff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 To All Interested RAAus Members, We all now know that the pending redundancy of the CEO in a few weeks will take place. Doesn't time go slow when you don't want it to. The Board terminated the Tech Manager forthwith & they should have had the guts to do likewise with the CEO, but it appears again that the majority of the Board didn't want to make too rushed a decision with the CEO termination which they would have had to ultimately do if the CEO didn't voluntarily fall on his own sword. When the the President was asked ,what jobs he or the Board had in mind for the retiring CEO once he had vacated the chair of the CEO, the President stated that the Board hadn't yet made any decisions on this matter. Th newly elected Board of the RAAus after the extroardinary general meeting in the new year will have to seriously consider having no further RAAus business undertaken by the then ex CEO for the future betterment of RAAus . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 The idea of monthly televideo board meetings is a good one. Could save the membership a fortune in accomodation and executive bar fridge expenses. Send the CEO immediately on holiday or whatever just to get rid of his influence out of the office. Let the staff run the organisation (they do any way and do it very very well). Could there be a quarterly published record of decisions, progress and actions to keep the executive honest and answerable to the members on a regular basis. (maybe in a members only section of the Raa Aus website). This may help to silence critics and raise our accountability profile with the powers that be (CASA etc.). The monthly magazine, while getting better, is not the forum for members only communication. Most of the executuive statements are vanilla and edited for public consumption. A members only section of the Raa Aus website would provide a venue for direct Q and A with the executive and the board. The stopping of membership renewal because of dissention with the executive is ludicrous and should have resulted in the immediate suspension of membership of the parties involved in making the decision. When we see elected representatives, the calibre of Cazza etc browbeaten and insulted by senior executives then a close look needs to be taken at the senior executive and their attitudes. Would it be possible to put a time limit on the length of representation, and the number of times you can be elected to the board. This would help stamp out the long term cronyism and male bullsh.t that seems to be present at the moment. An influx of new blood and ideas to the board (maybe after 2 or 3 terms) regularly would keep the organisation fresh and up to date and help stop the formation of political cliques, influence groups and bullying. Maybe a motion could be put to the next AGM that no representative does more than 3 terms in office, and the employed CEO must answer to performance indicators regularly or face sanctions, and possible the sack. The technical manager should have a well defined job description, and legal parameters in which to work, and not be held accountable for the mistakes and laziness of the CEO who, in our current case, has not done his job and made sure systems were in place to ensure the viability and legal adherence to the required rules and regulations imposed on us by our oversight organisation (CASA). How the hell can an efficient organisation fail 3 audits in a row when the CEO et al are tasked with ensuring that does not happen. These problems are management problems. As I have said previously, get rid of the executive bar fridge, get someone who actually knows what they are meant to do and aren't being so bloody self important that their ... dont stink and actually gets the job done. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Maybe Im a glass half full guy........We have the opportunity in a few weeks to set off a transparent and repeatable process to appoint the most appropriate candidate to the role (once that is clearly defined) whether people leave immediately or last a few more weeks should be a function of cost reduction to the orgnisation. It might feel better as an example to ask a person to leave immediately and you do that when the combination of cost and risk means its the cheapest and best outcome. It may well be that a few more weeks delivers the same outcome for this example..... As to what role people might play in the future? well if the approach we are seeking happens then the decision as what employees (casual or full time) we employ and what they do, will be up to the operational arm of the organisation not the board itself (except as and if it exercises its ultimate right of Veto) that said, moving from where we are, to where we see ourselves, isnt a snap of the fingers,so it may well be that the entire board will have to make some shorter term tactial operational decisions until the changes we are seeking are in place. It is vital that the separation of operational activity (tactical) and board activity(strategic & governance) is created and maintained and that the board inserting itself in operational matters is the exception rather than the rule and that when it occurs all understand why it had to ocur and what changes need take place at the operation layer to prevent reoccurence. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Would it be possible to put a time limit on the length of representation, and the number of times you can be elected to the board. At the present time there is a clique situation protected by an unwieldy Constitution which makes it hard to remove representatives. There are better alternatives to fix that situation than a fixed term, because if you go down that path, then in a different scenario when the Association is being managed and represented by an exceptionally good person, you knock him/her out by the time limit. I know some Associations which have been brilliantly run by the same President for 30 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 As to what role people might play in the future? well if the approach we are seeking happens then the decision as what employees (casual or full time) we employ and what they do, will be up to the operational arm of the organisation not the board itself..... You've been referring to a "team", and the "we are seeking" statement makes me very nervous, and implies a small number of hidden people with a hidden agenda. If past transparency is argued to be inadequate, then ambushing members at a public meeting is just as bad. If you argue for transparency, you have to be transparent yourself. If you argue incompetence, you have to have a clear alternative. At the present time the members in general have not seen CASA documents referring to the central issue of Audit failures; if you don't know what the problem is then how could you possibly put forward a fix. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 "At the present time the members in general have not seen CASA documents referring to the central issue of Audit failures; if you don't know what the problem is then how could you possibly put forward a fix. " Again, here is the problem of not giving the information to members when they are directly affected by an outside decision. Transparent accountability would seem to be the order of the day. I have nothing to hide and no hidden agenda, I just want the organisation one to that represents me and my sport to the best of their ability and in the best possible light and, as mentioned previously by another member, one that I can be proud of. Turbs, no one is indispensible and if the CEO performs and is shown to perform, then he/she stays on. He/she is not elected. I was referring to the elected officials as far as the time frame goes. Again, as long as the employed officials are performing up to their specified key performance indicators and are seen to be doing a good job, then there would be no reason for them to go. I realise there is a down side to placing time limits on elected officials , but if that is the price we pay to keep the board and president working for us and not for themselves or their cronies then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMcK Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Hi All, Some clarification. We failed four audits in a row, not three. The Board is yet to see the CASA report on the last CASA audit, so I can't make official comment. I do know some unofficial reasons from a private chat with CASA. We are currently waiting for the Ex to release the report to the full Board. Although the Board do only meet two times a year officially, most also meet at Natfly unofficially and there is a very good communication system via the Board forum and Board email process. Full Board communication is often done on a daily basis, with numerous emails going back and forward. As for more official Board meetings, well you people DO call the shots. If the majority want more Board meetings then it will be done. However you must look at the cost benefit basis. You, the members will end up paying for it in higher fees. My personal view is the extra cost would not outweigh the benefit. Another option is to reduce the Board size and have more meetings so the overall cost remains the same. This would mean a change from State based representation to zone based representation. Once again it is you the Membership that has the final say. If that is what the majority want, then that is what will happen. Same for fixed terms. If the majority want fixed terms, then you can have that. But please read again Turbo's post above about forcing out the good. Wouldn't it be better to vote out the bad? One of our big issues is lack of communication. This works both ways. You guys must keep in contact with your local Rep. This keeps him/her accountable and you informed. If you don't like the answers and communication you get, then vote them out. Don't now say "But that is another two years away". You people now have the power to easily call a GM and vote them out in a month. Let me state yet again. This is your Association. You people (the Members) have all the power. You just need to use it. John McK 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Some talk of fixed term for board members presidents etc. They have it in America and they have it also in Russia. Putin has managed to walk around the rules completely by having a puppet run to break his term up. Also why tie your hands? In an open situation anyones performance is more readily asessed so you kick out a non-performer and if you have the best bloke /sheila in the world keep them there. Sometimes in situations like this, you try too hard to pervent the recurrence of a situation that may never recurr in a thousand years, in normal circumstances. There is enough basic things to get right here without going into the tiniest of details. I mean really you better get off you "asses" or you might not have anything at all for quite a while. This is not a hypothetical or dress rehearsal. The main game is on now. Nev PS Pete thanks for your contribution. Perhaps we can get some "T" shirts from America "Greed Is GOOD". Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Robinsm I also was referring to the board members in reference to the time frame. As much as several times, maybe 5, 6 or 7 I have pointed out that "CEO" was a description given to Lee Ungermann and has no part in an Incorporated Association, this comes up in conversation as if we were talking about the head of a large organization. The position was a sham. Also in an Incorporated Association the Members do the work, they do not go off flying and leave the running of their organization with no one at the wheel. The position strongly and repeatedly was pushed by some 18 months ago that members should leave the board in charge and let them do the work, is now clearly exposed for the garbage it was then. That is not to say you don't appoint representatives to ensure the housework is done, or employees to do the processing, it's just that you don't employ the additional levels of management found in a Company. I see even after I've explained the additional cost factor of a Company structure someone was advocating that yesterday, and the only objection to that would be the cost to members.......probably from about 12,980 of them, so you have to take all sides into consideration. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Greed Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Fix the board governance /CEO relationship first. Then there are people who are available and who can provide the sort of independent, technical operational advice once the extent of the problems in RAAus management are known. As an ex CEO and a current board member (Director) of a community based organisation, the issues of termination/redundancies are beyond the experience of most board members. It is a highly specialised area and like it or not the province of lawyers and H R consultants. Currently we have little knowledge of what the state of play is with regard to RAAus' liability to current and past employees, or what the cost of defending potential claims might be. On the other front my understanding is that CASA initially approached RAAus with an invitation to self-regulate. From recent events we have failed the paperwork and that also needs to be addressed and proper systems and a working relationship re-established.......that should be no big deal. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Thanks John. I was compiling my post as you posted so mine is in no way a response to yours unless by co-incidence. Right now a few more bits of information on this forum, from board members etc would assist, I feel. Can that be done ASAP? If that is forthcoming I hope we could refrain from being difficult, because it is not one on one and we should be getting as much info as possible, rather than grilling people or making accusations to anyone. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 The Board is yet to see the CASA report on the last CASA audit, so I can't make official comment. I do know some unofficial reasons from a private chat with CASA. We are currently waiting for the Ex to release the report to the full Board.John McK John, without reading the Constitution again I didn't think the Executive had the power to operate independently from the total board - particularly if they are witholding reports which have led to members' aircraft being effectively grounded, and renewals delayed. If board members are not yet aware of the reasons the people they represent are being grounded, I would have expected some vigorous action at board level - people are losing in some cases substantial amounts of money, and they would be leaving themselves open knowing there were major issues, but not doing anything to fix them. 3 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