President Resigns ** Then Thinks about it **

[Guest Maj Millard]

OK . so it all started with us not liking the whole secrecy thing back then, (what was all that about anyway, for chris sake!) then we had a treasurer quietly relieved of his position because of roumers of monies, (big sums) not being correctly accounted for. Same ex-treasurer now back as treasurer...??...huh ?....what the !.... and now we have a board that won't be entertained with crucal information from the 'excutive'...whilst our flying members are grounded over the festive season, through no fault of their own, and who the hell let bloody CASA in anyway ???...we are self-regulating aren't we.....and who is being taken for a bloody ride down the ferris wheel...sorry, garden path anyway.............the poor pilots who stick the check in the mail once a year to finance the whole thing would you believe !!..................................................................Maj...

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

You poor buggers. Words fail me.

 

" from an unthinking, unenlightened and uninformed minority with personal issues to pursue. "

 

If this is indeed a quote from a Board member then by definition they are admitting that they have failed to sufficiently explain. enlighten and inform some proportion of the membership.

 

The first duty of any Board of anything is to secure and protect the assets of the members, period. There are a raft of other duties. some of them (truncated) are reproduced from the ASIC website. It is hair splitting to say that these duties do NOT apply to an executive or whatever you call it because it isnt a company:

 

What does the law expect of you personally?

As a director, you must:

 

• be honest and careful in your dealings at all times
   
   
  
• know what your company is doing
   
   
  
• take extra care if your company is operating a business because you may be handling other people’s money
   
   
  
• make sure that your company can pay its debts on time
   
   
  
• see that your company keeps proper financial records
   
   
  
• act in the company’s best interests, even if this may not be in your own interests, and even though you may have set up the company just for personal or taxation reasons, and
   
   
  
• use any information you get through your position properly and in the best interests of the company. Using that information to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for yourself or for any other person, or to harm the company may be a crime or may expose you to other claims. This information need not be confidential; if you use it the wrong way and dishonestly, it may still be a crime.
   
   
  

 

 

If you have personal interests that might conflict with your duty as a director, you must generally disclose these at a directors’ meeting. This rule does not apply if you are the only director of a proprietary company.

 

What work must a director do?

 

You and any other directors will control the company’s business. Your company’s constitution (if any) or rules may set out the directors’ powers and functions.

 

You must be fully up-to-date on what your company is doing:

 

• Find out and assess for yourself how any proposed action will affect your company’s business performance, especially if it involves a lot of the company’s money.
   
   
  
• Get outside professional advice when you need more details to make an informed decision.
   
   
  
• Question managers and staff about how the business is going.
   
   
  
• Take an active part in directors’ meetings.
   
   
  

 

 

Only be a company director or a company secretary if you are willing, able and have enough time to put in the effort.

 

Avoid any company where someone offers to make you a director or secretary on the promise that ‘you won’t have to do anything’ and ‘just sign here’. You could be exposing yourself to many legal liabilities.

 

............................

 

What company records must you keep?

 

As a director, the law makes you personally responsible for keeping proper company records.

 

You must see that the company keeps up-to-date financial records that:

 

• correctly record and explain its transactions (including any transactions as a trustee), and
   
   
  
• explain the company’s financial position and performance.
   
   
  

 

 

 

All companies must have financial records so that:

 

• true and fair financial statements of the company can be prepared if needed
   
   
  
• financial statements can be conveniently and properly audited if necessary, and
   
   
  
• the company can obey the tax laws.
   
   
  

 

 

 

If your company is a ‘small proprietary company’ or a small company limited by guarantee (as defined in the Corporations Act), it will generally not have to prepare formal financial reports under that Act each year and lodge them with ASIC. However, you must still keep financial records, and may need financial reports for managing and monitoring your company’s financial position and performance for tax purposes or for raising finance.

 

In most cases, large proprietary and public companies—even not-for-profit public companies—will have to prepare financial reports, have them audited and lodge them with ASIC.

 

Some public companies limited by guarantee are exempt from these financial reporting obligations and others have reduced auditing and reporting obligations. For more details on the obligations of limited by guarantee companies, see Information Sheet 131 Companies limited by guarantee—simplified obligations (INFO 131).

 

What are financial records?

 

Some of the basic financial records that the law may require a company to keep are:

 

• general ledger, recording all the company’s transactions and balances (e.g. revenue, expenses, assets, liabilities) or summarising transactions and balances detailed in other records
   
   
  
• cash records (e.g. bank statements, deposit books, cheque butts, petty cash records)
   
   
  
• debtor and sales records (e.g. a list of debtors and their balances, delivery dockets, invoices and statements issued, a list of all sales transactions)
   
   
  
• creditor and purchases records (e.g. purchase orders, invoices and statements received and paid, unpaid invoices, a list of all purchases, a list of all creditors and their balances)
   
   
  
• wage and superannuation records
   
   
  
• a register of property, plant and equipment showing transactions and balances in relation to individual items
   
   
  
• inventory records
   
   
  
• investment records (e.g. contract notes, dividend or interest notices, certificates)
   
   
  
• tax returns and calculations (e.g. income tax, group tax, fringe benefits tax and GST returns and statements), and
   
   
  
• deeds, contracts and agreements.
   
   
  

 

 

 

A company would also normally prepare the following statements regularly (e.g. monthly) to manage its business performance and provide to lenders:

 

• Statement of Comprehensive Income: a statement showing the company’s revenue and expenses and the profit or loss that results from these items
   
   
  
• Statement of Financial Position: a statement showing the things of value the company owns and the debts the company owes, and
   
   
  
• Statement of Cash Flows: a statement summarising cash inflows and outflows.
   
   
  

 

 

 

Get professional advice if you have any doubt about the content or type of financial records to keep. The lists above give examples only, because the financial records you need will vary from company to company.

 

You may keep some financial records electronically, but you must be able to convert them into hard copy so that you can give them to anyone entitled to inspect them. Make backup copies of electronic records regularly (for example, weekly or daily).

 

See also Information Sheet 76 What books and records should my company keep? (INFO 76).

 

Your company must also keep some other basic records: see ‘Company housekeeping: other records and registers’ for more details.

 

Company housekeeping: Other records and registers

 

All company officers must make sure that the company attends to some basic ‘housekeeping’ matters. The directors remain ultimately responsible for the company’s compliance with the Corporations Act.

 

When a company is set up, you must:

 

• register your company name with ASIC and obtain an Australian Company Number (ACN)
   
   
  
• have a registered office. (If your company doesn’t occupy the same address as the registered office, then you must have written consent from the person who occupies the registered office.)
   
   
  

 

 

 

Make sure that you:

 

• display the company name at every place at which your company carries on business and that is open to the public. Also, a public company must display its name and the words ‘registered office’ prominently at its registered office.
   
   
  
• display the company name, the words ‘Australian Company Number’ (or ‘ACN’) or ‘Australian Business Number’ (or ‘ABN’) and the relevant number on:
   
   
  the common seal (if the company has one)
   
   
  
• every public document of the company
   
   
  
• every negotiable instrument (e.g. cheque, promissory note ) of the company, and
   
   
  
• all documents lodged with ASIC.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your company must keep:

 

• registers of members (shareholders)
   
   
  
• registers of option holders (if you have them)
   
   
  
• minutes of general meetings
   
   
  
• minutes of meetings of directors
   
   
  
• registers of charges created by the company over company property (s271 of the Corporations Act was removed from registration under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009. You are required to have this register and make entries up until this point in time), and
   
   
  
• financial records that enable an assessment of the company’s financial position and performance and are sufficient for financial statements to be prepared (and audited if necessary) for at least seven years after the transactions are completed.
   
   
  

 

 

 

For more about the ASIC forms your company must lodge, see Information Sheet 20 Checklist for registered companies and their officers (INFO 20).

 

Your annual statement

 

Each year within a few days after your company’s review date (usually the anniversary of your company’s registration) we will send your company an annual statement to one of the following:

 

• your electronic inbox if you have registered to use our electronic lodgement systems
   
   
  
• the address of your registered agent if you have appointed one
   
   
  
• your nominated mailing address if you aren’t registered to use our electronic lodgement systems, or
   
   
  
• your company’s registered office address if none of the above apply.
   
   
  

 

 

 

If you have not received your annual statement within five days after the review date, you should contact us.

 

Check your annual statement

 

The annual statement sets out the company’s details recorded in ASIC’s register, such as the names and addresses of its directors and secretary, registered office, principal place of business, ultimate holding company (if any), share details and members’ details (members’ names and addresses only apply to proprietary companies)..

 

If these details are correct and no other changes have occurred that require you to notify ASIC, then within two months after the review date:

 

• you need to pay the annual review fee shown in the invoice that accompanies the annual statement, and
   
   
  
• the director(s) need to pass a solvency resolution.
   
   
  

 

 

 

If any details on the statement are no longer correct, you must update them using Form 484 Change to company details. You have 28 days from the statement’s issue date to lodge the form.

 

We may also require information to be lodged (e.g. where we notice that data is missing).

 

Pay fees

 

To avoid the payment of late fees or other non-compliance action you must:

 

• pay the annual review fee within two months after the review date
   
   
  
• lodge Form 484 to update your company’s details if they change during the year, within 28 days after the change, and
   
   
  
• lodge Form 484 (if required) to update your company’s details, within 28 days after your annual statement’s issue date.
   
   
  

 

 

 

For more information, see Information Sheet 3 Annual statements and late fees (INFO 3).

 

Pass a solvency resolution

 

The company’s directors must pass a solvency resolution within two months after the company’s review date, unless the company has lodged a financial report with ASIC within twelve months before the review date.

 

A positive solvency resolution means that the directors think that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the company will be able to pay its debts as and when they become due and payable. You don’t have to lodge notification of a positive solvency resolution with ASIC, but you must pay the company’s annual review fee. Payment of the fee is taken to be a representation by the directors that the company is solvent.

 

A negative solvency resolution means that the directors think that there are not reasonable grounds to believe that the company will be able to pay its debts as and when they become due and payable. If the directors pass a negative solvency resolution we must be notified using Form 485 Statement in relation to company solvency within seven days after the resolution has been passed.

 

If the directors don’t pass a solvency resolution within two months after the company’s review date, ASIC must be notified using Form 485 within seven days after the end of the two-month period following the review date.

 

[Guest john]

To All Interested RAAus Members,

 

The past few days has seen a lot of tooing & froing about the position of EX President, Treasurer & Secretary of our Association, which seems to be getting bogged down in red tape with various legal opinions which appear to differ.

 

1. The Ex President who resigned previously & thinks he was reinstated by the Board has his own opinion of himself & he may think he is the "King of England" & can't be dethroned.

 

2. The Treasurer who has created "stuff ups" with the accounts, may think he is the worlds greatest treasurer .

 

3. The Secretary who thinks he is all powerful, may think he is the best person for the job & no one else can replace him.

 

4. The EX CEO has obviously seen the error of his ways by sitting on his hands in his comfort zone at our cost & thought he was untouchable until retirement, which will be a New Year blessing for us all on the 4.1.2013 (5 days time)

 

With all of the debate, uncertainty & confusion that is going on at present as depicted in the previous posts in this forum over past weeks, as to whether or not the legal opinions that have been obtained for or against the EX Presidents resignation, there is ONE SIMPLE GUARANTEED SOLUTION, (100%) that will end all of this uncertainty without having to incurr unecessary legal costs whereby the EX President, existing Treasurer & Secretary can be removed from the Executive positions instantly at the forthcoming EXTROADINARY GENERAL MEETING on 9.2.2013 by a MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE in the EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS being placed on the table & providing a majority of members present with their respective proxy votes , vote in favour of this NO CONFIDENCE MOTION, then the 3 EXECUTIVE MEMBERS are instantly dismissed from their previously elected positions.

 

WHAT COULD BE MORE SIMPLER & 100% guaranteed THAN THAT.

 

 

[Teckair]

To All Interested RAAus Members,The past few days has seen a lot of tooing & froing about the position of EX President, Treasurer & Secretary of our Association, which seems to be getting bogged down in red tape with various legal opinions which appear to differ.

 

1. The Ex President who resigned previously & thinks he was reinstated by the Board has his own opinion of himself & he may think he is the "King of England" & can't be dethroned.

 

2. The Treasurer who has created "stuff ups" with the accounts, may think he is the worlds greatest treasurer .

 

3. The Secretary who thinks he is all powerful, may think he is the best person for the job & no one else can replace him.

 

4. The EX CEO has obviously seen the error of his ways by sitting on his hands in his comfort zone at our cost & thought he was untouchable until retirement, which will be a New Year blessing for us all on the 4.1.2013 (5 days time)

 

With all of the debate, uncertainty & confusion that is going on at present as depicted in the previous posts in this forum over past weeks, as to whether or not the legal opinions that have been obtained for or against the EX Presidents resignation, there is ONE SIMPLE GUARANTEED SOLUTION, (100%) that will end all of this uncertainty without having to incurr unecessary legal costs whereby the EX President, existing Treasurer & Secretary can be removed from the Executive positions instantly at the forthcoming EXTROADINARY GENERAL MEETING on 9.2.2013 by a MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE in the EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS being placed on the table & providing a majority of members present with their respective proxy votes , vote in favour of this NO CONFIDENCE MOTION, then the 3 EXECUTIVE MEMBERS are instantly dismissed from their previously elected positions.

 

WHAT COULD BE MORE SIMPLER & 100% guaranteed THAN THAT.

OK if we sack the executive what happens then? As I understand it the board then has to select replacements from what is left of the board which would be all new people starting from scratch. Only now the situation is they will be choosing from 10 board members and depending on whether we have a NQ Rep or not there will be 2 or 3 unhappy board members in the system to deal with who possibly could resign from the board and may not want to assist the incoming office bearers.

Still think that idea is simple?? What would be 100% guaranteed? An even more unworkable mess??

 

 

[Riley]

To All Interested RAAus Members,The past few days has seen a lot of tooing & froing about the position of EX President, Treasurer & Secretary of our Association, which seems to be getting bogged down in red tape with various legal opinions which appear to differ.

 

1. The Ex President who resigned previously & thinks he was reinstated by the Board has his own opinion of himself & he may think he is the "King of England" & can't be dethroned.

 

2. The Treasurer who has created "stuff ups" with the accounts, may think he is the worlds greatest treasurer .

 

3. The Secretary who thinks he is all powerful, may think he is the best person for the job & no one else can replace him.

 

4. The EX CEO has obviously seen the error of his ways by sitting on his hands in his comfort zone at our cost & thought he was untouchable until retirement, which will be a New Year blessing for us all on the 4.1.2013 (5 days time)

 

With all of the debate, uncertainty & confusion that is going on at present as depicted in the previous posts in this forum over past weeks, as to whether or not the legal opinions that have been obtained for or against the EX Presidents resignation, there is ONE SIMPLE GUARANTEED SOLUTION, (100%) that will end all of this uncertainty without having to incurr unecessary legal costs whereby the EX President, existing Treasurer & Secretary can be removed from the Executive positions instantly at the forthcoming EXTROADINARY GENERAL MEETING on 9.2.2013 by a MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE in the EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS being placed on the table & providing a majority of members present with their respective proxy votes , vote in favour of this NO CONFIDENCE MOTION, then the 3 EXECUTIVE MEMBERS are instantly dismissed from their previously elected positions.

 

WHAT COULD BE MORE SIMPLER & 100% guaranteed THAN THAT.

John

PLEASE DON'T BE CALLING FOR MEMBERS TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD and I make no apologies for shouting! There are more than enough problems on our plate at present and unless you have a miracle up your sleeve, any talk of sacking the board at the Feb meeting can only serve to further hasten the demise of what we already have or hope to achieve. Your enthusiasm and input is very necessary, much appreciated and totally required (how great it would be if a majority of RAA members could share some of your fervour and interest about their future prospects) however, if a resolution to our current untenable situation is to be found, let it be a result of a clear and well planned course of action not simply "out with the old - in with the ......what?" A hell of a lot of calm, cool, calculated efforts by unsatisfied members at the Feb meeting hopefully will get us started on the road to recovery. Jumping into muddy waters without a recovery plan is not a plan. Let's not just win the battle - let's win the whole damn war. With respects

 

 

[djpacro]

...we are self-regulating aren't we.....

Nope, RAA self-administrates the applicable CASA regulations and exemptions. It gets the choice of either doing it properly or some-one decides it needs help.

[Captain]

Captain, are you at liberty to tell me who this board member is so that I can be sure I never vote for him in the future? Graeme.

Thanks Graeme,

 

I have continued email exchanges with that Board Member and the Board as a whole today, so I'd prefer to keep it directly with them at the moment.

 

But rest easy, he is not one of yours. He is one of mine (so I have drawn 3 short straws down here).

 

I have said it before here, that in my view you have one of the best, fairest and most open & communicative Board Members and Area Reps up your way in John McKeown and I suggest that John will need plenty of support from the membership up there to make sure that he comes out of this well.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Yep i'll go down the no confidence route and sack the exec with a never to be returned to any board position. Sure it may mean a few months of rocky road BUT that is a lot better than more of the same ol that we have experienced for the last several years. If we leave them in nothing will move forward as they dig themselves in even deeper. MOVE THEM ALL ON.

 

 

[Admin]

My personal opinion, and I can say with some background by having been on the Board, is that if the entire Exec went today with no further correspondence, RAAus would not suffer at all, not one little bit. I would presume that other ex board members would also support that statement.

 

If the entire Board went today then again RAAus would not suffer as long as there is a capable CEO or General Manager in place OR if a Board of 3 temporary administrators were appointed to redo the Constitution again RAAus, in my opinion, could and would just keep going until a whole new Board under a new format is formed.

 

To know what I am saying would mean that you have been on the board before and know what decisions are really made not only at Board Meetings but also between each one of them...we have even just seen that the only way aircraft got back into the air again recently was by an externally appointed person coming in and taking over...RAAus could continue as it is today for, in my opinion, a good 6 months of simply business as usual.

 

Just think, we could end up not having to worry about a Board Meeting where several hours were taken up discussing the color scheme of the new web site...or hours and hours of emails going back and forth discussing/fighting about whether the advert for an Ops Mgr says "Ops Manager" or "Person in the Operations Area"...been there, done that!

 

 

[icebob]

Hi All,

 

Well I hope everyone had a great Christmas.

 

I have been down this road with another Nation wide organisation made up of about 98% volunteers.

 

We did in fact supply the then CEO with individual current members letters of no confidance in the board but we went further than that, we the members demanded an emergancy meeting to show cause why the whole board and all senior staff should not be removed. We then listed the/our reasons and gave each board member the opertunity to reply at the emergency general meeting. We also informed the board members that there was some issues that would be forwarded to the police within hours of the meeting and any board member who resigned before or at the meeting would be acepted but not free from police investigations.

 

Of the eight board members only two turned up to the meeting to hand in resignations the rest posted thiers into our HQ well before the meeting and one ex-board member is currently serving the balance of 11 years with no parole(ex- financial controller).

 

We set up a tempory board of four for a two year term with the organisation paying membership for those two years and advertised for a national manager & national technical officer. This organisation re-built its self and is doing fine now.

 

I think Ian is correct without a board will make no difference to the general running of RAA the only time there will be a hic-cup is with technical issues until a technical manager/ quality manager can be found.

 

The other issue i see is currency of training of senior staff, I do not see an issue with update training occuring within the usual employment time slots of senior staff, it benifits everyone.

 

Hope this insight helps.

 

Bob.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

I would go a little further and suggest that if we lost all three of the Exec on or before 9th February, it would be a positive step ahead for RA. With those three relieved of their commissions, the remaining 10 Board Members might just reach the realisation that the membership is distinctly unhappy with an Exec who do not feel obliged to observe the letter of the Constitution.

 

"It is accepted that these [Financial Statements] are later than we would have liked . . ."

 

was the form of Runciman's abject apology for being 3 months late with the Financial Statements and breaching the Act in the process.

 

The remaining Board Members might actually start to see themselves as Members Representatives instead. They might also realise that they need to change their behaviour or leave the management of RA. If another three Board Members resigned in protest against the democratic will of the General Meeting, we would still have 7 remaining and more than enough to steer RA until by-elections have been held or a new constitution is approved at Natfly or the next AGM.

 

 

[Teckair]

There seems to be some confusion here some are talking about sacking the executive and some are on about sacking the whole board there is quite a difference in those 2 scenarios. The concerning thing is some do not seem to realise the difference between the two. If we could chuck out the whole board and carry on regardless then that would mean our operation is a joke and has been living a lie since we started. I have problems believing that really is the case.

 

 

[Admin]

There seems to be some confusion here some are talking about sacking the executive and some are on about sacking the whole board there is quite a difference in those 2 scenarios. The concerning thing is some do not seem to realise the difference between the two. If we could chuck out the whole board and carry on regardless then that would mean our operation is a joke and has been living a lie since we started. I have problems believing that really is the case.

Teckair, the "Business As Usual" work is done by the office staff and the Board "should" be strategic decision makers. In the past they have worked well under that definition in getting more freedoms etc for us members but recently they have NOT. My guess in the reasons why they have not is due to partly (and ONLY partly) the CASA deed of agreement as it has better defined the working relationship between CASA and RAAus, removing much of the "easy" part, or lower level elements of strategic management. This has caused the "lack of professional management skilled" board, to start micro managing the entity as not only is there less in the "lower level" for them to do now, but also because they don't have the skills to adopt and manage the "high level" strategic management of the Association...lobbying the industry, forming alliances with other bodies to represent the entire industry, having a 5 to 10 year vision (Strategic Plan) for RAAus and managing the KPIs of each step of the vision, etc etc etc and not ignoring the CASA Risk Analysis so they could go to a barbecue etc.

What I am saying Teckair, for conversation purposes, is that YES, it worked really well in the past because it was for many years "startup and grow" and that was successful to the point that the Board for the last few years haven't grown with it thus creating an "out-of-sync" board with the Association...just in my opinion

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

What follows is opinion. Please don't mistake it as fact.

 

We have seen already excuses "we are cleaning up the mess that others left for us" I would like you to ask is our election like the federal gov where there is the potential to replace the entire board? If it was then such an excuse could have a basis in reality, however we don't have such an election outcome rather slowly over time members may be replaced. There are quite a few on the board that have been there for a very long time in one capacity or another and as such there are probably skeletons in the cupboard that need to be removed or at least dragged out analysed and then a plan of how to deal with each and every skeleton decided.

 

Given that many of the current board where around when the skeletons were stashed in the cupboard how can we ever get a warts and all appraisal of the RAAus operation unless the is a major upset to the status quo.

 

It's my view that despite many of the current board being hard workers we need to remove the current exec in entirety, to show for absolute clarity to all members and board members that it is time to do a bottom up review of the operation and that the outcome of such a review is to be disclosed in absolute to the membership whether that membership is 13,000 or 9,000 or somewhere in between. The financials do not support the claim that we have 13,000 members, nor do they support 9,000 but in any event we the members shouldn't have to work such a statistic out for ourselves but clearly we have to at present.

 

In making an omelette some eggs must be broken, so bring on the eggs!

 

My personal hope is that the discrepancy with the financials vs membership count is an error and not a fraudulent act, however I'm not convinced one way or the other at this stage other thanI know something is decidedly wrong!

 

Andy

 

P.s I agree with those that are talking of constitutional evolution, a warts and all bottom up review must include the constitution not every thing that isn't working today is a function of people in roles, some of it is because what we have is no longer suitable for the organisation of today ( was going to say size of the organisation.....but as I said before who actually knows how big we really are)

 

 

[rankamateur]

Andy , are you suggesting that 4000 membership fees are unaccounted for in the financial statements (which I have not waded through)?.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's in your interest to obtain them and wade through at least the last four years RA. They pretty much tell the story

 

 

[rankamateur]

I still have this years here on my desk, are previous ones on the web site?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The financials as published do not support the claim that there are 13,000 members as reported by the secretary at the AGM. I have asked the board members for an answer on the 14th of December but as yet do not have an answer or a timeline for when an answer will be provided.

 

I have heard that a report was run on our organisation administration database very recently and that reported that there was <9000 members I also heard that there was 10,500 magazines printed each month for distribution to members, both of course significantly less than 13,000 as reported at the AGM.

 

If you take the numbers above and multiply by the basic membership costs (after removing GST) you'll see we are talking significant $ as a delta. Is that missing money or not missing money? Worst case we have a problem requiring police intervention, best case we haven't a clue as to how many members we have, if we haven't a clue then how can we contract for magazine printing, or how can we contract for insurance? How can we be sure that nothing shonky is happening if we don't understand how many members we have?

 

I wait for a response from the secretary or the treasurer, these guys should be ableto set my mind at ease, but something that should take only moments to answer from established systems seems elusive.

 

Andy

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

"Sack the whole Board!" might give some members a good feeling, especially those whose aircraft has been grounded for some time with no clear advice on when they might be able to get back in the air. On the basis of their many failings, it could be argued that "sacking the lot" is deserved. It could also be argued that "sacking the lot" will give us the clean sheet from which to rebuild without any influence from the people who have created the mess we are in.

 

However, I still see sacking the whole Board as extreme and probably unnecessary at this stage. It would be difficult to justify a sacking (Natural Justice) for the new Board Members like Jim Tatlock and Cliff McCann who can not be held responsible for the current calamity. They really did inherit the mess as opposed to people like Dave Caban and Myles Breitkreutz who've been on the Board for most of the last decade or so.

 

I would not be concerned by a decision of the General Meeting that removed the current Board Exec (Runciman/Middleton/Reid) who were most responsible for the appointment and/or supervision of CEO Tizzard and two Tech Managers and for the CASA audit failures that lead to aircraft sitting on the ground. I have enough faith in the 10 remaining Board Members to be able to recognise that the members want real change. The General Meeting will, hopefully, give them some instructions to better see what changes are needed.

 

If that message does not get through in February, then just seven weeks later, at 11 am on Saturday 30th March 2013 (at Natfly Temora) we have another opportunity to reinforce the message. That meeting is already scheduled and you may right now write to the Secretary providing him with questions on notice for that meeting and items for the agenda including ordinary motions and even motions for Special Resolutions to change the Constitution. It is your democratic right to do that under the changes made to the Constitution at the last AGM. All you need to be is a financial member of our Association.

 

Some people are clearly worried by some of our more intemperate outbursts on RecFlying. These are often "off the top of the head" comments. A lynch mob would not pass the Natural Justice test and any rash move would simply be invalidated.

 

On the other hand, people who are going to the expense (around $1,000 for many) of attending the meeting are getting themselves well prepared and thinking through what needs to be done and how it may be achieved. These are not hotheads but experienced people who care enough about RA to put considerable personal effort and money into getting RA back on the rails and setting it up for a much brighter future.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Alfa, the AGM Agenda does not allow for open ended discussion.

 

An example of this is last year's AGM where key questions, along the lines you suggested were asked, and responses were received which the questioners were not happy with, but there was no provision to discuss the responses, and so nothing was resolved. The questioners could have followed up after the meeting, but those questions just dropped without a trace.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I still have this years here on my desk, are previous ones on the web site?

You order them from the ACT Department of Justice, but as far as I can tell, no one has bothered to do this so far, to their detriment.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

The RAAus contractual relationship with CASA is the single most important arrangement that RAAus has to manage on behalf of its Membership. The contract, sets out in fine detail, the way in which the operation will be managed and the compliance requirements to preserve, and, to ultimately renew the contract. The shape of the RAAus/CASA operation would have been negotiated and determined by representatives of the board (perhaps the Executive), and CASA, when the first self-regulating contract/deed of agreement was drawn up. Almost, and without exception, with this type of contract, a professional manager will tick the compliance boxes (part of that positions duty statement), but it is the board that has ultimate responsibility to sign off on behalf of the RAAus membership. The contract with CASA is separate to the other aspirations the RAAus board may have for the association. Aspirations that would normally form part of a strategic plan. Remove the CASA contract from the RAAus equation and the organisation could operate along the lines of a fairly simple club type entity. I personally would not support such a scenario as I believe the role of RAAus is to self regulate recreational flying on behalf of the membership.

 

From reading the various posts I also believe that some simple but "organisation changing" decisions need to be made, by the board, to correct what are some very basic governance/management impediments within the organisation. If the board cannot source that advice from the membership it should go to a recognised professional in the field.

 

Thats my two bobs worth

 

Pete

 

 

[geoffreywh]

So, I am not going to Canberra. But as a very interested reader of the ongoing disaster that is currently the R.A.A. ( My reg is about to runout) I would that my voice be heard. How do I give my proxy to someone who is going?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So, I am not going to Canberra. But as a very interested reader of the ongoing disaster that is currently the R.A.A. ( My reg is about to runout) I would that my voice be heard. How do I give my proxy to someone who is going?

Geoff

I intend to post details of proxy possibilities in coming weeks. I'll be going and have already paid out $930 to go. So as you can see I feel pretty strongly about what is happening.

 

Canberra must be one of the most expensive place in Australia to visit. I feel for those in states other than the neighbouring NSW and VIC, WA folk can probably go overseas for a family holiday cheaper......

 

Andy

 

P.s I'll take your proxy if you don't have someone closer to you that you trust. I personally believe that we have a better chance of true democracy if we have many people at the meeting with a smallish number of proxys each rather than 1 or 2 with heaps....that said, I'll take yours if no one else is available, having your say by any means is important!

 

 

[Macca274]

What is it that you people want? Every Board Meeting, phone conversation and chat to be put on YouTube? Printed in full, verbatim and published online? Get a grip? In my opinion, this campaign is either personal or provocative. Which is it?