President Resigns ** Then Thinks about it **

[metalman]

So have any of the north queenslanders got on to SR for an answer to the latest shite we're getting thrown at us( members that is)I'd be keen to know what he has to say for himself !

 

Met

 

 

[winsor68]

Thanks John, good system.

Is this generally how these sort of things are done? The process appears to leave itself WIDE open to manipulation to my unskilled eyes.

 

 

[facthunter]

Geoff, I'm with you Note I said that the board would have CONSIDERED the matter to be dealt with. As far as they are concered it's done and dusted. That is not the least BAD thing they have done,It is consistent with many that have ben done as it is inconsistent with the rules previously applied. In isolation I wouldn't see it as a piority, Just another reason to wonder. Nev

 

 

[Captain]

Geoff, I'm with you Note I said that the board would have CONSIDERED the matter to be dealt with. As far as they are concered it's done and dusted. That is not the least BAD thing they have done,It is consistent with many that have ben done as it is inconsistent with the rules previously applied. In isolation I wouldn't see it as a piority, Just another reason to wonder. Nev

Fair enough Nev.

 

I'm a stickler for proper practice as there are numerous other examples of what appears to be ad-hoc decisions, when we have a Constitution to stick to.

 

The Constitution is not just a "wish list" for this Board.

 

Now if the NQ members choose to re-elect member Runciman, or reappoint him in accordance with the Constitution, I'll be the first to accept that, but based on the Constitution it appears that this should come up from the NQ members, not down from the Board.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[facthunter]

I must confess that I feel that doing it the proper way is no weight to carry. I find lately that few councils etc seem to worry about rules. They can't be there just to ignore or use as you see fit. If you think that this categorises me as some lacking in initiative boring unimaginative type be advised that I am a bit of a devil's advocate, and stirrer at times, but abiding with the rules gives order and predictability. It's a no brainer as far as Im concerned. Nev

 

 

[Gentreau]

Thanks John, good system

 

 

Is this generally how these sort of things are done? The process appears to leave itself WIDE open to manipulation to my unskilled eyes.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm stunned that members who are well aware of what's been going on could put up with this disgraceful conduct. This is a critical time where serious issues are being discussed and serious decisions made, and the status of President is critical.

 

At a time when potential claims are quite likely, board members are putting themselves at risk by not checking the legality themselves.

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK you two what are you trying to say; in what way is that vote not a majority, not a legitimate vote?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Which two are you referring to Tubz

 

 

[turboplanner]

Which two are you referring to Tubz

Philosophers Winsor and Gentreau who is asking some very odd questions on another thread.

 

 

[facthunter]

Which two? At the moment I wouldn't bother contesting it. There are other more "pressing" matters .If the paperwork was rectified, most concern would diminish. There would still be a lot to discuss. Nev

 

 

[Gentreau]

OK you two what are you trying to say; in what way is that vote not a majority, not a legitimate vote?

The 2 great flaws in that voting system are the potential for coercion and the loss of information.

 

1. Any voting system which is not secret is open to abuse because certain voters may be afraid to be seen to "rock the boat".

 

This is particularly true in any situation where a cosy club has grown, but retains a core clique who wish to run it their way.

 

While the votes cast by individual voters is open to scrutiny and criticism, this will favour the vocal and or aggressive clique members.

 

2. A system which declares the vote closed upon reaching a simple majority, robs everybody of vital information.

 

A motion carried by 51-49 has much less moral authority than one carried by 99-1.

 

If the vote is closed as soon as 51% vote yes, how can anyone judge the true level of support for that motion ?

 

If it is the case that personalities, rivalries and cliques may play a part in the voting process, anyone being pressurised by a clique but waivering

 

in terms of continuing to follow them has no idea of how strong the opposing feeling is, if the vocal clique get their votes cast early.

 

.

 

 

[Gentreau]

Which two? At the moment I wouldn't bother contesting it. There are other more "pressing" matters .If the paperwork was rectified, most concern would diminish. There would still be a lot to discuss. Nev

Hi Nev,

 

I would contend that the board voting system may be contributing to the behaviour of the board and as such is worthy of review ASAP.

 

See my post above for the reasons.

 

 

[Captain]

I must confess that I feel that doing it the proper way is no weight to carry. I find lately that few councils etc seem to worry about rules. They can't be there just to ignore or use as you see fit. If you think that this categorises me as some lacking in initiative boring unimaginative type be advised that I am a bit of a devil's advocate, and stirrer at times, but abiding with the rules gives order and predictability. It's a no brainer as far as Im concerned. Nev

Nev.

 

I think it is worse than that, as in my experience, once a set of rules are broken a few times and there are no consequences, the rule breaking becomes the norm and more and more acceptable.

 

Just look at the lack of financial reporting so far, and the lack of AGM Minutes. You can't find anything more prescriptive in the Constitution than how those items are to be handled, yet they appear to be still late & I can't find anywhere where the Executive appear to give a rats.

 

And Gentreau, re your post # 168, what would you say if it were to be proven that one honest and communicative Board Member appears to now be being deliberately left out of some board circulation emails. If that were to be proven, I would say that the process and the organisation is totally corrupt and being even more corrupted.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi Guys,

 

The Board voting system is just great. You have the option to cast a secret vote, but most don't. Most times a Board member will give an explanation of why they voted the way they did, which gives the others an insight into their reasoning. There is also an option to change your vote in the seven days should you reconsider after getting more information for instance. Yes sometimes people change their vote after considering the logic of a different point of view. The whole aim is to get the best outcome.

 

If you are the type of person who does not want anyone to know how they voted on different issues, you should not seek a Board position. As an area Rep you should be independent, open and proud of how you voted. Your actions should also be fully transparent to the members in your area as to how you cast your vote. My opinion on this matter goes even further. I believe your local members have a right to know how their Rep voted on all matters. I believe members should receive a full list of all board motions, and that list include not just pass, fail, but list how each member voted. Without full transparency you will never get accountability.

 

John McK

 

 

[Gentreau]

.......There is also an option to change your vote in the seven days ......

I'm confused. If the vote closes as soon as you have a majority, how can anyone then change their vote ??

 

 

[kaz3g]

This really is getting to the root cause in my opinion. There will always be personalities, egos, politics and disgruntled members no matter who is on the Board or the Executive. That's not the issue. The real issue is that RAAus has grown so big so quickly and being managed by a Board made up of volunteers is no longer the right model for an organisation of this size. There's only so much it's reasonable to expect of volunteers. Further, the fact they are popularly elected (or elected unopposed in some cases) is no guarantee they have the capability to manage the organisation. If this was an organisation where what the members wanted was the primary issue then maybe we could continue with the volunteer Board management model, but the reality is that the primary task for RAAus is to meet the legal requirements necessary to protect the members' flying privileges. It's not an aero club or a flying school, it's a body charged with administering recreational aviation on behalf of the regulator. And doing that for a fleet of over 3,500 aircraft and well over 10,000 pilots requires skilled and professional people at all levels. An elected Board is necessary to protect the members' interests, but the Board should be an oversight function, not running the organisation. We need to separate management and governance. And as Kaz has suggested, they need professional guidance and support, not on aviation but on things like business and governance.

 

TK

And perhaps we need to consider that the organisation may now be too big for voluntary Board members to govern... Perhaps we need to think about honorariums for their time (and hopefully their expertise) so we can attract more experienced persons to the Board?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Spriteah]

Kaz, I totally agree. I think that is where we should head. Get five positions appointed.

 

And gent of course you are confused. You seem to comment on procedures that you don't have a clear understanding of. If you want to understand the voting systems call a rep. It's fairly logical as John said.

 

 

[Gentreau]

And gent of course you are confused. You seem to comment on procedures that you don't have a clear understanding of. If you want to understand the voting systems call a rep. It's fairly logical as John said.

I only base my observations on the information given, and try to offer an independent opinion.

 

I commented on what John said and others seem to agree that the system is not logical.

 

Which rep do you suggest I call, is there one for my area ?

 

.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

One of the problems with how the RAA is run currently is that your average member has no idea which way your rep is voting on an issue, the rep is supposed to vote they way their constituents want but it ends up the flying instructors that get elected as reps work the system to maximise their incomes. Secret ballots are a really bad idea on the representative level.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hello Gavin

 

And a sincere welcome from one of us cowards.

 

It's good that some of the Board have come out of their collective bunker and been prepared to post a response...even one like your's which was not all that conducive to a better understanding of the issues as viewed from each side.

 

The people here have tried to put their views forward and have tried to explain to the Board that its policy of non-information is destructive of trust. I honestly believe everyone of us here would like to see RAAus run smoothly and efficiently for the benefit of us all, but trust is lacking because of a long history of less than excellent performance by, as you say, successive boards.

 

The current board has undoubtedly inherited problems; but unfortunately it has presided over a fair few, too. And to me, personally, it seems not to have a real sense of direction. It seems to be engaging in crisis management rather than effective governance.

 

Audit of financials not published

 

Failed CASA audits x 4

 

Grounding of aircraft

 

Incorrect registrations

 

Airworthiness issues

 

Staff turnover

 

Litigation 1 ...the matter in which CASA is joined

 

Litigation 2, 3 and ? ...unfair dismissals/breach of contract ?

 

The Ian Baker membership debacle

 

The juniors debacle

 

Ad hoc board meetings called and cancelled

 

The Presidents uncertain tenure as a representative of his membership

 

And more

 

I understand that your lawyers have probably advised that the Board should not publicise its actions or its circumstance because of the current litigation. But things have deteriorated in my view to the stage where it can't get much worse and it might get a lot better if we are all singing the same song.

 

There is a lot of knowledge, energy and skill available to RAAus here and all it would take is a board that is prepared to be proactive and harness it for things to improve, markedly.

 

I have no doubt that you and most of the other board members are working your socks off and doing the best you can. But I fear there is a lack of cohesion of purpose and process because collectively things aren't going all that well.

 

I think honest and open dialogue with the people whom you represent (the collective membership) will cause the rumours and innuendo to dry up. I think good leadership will unite the factions. And I think you guys should be employing staff able to fix the crises not trying to do it yourselves on a part-time voluntary basis.

 

Hope you stay with us, Gavin, because I think you might be the very sort of person we need to drive the association forward.

 

Kaz

 

 

[bernieh]

Kaz.... At last a concise and clear summary of the trainwreck that is the RAA at this time........................B

 

 

[kaz3g]

....I think that is where we should head. Get five positions appointed.......

The size and manner of choosing the current Board and executive is cumbersome and part of the problem.

 

Five board members elected from broad geographic areas (not State based) would be a sufficient representation at Board level. They should meet monthly via a telephone conference or VOIP hook-up and quarterly by coming together at a suitable venue in each geographic area on rotation. The quarterly meetings should be open to members to attend and to have a short opportunity to put questions from the floor.

 

The Board should elect their Chair and Secretary, appoint the auditor and Chief Executive, and get on with the business of governance leaving the staff to run the day to day and be assessed against KPI's for their effectiveness in doing so.

 

And they should provide quarterly reports to the shareholders as well as the annual report.

 

I'd happily agree to an increase of $10 per annum in membership so that each Board member could be paid $25000 pa for her/his services. Then some of the retired persons present here and elsewhere might contribute their knowledge and skills for the collective good.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Tiger]

Turboplanner,I see by the trheads down south that the legal opinion for the ex Runmancin reincarniation was actually information to the board in 2008 re John Gardon. A totally different case and circumstances. The tone of the post was that the legal opinion was "current" legal opinion. Just another little slip from the ex president and manipulation of the truth.

 

 

[John G]

Turboplanner,I see by the trheads down south that the legal opinion for the ex Runmancin reincarniation was actually information to the board in 2008 re John Gardon. A totally different case and circumstances. The tone of the post was that the legal opinion was "current" legal opinion. Just another little slip from the ex president and manipulation of the truth.

Tiger,

Not quite sure whether you are refering to me as the ex-president. Seing as I am the only ex president posting on here I can assure you I have not manipulated the truth in any of my postings.