turboplanner Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Very good point."You don't call a plumber to fix a blown fuse" Accurate and meaningful position descriptions with minimum qualifications are what is needed. "Incorporated Clubs" do not usually have the $1m+ cashflows that the RAA have, nor do they have the requirements for stringent financial audit and reporting processes that goes with that. All of that is irrespective of the systems audit processes that are imposed by CASA. It s time to treat RAA as a "business" rather than a "club" and employ responsible, qualified professionals to run it. This is not a club, and a lot of Associations have a bigger turnover. If there are no employed accounting people, maybe its time to re-address the job descriptions allegedly rejected by someone in recent years And if there are not accounting employees and no accounting type board members, what's the problem in employing an accountant for a a few hours each month to bring the books up to date. Then the Treasurer can take a look each month to ensure nothing is getting out of track. You don't need to add rafts of people, (which you all have to pay for by the way) and talk about members representatives doing "governance" over the drinks cabinet. You just need committee members who can work smart. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I love everyone is getting involve. Terry and Andy as board vacancies arrive I'm sure you will be in the running and we need people like you to get involved and help change. Tell me when you put in and I will help on your campaign.As said before yes we do want and occasionally need help. Often that is just a call to you local member. On another note I want to create advertisements for RAA. Both radio and tv. Can anyone here help me, in the industry? We do appreciate you taking the plunge here and the good work you are doing by adding facts which kill rumour. Steve Runciman has repeated many, many times that if we want to know anything just ring him and all will be answered. But if you ask him you will find almost nobody does. Why? Who knows and why doesn't matter. What does matter is that as a communication strategy it has been tried for years and gets a near nil result. Point is members don't ring him and they won't ring you. If they did how would you handle 2,000 calls just from Victoria? So, even if members did ring their Board member, it would be very inefficient. RAA needs a better communication strategy than that. Then there is the strategy of expecting members to volunteer to help. That doesn't seem to work too well in the real world either. What might work is a targeted call for assistance along the lines that we need people with skills x and y to assist with project z. Offer to cover out of pocket expenses. Now, that could produce very good results. Thanks again for taking the time to see what some of the more vocal members of RAA are thinking. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Steve Runciman was a forum member for some time...............did we not welcome him appropriatly, was he banned.....why did he stop being a forum participant ??......................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Steve Runciman was a forum member for some time...............did we not welcome him appropriatly, was he banned.....why did he stop being a forum participant ??......................................Maj... He attended a flyin a Bluewater Park yesterday, up until I left in the afternoon only 2 RAA aircraft and about 5 or 10 RAA pilots. He was prepared to discuss any matters and gave his view on what has/is happening. The discontent on this forum must be geographical as no discontent or great interest displayed that I observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Frank, i would have attended if I had known about it !.................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Ross The trikes from Montpellier were going (rang in the AM to say they were about to leave) so I assumed all there would have known. They did not arrive - my guess the turbulence may have been a bit challenging for a trike (never flown one but am led to believe that trikes can be a handful in rough conditions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Steve Runciman was a forum member for some time...............did we not welcome him appropriatly, was he banned.....why did he stop being a forum participant ??......................................Maj... Mr Major, you know darn well that if a user breaks the site rules they are sin binned which is what happened to Runciman...he broke the rules, the same rules that you and everyone else here abide by so for some reason he must have felt that he was above the rules and could do what ever he wanted to. He was given a suspension. He then started abusive emails, he was then given an extension to his first suspension...he then requested to be removed from the site of which I obliged his request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I still say if RA-Aus wants a qualified accountant in the organisation then employ one. Getting a competent one to volunteer is very unlikely to happen. Getting a competent one to volunteer and then having them do everything for free is even more unlikely. Only real option is a recently retired accountant i'd say. I'd put my hand up but not being naive about these things anymore I know exactly what will come of it and how much work would get turned my way. The boards role is not to get involved in the day-to-day operations but rather to employ competent people to ensure things are run smoothly. Alfa - you don't sound like you work in accounting circles? There is no real difference between a CPA and a CA after they get some good experience behind them really. The main difference is the entry requirements - the CPA entry requirements are generally seen as a lot easier to achieve with most exams as multiple choice. To gain entry to the Institute (CA) you need to do a graduate diploma in accounting and actually figure out a lot of things for yourself. We employ both in my office without much preference however we try to persuade our graduates to do the CA program as it's so different to what they've usually encountered at Uni and really challenges them early in their career. Don't get me started on the "National Institute of Accountants" though!!! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 From what I know of the RAAus, I would not see them as needing a full-time accountant. This is only my opinion. My wife has the full accountancy qualification from Swinburne and worked in the tax area for a while till the liability made it uneconomic to work alone. I have been a Superannuation fund Trustee and the liability thing put an end to that too. The long and the short of this is that I think it should be outsourced. It would be the same with Legal advice, which when you need it MUST be the best available, ( or certainly of a high standard). You have to be able to rely on it. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 What I believe RAAus needs on the Committee is a certain type of Accountant that has not been mentioned here and it must be remembered that there are different types of accounting with for example financial accounting often being catered for in many financial software packages and later overseen by a qualified financial accountant...but I believe what the Committee needs is a "Management Accountant" NOT specifically a "Financial Accountant" There are very distinct differences between the two so for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_accounting 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Someone having management "ability" would be a big help. The argument has a significant conceptual emphasis. I have seen what some acountants do to companies if they just work on cost control in the short term. I have also seen the products of some business management concepts, that couldn't run a coin operated dunny or communicate with anyone in plain language. Who none of the staff trust or respect.. Don't get me started!!.. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damkia Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 What I believe RAAus needs on the Committee is a certain type of Accountant that has not been mentioned here and it must be remembered that there are different types of accounting with for example financial accounting often being catered for in many financial software packages and later overseen by a qualified financial accountant...but I believe what the Committee needs is a "Management Accountant" NOT specifically a "Financial Accountant"There are very distinct differences between the two so for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_accounting I suspect members have already tasted "Management Accounting", that being the reason there has been little to no information given to them in anything like a timely or complete form. Most of what is needed is simple clear reporting back to the members. RAA are not in the business of making a profit, nor are there any "cost of production" type variables in the costings of what is done within the organisation. The BIG difference between RAA and a normal company with shareholders is the shareholders only pay once and can redeem their investment at a later date. RAA members pay annually and cannot redeem their "membership" for cash thereafter. This makes the financial and management transparency issue VITALLY important. Quite simply, you pay your fees, you should be covered by insurance(s), the administration of your registration is seen to, and the provisioning of support services is offered (accounting, secretarial, managerial, L2 training, flight school certification, etc...). Members NEED to see how and where their money is being spent. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 What I believe RAAus needs on the Committee is a certain type of Accountant that has not been mentioned here and it must be remembered that there are different types of accounting with for example financial accounting often being catered for in many financial software packages and later overseen by a qualified financial accountant...but I believe what the Committee needs is a "Management Accountant" NOT specifically a "Financial Accountant"There are very distinct differences between the two so for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_accounting And most Management Accountants are CPA and most public practice accountants are CA. An accountant can only create the info. It is up to the Board to choose to communicate with the members and this Board invariably chooses minimum to no communication as the preferred approach. Accountants need to be managed the same as any other professional. Give an accountant free reign and they can do a lot of good or a lot of damage. It is up to the top manager to get the best result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Back to the topic - the alleged Accounting Issue...... I am not much good when it comes to deciphering the accounts. A bit like decoding a weather report. Can anyone please spell out the accounting "Issues" in laymans terms for me? I need more understanding before I take up the cudgel. Peter T 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Any chance the " enquiry into staff conditions of service" is anything to do with the "rumour" that a former employee was given almost $100k to relocate their household?Anyone heard anything? If this rumour was true, we would expect to see a major increase in staff cost - and major increases definitely show on past RAA financial reports. If true the issues would be: Why would it be necessary to relocate an employee for the benefit of the members, and is the person still in the relocated position, and if not why not? Did the members formally approve this expenditure? If the expenditure wasn't approved by the members it would be fraud, and any person or persons who committed that expenditure are subject to prosecution. In looking at the accounts, staffing looks unconventional, posted under three different descriptions since 2008. 2008 Office expenses $508,729 2009 Office expenses $651410 +28% 2010 Staffing $868,396 + 33% 2011 Staffing $840,690 - 3% 2012 Employee Benefits Expense $1,075,708 +28% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I believe the relocation people talk about was Lee Ungermann being moved to Brisbane to be the "Northern Operations Manager". This would, you would expect, have been approved by the Board of the time. People like Eugene Reid, Myles Breitkreutz, Dave Caban, Rod Birrell would have been on the Board then. If anyone wants to know more, ask one of them. Lee subsequently went to work for CASA of course. We will know the details when the Board are in a position to tell us. That of course may be around the 12th of never if we go on past performance. To be fair, this could affect personal reputations and we do not want to damage anybody's unfairly. We must let the auditors do their work and report to the Board. The Board may have to involve the Police if there has been apparent fraud. Let's leave it to the experts for now. That doesn't stop us worrying about the accounts not presented at the last AGM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I was on the board at the time approval was given to appoint Lee as the Northern Ops Mgr. An amount, if my memory serves me correctly, of about a maximum $15k was approved for the establishment and the running of an Office including the purchase of electronics like Computer, Phone, Fax Machine, Desk, Chairs, and on-going costs like rent (1 room of a house) etc however, I do not recall any approval for any relocation costs being given by the Board in whole...naturally I can't speak for the Exec. Lee was also paid a pro rata fee somewhere in between his new lower pay rate as Northern Ops Mgr and his higher CEO rate for a period of I think 3 months to assist the new incoming replacement CEO which was Costmeyer and act as the Assistant CEO as and when required. (Note, accuracy of the above may be questionable due to recollection of it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 In the scenario you describe Ian, a relocation like that would require full board approval, since Part 11 of the Constitution says the "board may exercise all the powers of the Association" and a decision of this nature would not constitute a suitable nature to be acted on by the delegated powers of the executive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Ian, that sounds like good decisions all round I suppose, at the time. Lee did do a good job for the RAAus, even if he did let CASA in,... and ended up joining them....doesn't look like he's doing a lot for us right now though is he ?.....labotomy you know.........................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sunfish Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 The first lesson I learned in business is that rock solid accounts were an absolute necessity and have to be the first priority because without them you are building on sand. If your accounts are not accurate and absolutely transparent, then you are in more crap than a Werribee duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Ian, that sounds like good decisions all round I suppose, at the time. Lee did do a good job for the RAAus, even if he did let CASA in,... and ended up joining them....doesn't look like he's doing a lot for us right now though is he ?.....labotomy you know.........................................Maj... Lee did a great job for RAAus and like you would do Maj Millard if you moved to another employer, you would do as asked of you in that job as well AND he IS doing a lot for us right now in my opinion...for crying out loud, 4 chances...how many chances do you and your mate Runciman want from CASA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Ian, that sounds like good decisions all round I suppose, at the time. Lee did do a good job for the RAAus, even if he did let CASA in,... and ended up joining them....doesn't look like he's doing a lot for us right now though is he ?.....labotomy you know.........................................Maj... I don't think the problem is with Lee Ungermann, he probably has been fairly easy going, 4 failed audits? did you think that should go on for ever? How RAAus could let that happen is a mystery to me, you would think the first one would have been a wake up call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 The first failure was put down to the then Tech Mgr not doing his job. There was no criticism allowed of who you would think was his boss, CEO Tizzard. The Tech Mgr reports to the Board according to the Ops Manual. And the CEO relied on that technicality plus the fact that he should be able to rely (absolutely?) on the technical capability of the Tech Mgr. Nonsense I hear you say? Your call. So, conveniently, the then Tech Mgr resigns and we get a new Tech Mgr who, after a few months in the deep end of a cess pit, is sacked! No criticisms allowed of the CEO presumably for the same reasons. No criticisms of the president or Board Exec allowed and the Board are only volunteers and cannot be criticised either. Anyone want to trust these people to get it third time right? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 The first failure was put down to the then Tech Mgr not doing his job. There was no criticism allowed of who you would think was his boss, CEO Tizzard. The Tech Mgr reports to the Board according to the Ops Manual. And the CEO relied on that technicality plus the fact that he should be able to rely (absolutely?) on the technical capability of the Tech Mgr.Nonsense I hear you say? Your call. So, conveniently, the then Tech Mgr resigns and we get a new Tech Mgr who, after a few months in the deep end of a cess pit, is sacked! No criticisms allowed of the CEO presumably for the same reasons. No criticisms of the president or Board Exec allowed and the Board are only volunteers and cannot be criticised either. Anyone want to trust these people to get it third time right? If I was the CEO I would have taken a big interest in the actions of the Tech Manager after the first failure and the board needed to take a big interest in how the CEO was dealing with any problems the Tech manager was facing. If the Tech Man reports to the board what is the point in having a CEO? Shouldn't the CEO be in charge of the Ops and Tech managers? The buck has to stop somewhere otherwise we could have situation where these guys just do as they please and a heap of non compiling planes might get grounded. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 If I was the CEO I would have taken a big interest in the actions of the Tech Manager after the first failure and the board needed to take a big interest in how the CEO was dealing with any problems the Tech manager was facing. If the Tech Man reports to the board what is the point in having a CEO? Shouldn't the CEO be in charge of the Ops and Tech managers? The buck has to stop somewhere otherwise we could have situation where these guys just do as they please and a heap of non compiling planes might get grounded. Spot on Tecky, The only conclusion that you can reach is that the structure is dysfunctional and designed to enhance the power of the Executive. Even a competent CEO/GM would find it impossible to work effectively the way that RAA is set up. But it gives the Executive a power-trip that they have exploited to the full for years until the castle started to crack, ....... except when it all comes home to roost, like now, where they took no time at all to turn the firing squad on the succession of past Tech Managers, and then run their "It wasn't us, as we trusted them" lines .............. & "aren't we hard working blameless volunteers". Well, this RAA Executive IS clearly responsible & must be held accountable (in my opinion). Regards Geoff 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