RAAus board elections, how do you vote

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

I'm trying to understand how people vote in the RAAus board elections. I know when I was first in RAAus I simply didn't vote at all, I didn't know anyone and didn't know what the hell they did anyway....

 

I now seem to have more of an understanding of what they do (that they shouldn't) and what they don't (that they should).

 

To better understand how people vote is to better understand whether people understand the system and can see, or not, the benefits of the optional preferential system we have....

 

So.....if we all cast our minds back to the last election how did you vote?

 

a single mark against the one guy you were interested in, or did you provide a numbered sequence for every candidate identifying the one you most wanted and the one you least wanted, or something in between, or do you just not vote at all?

 

Andy

 

 

[Tiger]

Andy,

 

Up this way we have not had a "choice" who we could vote for for a long time. Personally I would vote for a preferred candidate and a back up as per the preferential system. Really I would just prefer "first past the post" type voting.

 

This year and next year members need to look at all Board candidates and consider " is this candidate one of the current board members who got RAA into all these problems and will continue with bringing RAA into disrepute" or is it a new potential board member who offers a new outlook for the board of the future and bring RAA into the 21st century and abide by our Constitution, the CASA Deed of Agreement and various other Corporate laws and be open and accountable to the members for their actions and decisions with open two way communication with members instead of the secrecy for which the old board was famous.

 

 

[pbugg]

Guys, I totally agree. I cannot remember in SE Qld where we had an option but only a single candidate.

 

In these times I think those who think they can make a difference should stand and be counted. I don't think enough RAA members realise just how close to "game over" we got recently. I understand there are two positions to be voted on this year in our patch.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Haven't been a member long enough to vote yet, but I will know who I am not voting for, may well vote someone who I know nothing about rather than vote for someone we have seen and heard plenty from, who has failed to impress with performance.

 

 

[pbugg]

Hi rankamateur,

 

Glad to hear your going to vote this time and think about who your voting for.

 

well done and please convince people you know to do the same. We need thinking people like you active in the membership

 

 

[coljones]

First past the post won't tell you who is the most preferred. In a 3 horse race the person who got 40% and the most first prefs may actually be hated by the other 60% and may not reliably represent the preferences of the majority of voters.

 

Not voting at all actually allows someone else to make decisions on your behalf. "Don't blame me - I didn't vote" should never be an option if you value your association.

 

Cheers

 

Col

 

 

[frank marriott]

We only get to vote for our area rep - Unless there is more then 2 standing then it is first past the post by default .

 

Tell me where I am wrong.

 

 

[rankamateur]

We only get to vote for our area rep - Unless there is more then 2 standing then it is first past the post by default .Tell me where I am wrong.

Wouldn't a two candidate, first past the post by default, be preferable to an uncontested ballot, where you get no choice at all?

 

 

[coljones]

We only get to vote for our area rep - Unless there is more then 2 standing then it is first past the post by default .Tell me where I am wrong.

Your logic is correct, if there are only two candidates the one most preferred will always win.

If there are more than 2 in a preferential ballot and if everyone vote in accordance with preferences then the most preferred will win.

 

If it is first past the post then you might never be sure who was the most preferred

 

You could make it interesting by standing as a candidate.

 

Cheers

 

Col

 

 

[frank marriott]

Wouldn't a two candidate, first past the post by default, be preferable to an uncontested ballot, where you get no choice at all?

Yes, but that is not the system fault, but a lack of people (us) not prepared to put their hand up and commit the time.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

At the Queanbeyan Meeting Michael Apps, NSW/ACT went right off at all RA-Aus members because not enough voted. We are lucky if one in five casts a vote - and then we end up with a Board who, imho, have shown they couldn't run a p1ssup in a brewery.

 

In Sth Qld this time there are two seats up for grabs so you have to vote for at least two people, preferentially. The counting is a little complex but is a sound system.

 

I hear that John McKeown is not running again which is a pity but John has certainly done more than his fair share and copped nothing but abuse for his trouble. Anyone who by voting (or not voting) rewards Myles for his contribution to the worst year RA-Aus has ever known by putting him back on the Board will get what they deserve - more dysfunction! This useless Board needs a very long vacation and RA-Aus needs some real talent to get us headed in the right direction and away from the brink where the current Board took us and held us for months.

 

 

[paulh]

As an observation I find choosing a candidate at voting time difficult as unless you have met them or they are generally well known the only info a member has is the short bio published in the mag. This is not the best system and susceptible to the slant from the writer, ie the spiel could be overly modest about the candidates skills and abilities, or worse overstates same.

 

I have no suggestions for improvement to the voting system but hope to see forward looking candidates for the board with suitable business or professional skills or lots of relevant experience.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

As an observation I find choosing a candidate at voting time difficult as unless you have met them or they are generally well known the only info a member has is the short bio published in the mag. ......

I agree, the magazine is a good thing and should remain in place, but it should not be the only, or indeed major form of communications and dissemination of information. For a while it appeared that the news section on the RAAus website was going to be used for what is needed....but I don't see much published there these days...The quicker that the "Members only"section is put in place where warts and all can be disclosed and discussed the better we will all be for it.

 

At the very least we wont have to have extraordinary GM's to drag out the issues...those things take heaps of effort and $ on both sides to arrange! When we get told 100 machines waiting to be registered at the last GM and then within a month or so its suddenly 400.......is it any wonder that some of us think that the current board is not in control and our systems were last actively employed by Noah on the Ark!!

 

A great example of "Not in control"......myself and another member (who is an insurance SME) worked diligently on an insurance Request for proposal (RFP) for the entire RAAUS account with a whole series of criteria (50 plus criteria) being reviewed and scored....... The output of that process which was transparent and visible for scrutiny was that X was the right broker choice to move forward with. The board member from SEQ who was running the subcommittee put up the recommendation on the board forum and had 2 comments from a team of 13 board members....... 2 comments against the LARGEST SINGLE EXPENDITURE in our year other than labour.......The exec then chose to completely ignored the recommendation...... I and the others on the subcommittee are astounded......... Why did we bother!!!

 

Now in reading that it appears as though the decision was wilful.....but it wasn't entirely the case...... as is so often the case with our board an issue became a crisis issue because it was simple left too late to make decision on (insurance last year anyone remember that f&ckup that was never going to be allowed to happen again!!!!and there are other "sh!t happening" moments unfolding as was expected around a number of aircraft that cant at present be reregistered..... I understand those issues and they do mitigate against the insurance decision was made however while this was all unfolding a certain NSW board rep re-registered his plane with X while the RFP was active (anyone care to think what would happen in corporate world if that was to occur!!!!) ......at a hull rate of 1.4% (I was told this 2nd hand and have not, and can not obviously verify it! so do not read it as statement of fact simply think smoke and fire) !!!!!!! Anyone else out there getting 1.4%......F&ckme!! he of course couldn't be bothered to comment on the insurance proposal in the board forum.......but was happy to "pass the sandwiches and can I have another coffee"......... I learnt in science in High school about the conservation of energy......This guy however seems to consume energy in the form of O2 and produce no apparent energy outcome at all....... We need to move this guy on to retirement.... and put someone into the board that has the ability to turn O2 into useful and beneficial outcomes....... What happened with his personal insurance renewal is IMHO a disgrace and an absolute conflict if it is as was told to me!!!!!!

 

Thankfully he faces the voters very shortly........He was kicked off the board by the voters once.....but didn't seem to get the hint and is back....hopefully for the very last time!!!

 

BTW As circumstances dictated I renewed my annual insurance on my plane while the RFP was in progress as well.......My broker was not involved in the RFP and I paid circa 2.2% for the hull component! There was no conflict and had there been, that is my broker was involved I WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE BUSINESS ELSEWHERE while it was in play so that PERCEPTIONS of impropriety would never be raised, even if that cost me more $$$$.

 

Andy

 

EDIT: I now know that more than 2 board members commented, however at the end of the day if the standard procurement model was not understood then why on earth wasn't I asked.......or indeed anyone who has experience with procuring goods and services in large organisations where reason and rationale must be available and transparent for review. When or if you don't agree with the output then discuss rather than discard! Transparency and openness are still concepts not at all understood, or are things that deserve lip service only....remember that when it comes time to vote. Its your money and your organisation!!

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

We all had high hopes that, after the promises by the Board to clean up their act, the first thing that happens is that we find we were deceived into believing at there were only 100 aircraft on the ground when the true number was more like 400!!! There can be only two explanations - incompetence or lies . . . You choose.

 

Then we have another huge stuff on Insurance or is it not incompetence but the other thing? Perhaps one day we may find out. The Board were asked at the AGM at Heck Field if they were going to do a better job on Insurance than they did in 2012. They swore they'd do better. But if what Andy describes is "better" . . . Ad it leaves an awful smell hanging in the air.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I am guessing Wayne t Matthews wanted to have no part of the board's "interpretation" of the facts.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I am guessing Wayne t Matthews wanted to have no part of the board's "interpretation" of the facts.

Leave Wayne out of the politics FT.

I know Wayne is smart and wants to do the right thing by the members and he will not get involved in the politics, he will do his job as Tech manager to the best of his ability and would never compromise his integrity.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I agree, it seems the board took advantage of the lack of CEO and Tech manager in the RAA in February to apply their own interpretation of the situation.