RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[facthunter]

That seems a good analysis Oscar. I can't understand why anyone would announce the decision was taken alone. If a few backed him that might be a different matter and it may be that that has been done. If the majority of the board are not happy they will have to overrule the action or shut up.( putting it blankly) One would anticipate the Pres. may resign although there would be no reason why that would be required unless some process was deliberately by passed and some sort of correctional process was rejected by him. He couldn't refuse to act upon a board directive. This is all hypothetical but I attempt to run it hoping for some clarity. Nev

 

 

[Guest john]

The President has previously stated that he alone decided on the appointment of the Safety Coordinator, which action is unconstitutional. Therefore the President is accountable to the Board members to explain his actions for acting outside the constitution. If the majority of the Board members at the next Board meeting determine that this matter requires to be rescinded then they will have to approve a resolution in the minutes of the meeting to reverse this unconstitutional appointment forthwith.

 

 

[kaz3g]

My view is that the decision to create this new position and put a focus on safety and compliance with the rules is an admirable one and, in the ordinary course of events I would support it strongly.

 

But how can the appalling lack of process used to implement it in this instance ever be justified? Ed has trampled on the RAAus rules to put someone in place to enforce CASA's rule and for no reason. I can't believe that there wasn't time for him to organise a telephone conference with his fellow Board members to canvass their agreement and provide them, at least, with an explanation as to the reasons for the urgency.

 

In doing this, Ed has totally undermined his new GM. It seems this might not be the only instance where matters involving the employment and general management of staff have been dealt with, and dealt with badly, by Ed and Middo.

 

When will it stop? When will these guys learn that this is NOT how things should be done? When will the Executive stop running rough shod over the rest of the Board - people who are OUR elected representatives? When will they stop creating crises and then engaging in a poor version of crisis management?

 

I suggest the answer is that they won't; that they will continue to act like this until ever they are replaced by members who understand what good governance entails.

 

I am so saddened and frustrated by this. The end NEVER justifies unlawful means in a democratic society.

 

Kaz

 

Ps While it is true to say that not all Board members must cast their votes when urgency dictates a prompt response, there still needs to be a majority approval unless the decision is one already countenanced under the rules. Approving expenditure of at least $50k is most definitely not countenanced and is a blatant breach of our trust. Kaz.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

It appears that the powers that be at CASA were not going to accept anyone else but Myles for this position, so it appears Ed may not have had much choice in the matter, and I doubt that this was a decision he took on his lonesome by the way. So it would appear any argument you may all have over this decision is with CASA, not our elected officials......................... .Maj...

 

 

[kaz3g]

Sorry to disagree, Maj.

 

RAAus is an incorporated Association with rules developed from the legislated model rules and it is incumbent on all our elected representatives to comply with those rules.

 

If Ed had a discussion with CASA representatives and they put such a proposition to him, he still was required by those rules to obtain his Board's consent before acting. He has actually placed himself in a very dangerous position because, if the Board doesn't ratify after the fact, he could be personally liable for expenses incurred.

 

Not Ed, not Paul, not Myles in fact not any one member of the Board can commit OUR association to expend large sums of money in a unilateral manner and I doubt anyone from CASA would be stupid enough to expect them to do so.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Ignition]

I can only suggest you all stop jumping the gun... (Or would it be a fishing rod for poor Mr Herring).

 

Wait until you get the FULL story before making certain comments. All I will add to this is that Mr Herring is by far the single best person for the job, and RAAus may as well pack up shop if he goes. He is acting in the best interests of RAAus, which is far more than what some other people are doing (and this includes some people on this forum.). Time to give it a rest and put the pitchforks/harpoons away for a few weeks.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

That's interesting Ross. Casa can dictate who we employ ? The plot thickens...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Motz, I'm sure you've been around long enough to have heard the 'catch all' phrase...'a person acceptable to the department'.........or in some cases not acceptable..............Maj...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Kaz, you're not in possession of the full facts, hold on for a while.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Kaz, Don't assume because we are an incorporated association that would stop them for a moment.They tell large privately owned corporations ( airlines and maintenance orgs) what to do, and who they must hire all the time.................Maj...

 

 

[oracle1]

Ladies and Gentleman,

 

the future of the organization is at stake and enough is enough. If Miles B appointment is illegal (nothing is illegal unless you get a Judge to say so and judges say whatever they like these days) and the ACT Justice Department move in conjunction with CASA to argue we cannot govern ourselves then we can kiss it all goodbye. CASA has done a superb job of destroying GA and now their coming for us. This appointment and how it was conducted is unacceptable. There are many others who could have been considered for this position. Miles abdication from his elected post and failure to fulfill his obligations to the members to see out his term should be taken into account.

 

My opinion is nothing short of putting the whole board to election will solve the problem. Even if a favourable board is elected only some really good management and some really good luck is going to turn this around. What we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the organizations liabilities. We need competent administrators to solve this problem and needless to say we shouldn't be looking internally for them. The position is a good idea, the way it was conducted is a disgrace.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ladies and Gentleman,the future of the organization is at stake and enough is enough. If Miles B appointment is illegal (nothing is illegal unless you get a Judge to say so and judges say whatever they like these days) and the ACT Justice Department move in conjunction with CASA to argue we cannot govern ourselves then we can kiss it all goodbye. CASA has done a superb job of destroying GA and now their coming for us. This appointment and how it was conducted is unacceptable. There are many others who could have been considered for this position. Miles abdication from his elected post and failure to fulfill his obligations to the members to see out his term should be taken into account.

My opinion is nothing short of putting the whole board to election will solve the problem. Even if a favourable board is elected only some really good management and some really good luck is going to turn this around. What we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the organizations liabilities. We need competent administrators to solve this problem and needless to say we shouldn't be looking internally for them. The position is a good idea, the way it was conducted is a disgrace.

Amazing how things quickly get a life of their own. I would disagree with you on the illegality of the appointment oracle1 for a couple of reasons, and for one of them I'd ask the two dissenting board members who made inflammatory posts on this site:

 

• Did the President accept his nomination solely on the grounds that he would make decisions and you would accept them, and did you vote YES, those votes retained in the records?
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

• I'd also ask them is it true that RA Aus have failed to fulfill the Deed of Agreement with CASA in terms of a Safety regime such as a Compliance and Enforcement system, and would failing to act immediately have cost RAA $60,000 of its Grant?
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Some things we can be sure of and some we are speculating about . . .

 

While Ed took full responsibility for what he knows is a very bold decision, don't think for a moment that Middo's finger prints aren't all over it as well. This decision had the support of the Board Executive. It is unbudgetted expenditure and outside the Executive's authority but they approved this move.

 

The urgency that saw this desperate move rushed through had nothing to do with not having time to discuss with and seek the views of the Board. That could have been achieved in a couple of days. As we know the Board has been considering this proposal for months if not years. The urgency was that this Board was never going to support appointment of a STCC any time in the foreseeable future. Ed's decision then is that CASA would be placated and lives may be saved if this position is created - NOW and that the only way the STCC appointment was ever going to happen was if he did it now in spite of the opposition from the Board. Seeing that Myles was available, and that you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, Ed went for the full Monto .

 

 

[oracle1]

Sorry basic principle of Westminster democracy meeting procedure. If you don't inform all members of the group that a meeting is to occur then the notice of meeting isn't valid. The vote is immaterial even if it did occur. Were all parties informed and did they acknowledge they were informed? No meeting, no quorum no vote no appointment black and white. Has this country devolved to the point that we don't understand the principles of democracy? Its painfully obvious the organization is dysfunctional and soon it will implode. This latest stunt is so far off track a child can discern it is wrong. CASA "the model litigant" is not your friend and most certainly not benevolent. Soon we will learn the taste of tedious costly complexity and nihilism, which will manifest itself every 100 hours with a bill from a LAME. The RPL category already awaits!

 

Call an election for the whole board now please.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you both agree then get the process started, get the support and you'll be fine.

 

 

[Powerin]

Some things we can be sure of and some we are speculating about . . .While Ed took full responsibility for what he knows is a very bold decision, don't think for a moment that Middo's finger prints aren't all over it as well. This decision had the support of the Board Executive. It is unbudgetted expenditure and outside the Executive's authority but they approved this move.

 

The urgency that saw this desperate move rushed through had nothing to do with not having time to discuss with and seek the views of the Board. That could have been achieved in a couple of days. As we know the Board has been considering this proposal for months if not years. The urgency was that this Board was never going to support appointment of a STCC any time in the foreseeable future. Ed's decision then is that CASA would be placated and lives may be saved if this position is created - NOW and that the only way the STCC appointment was ever going to happen was if he did it now in spite of the opposition from the Board. Seeing that Myles was available, and that you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, Ed went for the full Monto .

I think you have it in a nutshell.

Very occasionally democracy fails and autocracy needs to step in (some may call it benevolent dictatorship).

 

 

[Downunder]

Very occasionally democracy fails and autocracy needs to step in (some may call it benevolent dictatorship).

It's getting autocracy to step out.........that is quite often the problem........

 

 

[Powerin]

It's getting autocracy to step out.........that is quite often the problem........

Very true. But as I have said before, democracy is still alive and well in RAAus. If the need arises the next election is available to make your wishes clear if the President or any of the Board does not meet your expectations. Furthermore, any RAAus member can become a candidate in the elections.

Remember that RAAus is no longer a "club" (rightly or wrongly) but is bound to uphold the aviation laws and enjoys several exemptions from those laws. CASA holds the cards in the end. Let's not stack the deck in their favour.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The urgency was that this Board was never going to support appointment of a STCC any time in the foreseeable future. Ed's decision then is that CASA would be placated and lives may be saved if this position is created

If this is true, and it well may be let's think of the people who lost loved ones during the time this obfuscation was in progress.

 

I wonder how the other 20 or so families who may well be talking to lawyers feel about this heartless attitude.

 

I wonder how the CASA people feels when they read this couldn't care less discussion.

 

And I wonder what's being reported to a Minister facing possible extinction in a few weeks time, not to mention the Shadow Minister who could use a blatant issue

 

 

[Oscar]

Wow, so much heat with little more than a few faint sparks of light in the distant gloom.

 

It appears to me that the umbrage over the lack of correct procedure is almost certainly well-founded and presumably stems from a very deep well of dissatisfaction with the mode of operation in some circumstances by the Board / Executive over a considerable period of time. That is completely understandable; in fact, I suspect that if the full story were to be discovered, some of the people responsible would be justifiably run out of town on a rail with nothing more than tar and feathers on their persons following the discovery that burning at the stake is, in fact, illegal.

 

However, to try to provide some balance, it is worth re-examining the CASA Audit report sent on 21 December 2011 (available on the RAA website). It is not pretty reading. 18 months later, it appears to me that RAA had still not provided a coherent and comprehensive plan to address many of those issues, but had instead relied mainly on a point-by-point response to individual matters, which would not inspire confidence in CASA of preventing the emergence of more specific cases. That the MTOW issue for certain aircraft - identified as problems in the 2011 Audit Report - only very recently emerged, points to the inadequacy of the RAA response. The fact that Ed Herring's own aircraft was one of these may have sharpened his perception of the urgency of addressing the problems, though that in itself does not justify acting outside of the constraints that ought to have been respected. We still - I believe - do not know all the facts behind his apparent failure to take several deep breaths and ensure things were done correctly and I for one would be very disappointed if those facts are not laid before members (or at the very least, the Board / new Board in September.)

 

I don't believe that CASA has the power to demand the appointment of any specific individual to the position, just the power to reject someone who is NOT 'acceptable'. In this case, 'an 'acceptable' person would be, one would think, someone with the appropriate knowledge and training etc. to discharge the responsibilities of the position effectively. From the summary Ed Herring provided, it appears that Myles met that criteria plus one other essential one: availability. I have no knowledge of the man on which to comment on that, though I am sure others here do.

 

It still seems to me that if such action was so urgently required - which remains to be discovered - then the inaction of those who should have been addressing the issue during the last 18 months, during which time they had a number of Board meetings during which such action could have been accomplished completely in accordance with all necessary observance of the organisation rules - is the root cause for the sudden and rather clumsy response. The organisation is surely better served by understanding how to avoid such situations emerging in the future than simply shooting from the hip while knowing only the information currently to hand?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Ladies and Gentleman,the future of the organization is at stake and enough is enough. If Miles B appointment is illegal (nothing is illegal unless you get a Judge to say so and judges say whatever they like these days) and the ACT Justice Department move in conjunction with CASA to argue we cannot govern ourselves then we can kiss it all goodbye. ...

No-one, I hope, is saying that the appointment of the STCC is illegal...it is ultra vires our Constitution and breaches our rules in my view, but it is certainly not criminal.

 

But any criminal actions are illegal, Oscar, long before a judge gets to record a conviction.

 

And, if it is true that Ed gave the remainder of the Board an ultimatum that would have put old Blue Eyes to shame, and if it is true that the Board majority agreed to be bound by it, they should all be ashamed of themselves.

 

We are the "owners" of the organisation and we are entitled to considered, judicious representation and committed participation by our representatives in the decisions made regarding its operation now and into the future.

 

I run telephone conferences most days at work. All I have to do is dial into the conference system and I am part of the discussions occurring in multiple other locations. The President must surely be able to link his board in this day and age in a way that allows immediate communication of major issues and their appropriate resolution?

 

Remember that what appears at first glance to be a white knight rushing to the rescue can easily turn out to be merely a Don Quixote just tilting at windmills.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

I notice that my questions to the two outraged board members have not been answered

 

 

[Oscar]

No-one, I hope, is saying that the appointment of the STCC is illegal...it is ultra vires our Constitution and breaches our rules in my view, but it is certainly not criminal.But any criminal actions are illegal, Oscar, long before a judge gets to record a conviction.

 

Kaz

Er, I think you were replying to Oracle, rather than me - I didn't mention illegality anywhere apart from burning witches..

 

However, it is absolutely correct that modern communications should have enabled Ed Herring to obtain the necessary Board endorsement - and if he did indeed make such calls and his proposed decision was NOT supported then he has a great deal for which to answer. It certainly appears to me that RAA communications and systems are so far behind modern good (not even 'best') practice that major overhaul is required; a decent business practice management system would go a long way to help.

 

By 'business practice management' system I refer to an automated system (usually but not necessarily a database-driven web-based system, in these days) by incorporating the rules under which the business operates into the chain of process actions: e.g. for financial matters, a check that delegation has not been exceeded in incurring an expense. Such a system for registration could have dramatically reduced the workload and possibility of error, and if the system is audited by CASA prior to inception, would provide a far greater level of assurance of the observance of the rules.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I can only suggest you all stop jumping the gun... (Or would it be a fishing rod for poor Mr Herring).Wait until you get the FULL story before making certain comments. All I will add to this is that Mr Herring is by far the single best person for the job, and RAAus may as well pack up shop if he goes. He is acting in the best interests of RAAus, which is far more than what some other people are doing (and this includes some people on this forum.). Time to give it a rest and put the pitchforks/harpoons away for a few weeks.

And how many months do you think we as members will have to wait until we are given the full story?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Maybe never, but there's nothing wrong in demanding the full story, since there seems to be some reluctance in telling it.