RA-Aus organisational restructure

[Oscar]

Pete - the consistent problem is that CASA tells us what we HAVE to do, the form of the organisation is a mechanism for our legal existence. The form of our legal existence does not alter what we HAVE to do. Therefore, we need to look firstly at what has to be achieved, and secondly, at how we can have a legal existence that allows us to do that. Whatever form of legal existence RAA chooses, it is the cart that follows the CASA-defined horse - not the other way around.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Pete - the consistent problem is that CASA tells us what we HAVE to do, the form of the organisation is a mechanism for our legal existence. The form of our legal existence does not alter what we HAVE to do. Therefore, we need to look firstly at what has to be achieved, and secondly, at how we can have a legal existence that allows us to do that. Whatever form of legal existence RAA chooses, it is the cart that follows the CASA-defined horse - not the other way around.

Hear what you are saying Oscar but it was CASA that invited RAAus to self regulate. The pre-existing regulations were always there. RAAus has the capacity to strategically plan (what it can achieve) but never has. It has allowed CASA to set the agenda. The way in which the annual deed of agreement is negotiated is but one of the potential tasks for a proactive Board. To remain where we are currently is not an option.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hear what you are saying Oscar but it was CASA that invited RAAus to self regulate. The pre-existing regulations were always there. RAAus has the capacity to strategically plan (what it can achieve) but never has. It has allowed CASA to set the agenda. The way in which the annual deed of agreement is negotiated is but one of the potential tasks for a proactive Board. To remain where we are currently is not an option.

(a) have a look at the deed and you'll wonder why it's resigned annually, other than that it's a deed in which CASA give a varying amount of money in return for the same demands.

 

(b) where we are now certainly IS an option, but with more attention paid to doing the jobs we were supposed to be doing, looking after the interests of the members instead of our own, and communicating clearly everything except in camera discussions on an immediate basis through the news section of the RAA website.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

(a) have a look at the deed and you'll wonder why it's resigned annually, other than that it's a deed in which CASA give a varying amount of money in return for the same demands.(b) where we are now certainly IS an option, but with more attention paid to doing the jobs we were supposed to be doing, looking after the interests of the members instead of our own, and communicating clearly everything except in camera discussions on an immediate basis through the news section of the RAA website.

Turbs.......what you just described is good governance. And I agree - that with what we have in the way of an incorporated association could work with the current board if it chose the path of good governance. All I'm suggesting is that given the growth of RAAus there are more proven, contemporary ways to structure the organisation that could improve communications at all levels, allow RAAus to think strategically and plan on behalf of its members, and comply with any deeds or contracts that align us with government regulation - what ever they may be.

 

If we abnegate our governance responsibilities sure to god the government (via CASA) will occupy the vacuum - as it has. I believe the door is open for negotiations with CASA but the gene pool of ideas, and ideals, should be located beyond the RAAus Executive. Members need to be positive about the future of Recreational Aviation rather than forever contemplating the flawed practices of the past. The problem, of course, is that progress must start with the current elected Board or, as you say, the committee.

 

 

[Oscar]

Pete: AMEN to all of that!. RAA's governance MUST be able to meet its obligations under the exemptions under which it operates - and it must equally be a properly-governed oranisation. Far from being mutually exclusive, these two strands must become mutually inclusive - and it appears to me that there has been a growing dichotomy of recent years that has become a cancer to be excised.

 

 

[DWF]

Some more thoughts on the structure of RAAus...

 

continued from my post #64 on the "The divide between north and south Queensland" thread.

 

In that post I propose the following structure:

 

• An independent, skills based Board of 5 or 7 Directors.
   
   
  
• A General Manager/CEO who operates under the direction, guidance and supervision of the Board to provide all the technical, operational, financial and other business functions of the association.
   
   
  
• An advisory committee of elected (or nominated) members that set the mission and objective of the association and who provide recommendations and advice to the Board on appropriate matters and who, through the President, promote and advocate on behalf of the association. Members of this committee would be selected on skills, interests and ability rather than geographical location.
   
   
  
• The advisory committee can/should be supported by sub-committees dealing with particular functions or areas of expertise and made up of interested and appropriately qualified members and possibly outside advisers.
   
   
  

 

 

Under this structure I do not see the need for an elected Secretary or Treasurer. These functions being provided by a 'secretariat' which would be part of the paid staff under the GM. It does not require and should not fall upon a volunteer to undertake these tasks - all the duties of these positions required under the Constitution and the Act can and should be undertaken by the secretariat - the Board should only have to scrutinise and approve their output.

 

I do not see the need for a gang of 3 executive. The day to day operation of the association should be carried out by the paid staff under the GM. Policy and high level decisions should be made by the whole Board.

 

An alternative structure to that above might be for RAAus to operate as an 'association of members' similar to the way it does now, with an elected committee (not necessarily geographically based) and then to set up a company or wholly owned subsidiary of some sort, called say "Recreational Aviation Services" to undertake the first two items listed above. That way the members who wish to can be involved with the operation of the association without becoming bogged down by (or failing to satisfy) the operational, technical, financial and other obligations of the association under the Deed of Agreement and the various Acts and Regulations.

 

I feel the way RAAus is structured needs to change to make it more effective, efficient and compliant.

 

Change necessarily puts people out of their comfort zone and so is often resisted.

 

We need members and a Board willing to 'bite the bullet' and start the change happening.

 

Unfortunately the only way members have of directly influencing this change is by lobbying, proposing amendments and changing the constitution to enable a restructure to take place.

 

There does not seem to have been much action recently from the 'Restructure Committee' or the Constitution Review Committee. This is where the the proposed changes should come from but we have not heard anything so far.

 

Voting for the member(s) who you feel will be effective and take up the challenge is important.

 

To effect change it is even more important to propose well thought out and prepared motions at the AGM and other General Meetings and voting on these.

 

DWF

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

DWF,

 

A lot of good sense in what you say. A couple of questions interspersed below:

 

An independent, skills based Board of 5 or 7 Directors.

Independent? of whom?

 

Skills based? - how elected/appointed?

 

A General Manager/CEO who operates under the direction, guidance and supervision of the Board to provide all the technical, operational, financial and other business functions of the association.

Agreed.

 

An advisory committee of elected (or nominated) members that set the mission and objective of the association and who provide recommendations and advice to the Board on appropriate matters and who, through the President, promote and advocate on behalf of the association. Members of this committee would be selected on skills, interests and ability rather than geographical location.

Nominated? Selected? By whom?

 

The advisory committee can/should be supported by sub-committees dealing with particular functions or areas of expertise and made up of interested and appropriately qualified members and possibly outside advisers.

I agree but sub-committees have not worked either well or in some cases at all. Consider the Ops Manual Review Committee - years went by with no output and then output went to CASA without any review by the members (NPRM) and, I could be wrong, but I believe some Board Members got no input or comment before it went to CASA. After many years it suddenly became "Urgent" - where have we heard that excuse recently? I believe Middo and Tizzard were responsible for that one.

 

Under this structure I do not see the need for an elected Secretary or Treasurer. These functions being provided by a 'secretariat' which would be part of the paid staff under the GM. It does not require and should not fall upon a volunteer to undertake these tasks - all the duties of these positions required under the Constitution and the Act can and should be undertaken by the secretariat - the Board should only have to scrutinise and approve their output.

There is a proposed amendment to the Constitution that sets out to recognise the nature of the Secretary and Treasurer roles as oversight rather than hands on.

 

I do not see the need for a gang of 3 executive. The day to day operation of the association should be carried out by the paid staff under the GM. Policy and high level decisions should be made by the whole Board.

Agree completely. With a 13 members Board and last century communications and small staff there was some merit for an Executive. There is no merit now and would be even less with a 7 member Board.

 

An alternative structure to that above might be for RAAus to operate as an 'association of members' similar to the way it does now, with an elected committee (not necessarily geographically based) and then to set up a company or wholly owned subsidiary of some sort, called say "Recreational Aviation Services" to undertake the first two items listed above. That way the members who wish to can be involved with the operation of the association without becoming bogged down by (or failing to satisfy) the operational, technical, financial and other obligations of the association under the Deed of Agreement and the various Acts and Regulations.

There is a lot of potential available in looking at legal structures of RA-Aus. This work was being done by the Ferrier/Kidd Restructure Committee. I believe they will be doing s presentation to the AGM at Narromine.

 

I feel the way RAAus is structured needs to change to make it more effective, efficient and compliant.

Change necessarily puts people out of their comfort zone and so is often resisted.

This is often apparent with older, long serving Board Members who are committed to the past and can't visualise the future. They should move on and let the people with grander vision have a go.

 

We need members and a Board willing to 'bite the bullet' and start the change happening.

Unfortunately the only way members have of directly influencing this change is by lobbying, proposing amendments and changing the constitution to enable a restructure to take place.

Can be done. Have a look at the 15 amendments to be voted on at the AGM this year.

 

There does not seem to have been much action recently from the 'Restructure Committee' or the Constitution Review Committee. This is where the the proposed changes should come from but we have not heard anything so far.

The CRC was parked up by the Board for the second time. Myles B who was chair of the CRC resigned from the CRC and the Board to "pursue other opportunities" which we later came to understand to be a lucrative job gifted to him by the then President. This time it was to allow the Restructure Committee to get on with their task. I believe the Board took forever to give the terms of reference to the Restructure Committee if they ever got them. The CRC has restarted but will not have anything to be voted on at the AGM but may have a presentation for us. How do I know? I asked. Why don't we all know? Buggered if I can answer that.

 

Voting for the member(s) who you feel will be effective and take up the challenge is important.

To effect change it is even more important to propose well thought out and prepared motions at the AGM and other General Meetings and voting on these.

Agreed. Have a look at the amendments proposed in the August edition.

 

 

[DWF]

Independent? of whom?

 

Skills based? - how elected/appointed?

 

Nominated? Selected? By whom?

I have not received my August Sport Aviation yet - maybe it will be in the PO Box this morning.

 

Independent of any conflict of interest with RAAus business.

 

May include non-RAAus members.

 

Skills based.

 

There should be a Job Description and Selection Criteria just like any other job.

 

Nomination.

 

Directors would be selected and nominated by a committee of the Board and proposed to the AGM for approval.

 

(This is normal practice for company Boards.)

 

The transition from the current Board structure to the new system may require a bit of working out.

 

DWF