Guest Andys@coffs Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 People Im told that there are 2 nominations for treasurer. Jim Tatlock and Dave Caban. As I understand it the board is split on the 2 and obviously those members who are interested need to discuss with their reps so that we dont repeat history. As I understand it Dave Caban has previously been treasurer but was removed by the board of the time as a result of a montion of no confidence which was passed, but then not ratified some time later and after Dave stood down at the next face to face meeting. Clearly the board at the time was unimpressed with Dave's treasuring ability. Dave identified that his budget was stalled for 2 to 3 weeks as a result of a a need in his personal life to be away from home, other board members of the time say that the budget was deficientfor 20 months. So fast forward to now and given that the treasurer is the missing link in the exec, and that today rightly or most definately wrongly the exec wields the power. Who do you want as treasurer and member of the exec of RAAus Dave or Jim? I sent emails to the board last night asking Dave to share with us what has changed in his life from an experience or education perspective that will mean he is successful this time when he wasnt, according tot he board of the day, last time around. He did respond to me and the other board members but IMO did not answer the questions I asked What do you people think? My personal view is that those of the cuirrent exec who are as I understand supporting Dave's nomination are almost certainly doing it as a means of continuing the IMHO inappropriate power cartel of the exec and as such the importance of the treasurer for ensuring legaslitive reporting, establishment of budgets and useful and accurate reporting and analysis is being ignored....again! Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 I was less than impressed when Dave got up at a Natfly dinner a couple of years ago, and took the mike for some reason. His first comments to to assembled masses were "Ha..thought you had got rid of me huh ?". Well yes Dave, I really thought we had !!............Jim Tatlock for me please......... Maj.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 At least he knows how we feel. I wouldn't think having Dave there looks good or is good for the outfit which is looking to be capable of total dysfunctionality. Jim is fine by me ( unreservedly) But because he writes here they may regard him as not part of "our GANG" . Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 A very wise old man told me years ago to run with the fox, not with the hounds.......".the wise fox runs into a hollow log while the hounds bark and carry on for the next hour, wondering where he disappeared to ! ".............so please don't include me in any gang. What we need right now is not 'gang' mentality, but independent thinking, and the gonads to stand up and say what we think...............................Maj.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Jim is one of my two State reps and I have a lot of confidence in his integrity and his ability. I have no doubt he would work for the members to improve governance, communication and our respect for the Executive of the Association. I don't really know Dave but history is against him. We need new people on the Exec with ability and ideas because it's damned clear they have been missing in action for a while now. We had one for a fleeting moment just now and he left because his fellow Exec members wanted to continue to run things their way instead of the right way. Kaz 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Well Jim is certainly ticking one of the boxes for me....communication !....he is still posting on this forum, and no doubt taking flak for it. Well done Jim !...........but as you were all suggesting in past posts...does he have the 'professional skills' and 'corporate professional experience ' that you were all previously suggesting was a minimum requirement for this position, and a history of business management ?????.................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 We have to have a treasurer and it can only come from the group that nominates and it can only be from the current set of members reps. In an ideal world we would have a rep that has an accounting background, or life experience of working in a senior controlling position in an organisation where financial reporting and budget setting were all part of the role..... If the alternates have none of that, then I would always choose the one that was prepared to seek external guidance rather than try to bluff it out, or worse just ignore the obligations....... Jim has already shown he is prepared to discuss the issues with members and seek their advice and guidance. From that point of view looking at the 2 options to me he is the better choice. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 So Andy is this a similar situation to the one that Ed faced with his hurried selection of Myles as the new SMS guy ????.......not the most ideal , but the better choice at the time ???...Knowing Myles, I'm sure he is prepared to seek ' external guidance ' also, and he was in the 'current set of members reps' as you suggest..................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I don't think it is anything like the process that happened with Ed and Myles. Myles specifically resigned to he available for the job which he was selected to do. Here you have two people offering for a job that has become available so there should be some sort of election process. Notice I have used the term ' process" I am personally happy with it. (The Process) If there is some rigging or undue influence exercised in the selection naturally I would not be impressed. May I take this opportunity to thank Jim for offering. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 So Andy is this a similar situation to the one that Ed faced with his hurried selection of Myles as the new SMS guy ????.......not the most ideal , but the better choice at the time ???...Knowing Myles, I'm sure he is prepared to seek ' external guidance ' also...................Maj... No definitely not. Choosing the best candidate from the nominations received is exactly what is supposed to happen and is completely IAW our rules. Ed doing what he did was way out of the rules...The execs (in total all 3) financial delegation of authority extends to expenditure of a maximum cost to RAAus without prior board endorsement is $10k, the treasurer on his own $5k the president has exactly $0k. So the moment Ed did what he did before getting board agreement he was completely at odds with our rules. Given that the members (who know) are riled up about a board that doesn't do what its supposed to then Myles doing what he did, in concert with Ed doing what he did then even if the financial delegations of authority allowed them to do what they did then surely the perceived conflict of interest must have been considered by anyone aware of what it would look like to an angry bunch of members who at the end of the day want RAAus back on a stable footing, and not as a result of something that seems shonky being done to address a previous shonky thing.... There are times for expedience, and some are telling us that this is one, If it were a case of if we didn't do this right now we will cease to exist then needs must, but in my own opinion this isn't one of these cases. That isn't to say that we can do nothing to address the issue clearly we must and soon! Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Hang on, won't Jim also have to 'resign' from his board position to become treasurer, leaving yet another vacancy requiring yet another election of a new board member. And as suggested in other past similar situations, shouldn't this position be immediately advertised externally in media, or put in the hands of an outside recruitment agency ???????????........And as that won't be done by the sound of it, will the position only be provisional until September like Myles' position ??????............Jobs for the boys ???Mmmmmmmmm.................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Greed Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Jim for all the above reasons................Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Notice I have used the term ' process" I am personally happy with it. (The Process) So Facthunter, Would I from the above , be correct in assuming that you are in fact a current paid-up member of the RAAus ?...................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Hang on, won't Jim also have to 'resign' from his board position to become treasurer, leaving yet another vacancy requiring yet another election of a new board member. And as suggested in other past similar situations, shouldn't this position be immediately advertised externally in media, or put in the hands of an outside recruitment agency ???????????........And as that won't be done by the sound of it, will the position only be provisional until September like Myles' position ??????............Jobs for the boys ???Mmmmmmmmm.................Maj... No....the Treasurers role isn't an employee role, its a member of the board, just like Ed (president) and Middo (secretary) its not a position that is paid for by the membership. Myles was going to be moving to a new employee role where we as the memberhip were going to pay him for his daily effort. All of the points you raise have only ever applied to paid employee positions such at the GM (ex CEO) Tech and Opps managers Admin staff etc The issue with Myles role was that he was to be appointed without any due process and we the members had no process to rely on that he was the best candidate available for the role. Had he gone through that process and come out the otherside as the obvious choice then we would all have supported the appointment. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Now no doubt I have much better things to do, like go for a nice fly for instance. However I'm sure if I took the time to go back and read through all the comments made on this site, after the Myles hulla balloo, I'm sure I'll find comments relating to the..... 'absolute need' .....to ....'do things correctly' ....in selecting people to fill ALL executive positions. And therefore I ask again, will this position or appointment be provisional until September , when perhaps more 'qualified' persons may have an opportunity to apply for it. ?...........Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballpoint 246niner Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 There's an old saying Andy.... Fool me once - Shame on you. Fool me twice- Shame on me! I think I'll let you decide on my thoughts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Now no doubt I have much better things to do, like go for a nice fly for instance.However I'm sure if I took the time to go back and read through all the comments made on this site, after the Myles hulla balloo, I'm sure I'll find comments relating to the..... 'absolute need' .....to ....'do things correctly' ....in selecting people to fill ALL executive positions. And therefore I ask again, will this position or appointment be provisional until September , when perhaps more 'qualified' persons may have an opportunity to apply for it. ?...........Maj... According to the Rules (Constitution), all positions on the Board Executive comprised of the President, the Secretary and the Treasurer, are voted on by the full Board at the Board Meeting that follows the AGM each year. So, yes, the Treasurer elected by the Board to replace Michael Apps in that position will hold the Job until the "new" Board takes office at the September AGM. I believe Michael Apps resigned from the Treasurer position because he could not stomach being a member of an Executive that would do the squalid, grubby "jobs for the boys" deal that saw Myles slipped in the back door in a repeat of the unscrupulous way Eugene Reid slipped Tizzard in the back door - and you know how badly that stunt paid-off. This is the proper democratic process at work and nothing like deals done behind closed doors to give one of the Executive (Myles) a paid position with RA-Aus. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Don't misunderstand me here...I agreed in a prev post that I also think Jim should be considered for the position, however as all of you have stated in the past, quite vocally in fact..DUE PROCESS MUST BE FOLLOWED ! So from Alfas' kind explanation I am now of the opinion that it will be decided upon formally in September, and that due to 'due process', it may be advertised externally, or through an outside employment agency ??.............Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 No point advertising because only Board Members are eligible to be elected to the Executive of the Board. To get a Treasurer with more appropriate skills, qualifications and experience, you would need to have advertised months ago to get such a suitably qualified person to run for the Board and then stand for election to the Treasurer position. This is not a member of staff, it is a Board Member with particular responsibilities and authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Ok can someone give some indication of the skills that Jim may possess, to handle a 3 million turnover, or indicate to us, that he may make a successfull RAAus treasurer ?....Other that the fact that he is a board member, and has put his hand up. Bearing in mind that several treasurers before have failed in the job, and that there has extensive suggestion that we need outside expertise in this job ...............Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 To be honest I'm not sure that anyone on the current board is appropriately 'qualified' to be the treasurer in the conventional sense. Most NFPs have a treasurer in place to prepare the accounts, report to the board on finance issues and so on. We are of such a size that this traditional role of treasurer is probably no longer relevant. With $2.5m or thereabouts in revenues each year we should have full time staff monitoring income and expenses, preparing financial reports, etc. The role of the treasurer is somewhat diminished if this occurs and reduces to one of oversight (like a real board). He is there to ensure that these things occur, he might be expected to have a higher level of awareness about the budget, financial strategy and so forth but beyond this he doesn't require much more financial nous than the rest of the board - all of our board members should have awareness of these things and if they don't then they shouldn't be there. Given that we need someone who is financially literate but is not a financial genius I would choose Jim from the two candidates. Why? Well history has shown Dave to be deficient in this role. I have no evidence to suggest that he has done anything to improve his credibility in this role and so I would stay away from him. What about Jim? Well I have nothing to suggest he has even an ounce of financial literacy (nor am I suggesting he doesn't) but what I do have is a level of confidence in his integrity. Given that we don't need a financial mastermind I would choose Jim because I think his integrity will lead him to ask questions when he is not sure of something, he will dig a little deeper if he isn't comfortable with something and he will speak his mind on these same issues. Perhaps if there was a third option I might choose an alternative but given the constraints that are present Jim has my full support for this role. Cheers, Mick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 To be honest I'm not sure that anyone on the current board is appropriately 'qualified' to be the treasurer in the conventional sense.Most NFPs have a treasurer in place to prepare the accounts, report to the board on finance issues and so on. We are of such a size that this traditional role of treasurer is probably no longer relevant. With $2.5m or thereabouts in revenues each year we should have full time staff monitoring income and expenses, preparing financial reports, etc. The role of the treasurer is somewhat diminished if this occurs and reduces to one of oversight (like a real board)... Mick, this is a most appropriate comment and is perhaps a solution to one of the organisations problems. Until the constitution changes, continue with having a treasurer who holds the responsibility for financial oversight, but employ a suitably qualified Accountant who would essentially fill a Chief Financial Officer/Company Accountant role to get and maintain the books in order and to make recommendations to the Board about fiscal policy for the organisation. Dave 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 airsick is right on the money! This 'table tennis treasurer' game must cease! Apart from access to funding for a new employee expense (and that recently didn't seem to be a problem) what would it take for the Board to recruit a suitably-qualified individual/firm to correctly do 'all things financial' while under the scrutiny of whatever Treasurer the Board feels is best equipped to monitor the results? Should sufficient funds not be available then, as others have previously suggested - raise membership fees or set a levy to accomodate the necessity. No offense intended to either of the contenders but we've had too much crappy bean counting diligence in the recent past from 'good-old-boys' who have proven that they didn't know sh!t from apple butter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Hi Facthunter, are you a fully paid up member of RaaUs.? Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 So far I am. For the first time I'm considering not being. Why do you ask? nev 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