Special Resolution 11 - AGM at NATFLY

[DonRamsay]

This year RA-Aus will, for the first time, have their Annual General Meeting at a national fly-in. It might seem odd to some RA-Aus members, and perhaps all SAAA members, that RA-Aus is holding its AGM at AUSFLY and not NATFLY. The SAAA of course hold their AGM at AUSFLY and the EAA hold theirs at Oshkosh, in conjunction with AirVenture.

 

You could be forgiven for holding thinking that RA-Aus has held its AGM in Canberra so that the minimum number of members would attend and make life difficult for the Board. If that was the aim it was very successful. Typically, a Canberra AGM would attract fewer than 20 members, mostly from the ACT. When we held last year’s AGM at Heck Field we got around 10 times the typical Canberra attendance. If held at NATFLY, we could at least double or triple the attendance at Heck Field?

 

A less cynical explanation of AGM at Canberra is that it is the HQ of RA-Aus and is the least cost alternative for Staff. But, if you look at the cost for ordinary members to attend, it is not the low cost alternative.

 

So, if this Special Resolution 11 gets the support of the members (75% of those who vote) then in future, the RA-Aus AGM will be at NATFLY and many hundreds, perhaps a thousand, RA-Aus members can walk into the AGM and find out what is going on with their Association.

 

To achieve a NATFLY AGM, we have to change three things:

 

• Year end Currently, RA-Aus ends it year on 30 June. By law, the AGM has to be held within 5 months of the end of RA-Aus’s. So, to have the AGM in March or April (depending on when Easter is) then you have to move the year end so it is within 5 months before Easter. This gives 31 December as the logical date for RA-Aus year end.
   
   
  
  This is an easy fix as all you have to do is change the date in Rule 32 from 30 June to 31 December.
   
   
  
• Date for the AGMCurrently the Board can set any date as long as it is no later than 5 months after year end. Special Resolution 11 proposes that the AGM be held in conjunction with NATFLY.
   
   
  
  This requires a change to Rule 21 to hold the AGM on "where practical, the Saturday of the annual, national fly-in." We can't say NATFLY because it could one day have its name changed.
   
   
  
• Date for the other General Meeting.Currently the Constitution requires two General Meetings per year: the AGM and a General Meeting at NATFLY. If we are holding the AGM at NATFLY, the other General Meeting needs to move to be about 6 months after the AGM.
   
   
  
  This requires a change to Rule 23 to move the ordinary General Meeting from NATFLY to about the time the AGM is currently held.
   
   
  

 

 

So, let's hear your questions and your views on the merits or otherwise of this proposal to have our AGM in conjunction with NATFLY.

 

 

[Bubbleboy]

Hi Don...what your proposing makes sense and I applaud your drive...Thank you.

 

What concerns me is the dwindling attendances at each Natfly. I went to the first 3 and the first was fabulous. They took a steep dive after that. To a point that I chose not to attend this year as it wasnt worth my time and money. The feedback I received from those who did attend was less than cherry. I know this probably comes across as being critical and "why dont I put my hand up to organise part of it'? Well I did offer. Two years running and got shot down basically.

 

I really want Natfly to work. It could be a fabulous event and Temora is a great spot with good facilities. It just needs more than one person to organise it all.

 

I know, a little off topic but relevant considering the proposed changes. If Natfly carries on it in its current format, would I drive 8 hours just to attend the AGM?

 

Probably not...

 

Scotty

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Like you Scotty, I also attended the first three at Temora and would have gone to this year's but for an engine problem on the morning we were going to fly out to Temora. I don't know first hand how the 2013 Natfly went but I didn't get too many positive comments about it from those who were there - particularly exhibitors. Let's hope some confidence comes back to Recreational Aviation soon.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

What's wrong with moving it about a bit ala Hecks Field....overall it would then allow more access to all members throughout the country. I feel at least one of the two per year should be mobile, gets them out of the Canberra mentality also.................Maj...

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Maj, Heck Field was a great success. I was initially proposing that the other General Meeting (not the AGM) should be shared around. However I was prevailed upon by the Board that one of the Meetings had to be in Canberra so the Board could have contact with Canberra (CASA/ATSB/Govt) people and the RA-Aus staff.

 

If you feel strongly about the non AGM meeting being a movable feast then you could put that to the members as an amendment to the Constitution. It's too late for this AGM but you could have it voted on at the Natfly GM/AGM. In the end, it is up to the members to decide how and when they want that to happen.

 

 

[coljones]

Like you Scotty, I also attended the first three at Temora and would have gone to this year's but for an engine problem on the morning we were going to fly out to Temora. I don't know first hand how the 2013 Natfly went but I didn't get too many positive comments about it from those who were there - particularly exhibitors. Let's hope some confidence comes back to Recreational Aviation soon.

A commitment to hold it close to public transport (be it train or plane) would be nice.

 

You need a Jabiru!

 

 

[cscotthendry]

What about holding it nearest the greatest concentration of members?

 

 

[cazza]

Bubble boy and all,

 

Natfly has always had a big team of people to organise it, including Ops, office staff, board members, temora council, temora aviation museum, on field residents, towns people, and member volunteers. It is a huge job and everyone works their b$& off for months. So if it doesn't work, the team relies on constructive feedback.

 

Cazza

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I doubt the apparent decline of Natfly relates to the effort or amrt thinking of the organisers or the volunteers. My suspicion is that it has been adversely affected by the slump in the market for new & used aircraft and accessories. There has been the odd decision made off the cuff like the one regarding not being able to win a competition if you've won before. And some ascribe CASA ramp checks as an issue. Ramp checks should not be a problem to anyone and have been conducted to my knowledge in a friendly, helpful manner.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Don, I feel these National events should be 'out of bounds' for CASA ramp checks, (Just my opinion of course) For instance I wouldn't want to fly 1900 NM or whatever it was, for a ramp check. Even though I would obviously be prepared to front my stuff suitably for one, I obviously don't often take off for a 1900 nm Xcountry without being suitably equipped or prepared.

 

I reckon the fact that people knew CASA was going to be there, was also a big factor In keeping attendances down....Let them instead put on an informational forum like the rest of us, and those who want can attend, instead of forcing people into something against their will....................Maj...

 

 

[DonRamsay]

As I was about to leave on the Sunday morning in 2012, a CASA fellow I had been having dinner with wandered over for a chat. I was going to get a quick ride in an interesting new aircraft before I left and was standing near the plane waiting for my mate to come back. The CASA guy was interested in the aircraft and started asking me questions about it. After a few minutes, I realised he was actually doing a ramp check. A bit sneaky but harmless enough. They don't worry me at all especially if they are done in a non traffic policeman style.

 

 

[Bubbleboy]

Hi Maj....I respect you and appreciate your advice but why the hell are some folk scared of these ramp checks? If we have nothing to hide, what is there to worry about? Are CASA trying to screw us over? I find that hard to believe. We all should have the required documents and a 15 min chat on the ramp is not going to kill us is it?

 

I drove 8 hours to get there but should I have stayed home as I could have got pulled over and breath tested? If that is what is keeping folk away from NATFLY, we are in serious trouble!

 

Carol...reading your post above, please do not see this as a personal attack on your efforts. I was at the first 3 NATFLY's at Temora and constantly saw you flitting around on your buggy trying to ensure things were running smoothly. What I am eluding to is the fact that even with constructive suggestions and offers of help, nothing has changed. In 2011, after complete frustration, a number of folk on here offered to organise things for the following year. I offered to organise and run a complete kids program. I went so far as to organise quotes from "Play on wheels" in Wagga as well as a jumping castle. I was going to organise a model balsa glider building comp and who evers flew the furtherest, was going to receive a joy flight on the day from one of the RAA flight schools in NSW who I am friends with the owner. These were just the start. I had a full 3 days organised. All I needed was the go ahead and some funding from the RAAus. All I got was negativity and reasons why I couldnt do it.

 

The first Temora NATFLY for me was fantastic! The Museum engineers did several technical presentations on things like checking and making cables to name one. There were a group who built an ultralight in the 4 days. This was priceless. I watched and had hands on wiring the panel. Learnt how to crimp wires correctly, watched the guys use a torque wrench. I could go on but feel like a broken record. I dont know what other folk are expecting from NATFLY but this is my idea of what it needs to be like. Not a parking lot full of $100 000 plastic aircraft. There were a lot of suppliers there and I purchased many items for my build.

 

Sorry Don, it seems the thread topic has drifted some what so I will leave it there. I would also like to thank Carol for what she has done over the years as I know it can be done but am stumped as to why the last 3 years of Natfly have gone down hill.

 

Im baffled....Scotty

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

BB, I guess what rankles me about some CASA guy trying to tell me how to fly my UL, is when he more than likely has zero time in one, certainly wasn't around, or interested, when we were trying to get them off the ground back then, and more than likely would probabily throw up out of fear in the first five minutes, if you took him for a ride in one.

 

If they had taken the time to assist or encourage us back then, instead of going out of their way to try and make us disappear, then maybe I would have more respect for them now.

 

Bottom line is they weren't there for us when we needed a hand, but they want to play with us now that we are very successfull ?......Sorry, just don't cut the mustard for me........I don't mind if they jump in at this late stage and do their best to help our sport, but they don't have any right to cause us one ounce of grief regardless of their agenda....Additionally their over-regulating styles, and lack of real assistance has virtually destroyed GA flying in this country, and I fear that they'll probabily do the same to us if we let them..........Maj......

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The first Natfly Temora was reportedly great, i attended second then third not so great. Third was more of the same minus some of the good bits from the second. So many probably thought like me for the fourth, I know what it's going to be like and there are competing family pressures to do other things, I'll skip this one. A promise of new and interesting events would bring me back next year. I wouldn't go back just to see the same aeroplanes.

 

 

[old pilot]

I'm not sure where some of you guys get your info,I do agree the raa is doing well but as for ga dying come on ,I live in a small town in nsw just a quick count gives me 12 ga and 2recreational and I have one of each not sure where you get your figures mag certainly not from the casa register

 

Old pilot

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

old pilot, I'm happy to hear you have a healthy contingent of GA aircraft at your field, I wish it were the same the country over. One thing Dick Smith commented on recently when re-enacting his round the world flight, and in particular his leg up the East coast to PNG was the obvious change in the number of GA aircraft in thirty years at country airports, and the general lack of.

 

Of course there are still heaps on the CASA register and in hangars, but how many are still actively flown regularly by their owners ??......My comments are intended to compare today's activities, with those say twenty years ago, and there has been a noticeable downturn....Additionally, I earn my living working in GA maintenance, and if it wasn't for the current required SIDS inspections, there would be a major downturn in activity there also...............Maj....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

A lot of the decline in GA is due to the population of pilots aging and urbanisation of the population and the mechanisation of agriculture/mining and sealing of roads(wet weather access) and cheap 4wds.

 

 

[TK58]

I'm the NatFly Coordinator for 2014. I've just created a thread under Trips/Events/Spare Seats to solicit feedback and ideas to make NatFly 2014 an event that those who attend are glad they did and those who don't wish they had.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Well done Tony! That's a huge task you have taken on. We now need everyone to get behind you do what they can.

 

Tony, somebody just pointed out to

 

me that you didn't give your name in this post although you have of course elsewhere here.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I'm not convinced of the merits of this. We have a requirement to hold a general meeting at NatFly already and an AGM at another point in the year. What value is there in reversing these two? You can achieve the same thing at a general meeting as you can the AGM. The only difference between the two is the letter 'A'.

 

The requirement to hold the AGM at a different time of the year simply imposes additional costs on the association - us. Hold the AGM at the same time it is presently held (I don't really care where, Canberra, Heck Field, the southern most tip of Tassie!), don't create the administrative costs of a once of change to the accounting year and hold a general meeting at NatFly.

 

The only possible value I could see in moving the timing is that you would be presenting the year end financials at the AGM instead of mid year financials at the NatFly general meeting. As it stands you'll still be looking at three month old numbers anyway so I'm not sure there is a solid argument there either. And for what it's worth why not just hold the board to account and demand that current financials be presented at the general meeting instead of letting them get away with murder like we have done for the last few years?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Mick, might be pedantic but an AGM and a GM aren't the same, an AGM has an agenda defined in our constitution that cannot be varied, (other than by constitutional evolution) I believe the clause says words to the effect that "normal business cannot be transacted at an AGM"where as a GM can have an agenda that is needed by the membership at the time.

 

To address this discrepancy we can ask that a GM immediately follow an AGM, but I don't recall it having ever occurred....

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Mick, might be pedantic but an AGM and a GM aren't the same, an AGM has an agenda defined in our constitution that cannot be varied, (other than by constitutional evolution) I believe the clause says words to the effect that "normal business cannot be transacted at an AGM"where as a GM can have an agenda that is needed by the membership at the time.To address this discrepancy we can ask that a GM immediately follow an AGM, but I don't recall it having ever occurred....

 

Andy

To me this is a strong argument to keep the NatFly meeting a general meeting. I'd hate to think that we tell a couple of hundred people that they can't discuss what they want to simply because it is an AGM. This is akin to the culture of secrecy and non-transparency that we've seen in recent times. We should be doing everything we can do get rid of this. Too late now but I'd be very supportive of a motion that removes the gag clause from attendees at an AGM.

 

Keep the AGM where it is and hold a general meeting at NatFly where many more people would have the opportunity to have their say. Let's promote discussion and the members ability to raise issues they're concerned about rather than do something that may inadvertently stifle these things.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The reason for having the AGM at Natfly is the same reason that the SAAA and the EAA have their AGMs at their respective fly-ins. The point being that the greatest assembly of members of all three of these associations is at their annual fly- in and the best way for the best attendance of members at the AGM is to have it in conjunction with the annual fly-in. We want members involved in their Association and attending the AGM is a good start.

 

Having 15 members turn up at the AGM when held in Canberra does not achieve the aim of significant involvement. It does nothing to convince the Board that they are accountable to the members for their abject failure to comply with the principles of good governance.

 

The cost of the change of end of year is minimal and a once off cost.

 

And, you can discuss anything you like at an AGM or a GM. You can't present any motion at a GM that has not been given the required notice either 14 days for ordinary resolutions or 21 days for a Special Resolution. You can only propose motions for an AGM that fit within the specific business of the AGM. Many organisations like RAA have a General Meeting commence on the closure of the AGM to keep general business separate from the AGM.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

So I'm still not convinced. If a general meeting is the same then why the change? It might only be a once off cost but it still seems unnecessary to me. If everything we could do at the AGM can be done at a general meeting then where is the value? Seems like shuffling deck chairs to me.

 

To me it feels like we are getting down on ourselves for having an AGM that few people can/do attend. In reality the consequences of this are minimal. We can move the AGM to a better location at increase attendance if that would help us all feel better about ourselves but I don't see the point in changing nomenclature for the sake of it. Have a general meeting at the annual fly in, discuss what needs to be discussed, vote on motions that have been put on notice and move on. It's free, why would anyone want to incur costs that aren't necessary?

 

Even if these costs are minimal it still doesn't make sense - I just looked in my wallet and I have 2 x $50 notes, 1 x $10 note and 1 x $5 note. The reality is that I could take that $5 (or even $10) and throw it in the bin. The cost to me is minimal but I'm still not going to do it because I just can't see the point...

 

I'll ask the question again - what tangible benefits will we get from changing our financial year and renaming (because that's all it is) our general meeting at NatFly?

 

 

[DWF]

After reading the above arguments and giving the matter due consideration I have decided to vote against Special Resolution 11.

 

I agree with airsick that there is no real benefit in the change of AGM timing.

 

 

 

I do, however, agree with both sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) regarding a request for motions for the AGM and then notice of the AGM.

 

Perhaps the AGM could recommend to the Board that these (sub-)clauses be made By-laws and/or proposed as a Special Resolution at the next AGM or GM.

 

 

 

DWF