Organisation Restructure Considerations

[DonRamsay]

Jim, In answer to your five questions, let me start with Q4 and then work through the rest.

 

Question 4 - Optimum Board Size.

 

There is an old Business Law that goes along the lines of "The duration of a meeting is directly proportional to the square of the number attending the meeting." Thirteen Board members is silly even on a theoretical basis and owes its creation to a failed attempt to even up numbers of Board Members per region. It has absolutely nothing to do with practical Board operation. In practice we know it doesn't work. In my experience there were more coasting than there were rowing the boat. Some were downright Sally Robinsons - impeding the few that were rowing hard. Whenever I have this discussion with people who have the education and experience to know, the answer almost always comes down to the magnificent SEVEN. More than that just slows the Board processes for no real benefit. Fewer than that and you do start to lose the more heads are better than one effect. With the right people you could run with five but we would need to have a mature organisation and an excellent management team to go there. RA-Aus is a very immature organisation despite its 30 year history. There is evidence in the form of Daffyd LLewellyn that it has become less mature over time.

 

Question 3 - Do we need Regional Representation?

 

Not wanting to disagree with Andy nor agree with Maj I still have to answer YES to this question. However, we need to look at what constitutes a Region. A region might be bounded by a common language, common aviation laws, common laws of physics and common interests. That means to me that we only need one region in Australia and that is Australia. The only use for State Boundaries was clearly identified above - to make football games more interesting. State Boundaries are something we fly over without a second glance other than at our watches because some fool let the States make up their own rules about what time it is! How on Earth could that have happened? To get regional representation and feedback to and from the Board we need a system of chapters that can be in manageable sized regions and nothing the size of Queensland or WA.

 

Question 1 & 2 - Board Selection Criteria and Targeted Skill sets.

 

These are too closely intertwined to look at separately. Boards of successful organisations do bring a range of skill sets together. How they do that varies considerably. The way we can do it is very limited by our democratic process that rules out, I believe, having prerequisites to be eligible to run. I don't believe we need to set prerequisites if we go about the election of key Board spots well. The way we can do it is to directly elect the two positions that require strong non-aviation skill sets, viz., Secretary and Treasurer. Any member should be allowed to run for either of these positions directly. Their published election statement should set out their particular education, training and experience that makes them a good choice. Members are smart enough to choose between or amongst candidates based on this information plus whatever else they can find out. The leader of the Board should be a Chair not a President to get away from the "Supreme Commander" problems experienced with Runciman then Herring and now, to an extent, Birrell. The Chair should be elected from within the Board and be backed up by a Vice Chair similarly elected by the Board. So, now we have a Chair and Vice Chair, a Secretary and Treasurer and three more Board Members without a specific portfolio. For the Board to be successful, there could be a number of standing sub-committees to concentrate on particular segments of our business and advice the rest of the Board. There would be no room for passengers (bludgers) as there is now on a 13 person Board.

 

Question 5 - Anything else?

 

Well, if the Secretary and Treasurer are directly elected by all RA-Aus members regardless of their postcode that leaves 5 more positions to be elected. How? First, we need to understand how undemocratic and unrepresentative and therefore how unfair the current system is. Let's look at the current regions and number of members in each as published in the October SportPilot. The table in SP shows that in all of QLD there are 2,492 members. They elect 4 Board Members. That means there is one Board Member for each 623 Queenslanders. Compare that with the NT who get a Board member for each 90 people or Victoria who get a Board Member for each 1,130 Victorians. The split up for FNQ is not shown but I imagine the jerrymander in their favour is as bad or worse than for the NT. I've often thought that the current regional election basis is actually illegal. It is unquestionably unrepresentative and unfair.

 

So, if the present system is crap what would be better? Answer is almost anything else.

 

ALL Board Members, regardless of where they are from or who elected them are obliged to do the best for RA-Aus and not their Region. That is the LAW and it is also enshrined in the RA-Aus Constitution. So Regional Representation is a 24 carat myth.

 

One more myth regarding Members Representatives. They are not entitled to take a members grievance to the General Manager and argue the case of their constituent. That would be an abuse of Office and corrosive to sound management practice. Members can expect their representative to carry their policy preferences to a Board Room and that is about it.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The board should not be giving tech advice. They can interpret requirements. We have a tech manager for that role..

 

David, I understand your concerns. The re-write has been a significant failure, however, it is being rectified now. Maybe not to the liking of all and maybe not in the ideal way. The full board has been involved and consulted on the memberships behalf for both tech and ops manuals. I am confident they are better than in the past.

 

We are travelling a little off thread here. I am really looking for feed back on the board make up and ways to achieve it. I would like to hear from members on their thoughts of the following:

 

1. Could we apply criteria to board selection? If so what?

 

2. Should we target skill sets? If so which ones?

 

3. Do we need regional representation? Why?

 

4. What is the optimum size of the board?

 

5. Any else you can think of?

 

Regards and safe flying,

 

Jim Tatlock Victorian State Representative.

Jim, Correction, we have an acting tech manager at the moment, I believe now the position of tech manager has been advertised, as would be expected. We know where in - house appointments have got us in the past !..........plus I would imagine being that we are a membership - based organisation that correct technical advice from wherever it comes would be welcome..................Maj.....

 

 

[Keith Page]

JimAnswers to your questions from my personal perspective. Not full answers, but things that float my boat so to speak:-

1) Could we apply criteria to board selection? If so what? and 2) Should we target skill sets? If so which ones?

 

I would like to see at least 1/2 (4 of the 7, assuming 7 is accepted) board members with corporate experience working on a board of a public company. I would like to see that after 12 months all board members who do not have previous life experience as a company director of a public company have undertaken at least the "101 equivalent" training at the Australian Institute of Company Directors at RAAus expense. Corporate experience for the 4 of the 7 needs to be such that they meet the eligibility requirements for a normal member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Membership/Membership-types-and-fees) Noting that the AICD covers Not for Profits (http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Membership/For-Better-Directors_NFP).

 

I would like the treasurer to ideally have an accounting background, but failing that formal training sufficient to read and interpret an annual report and demonstrable experience at creating a company wide budget and being able to interpret monthly reporting against that budget. We need sufficient life experience that in adhering to the NIFO principle the treasurer is able to guide the staff in ensuring that our financial systems meet our needs and also our ability to report both to members and our statutory requirements.

 

Aviation experience beyond that of an average standard member is probably not required, our problems of the last 10 years aren't related to aviation knowledge of our members reps IMHO. Problems in the Tech area's of our organisation may well be an issue within the staffing areas and I draw a distinction between board and paid staff.

 

Ideally at least one or more of the board members should have experience in audit and as such should understand the benefits of an internal audit function and be able to assist (NIFO principle still applying) the GM in setting an internal audit regime and annual timetables up.

 

3). Do we need regional representation? Why?

 

IMHO No, I cant think of a single thing that RAAus does of significance that requires state based representation. Those that speak for proportional representation, what exactly is it that your local rep provides that COULD NOT be provided any other way??? Is it something real and tangible that he provides, or is it addressing some fear of something else? If the latter what could be done to address that fear other than requiring proportional representation? Its my opinion that PR has benefits and disadvantages, but that the disadvantages (of which the greatest is sheer unwieldy size) IMHO outweigh any perceived advantages.

 

For myself I couldn't be bothered to contact the NSW reps, not because I have a problem with them, but rather if I have an issue I want to go to the one that will be best able to answer the question or seek the answers, having a middleman in that transaction adds only time and reduction in value in my opinion. Steve Runciman was always prompt in answering queries, even those for areas that he himself didn't have responsibility. The treasurer of the time never answered a single query that I had. Steve technically I suppose could have said, "I'm not your rep you need to go through Dave Caban......." but I'm sure he realised that would be pretty unacceptable to me. Similarly I have never been turned away by you or other interstate reps when I have rung and wanted to talk about where we are and where we are going!

 

4) What is the optimum size of the board?

 

Much smaller than we have at present. Today as I understand it there are those reps that add nothing to the debate of agenda items relying on the sheer numbers of reps to paper over their own lack of involvement. IMHO we cant afford to have passengers at the board level. Ideally an odd number, to prevent tied outcomes as much as possible.

 

Let me take this opportunity to address a board behaviour that I believe must stop. We have a board forum, being a technical solution much like this forum, where board members formally communicate. Votes and posts for and against proposals should occur within the board forum so that in X years time when a position for Y is revisited the full history of why a position was historically established is available to the then current board. Today and in recent years as I understand it much of what happens in the board happens within email, which belongs only to the sender and receiver and once they move on is not available to the membership, or the current board. We must stop using email for board business, or where it is used it needs to be imported into the board forum so that tool becomes the 100% repository of RAAus board business. Trying to understand who is contributing to a board decision is difficult if not everything is visible to the entire board.

 

5) Anything else you can think of?

 

I would like to see published a monthly précis of business addressed by the board, where such a précis is not detrimental to natural justice , and doesn't damage a negotiation position. I want to understand what the board is doing and I want to understand what its priorities are. Ideally a strategic vision for RAAus should exist and be a living document and against which progress is reported quarterly?

 

Andy

Hello Andy

 

One must remember these people are volunteers not paid workers, hence we have to select from people who put their hand up. I can not imagine volunteering for something then having to go through a job interview process, we must be greatful for volunteers not discourage them.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Keith Page]

I am in agreeance with pretty much everything Andy had to say. We need people with business and admin skills, such as accounting, and quality management systems to run the show, a passion for flying, as admirable as it is, is not sufficient to run this organisation.A tech manager, ideally, would have experience with quality systems and associated processes as well as an engineering background.

Good Afternoon M61A1

 

I thought our primary reason for being here is for flight, not a management organization.

 

Flight is primary and without flight none of us would be here.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Hello AndyOne must remember these people are volunteers not paid workers, hence we have to select from people who put their hand up. I can not imagine volunteering for something then having to go through a job interview process, we must be greatful for volunteers not discourage them.

Regards

 

Keith Page

A definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different outcome!

 

Its my view that we need a different outcome and to get it stuff has to change.

 

So given those truisms, what is it that you will change in looking for a different outcome Keith? Assuming you think we need different outcomes?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

A definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different outcome!Its my view that we need a different outcome and to get it stuff has to change.

 

So given those truisms, what is it that you will change in looking for a different outcome Keith? Assuming you think we need different outcomes?

We have had change Andy, remember ?....Well this new current board and executive were going to give us a different outcome, what have we seen so far? A loss of a tech man, and very slow recruiting of a new one. No improvement in the movement of rego renewals, in fact we don't even get the figure on the actual backlog now, like we did when Wayne was in.

 

Website updates and communication has improved a bit, but is still not where it should be. Communication generally on what is going on down there, is still not up to scratch. In fact if it wasn't for our Spriteah we would still be mostly in the dark, with only what we get in the magazine,which is usually two months behind actual happenings. Michael Monk (now secretary) was going to make things happen with all his high end qualifications. Remember, the new younger talent with the expertise.

 

When is this 'different outcome' going to occur Andy ?...................................Maj.....

 

 

[David Isaac]

Don't worry Andy, I'll see Maj at the Sea Plane flyin and can smack him around a bit for you ... just say the word .... ROFLMAO.

 

 

[Keith Page]

A definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different outcome!Its my view that we need a different outcome and to get it stuff has to change.

 

So given those truisms, what is it that you will change in looking for a different outcome Keith? Assuming you think we need different outcomes?

OK Andy

 

Then what will be the answer when you are not getting any nominations for board positions?

 

By having all these fancy selection criteria, no one puts their hand up, you have the change that is no nominations. They are scared off..

 

Well that is a different outcome.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Well this n

We have had change Andy, remember ?....Well this new current board and executive were going to give us a different outcome, what have we seen so far? A loss of a tech man, and very slow recruiting of a new one. No improvement in the movement of rego renewals, in fact we don't even get the figure on the actual backlog now, like we did when Wayne was in.

 

Website updates and communication has improved a bit, but is still not where it should be. Communication generally on what is going on down there, is still not up to scratch. In fact if it wasn't for our Spriteah we would still be mostly in the dark, with only what we get in the magazine,which is usually two months behind actual happenings. Michael Monk (now secretary) was going to make things happen with all his high end qualifications. Remember, the new younger talent with the expertise.

 

When is this 'different outcome' going to occur Andy ?...................................Maj.....

Maj

That post is well constructed and all true.

 

Can remember how all this drum beating and bragging " When this new board gets in how wonderful things will be".

 

We got change. I am still waiting for results.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Powerin]

OK AndyThen what will be the answer when you are not getting any nominations for board positions?

By having all these fancy selection criteria, no one puts their hand up, you have the change that is no nominations. They are scared off..

 

Well that is a different outcome.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

It is the eternal dilemma. I'm not sure what the answer is.....in our busy lives volunteers are getting harder and harder to find. However, being a volunteer is not an excuse for poor performance. If you put your hand up you do the job to the best of your ability. When you volunteer as a bushfire fighter you are expected to do the training and safety courses or they don't let you near a fireground. The same should apply to RAAus...a multi $million organisation.

By the same token, volunteers should not be taken for granted. They need recognition and timely reimbursement of out of pocket expenses. We should be prepared, as an organisation, to spend money to thank our volunteers....whether that be an end of year bash at a fancy restaurant or whatever. Volunteerism is still alive and well in Australia...but so is volunteer burnout. We must guard against that.

 

 

[M61A1]

Good Afternoon M61A1I thought our primary reason for being here is for flight, not a management organization.

Flight is primary and without flight none of us would be here.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

While I agree that we are here for the flying, a good pilot is not necessarily a good accountant/businessperson, so, if we're paying people to do a job, why wouldn't we pay for an appropriately skilled person. You don't get on a 737 and accept that an accountant is having a crack at it. If we have rec pilots that know how to run a business that would be great, but, I think it quite obvious that we need some professional management skills.

[Keith Page]

While I agree that we are here for the flying, a good pilot is not necessarily a good accountant/businessperson, so, if we're paying people to do a job, why wouldn't we pay for an appropriately skilled person. You don't get on a 737 and accept that an accountant is having a crack at it. If we have rec pilots that know how to run a business that would be great, but, I think it quite obvious that we need some professional management skills.

Hello M61A1

 

The people on the board are volunteers not paid employees.

 

We play/fly/cuddle/tinker our small planes to get away from work things. I know I am not real keen on doing work things in my recreation time, except if it is my passion or sport.

 

Now it is up to us to encourage more people to stand for board positions and we can vote from the list of who is there. HOWEVER when they get there we must treat them with all the respect in the world because they are doing their best and are volunteers.

 

I know I would not be happy if a great pile of people were biting at me like a pack of hounds when only the job is a volunteer position and them and their buddies voted me there.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[M61A1]

Hello M61A1The people on the board are volunteers not paid employees.

We play/fly/cuddle/tinker our small planes to get away from work things. I know I am not real keen on doing work things in my recreation time, except if it is my passion or sport.

 

Now it is up to us to encourage more people to stand for board positions and we can vote from the list of who is there. HOWEVER when they get there we must treat them with all the respect in the world because they are doing their best and are volunteers.

 

I know I would not be happy if a great pile of people were biting at me like a pack of hounds when only the job is a volunteer position and them and their buddies voted me there.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

Fair cop, in regard to the volunteers. I do still think that some experience in what they are doing would be a prerequisite though, all the best intentions and no idea isn't goingb to end well for anybody. If we're to use volunteers with no prior experience, then some training is necessary, as we would expect in our flying side of things.

[Spriteah]

Jim, Correction, we have an acting tech manager at the moment, I believe now the position of tech manager has been advertised, as would be expected. We know where in - house appointments have got us in the past !............Maj.....

It's advertised as opposed to previous appointments and I am a firm believer best person for the job via correct protocol.

 

Jim.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Thanks Jim. I hope it all succeeds . If it doesn't, I'll probably retire. Nev

Me too!

 

 

[Keith Page]

Thank you Jim for giving us updates, without you we would be getting nothing.

 

I am wondering what has happened with the rest of the board.

 

Before the board election we heard some information however since, zilch.

 

A thank you again.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[DrZoos]

I have been ther done this as President and i will tell you any board bigger then 9 is ridiculous, and if you want change you need a board of 7 with an executive of 4.

 

This line that an executive of 4 and board of 7 is not accountable is incorrect... These days the smaller the board and the smaller the executive the higher he accountability.

 

People wrongly assume its dangerous to empower an exec of 4 with a board of 7. Thats garbage. Its the exact opposite. The more people you have the lower the accountability and the less change that can be implemented...

 

In my time as Pres of several boards consistently the less present the more we got done and the happier our members where. Whenever we got larger numbers involved everything got bogged down, became innefectual and our members rightly wanted more. Its the wasted time and diversity of views that bogs big boards down, and without changing that, dont hold your breath for anything much to happen. You wantbaction, then slash the board and empower an exec of 4.

 

If you offered me a lot of cash to run this board id decline, as nothing much will happen good till you slash its size.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Jim it was great to have you speak at our AGM

 

Gosh..... been away for a bit but not much seems to have changed :(

 

Just a few comments on a restructure:

 

• Do away with the representative model and select a smaller Board (say five plus office bearers) versed in governance and management practice. This way Board Members will be compelled to represent all members, not just parochial State/Territory/Regional interests;
   
   
  
• In addition, advertise for Board members whose resumes and skills are aliened with the standing committees of Finance, CASA/Technical Operations and Member Services;
   
   
   
  
• Via the existing regional network of Clubs and Members, identify those who continue to shape the future of RAAus outside of any centralised authority;
   
   
   
  
• As above, utilise the Standing Committee structure to engage with the creative talent already resident within regional Australia;
   
   
   
  
• Via the Executive Committee initiate and test RAAus Board policy with Clubs located across Regional Australia;
   
   
   
  
• Within the Member Services Standing Committee identify and deliver governance and management training in keeping with RAAus good practice.
   
   
  
• Do not down play or ignore the professional skills of volunteers where ever they may reside.
   
   
  

 

 

Cheers Pete

 

 

[frank marriott]

???? re selection criteria - all this time I thought it was an election by finincial members.

 

"advertise for Board members whose resumes and skills are aliened with the standing committees of Finance, CASA/Technical Operations and Member Services"

 

Who is the self appointed resume reader and skills assessor who is going to tell the members who they can and cannot vote for or is it a selection panel of 10,000 people - realism check.

 

Sounds like a job add, not an elected representaive to me. Greater restrictions to the position then becoming a member of the federal senate. Best luck, it won't happen.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Frank: I guess if we had a strategic plan that pointed a direction for RAAus it may include the above mentioned standing committees (just a suggestion) and the skills sets required to to service a progressive national organisation. I'm not ruling anyone out regarding nomination to the Board. But the membership need to know who they are voting for and what skills they will bring to the organisation. Not such a big step and you are right it is a job ad. for a Board Member, not an application for a regional representative. The "realism check" is to think about the past two years and the bloody mess we got into operating under the old structure. We have a choice - restructure along the lines of recognised good business practice or go back to playing kick to kick (usually with someones head).

 

Cheers Pete