alf jessup Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The RAA record speaks for its self. Remember it was only 13 months since Runciman admitted the RAA was cooking the books, since then the RAA hasn't exactly showered itself in glory or competence.I'm just asking the reps on here why they persist with a system that doesn't work and refuse to make any attempt to improve it? If you're happy with the RAA good for you and STFU. FT, You would have to be the most negative person I have seen on here, I would hate to see you win the major lotto prize because you would moan to all of us on here that the winner the week before got more than you got on the week you won. I wish you well in your life and if your married I wish your wife some selective deafness as I think you would be painful to live with as nothing seems to make you happy. Lighten up fella, you live every day and die only once so how about getting a bit of happiness in your life for a change. If your not happy with the RAA and the board do something about it like run for nomination, I am sure you being the armchair expert & critic would have it ship shape in no time, then once you were successful at that you could run for prime minister and fix our wailing country as well. You got my vote if you smile for once in your life. Alf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Shame some can't tell the difference between what comes across as negativity and the real world truth. Hang in there FT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Shame some can't tell the difference between what comes across as negativity and the real world truth.Hang in there FT. And now there are three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 How could so many have got it so wrong and thought FT is negative? must be one of the worlds mysteries. After all he is always so positive about most things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerochute Kev Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Or four, pretty hard to trust an organisation's management that lives on secrecy agreements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 You haven't told us IF you have ever called a rep yet .f t. Why should he? Are you dreaming? You're advocating 10,000 people phone 13 every time they need to know something. You haven't heard about the electronic age of the 1980's? For goodness sake stop this "Call your Rep" dribble and start calling them to account to provide transparency. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 And make that five! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Wasn't relating to 10,000 people. I was asking one in a particular circumstance, as had Maj. Keep things in context. and why make it personal. Turbs. Why do we have reps then? A person to person conversation works better than on line . Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 start calling them to account to provide transparency. Don't be so naive, when on earth do you ever get that from any governing body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Don't be so naive, when on earth do you ever get that from any governing body? I've given it in every governing body I've been a part of, from the good news to the worst news, and never been vilified for doing so. Why would you accept secrecy from people dealing with your money? Wasn't relating to 10,000 people. I was asking one in a particular circumstance, as had Maj. Keep things in context. and why make it personal. Turbs. Why do we have reps then? A person to person conversation works better than on line . Nev And what you were were doing to FT wasn't personal - this is a forum, and whether or not he has consulted anyone is none of your business. And yes it does relate to the 10,000 people; if you read back over the years you'll see it aimed by officials to the members, and its a pathetic way of avoiding simply telling them all something in the monthly magazine or other mass media, and then getting on with the job of managing the Association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Why would you accept secrecy from people dealing with your money? It's not a matter of accepting secrecy, like most people I have little choice but to work with the system we have which also goes for councils, state and federal governments and any governing body. Your the one that is dreaming. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 So why do the reps on the forum persist with the idea that the current system works well? Ignoring the horrible horrible past performance of the RAA is the easiest way to recreate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 So why do the reps on the forum persist with the idea that the current system works well? Who actually said that? The reps are trying to fix the problems which you would know if you bothered to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It's not a matter of accepting secrecy, like most people I have little choice but to work with the system we have which also goes for councils, state and federal governments and any governing body. Your the one that is dreaming. Tecky. It is clear (crystal) that members have the right to all information that they desire in an organisation that is structured such as RAA. As I have previously advised on one of the threads here, a group of us concerned members paid for a Solicitor's and QC's opinion on this question prior to the Feb 2013 EGM when the entire secrecy issue was a big burr under our saddle. I, personally, accept the need for some items to be considered in-camera by the Board (but not to hide behind the secrecy provisions to disguise poor management, as was the case in the past), however any member has the right to any data if they press for it. Regards Geoff 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Captain, I agree with that and was under the impression the board are trying to sort out most problems, this to me is about people being apathetic and not going through the correct process of communicating with the reps and then posting crap on the forum. We probably have at least one rep who shouldn't be there but reps are voted into the position so whose fault is that? There will always be plenty of knockers and wingers what ever happens and most likely they don't even bother to do any research on who they vote for, if they even bother to vote at all. So really who has caused the problems? Richard. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The members are the problem and the members are the solution. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerochute Kev Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 There are definitely Board members who want to do the right thing by the members AND communicate what actions they have taken. The problem is the secrecy/confidentiality agreements. No one yet has been able to say WHO makes them sign the agreement or what authority they have to do so, complete with a threat of withholding information from a member not signing that agreement. In my opinion that is nothing short of corruption. We will not fix this by changing a few Board members, the ingrained corrupt practices just continue with the new members, effectively gagging them from doing what they had intended to do right from the start. Here is a challenge for the few Board members who regularly appear here... Post a copy of the agreement you were forced to sign (are we not entitled to see what is required of our board members?), State who required you to sign it and what authority they claimed to have to do so. Surely there is nothing confidential being exposed in doing so. I wont be placing bets on the response (or lack of it) Kev 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Almost ALL correspondence I have received from the RAA has have the disclaimer attached to the bottom. NSO: Disclaimer This message has been issued by Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Recreational Aviation Australia Inc (02) 6280-4700 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Personal view:- Past boards were imho acting and behaving completely against the intent of the ACT incorporated associations legislation. As a result of recent elections the mix of the board has changed and its my belief that today the majority want to do the right thing and do it within the constraints . The majority however should never be mistaken as the totality. We still need some members of the board changed and changed soon. For example anyone who thinks that being elected to a key position within the exec gives them the right to overrule a board determination and write their own position instead of the agreed board position to an external body clearly needs to be removed from their role, and quickly. My hope is that the majority of the board see such behaviour for what it is and move quickly to remove it before further damage is done that might result in an inquiry into the relationship between X and Y......as an example I believe we are in a better place than we were a year ago, but still have some distance to go before we can really start focusing on the problems 100% rather than the internals eating into the time available Andy P.S Jim for president IMHO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Adding a public disclosure obligation to the constitution now makes sense, once the board, exec and the management are into the habit of disclosing business dealings it will act as a disincentive for people who seek to use the RAA board position to personal benefit. If we wait until the board goes bad its almost impossible to get that change through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The problem is the secrecy/confidentiality agreements. How do you know they exist? I would have thought that would be illegal and fairly easy to prove. I have never had a rep refuse to answer a question so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerochute Kev Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 How do you know they exist? I would have thought that would be illegal and fairly easy to prove. I have never had a rep refuse to answer a question so far. One of the Reps on this site has stated he had to sign a confidentiality agreement or would not have been given access to certain information. He felt he had to sign it as if he had not, it would make him ineffectual as a Rep. - Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The confidentiality undertaking should simply be an undertaking of the representative member to maintain the confidentiality of those matters that need to confidential. By that I mean an agreement in simple terms to maintain the confidentiality of 'in camera' discussions, simply a statement of decency. If it is anything more than that (and it certainly was at the time Don Ramsay came onto the Board) then there is a real problem. The confidentiality agreement at the time was arguably onerous and illegal and was changed. There can be no argument that sustains the actual confidentiality undertaking is confidential, so there can be no valid reason not to put it up in its current form for us to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I just got off the phone to an area rep the confidentiality agreement does exist and is used for sensitive issues which if made public could be detrimental to the well being of RAAus. I have regularly spoken to reps and this agreement has not been an issue or caused me concern. This has all been since the aircraft registration shambles when the confidentiality agreement may have been used to cover up serious management short comings. The board has changed a lot since those days, and it has been for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerochute Kev Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Quote from Maj's post on 15 Nov 2013, in thread "Board Report". Sorry didn't know how to refer to it so cut and paste. "As promised prior to my election to the board, I intend to report on this forum as best I can from time to time. It will be very general in nature, and no names will be mentioned as I have signed a confidentially agreement to allow me access to all board info." I recall there was another post refrerring to not being effectual as a Rep if not signed but not found it yet. As can be clearly seen he was denied access to board information unless signed. As this was only 3 months ago can anyone claim things have changed and only have to keep confidential certain things? 1 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