Relocating the office...where to?

[Keith Page]

Keith,I agree that we have severely under-used the sub-committee resource. When I was on the Board I set up the original Constitution Review Committee as a Board sub-committee to report to the Board. Sadly, it was dismissed in spite by Runciman but the sub-committee concept was a good one in that it taps into the resource of quality people with time available for such work. It could allow many projects to proceed in parallel.

 

Don

There is a task 2015 Don..

As the constitution is a living document. Can move on to involved a member based sub-committee.. If you want to do that, this can be the basis for a smaller board.

 

A rewrite of sections of the constitution will facilitate this improvement.

 

Regards

 

KP

 

 

[DonRamsay]

G'day Keith,

 

I am assured that the Board and CEO have Constitutional reform in their sights for 2015.

 

Going by the stream of letters to the Editor of SportPilot, there seems to be a groundswell of support for a smaller Board and soon.

 

What is not clear is that many parochial members are prepared to forsake the illogical notion that geographic representation is somehow to their advantage or, closer to the point, a loss of geography based representation would somehow be a disadvantage.

 

I believe there is majority support to reduce Board numbers and base election of Board Members on their qualifications and experience rather than their postcode, however, when push comes to shove, I suspect that a number of Board Members will not give up their seat willingly to achieve this much needed efficiency and effectiveness improvement in the management of our RA-Aus.

 

Also, don't underestimate the size of the drafting task to recode our Constitution. It will involve a considerable re-write and, hopefully, translation to plain English. The last 25 or so amendments took considerable effort to get written and adopted. In the end while they were fixing urgent issues, they sum to "fiddling at the edges".

 

Then there is the even bigger task of getting the 75% majority vote required for it to be adopted as "law".

 

Don

 

 

[rhysmcc]

G'day Keith,I am assured that the Board and CEO have Constitutional reform in their sights for 2015.

 

Going by the stream of letters to the Editor of SportPilot, there seems to be a groundswell of support for a smaller Board and soon.

 

What is not clear is that many parochial members are prepared to forsake the illogical notion that geographic representation is somehow to their advantage or, closer to the point, a loss of geography based representation would somehow be a disadvantage.

 

I believe there is majority support to reduce Board numbers and base election of Board Members on their qualifications and experience rather than their postcode, however, when push comes to shove, I suspect that a number of Board Members will not give up their seat willingly to achieve this much needed efficiency and effectiveness improvement in the management of our RA-Aus.

 

Also, don't underestimate the size of the drafting task to recode our Constitution. It will involve a considerable re-write and, hopefully, translation to plain English. The last 25 or so amendments took considerable effort to get written and adopted. In the end while they were fixing urgent issues, they sum to "fiddling at the edges".

 

Then there is the even bigger task of getting the 75% majority vote required for it to be adopted as "law".

 

Don

We've had two general meetings since the "board had constitutional reform in sight" and yet not a single resolution on reducing the board numbers. In fact it doesn't even appear to have been on the Annual Board Meeting agenda. If the "board" seem in favour of the idea no action has been shown, most likely as you pointed out, none really want to lose their seat.

 

As I've mentioned before on this forum, you need to set your goals small and focus on one change at a time if you want the members support. Start by reducing the number of board positions, let the members decide on that single issue. Then discuss how we will go about electing them. Separate resolutions at separate meetings.

 

If you try to draft a whole new constitution and put that up for a vote, it will lose.

 

 

[SDQDI]

We've had two general meetings since the "board had constitutional reform in sight" and yet not a single resolution on reducing the board numbers. The "board" seem in favour of the idea yet no action has been shown, most likely as you pointed out, none really want to lose their seat.As I've mentioned before on this forum, you need to set your goals small and focus on one change at a time if you want the members support. Start by reducing the number of board positions, let the members decide on that single issue. Then discuss how we will go about electing them. Separate resolutions at separate meetings.

 

If you try to draft a whole new constitution and put that up for a vote, it will lose.

It's a bit of a catch 22 because people won't vote for reducing the board numbers without first knowing how the next few will be elected, and blindly going down that way without knowing precisely the new process could lead to disaster.(enter any old boy conspiracy here). Personally I think a couple of things need to be set out before it is put up for a vote, firstly the desired amount needs to be agreed on then you need to work out where we want them to be from and just how the voting process will work (are votes to be made by state or region or no boundary and just the top X amount elected no matter where?)

Only once the full process is sorted will you get everyone to vote (I could be wrong but just my two cents worth)

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The problem with that is you will have members who are in favour of reducing the board but don't want to lose their "state rep", others who will want to get rid of "state reps", you'd have some who want to get rid of reps all together and have them "selected" based on skills. If you put up any one of these 3 options, 2 of the groups will vote no and we will be stuck with this insanely large board that doesn't seem to get much done.

 

But if you ask the question, to reduce the board (keeping the same election system for the time being), you'll get all 3 groups on side and the motion stands a chance of getting up. Then you can harsh out over the next 6 months how you want to elect/appoint the board.

 

A good example is the old Republic Referendum. A majority of australians were for the idea of becoming a republic, but that wasn't the question asked. Instead we voted on system which divided those that were Pro republic.

 

 

[Oscar]

I have suggested before and I think it is still worth considering, the idea that there should be a 'two tier' structure.

 

The Board should comprise a mix of defined expertise relevant to its responsibilities - say: Financial, Administrative, Legal, Technical, Operational.

 

Then, below that, area 'representatives' who represent to the Board any specific area concerns (e.g. airfield closures, airspace restrictions etc.) and also are the first-line representatives of the RAA in dealings with local authorities, promotion of the activity and suchlike.

 

With the exception of compliance with the Incorporated Associations rules for the home authority, NOTHING that RAA administers has any regional variation whatsoever. There is precisely zero justification for demanding that the necessary expertise on the Board be drawn from geographically disparate areas. Regional representation is a good idea to ensure that RAA takes an informed and unified position in regard to any regional 'problems', and it would be good if regional representatives are persons with the contacts, the ability and the time to promote / defend RAA activities in their area.

 

Up-front and critical, is that the Board needs to provide RAA with the expertise to guide it to perform its primary responsibilities as efficiently and effectively as possible. Regional representation is a good mechanism to ensure that RAA activities in any given area have the best chance of being promoted / defended.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Having seen the process in a very similar organisation, the key was having a dynamic President who was committed to reducing the size of the board and didn't mind upsetting people to achieve it. We really need someone like that to take ownership of the issue and move it to the top of the agenda.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Then, below that, area 'representatives' who represent to the Board any specific area concerns (e.g. airfield closures, airspace restrictions etc.) and also are the first-line representatives of the RAA in dealings with local authorities, promotion of the activity and suchlike.

Sounds like something our CFI's could do, either through the annual CFI conference or directly with a designated board member. Most members have contact with a CFI (If only for the BFR) that can discuss issues they are having and for those involved in a more club type arrangement, is usually the go to person already.

 

There has to be some kind of elected representatives, if only to select the board. However in my opinion you'd be better off just having a 7 person board elected by all the members. Quality applicants should emerge if being selected from a single pool. Those who aren't or can't be bothered being in contact with members will struggle to find the votes.

 

 

[Oscar]

There has to be some kind of elected representatives, if only to select the board. However in my opinion you'd be better off just having a 7 person board elected by all the members.

Yep, that's the point I am trying to make: RAA needs a Board with the best level of expertise to discharge its functions, that it can get from who may offer to take up that burden. Geographical areas need someone who can kick down Council doors, whip up local support, energise people to fight for the rights of RAA members. While both skills are not necessarily mutually exclusive, it is rarely the case that both sides of the equation combine in an individual.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Totally agree, but I personally wouldn't want another "body" setup under the board for that role (like was suggested a couple years ago by the review committee). CFI's should be working locally on behalf of the association, after all they are members and making a living on it succeeding.

 

 

[jeffd]

would the cfi's have the time though to do that on members behalf, yes they are making a living from training but that is their core job,someone else who has the time and is a certificated pilot with a few years in RAA with an interest to take on the promotion/defence off RAA plus the experience to do so would be a better bet.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

It would be in their interest to promote recreational aviation locally.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

As I've mentioned before on this forum, you need to set your goals small and focus on one change at a time if you want the members support. Start by reducing the number of board positions, let the members decide on that single issue. Then discuss how we will go about electing them. Separate resolutions at separate meetings.If you try to draft a whole new constitution and put that up for a vote, it will lose.

I'm sorry but I don't agree.....There is no way a constitution for our organisation can be written term by term over many GM's and be expected to work mid change where we have 1/2 old and 1/2 new. I, with Don and a few likeminded folks were involved in putting the last dozen or so changes in place and in some cases we had to go back at the next GM and change what was put in place last time because we didn't see the contradiction with some existing terms within our current constitution, or the ACT model rules.....(Postal voting anyone???)

 

Changing the constitution is a major task that requires significant involvement and LEGAL review by appropriately qualified members, or paid professionals.

 

You are correct in saying there is appetite for change, but I don't believe its true to say that everyone is at the same level of "Yay!ness" In fact I'm not overly convinced that its essential in the short term....in my mind its important that we think not only of the good but what happens when things aren't so good.........In reasonably recent history we in effect had a smaller board....those who made decisions and those that rubberstamped....those that made decisions were small in number (<6) but the outcomes we got were IMHO not good! Today IMHO that is not the case.

 

Compared to other crisis things that have occurred constitutional change to me was, for example, much less important than progressing a well overdue annual deed of arrangements with CASA, or trying to deal with the Jabiru issues or infact working out how witht he financials we have at the moment we will survive in the medium to long term (where by comparison a constitutional change term by term will have a outcome in the long to 3 generations later timeframe) You might well argue well instead of doing it term by term then lets put up a dozen each time.....we tried that and ended up with, for example 9 approved 3 not approved and the resulting constitution being broken because some of the approved changes relied on those that weren't etc....It was just a bloody mess!

 

Those involved in constitutional change in the past know its no minor task and a 1/2 assed attempt will be just another failed 1/2 assed attempt. It needs to be resourced correctly, both human and financial and a clear expectation of the benefits of undertaking the activity clearly defined. As Don said, and I agree that was just us playing around the edges.........(although the change in the required bar height needed to call a GM and uncover for the membership the level of brokenness of the org at the time was IMHO more important and should never be described as playing around the edges.....but I understand and agree with his generalisation)

 

Im not aware of any single board member who is against change, any change, on the basis that they do themselves out of a role....I mean hell its unpaid, it has real and significant personal liability but offsetting that you get a free Polo shirt and once a year you get an all paid up visit to the salubrious parts of Canberra.....What's not to like about that arrangement hey !!!

 

Andy

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The problem with a whole new constitution is it only takes one small point that a member isn't happy with for the whole thing to be voted down. If you choose to go down that path you will not get the 75% required for it to pass.

 

24 Months ago we were told that having so many board members was making it too hard for decisions to be made but now it's all okay? Sorry Andy but I don't see how you can think this board is functioning when we as the members are still not being put in the loop and the fact this association needs some major changes yet the Board only discusses and votes on resolutions twice a year.

 

Where are the multiple issues that have been raised been addressed by the board, where are the sub committees which are meant moving our association forward and where is the strategic planning? To me it's just another case of fighting fires with no progress made to stopping them alighting in the first place.

 

 

[Oscar]

Andy, I believe you have made many good points. The obvious opportunity for graft and corruption inherent in a free Polo shirt and a trip to the nasty video distribution capital area of Australia is one best not mentioned..

 

Surely, any proposals for change to the RAA Constitution need to be put to an 'objectives' test: What is the current state and what is the desired state? Just having a gut feeling that a change is needed isn't sufficient unless change for change's sake is the objective. There needs to be, for instance, some rationale beyond the 'X' seems too many, 'Y' sounds about right' argument for reducing the size of the Board.

 

I have worked for several organisations where there was a 'Board' (or equivalent, often called in this case the 'Council') with membership exceeding 10, that worked well - because it was recognised that Board members with specific areas of expertise should have the primary input to decisions about that area of operation. Board members were assigned 'Committee' status to consider the issues for that matter. So, e.g., the Finance Committee of the Board would consider 'finance' matters and report back to the Board for endorsement of their proposals, but not every Board member was expected to contribute other than a review function to those decisions. It needs to be noted that new Board members were selected (if untainted by political influence) on the necessity to ensure adequate membership of the defined 'Commitees' when an existing Board member retired. It didn't always work but more often than not it did, provided political interference didn't raise its ugly head.

 

The next test, I believe, needs to be the 'possibility of unintended consequences' test. The consequences of the current situation - whatever they may be - are usually well understood, but all too often, in a rush to change there is no risk analysis of the proposed new state. At the very least, people need to consider that any change mitigates risk of either new - or worse, a continuation of old - problems can result from a change. For examples of what I mean on a seriously global scale, look at the Treaty of Versailles and the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

 

A third test should be 'would this change benefit RAA?' RAA exists fundamentally to administer recreational aviation for the benefit of those who wish to participate in recreational aviation. The various exemptions to the CASR allowed for recreational aviation is RAA's raison d'etre for its existence: NOT the formation of a 'club' for the convivial conglomeration of people who fly little aircraft nor yet the creation of a platform for a few to exercise some nebulous authority over others.. Leave the latter to the established major religious orders, FFS.

 

We have many established recreational aviation 'clubs' that provide members with all of the benefits of a cohesive group of members with the same objective: social interaction, shared facilities etc.. RAA is NOT, and should never be, a 'club' on steroids: it is a service provider to the recreational class of aviation and that needs to be its entire focus. To perform that function, it needs to be:

 

• efficient and effective in discharging its delegated responsibilities;
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

• a highly effective 'voice' for the recreational aviation society as a whole;
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

• a mechanism whereby the combined mass of recreational aviators can be bought to bear on 'authorities' or other entities (think insurance for a start) that have influence on the operation of recreational aviation;
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

• a source for technical, operational and safety administration and guidance for recreational aviators;
   
   
   
  
• a mechanism for reduction of the incidental costs of participating in recreational aviation ( e.g. by creating a pool of insurance premiums for public risk).
   
   
  

 

 

Beyond those objectives, I believe that RAA has no more than incremental value to members: such things as Natfly, the publication of Sport Pilot etc. are icing on the cake. The whole 'where is the RAA Office to be located' debate is little more than examining the warts on the elephant without consideration of the holistic situation of the elephant.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The problem with a whole new constitution is it only takes one small point that a member isn't happy with for the whole thing to be voted down. If you choose to go down that path you will not get the 75% required for it to pass.24 Months ago we were told that having so many board members was making it too hard for decisions to be made but now it's all okay? Sorry Andy but I don't see how you can think this board is functioning when we as the members are still not being put in the loop and the fact this association needs some major changes yet the Board only discusses and votes on resolutions twice a year.

 

Where are the multiple issues that have been raised been addressed by the board, where are the sub committees which are meant moving our association forward and where is the strategic planning? To me it's just another case of fighting fires with no progress made to stopping them alighting in the first place.

If Ok I might correct a couple of misconceptions.....while its true that there are only 2 face to face meetings a year it is not true that only at those 2 meetings are decisions made and discussion had. RAAus run a forum software of its own for various elements of RAAus like staff and board and various areas of the forum are visible to all, or some of those groups. Decisions are made within a relatively short time of someone determining that there is a need for a decision. If it were not so RAAus would still be to react to the CASA instrument for the jabiru issues and I can assure that is absolutely not the case.

 

Furthermore your comments about being kept in the dark......What issues do you believe you are being kept in the dark about?

 

You mentioned a strategic plan, I'll admit that one is a bit behind where we wanted it to be at this stage, however the whole CASA/Jabiru thing leapt to the fore and that one had to take a back stage for a bit but I suspect it will be back on track shortly....

 

your point about the constitution being difficult to get through is valid and real, and the incorporated association act makes it hard for a reason, its to balance the risk of special interests groups coming in, doing a commando raid, changing the reason for being and vastly disenfranchising the great majority....If we cant get the constitution changed its because we cant get the majority to agree and in my opinion that is a good thing. If we want the majority to agree then we'll be needing to communicate and get people understanding the reasons for change. Its my opinion that our communications are vastly improved on those of say 2-3 years ago.

 

But....that all said, don't mistake me to be saying everything is fantastic, chocolates and roses for all.....there are issues still but we only have the staff we do to make the changes we need, all at once isn't possible so they'll be staged in priority order as per the resolution advice for the Lethbridge board meeting.....

 

Andy

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Yet still no board resolutions (decisions) that are made between the 2 face to face meeting are being published. A clear breach of the constitution.

 

Kept in the dark on the issues we have been promised were being addressed... Modernisation, detailed budget information based on the different functions of the operation, anything from the reform committee (last I can find is Easter 2014). How about something as simple as who was appointed acting CEO while he was on holiday for an extended period (which also wasn't published).

 

What if any advocating has the association conducted? Right now there is an election in QLD, has the association or state based board members approached any candidates about how they can assist recreational aviation, in particular the effects on local jobs in Bundaberg and various flight training schools across the state with the imposed restrictions being placed on recreational aircraft.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Feel free to write to the CEO on that matter then, and he in turn will raise it with the president who can then respond...... But be aware that many decisions will never be published where privacy principles dictate that they simply cannot. As an example disciplinary matters will only involve the staff, the board where escalated, and the directly involved members. No one else has a need to know. Its probably worth asking for clarity between a formal motion (and its corresponding decision) and WIP decisions which are not formal motions, but are still documented in our forum system, I believe consensus is that the former need to be reported, the latter do not especially where its WIP and commercial in confidence for example...

 

Modernisation etc...still with the CEO you wont be told anything until the plan in totality is presented to us as a motion for approval. That is yet to happen, however I know work is maturing and effort being expended etc. Reform committee nothing to report.

 

CEO on leave......why does the general membership need to know this...bottom line is that there is someone in the office to answer as the CEO and that person was chosen, and advice of that selection was advised to everyone that needed to know such as the board, CASA etc. Can you tell me why you believe the greater membership needed to know who was acting? and if so, does that also hold true for other levels within the staff and if so down to what level......

 

Advocating...yep a heap of it......some of it has been advised by email updates in December and the latest ones I expect you will hear about shortly.....

 

Sorry folk I don't intend to go into any more detail here...... its unfair to those members who don't participate here. If you feel strongly about the issues raised please...please write to the CEO and or president of RAAus and let them know your thoughts. If its a common theme then they will address in the broad email communications that go out to the vast majority of members. They look forward to questions and comments from you and I will be astounded if you don't get a good answer in a timely manner

 

Andy

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I'll start with the fact the position (Public Officer) is detailed in the constitution, it would be prudent for member's to be aware of whom is acting as the Public Officer at all times, it's also a person referenced in the CASA Deed with RA-AUS (which some seem to believe stands for the Board or Office, it's actually the association of members which the board represents and the office is employed by). Why is it you seem to think members don't need to know who is actually acting as the CEO? I'm more concerned now that something untoward may have happened and maybe someone who shouldn't have been was acting in the role, or more likely no one was at the wheel?

 

I look forward to reading the published resolution on the Modernisation project somewhere in the future, I guess since that's the first time members will see the project board members will be voting based on their own views rather then actually representing that of members?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Why would it be prudent? There is nothing a Public officer can do, that the acting public officer cannot. If correspondence or phone calls are made to the public officer then there will be a human at the end of mail/call that can assist in what you want done. IMHO Public Officer is a 0.000001FTE role in RAAus.

 

With respect your concerns of "something happening" (inference bad or unhandled) or "No one at the wheel" are simply wrong. Things that happened, were dealt with appropriately, by the person appointed to be at the wheel for the entire time ML was on leave. The board and the acting CEO were significantly busy dealing with Jabiru......

 

I don't understand where you are going with this....was there something that you experienced that has coloured your view? If not stop grasping for non present straws!

 

 

[rankamateur]

I look forward to reading the published resolution on the Modernisation project somewhere in the future, I guess since that's the first time members will see the project board members will be voting based on their own views rather then actually representing that of members?

I see what you are getting at here, but isn't a board member always going to, in the absence of specific instructions from individual regular members, vote based on a distilled feeling of the sentiment of the members they represent. It isn't humanly possible to consult each member in a geographical location on each decision requiring a vote. If the board member trips over their personal opinion and doesn't read the sentiment of the members they won't get the votes to get re-elected.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I agree with you on that bit rank.

 

Andy what I think rhysmcc is trying to point out is it would be nice for members to know who is/was acting CEO while the CEO is/was out. I haven't dug around maybe it would be as simple as ringing a board member and asking but I'm a lazy member and not too worried about it (there are definitely those who would like to know though, obviously). Surely there would be no reason to not answer such a question?

 

 

[Oscar]

Rhys, having been somewhat involved (in a small way) with assisting a Board member to get hold of information with which to formulate responses etc. to the Jabiru issue, let me say that the amount of time and effort that the members of the Board on the front-line put into trying to get some sense out of that whole debacle was simply monumental; communications were going on in the wee small hours of the morning at the end before CASA dropped the boom.

 

The implications of the CASA action are immense for RAA, and in terms of the allocation of energy to obvious priorities, I sincerely believe you should be relieved that the Board has been fighting diligently on its members behalf (and I am not currently a member, so I have no skin in the game here.)

 

At a more general level, I would suggest to you that the old adage 'do it once and do it right' needs to be a guiding principle for the changes that are - most definitely - needed to RAA administration and management. It seems to me that the current Board and the key administrative officers are almost exponentially more capable, enthusiastic and committed to pursuing that path than has been the case for many years. Expressing legitimate concerns about areas that need attention is useful input to the Board, but I don't believe that it is useful to obsess on details when a 'whole-of-enterprise' overhaul is needed.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Why would it be prudent? There is nothing a Public officer can do, that the acting public officer cannot. If correspondence or phone calls are made to the public officer then there will be a human at the end of mail/call that can assist in what you want done. IMHO Public Officer is a 0.000001FTE role in RAAus.With respect your concerns of "something happening" (inference bad or unhandled) or "No one at the wheel" are simply wrong. Things that happened, were dealt with appropriately, by the person appointed to be at the wheel for the entire time ML was on leave. The board and the acting CEO were significantly busy dealing with Jabiru......

 

I don't understand where you are going with this....was there something that you experienced that has coloured your view? If not stop grasping for non present straws!

I can't see why it's a secret to know who was appointed acting CEO and public officer, and to be quite honest with you it wasn't that much of an issue to me but an example of the lack of communication the board is still having with it's members. Now I'm concerned because it appears not only wasn't it communicated but it's top secret.

 

I see what you are getting at here, but isn't a board member always going to, in the absence of specific instructions from individual regular members, vote based on a distilled feeling of the sentiment of the members they represent. It isn't humanly possible to consult each member in a geographical location on each decision requiring a vote. If the board member trips over their personal opinion and doesn't read the sentiment of the members they won't get the votes to get re-elected.

How does a Board member (or the Board on a whole) read the sentiment of the members when we don't even know what's changes/projects are on the cards until they have already been decided. I do agree with you that it's impossible and not expected that they contact each member and ask their opinion on each topic, that's not really how representation works, however I do expect to receive adequate information and policy to form an opinion and express that to my representative. It's this part of representation that is missing in the association.

 

Oscar, I totally agree with on implications of the whole Jabiru issue and I'm sure the management are doing everything they can on behalf of the members, my concern isn't really related to Jabiru but more so the constant lack of change with the communication and "progress" of the association. Things such as constitutional review and strategic planning that has been an "agenda" item for at least 24 months now and still have nothing new to show for it. I have raised this a few times over the last 12 months, and every time we get the same excuses or reasons for nil change and the assurance that "improvement" is coming, yet 3 months later we are still in the same place.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

It wasn't secret...If it makes people feel better it was Katie Jenkins and imho she did a fantastic job under circumstances not at all what we envisaged before the CEO went on his approved leave.

 

If I came across as though it was a secret then that wasn't as I intended....I just couldn't see why people would want to know.....and to the extent other than "because its our organisation" I still cant. In our org with the number of staff we have its pretty much assured that someone from the teams will be on leave every day....My question still is...at what level do you want to know and why above but not below....

 

representation..... We had a not for profit governance expert come in and educate us as to our responsibilities under legislation that exists today and it was hammered home time and time again that while we are called members representatives, and we are titled after geographic areas, that is, as a board member, absolutely at odds with our legislated responsibilities. I might well have been elected as a NSW rep, but I, along with every other board member has to decide in favour of the entirety of the membership. for example if 3 local to me members get to me and talk long and eloquently about the significant benefits of natfly at bundiwoopwoop then in the discussion for where natfly might be next (assuming its moving and it is for the purpose of this example only) I might advise those other board members that 3 locals had discussed X with me...but when it comes to voting I must throw that into the mix with everything else and if somewhere other than Bundiwoopwoop looks to be the go then that's what I have to vote for. We cannot be parochial in any way at decision time...but absolutely can during discussion time.

 

so its a fine line, we do need to understand what the membership is thinking (if that is possible to do other than in small pockets local to where we each live), but at the same time we make decisions, as legislated, based on our due diligence surrounding the motion. So it is not 100% representation, and its not 100% "I did it my way" but rather a mix of both as our own life experience dictates. For example if we were dealing with accounting questions I'm not going to ask broadly members what they think, rather I'll engage with some members who I know are accountants and use their and my life experience to determine what we do. Similarly for IT related modernisation issues, as a 30year IT Professional who has worked deep in technology, but also as a front to business needs I will engage with those in the membership that have skills complementary to mine...In the same way if there was ever a question on managing a grass runway then my skills get me to 0% of understanding where we need to go, yet I'm well aware of a number of farmers here that I could potentially talk to and therefore show that I did my due diligence, or alternately I may well go looking for someone who has life experience that can help.

 

With regard strategic planning, we have moved quite some way from where we were 24 months ago...im fact I know of at least 24 man days worth of effort that has so far been expended. However while we have moved quite a way we still aren't at the logical point for wider briefing. We aren't far from it. I understand that from a members perspective looking in, its a buzz word that gets mentioned and then we move on to something else....but there is meat on the bones....Constitutional reform......Not so much meat on those bones yet but I do know the CEO has been tasked with a level of work on it and my experience with this CEO is that he will deliver in the timeframe that the exec have stipulated. I would also point out that while things like the strat plan haven't yet gotten to the point that we believe we can talk to the greater membership the work done so far is already being used to, for example, inform during a recast of the chart of accounts...If we know what we want to achieve in the next 5 years then we know what we need to measure and report on from a financial perspective...

 

Andy