rhysmcc Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I can see where TP is coming from on this one, this time it worked out as there were no against votes, however what systems are being put in place to prevent non members from voting in future meetings? Maybe in future a "public gallery" area could be setup where's non members can sit, that way there can be no confusion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 These considerations and also the rules regarding proxy votes are an ongoing WIP. If I'm chairing a meeting I usually remind the people present that only financial members vote, and that reminder is enough. With small numbers you even get to know names quickly at a meeting. Most stated who they were before they addressed the meeting which is a nice touch as we all get to know the names to some extent. This was only a one hour scheduled meeting (with a follow up question time after, of longer duration and rather informal). An AGM has to stick to its notified agenda for obvious reasons. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Tu Please tell me the members were validated and separated before any voting took place, and lessons were learnt from the fiasco of the EGM where there were members and non members together during the voting, invalidating the motions including the changes to the Constitution, which in turn invalidated any decisions or actions arising from the invalid clauses. RAAus staff collected names/status of each person entering the hangar, establishing member and non member numbers. Some people trickled in after it started but the ability for a bunch of nonmembers to materially affect a vote was understood in terms of numbers. In the event that there was a risk of a questionable outcome we could have asked the identified non members to temporarily vacate but that was never needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 RAAus staff collected names/status of each person entering the hangar, establishing member and non member numbers. Some people trickled in after it started but the ability for a bunch of nonmembers to materially affect a vote was understood in terms of numbers. In the event that there was a risk of a questionable outcome we could have asked the identified non members to temporarily vacate but that was never needed. Andy, I'm a little surprised at this as given that RA-OZ maintains a "Members Only" section of the website, I would have assumed that RA-Oz would conducted a "Members Only" AGM. As you know, I am no longer a member and therefore on that basis wouldn't have dreamed of attending an AGM. But that's obviously just me. Best regards and keep up the good work on the Board/Committee and on the Forum. Geoff 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Geoff There were a number of members who had their partner with them.....To me it seemed a bit rough to ask them to stay outside n the potential sun, rain, snow,hail and repeat......... Perhaps like parliament we need a glass enclosed viewing public gallery for the lesser equal non members where they can be seen (or not depending on their clobber) but not heard Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Col, the 'slush' fund as you call is there to ensure our organization survives into the future. Any responsible organization would be expected to exercise fiscal responsibility on behalf of its membership and establish the long term security of having some money in the bank. Currently it is only about half of what really should be there. We have several Coroners reports to look foward to in the near future due to the high fatal accident rates in past years. Any judgement against the RAAus could very quickly lead to a civil law suit against us which has the potential to instantly deplete and 'slush' fund we may have. I can hear the roars of dissatisfaction now from the membership if that occurred and we could not fund our liabilities. Our insurance in this case is limite and only covers so much. The board would like to see the fund increase for additional security into the future which is why we are looking closely at areas including the magazine where we are loosing money. I too like a quiet place with my magazine and coffee and I will fight against the day when we don't have the magazine to do that with. Additionally we are doing work for the regulator (CASA) and not receiving fair compensation for our efforts,this is another area that needs to be rectified quickly. Prudence is a wonderful woman - I really like her. Madge, I would be one of the last persons to fail to put my hand in my pocket to keep RAA going but I have yet to see a properly argued, well articulated statement of reserves policy and damage control. RAA has both cash and equities that should sustain us well if push comes to shove. Just saying we need reserves is not saying that we have enough or too little. It sounds like the board needs to do some SWAT and disaster analysis and then set a fee appropriate to our outlook because a tsunami will not wait around to ask whether our slowly building asset base is sufficient to withstand its arrival. And of course we don't want a too large asset base as the board might start to behave like a bunch of superannuated public servant unionists on a sugar high out spending the asset base on an expensive airport at, say, Temora. Keep well and thanks for engaging the dialog and keeping us posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Andy, I'm a little surprised at this as given that RA-OZ maintains a "Members Only" section of the website, I would have assumed that RA-Oz would conducted a "Members Only" AGM. As you know, I am no longer a member and therefore on that basis wouldn't have dreamed of attending an AGM. But that's obviously just me. Best regards and keep up the good work on the Board/Committee and on the Forum. Geoff Sorry to loose you as a member Captain....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Col, Good that we've raised the tone from "Slush Fund" to "Reserves". A brief recent history. When I got elected in Sep 2011 (seems a million years ago) I was stunned to see that we had, from memory, $2.5 million in net assets (Total Assets -Total Liabilities for non-accountants). Of this members reserve, there was $1.75 million in cash at the bank. That has all slipped a little since due to revaluation (downwards) of the Fyshwick Office and accumulated deficits over the last couple of years. My judgement at the time was that an organisation with annual revenues of $2.5 million and typically making an annual surplus of 10% of revenue should have had a net asset reserve of $0.5m to $0.75m. I then made the mistake of asking the assembled Board why we had such a humongous reserve. That was a mistake because nobody else seemed to notice that we had such a reserve and all thought it a good thing to be adding $250,000 p.a. to the reserve. The mistake part was that in those days many of the staff attended Board Meetings and they took it as carte blanche to go for a big pay rise and the Board Members then started trotting out pet projects like owning an airfield and building hangars all over Australia. To be fair, we also had the Carol Smith case on the run and the potential financial impact from that could have been quite large or nothing at all. There was no concept that we would be running deficits anytime soon and there was always the option of the RA-Aus monopoly upping fees to prevent running into deficit. The big surpluses had taken the focus of the Association off reducing costs. We were not making losses so nobody thought there was a problem. Fee increases had been modest and the fee was a very small part of any member's annual aviation costs. Only John McKeown was alarmed by the fact that the cost per member had steadily increased over the years instead of going down with economies of scale that should have eventuated from the rapidly increasing membership numbers. What changed was the impact of CASA once Lee Ungerman left RA-Aus and joined CASA as our nemesis. It was quite fair to require us to get our registrations in order even if it should never have been necessary to ground aircraft as part of a paper war. I have confidence that we now have a CEO who grasps these sorts of facts and understands what needs to be done to get RA-Aus onto a long term sustainable basis without ever increasing fees. I think Mark Clayton understood as well but never really got to do much about it being snowed under. I am not convinced our new Board is totally committed to reducing costs and fees. There is certainly a strong push to improve efficiency and to deliver more to members for the fees we pay through, e.g. discounts on hull insurance and fuel costs. Those savings could well offset a significant part of the fees we pay. I am also not sure that there is equity in the way RA-Aus is funded. CASA's contribution is woefully inadequate and aircraft owning members pay a disproportionate amount of the funding versus members who don't own aircraft. That also needs to be looked at and made fairer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Sorry to loose you as a member Captain....... Maj, The Capt has outgrown our little organisation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Don, thanks for the info. Calling it a slush fund may have been a little harsh but if you squirrel away money with no obvious well articulated plan then you haven't done your planning and if you have funds lying around just waiting for some rainy day (which may or may never never ever occur) then you will have board members just itching to spend it. A bit like super, I can leave it to my (actually not) ungrateful children and the Batterseas Dogs Home or I can go flying. Using the funds for a worthwhile purpose in my lifetime seems like a much better idea. Or a bit like building a road, why pay for it now when the real beneficiaries will actually be those, not now taxpayers, who come after me - borrow the money instead and the future users do a little bit of lifting themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Col, All good. Trouble with "Slush Fund" is that it has become associated with crooked Union bosses and their girlfriends. Nothing illegal about the reserves but, as you cans see above, I agree strongly with "if you squirrel away money with no obvious well articulated plan then you haven't done your planning and if you have funds lying around just waiting for some rainy day (which may or may never never ever occur) then you will have board members just itching to spend it" being not good management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Col the slush fund money is a massive liability. CASA know that the RAA has that money so they can dump a bunch of expensive demands on the RAA and they have no reasonable excuse not to comply. The board must get rid of the empire building mentality of the executive and the staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I still don't see any empire building FT (other than by CASA). Please give me an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Hoarding $2.5M dollars without good reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Col the slush fund money is a massive liability. CASA know that the RAA has that money so they can dump a bunch of expensive demands on the RAA and they have no reasonable excuse not to comply.The board must get rid of the empire building mentality of the executive and the staff. Col, All good. Trouble with "Slush Fund" is that it has become associated with crooked Union bosses and their girlfriends.Nothing illegal about the reserves but, as you cans see above, I agree strongly with "if you squirrel away money with no obvious well articulated plan then you haven't done your planning and if you have funds lying around just waiting for some rainy day (which may or may never never ever occur) then you will have board members just itching to spend it" being not good management. Or the Tony Abbot Slush and expenses fund - a similar electoral legitimacy as the Union Official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Col the slush fund money is a massive liability. CASA know that the RAA has that money so they can dump a bunch of expensive demands on the RAA and they have no reasonable excuse not to comply.The board must get rid of the empire building mentality of the executive and the staff. No FT, I wouldn't see that the "slush fund" aka non-specific reserve is a liability. If you have no reserves then your vision of the future becomes a bit myopic. CASA will still treat us (beat us) the same whether we had reserves or not. That of course does not justify salting cash away just because it seemed like a good idea at the time. One needs to build and justify every reserve, slush fund and hollow log you have otherwise you may miss opportunities. I am reminded a bit of "the prodigal son" The biggest fear that some have about discussing the reserves is not CASA but a cashed up litigant wanting, fairly or otherwise, to take a large chunk of our reserves away. You are correct, in a way, that if we had no reserves we could say "so sue us" but that would be irresponsible since in a moral society we should be able, if properly sued, to pay up if we are in the wrong. In the past, with $10 companies, if you were dudded you stayed dudded, now days companies need to be able to meet their obligations otherwise the directors can be personally sued - not a nice feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Hoarding $2.5M dollars without good reason FT you really don't listen too well do you ?.....let me spell it out for you......CIVIL LAW SUITS......we have to have the money there to cover the possibly of us getting sued and loosing........in the activity we are in there's a good chance that'll happen one day...then that $2.5 is gone just like that ..poof !.....or maybe we could rely on you to pay it for us ??...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWF Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Or we could spend some of the "Reserves" on improving and upgrading our systems, procedures and equipment plus improving Staff and Board skills and expertise thus reducing the likelyhood of our being sued. Maybe take out a little extra insurance as well to cover that possiblity (being sued). [And continue producing a print magazine for we more senior members. ] Investing in these areas would have the added benefit of reducing the tempting cash target for potential litigants. Our constitution says "The income and property of the Association shall be applied solely toward the promotion of the purposes of the Association ..." Nowhere in our constitution can I find anything that says one of our Purposes is to build up funds to pay off lawyers and law suits. DWF 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 GeoffThere were a number of members who had their partner with them.....To me it seemed a bit rough to ask them to stay outside n the potential sun, rain, snow,hail and repeat......... Perhaps like parliament we need a glass enclosed viewing public gallery for the lesser equal non members where they can be seen (or not depending on their clobber) but not heard Andy They either can run a formal meeting or they can't. Let's not forget the number of people who DIDN'T want RAA to be run like a footy club. Votes are either valid or they're not, and if they're not then nothing stands up when there's a challenge. You can be a comedian, but members can be separated from non members in a meeting by something as simple as members being given a coloured postit to hold up. Perhaps the board members should have received Management training instead of Governance training if simple blunders like this, which can have a huge impact on member funds are occurring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 If you are so concerned about this why didn't you go there Turbs. Your drive would have been easier than mine. I WAS there and have a long involvement with the RAAus and keen interest in it continuing and operating and anyone on this site can be totally assured of that. Had the vote been close, perhaps the Chair would have asked the non financials to not vote, but the situation was not like that. There WAS NO AGAINST. Regarding having a reserve of money to cover liabilities. Wouldn't you be neglectful if you didn't provide a reasonable buffer? If the organisation is insolvent It can't act for it's members at all. The CASA should indemnify US. They set the rules we must follow. We act on their behalf in administering the matters that would normally be performed by THEM. They cannot delegate OUT of their LIABILITIES. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Ross, the problem I have with self insurance is that it only really an effective strategy if you can win every case. If you lose a single case there is a good possibility that you will get sued again. You end up creating a false sense of security. The big bundle of cash also creates opportunities for cost blow outs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 ft You can ague that having a very high amount of insurance cover attracts them too. We have both. I'm dismayed you don't run for the Board. You seem to be very qualified . Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Large insurance doesn't attract them, the threat of being tied up in court for years fighting a multinational with unlimited legal resources is part of the argument for insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Ross, the problem I have with self insurance is that it only really an effective strategy if you can win every case. If you lose a single case there is a good possibility that you will get sued again. You end up creating a false sense of security. The big bundle of cash also creates opportunities for cost blow outs. Wrong FT....good management on behalf of the membership to have a cash reserve....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 ft...So you have an insurance policy with people who won't pay out (effectively) We generally get sued by our members How do you reconcile your recommendation with that situation?. It's CASA's job to indemnify anyhow. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now