Query to RAA CEO

[Riley]

Sent today to CEO in Canberra offices.

 

Quote

 

"From RAA's recent email announcement regarding revision of the revision of the draft Constitution, I assume logically that drafts of (a) Member's Charter and (b) Disciplinary Process will be presented for member's review, comment (and possible massaging to a useable state) well PRIOR to the draft Constitution being put to ballot on 14 May? As these two documents form a component part of the ultimate Constitution it is absolutely unacceptable that members be required to vote on ratification of an incomplete and proven flawed important document. Accordingly, I formally request that the Board delay the ballot until such time as the Constitution can be tabled as a clear and correct document that will collect 'Yay' or 'Nay' votes based on a fully-fleshed proposal (not incorporating "we intend..." or "it will be done later..."). I will vote against every version of the Constitution until it is presented in a 'knobs-free' and legally viable and complete format. I look forward to your soonest response to my concerns. Yours in perplexity, RJ Shanks, Mbr# 014720 "

 

 

[turboplanner]

Smart move Riley; what has been happening doesn't make business sense.

 

 

[Yenn]

Good Riley

 

I have pointed out problems with the constitution. Some have been fixed, some not.

 

The charter seems to start off with a load of info that ought to be in the constitution.

 

It all looks as if a grade 6 high school kid was given an assignment rather than the legal experts we were told wrote it up.

 

I am fully in agreement that it would not be wise to vote it in in its present form.

 

The sad thing is that the rank and file members don't seem to appreciate what a mess it is and I am afraid they will vote yes.

 

In the last few days I have spoken to at least 6 members who had no idea what was involved.

 

 

[Keith Page]

What is my concern, "What is being hidden?"

 

Looks like it is causing confusion and people will say "Yes" and then all the corrections will come to play which will be nothing like what we voted on.

 

So to be safe vote.... NO.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[nong]

Lets remember... Bureaucracies only push change, when it entrenches the position of, or enwealthens, it's officers.

 

 

[Yenn]

Compare our current constitution with what is proposed. Does it look as if the proposal is a good constitution?

 

 

[Keith Page]

Lets remember... Bureaucracies only push change, when it entrenches the position of, or enwealthens, it's officers.

How did you dream that up?

What great words we all need to take head of that little gem

 

Regards

 

KP

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Lets remember... Bureaucracies only push change, when it entrenches the position of, or enwealthens, it's officers.

OMG Nong, that is an awfully pessimistic view of your volunteer Board Members and hardworking staff.

Is there nobody in the world that donates a considerable amount of time and effort other than for personal advantage?

 

"entrenches the position of"

 

Does the opposite . . . sets a max term that Directors can stay on the Board without having to get a 75% vote from the members to serve longer. At the moment Directors can stay on the Board forever if they get enough votes or nobody stands against them. Also, the new Constitution exposes Directors to the wrath of ASIC rather than the toothless tiger of the ORS.

 

"enwealthens, it's officers"

 

Directors are unpaid volunteers. I have yet to work out how anyone can get a benefit from being on the Board - not that I'm seeking one. In my limited experience all you seem to get is dissatisfaction and once in a while thanks. And then they vote you back on the Board. I suppose we should be grateful?

 

Don

 

 

[facthunter]

Got all the makings of a "shooting oneself in the foot" episode. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

These wacky opponents are putting our flying future at risk through obfuscation and paranoia. I hope that 9,990 members can think for themselves and not be swayed by the crazies.

 

 

[frank marriott]

"These wacky opponents"

 

"swayed by the crazies"

 

Seems to be a consistent approach!

 

 

[frank marriott]

At the moment Directors can stay on the Board forever if they get enough votes

Heaven forbid, members votes counting, so let's change the rules to suit "my beliefs".

 

 

[fly_tornado]

is there a draft of Member's Charter and Disciplinary Process?

 

 

[Keith Page]

Heaven forbid, members votes counting, so let's change the rules to suit "my beliefs".

and that is why they want to get rid of regional representatives.

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[kasper]

and that is why they want to get rid of regional representatives.Regards,

KP.

Ummm no. Sorry but that's not the reason for the removal of the regional representation. The company form of structure can have segregation of appointment to the board BUT once on the board the director MUST operate in the best interests of the organisation as a whole and all shareholders/members.

So functionally we could have had a position where there were 8 directors appointed following nomination from and election from within a geographic area like a state or territory BUT it is not possible to limit the nomination group to people within that geography nor have them represent just that geography.

 

So this change is driven by the corporate law form of the organisation not by any actual or implied ulterior motive on the part of the board or draftsperson.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

and that is why they want to get rid of regional representatives.Regards,

KP.

I thought the inner circle just saw this as an easy path to get rid of Eugene

 

 

[Russ]

I was....sort of, following this thread, but now........all this constant hoo ha, commies under our beds, etc etc.........I'm now going fishin....geez

 

 

[SDQDI]

I was....sort of, following this thread, but now........all this constant hoo ha, commies under our beds, etc etc.........I'm now going fishin....geez

You and me both Russ.

 

 

[gandalph]

I thought the inner circle just saw this as an easy path to get rid of Eugene

A pretty low personal attack, even by your "standards"

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Eugene was a disaster as Treasurer, even he would admit that.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

6 of the 12 Board members are going to lose their positions, don't tell me that the final 6 aren't working together.

 

 

[gandalph]

Would you care to name the "final six"?

 

Surprise us with a show of courage.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

and some won't need to face an election until 2018 even though their term maybe up this year!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I thought the inner circle just saw this as an easy path to get rid of Eugene

That is so disrespectful! You really should be ashamed of yourself - like that's ever going to happen.

Eugene has stood for election and been elected by members (not appointed himself) for something like 25 years. He's done that for not one cent of reward or other benefit. Runciman pushed him into the Treasurer role and refused to let him have any contact with me after I offered to do all the leg work for the Treasurer. Not Eugene's fault - he's a CFI not an accountant.

 

Over a very long period of time he's served as a Board Member, a President and a Treasurer and has put more into RAAus than anyone other than perhaps Middo. Did I always agree with him? No, not always but there is no doubt that he put his heart and soul into it.

 

To sit at your keyboard and have pot shots at a person not able to defend themselves without you ever, in my experience, doing anything positive in your entire time on RecFlying takes real courage. Maybe not?

 

Gets a bit wearing after the first 7,187 negative posts.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

What is my concern, "What is being hidden?"Looks like it is causing confusion and people will say "Yes" and then all the corrections will come to play which will be nothing like what we voted on.

So to be safe vote.... NO.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

Or Keith, here's an idea, try reading it and use your own judgement and just maybe, give the people who have worked so hard to pull RAAus out of the dark hole the old Constitution got us into - the benefit of the doubt - not the opposite.