RAAus Constitution Reform Result

[kasper]

Well, if it were that easy, why would we go to the trouble we've just been to? Let me suggest it was because we put our heads together, sought senior professional advice and, guess what, we took the advice and ACTED on it.If you had wanted to do it differently, or if you now want to do it differently, then I suggest you do what we did: we worked our butts off for 6 years, spend thousands of dollars of our own money, gain the support of at least 1,000 like-minded members and, Bob's your uncle! If you are not prepared to take ACTION then your opinion remains just that, your opinion.

 

I happen to disagree.

Don PLEASE get over it - the vote was yes - the change is going through - and it is pointless to try and argue the toss now - but it will not take away the opinions of members or make what they say as issues to be either addressed or comments on what has happened any less valid or truthful.

And frankly you or anyone turning on members now and saying why didn't you do it differently is offensive - the association said they were doing it and they said they would engage and they said they would consult and they said they would listen - well whatever you think of the level of engagement and listening we have what we have and we will work within it. But to say we should have done something different when we did engage as the association requested is the equivalent saying members are not entitled to disagree and if you do then why don;t you get on the board.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Just today there was the story of the Murray-Gouldburn CEO who got 3 million a year for stuffing up the members, some of whom are facing ruin. What is our CEO going to be paid? who decides?

I'm certain he'd accept $3 mil.

Who could decide but the people elected to set the CEO's salary?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don PLEASE get over it - the vote was yes - the change is going through - and it is pointless to try and argue the toss now - but it will not take away the opinions of members or make what they say as issues to be either addressed or comments on what has happened any less valid or truthful.

ME get over it? I'm not the one bleating about it now - in fact all I've ever done on this issue is respond to statements that required clarification. Believe me I am very, very over it. After tonight I'll just let all the nonsense through to the keeper.

 

And frankly you or anyone turning on members now and saying why didn't you do it differently is offensive . . .

Firstly, I reminded all the members who don't like it that they can do as I did and work to change it or, they can put up with it as it is. Secondly, I was not attempting to be complementary to people who despite an overwhelming vote in favour of the motion are still moaning and can't wait to be able to say "I told you so". I mean, how grown up is that?

 

. . . - the association said they were doing it and they said they would engage and they said they would consult and they said they would listen - well whatever you think of the level of engagement and listening we have what we have and we will work within it. But to say we should have done something different when we did engage as the association requested is the equivalent saying members are not entitled to disagree and if you do then why don;t you get on the board.

Do not put words in my "mouth" Kasper. I never said that you or anyone else should have done anything. I said that if you didn't agree you could use the democratic system and campaign for your view to be accepted and defeat the motion - you tried that and couldn't even get 25% of the voters to agree with you - that failed.

 

I also said you could use the democratic system and put your own special resolution forward and then do the leg work required to get >75% of the members who vote to do whatever you think should happen. That's how a democracy works. That option is still open.

 

Just because you put your view to the people who are moving the special resolution does not mean that they have to agree with you. You know it is possible for somebody to listen and still disagree. That in fact is exactly what happened.

 

So, Kasper, perhaps it is time you got over it and let it go!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Just for the record . . .

 

I originally campaigned to be elected to the Board because there was a distinct lack of finance management skills apparent on the Board and many of us were concerned about the state and management of RAAus finances. I came back to the Board after Jim Tatlock had been doing a very good job. With the employment of Michael Linke who has finance qualifications much of the role of Treasurer rightly went to him. He prepared the Budget, presented it to the Board for approval and executed the Board-approved budget. That is exactly how it should work.

 

My motivation on coming back to the Board this time was to see the Constitutional Reform through that I had originally proposed to the Board back in 2012. With the reform agenda being voted through overwhelmingly by the members, and with a very strong team at Board level, I was very comfortable in offering my resignation from the Executive knowing that RAAus was in good shape and had an excellent future in front of it. So, I resigned from the Executive prior to the General Meeting last Saturday and the Board elected unanimously Barry Windle, a person whose skills and experience are very well suited to RAAus from here on in. I have huge regard for Barry and was very pleased to see him chosen for the Executive.

 

It has been a long and arduous struggle to get the reforms done and I now want to get some flying done. This is a big country and it is going to take me some time to cover even some of it.

 

Hope to meet up with quite a few of you at airports around the country.

 

Thanks for the support and particularly the encouragement to keep going.

 

Regards

 

Don

 

 

[octave]

Don PLEASE get over it - the vote was yes - the change is going through - and it is pointless to try and argue the toss now

Kasper does your advice to Don to "get over it" because the vote was yes only apply to Don? As far as I can see Don is merely responding to assertions an allegations. Perhaps it is time for everyone to stop whinging and whining and to work towards improving our lot as MEMBERS who FLY.

 

I understand that people who did not support the change are disappointed and suspicious but it is what it is. If the no case had been supported I would also say it is what it is now let's get on with it.

 

After a lot of reflection I voted yes, now perhaps time will prove me to be wrong and if in a year's time RA AUS is in a worse position I will happily apologise for my vote.

 

Now I do not know Don, we have never met, if I met him in the street I would not recognize him but I do applaud his willingness to come on this forum and put his view. Now perhaps Don is the Doctor Evil of aviation but that is not the impression I get, again if after a year I am proved wrong then I will publicly apologise.

 

I have been a member since 1988 and I it still amazes me how far we have come, we used to do circuits at 800 ft and hope that we wouldn't caught because 500 ft was the legal limit.

 

Flying excites me and is one of the major sources of happiness in my life but lately the politics is really bringing me down. Note - not so much the fact based discussions but rather the innuendo about motives as well as impression given that the organisation is corrupt or stupid.

 

Anyway, I think I am just about done with this forum, might take a break for a while.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don, I'm not sure any of my questions have been resolved directly, but thanks for the passionate dialogue you have brought to this campaign. Without it, very few people would be any the wiser to the background, and I'm sure those who are interested in their flying future will continue to debate the pros and cons more wisely.

 

As Octave says, it "is what it is now" [ref:Octave #181 1:10 20/5/16 www,recflying.com.au]

 

 

[Keith Page]

Yes Turbo, Don dose need congratulating for the intensity of his YES campaign, congratulations Don.

 

However why did he resign the minute the YES vote wins.

 

Just like having a battle to arrive at your destination and not hanging around and enjoying ones efforts.

 

KP.

 

 

[Admin]

saying members are not entitled to disagree.

And I got an email from the CEO yesterday to prove this so now I know exactly where any member that disagrees with the board stands and will be subject to ridicule by them...the whole bringing RAAus into disrepute all over again without any recourse, and controlled by just 2 people. It has started!!!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Ian, that sort of statement is why I would not support RAA using this forum to communicate with members, even if the board thought it a good idea. You have done a great job with this site, I love it, but you have a serious blind spot about your own comments on RAA. I don't know anyone on the exec or management of RAA, this is just my own observation. If you ever wanted to work more closelely with them, for me it would take a couple of years of seeing you as an impartial site administrator and not getting stuck into the RAA people.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Thank you Ian,

 

I have mentioned two or three times that the management runs about playing police officers as where they should be running about promoting and playing diplomats for RAAus.

 

Oh! Gosh should see the replies saying that is all not true, that is police officer roles.

 

Just a question to help in some decisions:- Is the new constitution is up and running and we are operating under it?

 

The other important point it is getting quite obvious why the disciplinary procedure is so important, just another avenue to whack the members.

 

KP.

 

 

[Admin]

I think I have a right to an opinion of my own. Just because I provide this site should not mean that I as a person, and as an RAAus member just like you and many others, is not allowed to have an opinion and contribute the same as any other user can, should it?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I think I have a right to an opinion of my own. Just because I provide this site should not mean that I as a person, and as an RAAus member just like you and many others, is not allowed to have an opinion and contribute the same as any other user can, should it?

You can of course, it is your choice.

 

 

[gandalph]

And I got an email from the CEO yesterday to prove this so now I know exactly where any member that disagrees with the board stands and will be subject to ridicule by them...the whole bringing RAAus into disrepute all over again without any recourse, and controlled by just 2 people. It has started!!!

Perhaps Ian could publish here the email from the CEO. That way we could make our own judgement on the topic and decide for ourselves whether the RAA is indeed being brought "into disrepute all over again without any recourse....". We might even be able to decide for ourselves on the basis of the evidence provided if indeed " it has started!!!".

 

 

To paraphrase Jerry Macguire : "Show us the money! ( or evidence)".

 

 

[Admin]

So why am I singled out by the CEO on behalf of the Executive? In an email that says "because you said this" and "because you said that", "we won't..." isn't that persercution because I disagreed with them. DEJA VUE when they tried to deny my membership. Hell, they even didn't like me saying "because I would use this site to get votes to get on to the board"...how dare they say that...how many board members have come on here to ask members to vote for them? I remember once when they tried to find out the real identities of some posters here and I refused to provide them with that information. freaking bloody power and control saying we will make you pay for your freedom of speech.

 

PMC, please don't be so blind...what's that saying...blind faith in your leaders.....

 

 

[Admin]

Perhaps Ian could publish here the email from the CEO. That way we could make our own judgement on the topic and decide for ourselves whether the RAA is indeed being brought "into disrepute all over again without any recourse....". We might even be able to decide for ourselves on the basis of the evidence provided if indeed " it has started!!!".

 

To paraphrase Jerry Macguire : "Show us the money! ( or evidence)".

Waiting for the right time...spent yesterday making phone calls and still some more today. I may not release it tlll July to coincide with something more important for every member

 

 

[turboplanner]

Perhaps Ian could publish here the email from the CEO. That way we could make our own judgement on the topic and decide for ourselves whether the RAA is indeed being brought "into disrepute all over again without any recourse....". We might even be able to decide for ourselves on the basis of the evidence provided if indeed " it has started!!!".

 

To paraphrase Jerry Macguire : "Show us the money! ( or evidence)".

Unfortunately, in the real world, personal or sensitive information cannot and should not be posted on a public forum, much as it might immediately resolve serious issues, or disprove what the person is saying.

 

I have lost many an argument on this site, simply because I wasn't able to post the proof I had at my disposal, but that's the way it is.

 

 

[kasper]

Don,

 

The changes made to the constitution - that will happen on 1 July if that is the registration date - comprise two fundamental changes that are not legally linked ie they are not dependent on the other existing.

 

1. we move from Inc to Ltd - that is a change from 1 corporate from with limited liability regulated in the ACT to a different corporate form with a slightly different form of limited liability regulated Federally.

 

2. we replaced the constitution with a new constitution designed to have a different organisational control at the board level and different guidance and disciplinary structures at the member level

 

There was no legal requirement to make 1 to have 2 ... that is the fact. we absolutely could have done this within the Inc form of structure and it is not misleading or disingenuous of me to point out that fact.

 

And it is in my opinion disingenuous of the person who was the board member heavily involved in the drafting and promotion of the changes to answer this with any form of statement that we go legal advice and took it - you may well have BUT to tie the two together with a statement around legal advice implies to the membership as a whole that the legal advice that both 1 and 2 were necessary.

 

Read back through my posts on this subject and I have been consistent - the two are not linked, and there are many reasons to do both but also reasons to not do 1.

 

And Don the changes have been agreed. No point you saying why didn't you do your own SR ... do not forget that I and others were attempting to positively engage right up to the April date when the SR just passed was signed and fixed/unchangeable. How could I or anyone have any ability to hold our heads up to the membership as a whole with a separate SR if we have not engaged in the process within the RAAus SR being developed on the subject?

 

I think that some will never accept that a contrary view can still be a positive engagement in change.

 

and I will continue to be contrary in view on areas that do not appear to work in the changes that have just been passed - not for the sake of being contrary but because there is a huge risk that the new board will have change fatigue and any necessary changes to improve the as passed will just drift off ... and RAAus in its new constitution and ops will breach its powers or discover at an inopportune moment that they do not have effective powers that they thought.

 

 

[gandalph]

Unfortunately, in the real world, personal or sensitive information cannot and should not be posted on a public forum, much as it might immediately resolve serious issues, or disprove what the person is saying.

You could well be correct Turbo, but the decision to show and tell, or not, would reside with Ian. However, as he has chosen to publish his opinion of the intent of the email ( and I seriously doubt that anyone here would challenge his right to do just that) the test of whether the information is sensitive or not has already been taken, so there should be no impediment giving readers here the opportunity to judge for themselves by seeing Ian's claims in the context of that email.

If Michael Linke marked the email as personal and confidential or without prejudice then Ian could be justified in withholding it, but otherwise it's probably difficult to justify just providing an interpretation rather than at least the relevant parts of the text. But it is still a free world and no one can or should want to compell him to release it if he doesn't want to, though I note from post #191 that Ian is thinking of releasing it but not for another couple of months. But as you recognised #192 it's can be difficult to retain credibility if you can't provide prove for your argument.

 

 

[Admin]

Gandalph, you have gone off on just one tangent without giving any due consideration to any other element or reasoning. Several users of this site have the full picture, but unfortunately you are not one of them

 

 

[gandalph]

I have to disagree Ian, I don't think I've gone off on any tangent. I was just responding to Turbo's comment that it's sometime difficult to provide proof of an assertion. I was responding in the context of your statement that you have proof of what would seem to be unethical behaviour by the Board and suggesting that it would help forumites if they could see the document that led you to make that claim.

 

I'm not sure how you can assert that I haven't given due consideration to any other element or reasoning

 

I'm not making judgement one way or another because I don't know what is in the email. My original post did not make any judgement about your claim in #191, I simply suggested it might help your cause if you could see your way clear to publish the email. I don't believe that anything I've said today is critical of your opinion or of your decision to hold back the email until July. Happy to discuss further if you still feel Ive missed a crucial point.

 

 

[Admin]

Perhaps I have been sworn to secrecy for a period of time, perhaps it is part of greater big picture that releasing it now will seem out of context, perhaps there are strategic reasons perhaps there are many other reasons, instead of just one tangent that you have pursued without giving any consideration to these other elements...perhaps you could have just taken my word for it but then that would be against your belief that is constantly displayed that no one is credible except for you...this is what I mean by attitude.

 

 

[gandalph]

Perhaps I have been sworn to secrecy for a period of time, perhaps it is part of greater big picture that releasing it now will seem out of context, perhaps there are strategic reasons perhaps there are many other reasons, instead of just one tangent that you have pursued without giving any consideration to these other elements...perhaps you could have just taken my word for it but then that would be against your belief that is constantly displayed that no one is credible except for you...this is what I mean by attitude.

Ian you seem to want to pick a fight with me. I'm not interested! Sorry.

I haven't taken your word. I haven't not taken your word. I haven't disputed your claim, I haven't supported your claim.

 

Let me say it again, plainly, clearly, simply and unambiguously, so there is no mistake about what I'm trying to say.

 

I think it would help support your assertion that:

 

any member that disagrees with the board stands and will be subject to ridicule by them...the whole bringing RAAus into disrepute all over again without any recourse, and controlled by just 2 people. It has started!!!

if you published the email. If you don't want to or can't then that's fine. That's your choice. I'm NOT telling you what to do. Do whatever you feel you need to do. I was offering an opinion and within that opinion there was some advice from someone with a fair bit of experience in matters like this. But it was only ADVICE. Take it, leave it. it's cost you nothing and you're free to value it at cost. I won't be offended if you choose to ignore it. But I'm just a bit tired of you assuming that everything I write is a personal attack on you. IT IS NOT!

 

As for attitude, G'day kettle, my names pot.

 

 

[storchy neil]

now hold the bloody boat sounds like 2010 meeting and raa when the office 2005 was a stack of files that went missing they were there but cant be found

 

both don and ian I respect as they and others I included want an organization that could be a force to be an influence against the regulator

 

with out change you might as well try to piss on the bloody moon

 

as I have stated I am concerned about the way it was done

 

lets see what the change over gives us as I see it you have no raa if 9000 walk away be cause of 3 or 5 or 7 persons that way nobody wins neil

 

 

[Yenn]

It is not much use crying over what has happened, no matter if you approve or disapprove. What we now have to do is make it all work.

 

I would like to see an end to the backbiting and some pulling together to work in the best interests of the members.

 

 

[TK58]

Perhaps I have been sworn to secrecy for a period of time.

I have seen both sides of the correspondence in question. There was definitely no request or requirement for secrecy so far as RAAus is concerned.