New RAAus board Results

[Keith Page]

Secondly Oscar, I will not be taking your tip for the Melbourne cup.

 

KP

 

 

[Oscar]

Then I'm impressed, Keith - you should be making a fortune with your legal expertise.

 

Oh, and I don't tip for the Melbourne Cup - anything I select, dies at the jump. Much like the horse you appear to be backing, as it happens..

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't know who wrote the constitution, but having read it I am not impressed. I suppose it will do for a start, but it is poorer than the old one which could have just been upgraded. If the author is an expert, it just proves the definition of an expert is the unknown drip under pressure.

 

 

[Admin]

If it was that old legal guy who is suppose to be an xpert in aviation that RAAus use, I forget his name now, then I would understand why it was so badly written, the stories I have heard about him supports the bad name of the legal profession

 

 

[Keith Page]

Then I'm impressed, Keith - you should be making a fortune with your legal expertise.Oh, and I don't tip for the Melbourne Cup - anything I select, dies at the jump. Much like the horse you appear to be backing, as it happens..

Well Oscar? The caution in this case is -- who different people have an after work tipple with..

One should never assume.. The answer is who is in the mates brigade.

 

KP.

 

 

[octave]

Well Oscar? The caution in this case is -- who different people have an after work tipple with..One should never assume.. The answer is who is in the mates brigade.

KP.

Keith, this is the kind of post that drives me mad, in Facebook parlance this would be call vaguebooking, that is a post that is vague but is suggesting something, I don't have time for that sort of bull. If you know you something that will convince me to be as unhappy and angry as you then please share it.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well you can blame me if you don't like who got elected. The only one I voted for who didn't get on was the new lawyer from Gawler.

 

I have not actually met the guy, but gosh if he flies at Gawler he must be good, thought I.

 

I reckon Eugene, Rod and Trevor have earned their place and may be wiser now than before. Let's wait and see.

 

 

[storchy neil]

hey guys and girls 23 9 2016 is the last day for submissions to the AGM neil

 

 

[Keith Page]

hey guys and girls 23 9 2016 is the last day for submissions to the AGM neil

They need a section of, questions with out notice, if that is not the case, well the meeting will be a waste of time. When there is a fudged answer no one can pursue the fudge, they get away with their fibs. If they are honest the questions from the floor would be welcomed not "Shut Down".

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

They need a section of, questions with out notice, if that is not the case, well the meeting will be a waste of time. When there is a fudged answer no one can pursue the fudge, they get away with their fibs. If they are honest the questions from the floor would be welcomed not "Shut Down".KP

Normal democratic procedure is that the AGM only consist of reports from officers and other procedural items, any election procedures and then a close, followed by a Generasl Meeting where any member can ask any question, or put any motion.

Check your new RAA Ltd Constitution to see what the new procedure is.

 

There is no need for a section entitled "Questions without Notice" because, apart from those words creating the opportunity for baseless antagonism, you should be free to ask or report anything in a General Meeting, and if you are not, then you have a due press problem which can be fixed.

 

On my reading of the Constitution, it is about what you would expect of a local cricket club, and that has as many advantages to members as it does to officials who may be leaning towards doing their own thing.

 

If there is a fudged answer, you can move a motion to address that; even shareholders in a limited company can pull the Directors smartly into shape if they are prepared to.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In regard to the earlier suggestions that competition can only be good for flyers, that old furphy only applies in situations where a company has been making excess profits.

 

A Limited Company which is not making a profit is only going one way and that's out of business.

 

A Limited Company which is started without the momentum of brand value, or a clear marketing policy is going to struggle to get off the ground.

 

Put those two head to head in competition, and it's not going to be good for anyone, because the "savings" were mythical in the first place.

 

 

[DWF]

They need a section of, questions with out notice, if that is not the case, well the meeting will be a waste of time. When there is a fudged answer no one can pursue the fudge, they get away with their fibs. If they are honest the questions from the floor would be welcomed not "Shut Down".KP

Keith. The constitution for RAAus Ltd has the following rules:

 

"20.3 Before or at the Annual General Meeting, the Directors must, in accordance with law, make available information to the Members on the Company’s activities and finances during the period since the last Annual General Meeting.

 

20.4 The Chairman of the Annual General Meeting must give Members as a whole a reasonable opportunity at the meeting to ask questions or make comments about the management of the Company."

 

 

 

It appears to me that if the rules are followed you will have your opportunity to "ask questions or make comments" at the AGM.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith. The constitution for RAAus Ltd has the following rules:

"20.3 Before or at the Annual General Meeting, the Directors must, in accordance with law, make available information to the Members on the Company’s activities and finances during the period since the last Annual General Meeting.

 

20.4 The Chairman of the Annual General Meeting must give Members as a whole a reasonable opportunity at the meeting to ask questions or make comments about the management of the Company."

 

 

 

It appears to me that if the rules are followed you will have your opportunity to "ask questions or make comments" at the AGM.

DWF..Thank you for finding that, good to know.

KP .

 

 

[storchy neil]

sorry keith not good as to that does not state when or how or timing the information has to be given stand to be corrected neil

 

 

[facthunter]

Annual GMs have to do certain things . receive and approve reports, being one aspect. Constitutional changes should always have prior notification.( 21 days to all members.) OTHER agenda items need to be known also in case YOU are affected. That's a common theme otherwise people stack a meeting and you get something big happening you had no idea was coming.

 

A special GM can be called under the rules for a specific purpose, under controlled conditions with most bodies, at any time by petition or such process. If it was any other way you would then really have something to complain about. It's about ORDER & CONDUCT without which you have no real governance Just CHAOS. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

DWF..Thank you for finding that, good to know.KP .

It was good of him to post that informnation, but it came straight from your Constitution which is posted on the RAA website.

You really need to read that document, and then you can decide whether the members get a fair go on the day o/f the AGM; for example have a look at the options for a general meeting after the AGM, and the possibility of raising, on the day, something as general business.

 

FH, you also don't seem to be addressing routine general business either. If an organisation has to go from one year to the next with 21 days notice required to discuss anything, that's a dysfunctional organisation.

 

 

[Oscar]

<post edited - Mod>

 

FH is referring to the notice required for Constitutional change - not general questions that may arise in a general meeting. An AGM has a required agenda and it is quite usual that an AGM is immediately followed by a GM in which general questions may be aired. Nothing new, radical, or in any way unusual there. The AGM must meet specific reporting requirements; the segue from that to a GM is an efficient way to ensure that 'general business' can be handled at the least incremental cost to the organisation. That segue is an effective way to rule a line under the organisation having met its legal obligations for reporting as required at the AGM, to discussing matters of concern to its members.

 

Management of the RAA under the 'old Constitution'; and by 'the old guard', had led to the utter debacle of the CASA audit and of course the Emergency GM at Queanbeyan. Plus the questionable employment of Tizzard to complete certain documentation (at a high cost, and never completed), and the Myles Breitkreutz saga... Altogether a clusterfarqh.

 

One of the most tried and proven adages is: ' If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Well, here's a newsflash for those who are so stridently opposing the changes: it WAS broken, by any objective measure - and the best objective measure of that was the fact that so many aircraft were grounded as non-compliant with the basic regulations. There is no MORE objective measure than - if you are a member of an organisation so that you can legally fly your aircraft and that organisation has failed to meet that standard of performance - your membership is useless.

 

The incontrovertible metric of 'member concern' over such matters as 'regional representation', or the quality/cost/delivery mechanism of Sport Pilot etc. lies in the voting figures. I do not recall there every being figures that support the idea that even 10% of the RAA membership gives a continental, fur-lined flying faark about all of these peripheral issues; I deduce that 90% of members simply want to pay their dues and receive in return, legal coverage for their flying. A group discount (and simplicity) of enrollment in an insurance coverage for their 3rd-party liability is a bonus.

 

Following the 'Emergency Meeting' at Queanbeyan, members voted for change. They have voted for the version of change that we now see starting to actually happen.

 

However, some people, disappointed that their desired version of change has not been accepted by the majority, are fighting tooth and claw to dismantle it. This smacks of disappointed political ambition for power within RAA to pursue their vision of RAA's future. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some have commercial interests in supporting alternatives to RAA as a service provider. That may become more obvious as events unfold.

 

Since the 'new' RAA has hardly had time to draw breath, the opposition to it cannot be based on experience of failure to deliver. Loudly expressed opinions that it WILL fail to deliver, are no more - at this stage - than opinions, which (as another aphorism has it), are as common as cloacas - everybody has one. And the E & LAAA 'alternative' - yet to emerge as a properly-constituted organisation with the necessary expertise and procedural manuals in place to support its operation - seems to me to be a chimera which has more 'A's' than might be useful..

 

 

[frank marriott]

Oscar

 

Although over the previous years I have agreed with many your posts I am afraid with this last one on the change of structure etc of RAA we are not in the same book, let alone on the same page.

 

No point in arguing the details, it would achieve nothing, suffice to say that there is a lot of opinion contrary to yours and not for the stated reasons.

 

Whether those opinions end up as votes as time goes by - your guess is as good as mine - certainly a lot of unhappy people around, but that's life.

 

 

[turboplanner]

FH is referring to the notice required for Constitutional change - not general questions that may arise in a general meeting. An AGM has a required agenda and it is quite usual that an AGM is immediately followed by a GM in which general questions may be aired. Nothing new, radical, or in any way unusual there. The AGM must meet specific reporting requirements; the segue from that to a GM is an efficient way to ensure that 'general business' can be handled at the least incremental cost to the organisation. That segue is an effective way to rule a line under the organisation having met its legal obligations for reporting as required at the AGM, to discussing matters of concern to its members.

The RAA Ltd constitution is on the RAA Ltd Website. If you take a look at General Meetings, from clause 18 to clause 33.1, unless I missed something, there is no provision for the ad hoc General Business segment that most of us would have grown up with; there are requirements for pre-announcements of the business to be raised in all the types of General Meetings. I did skim through it quickly, I admit, but if this is correct then if something comes up during the AGM/reports or during the General Meeting, anjd you want to move a motion, you're stuffed. While a lot of organisation chairpersons may weigh up the issues and allow a motion the problem is that with this constitution, if the motion goes through and someone takes it to court, the resolution is automatically disqualified, because the constitution doesn't make provision for it.

 

Management of the RAA under the 'old Constitution'; and by 'the old guard', had led to the utter debacle of the CASA audit and of course the Emergency GM at Queanbeyan. Plus the questionable employment of Tizzard to complete certain documentation (at a high cost, and never completed), and the Myles Breitkreutz saga... Altogether a clusterfarqh.

Just a few days ago, I pointed out that this "old guard" reference was a long way down the track from the exciting days when everything in RAA worked. You're in fact referring to a "new guard", and before that era there was the appointment of another CEO which was a very sore point, and other issues within the employees. The seeds of the CASA audit were well and truly sown by the time you are referring to, and the board members themselves should have been complying with job descriptions issued by CASA in 2010. There certainly were major issues, but we had been discussing those a long time before the General Meeting in Queanbeyan. As we know, by the time the supposed "new guard" got to Queanbeyan, they had been rounded up by proxies, and knew they were beaten. While there were some motions passed, all were unlawful because they were voted on by a combined member and non-member group. Some good did come out of the meeting.

 

One of the most tried and proven adages is: ' If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Well, here's a newsflash for those who are so stridently opposing the changes: it WAS broken, by any objective measure - and the best objective measure of that was the fact that so many aircraft were grounded as non-compliant with the basic regulations. There is no MORE objective measure than - if you are a member of an organisation so that you can legally fly your aircraft and that organisation has failed to meet that standard of performance - your membership is useless.

There are lots more objective measures, but I'll leave you with one; the need to protect the rag and tube origins of RAA.

 

The incontrovertible metric of 'member concern' over such matters as 'regional representation', or the quality/cost/delivery mechanism of Sport Pilot etc. lies in the voting figures. I do not recall there every being figures that support the idea that even 10% of the RAA membership gives a continental, fur-lined flying faark about all of these peripheral issues; I deduce that 90% of members simply want to pay their dues and receive in return, legal coverage for their flying. A group discount (and simplicity) of enrollment in an insurance coverage for their 3rd-party liability is a bonus.

There are many more issues than these raised on this forum, and probably more again around the clubs form time to time; are you saying it's naghty to have discussions on these things?

 

Following the 'Emergency Meeting' at Queanbeyan, members voted for change. They have voted for the version of change that we now see starting to actually happen.

As I mentioned, there was a lot more history than you are apparently aware of; but yes, following that meeting changes occurred and voting occurred, and certain things have started to happen.

 

However, some people, disappointed that their desired version of change has not been accepted by the majority, are fighting tooth and claw to dismantle it. This smacks of disappointed political ambition for power within RAA to pursue their vision of RAA's future. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some have commercial interests in supporting alternatives to RAA as a service provider. That may become more obvious as events unfold.Since the 'new' RAA has hardly had time to draw breath, the opposition to it cannot be based on experience of failure to deliver. Loudly expressed opinions that it WILL fail to deliver, are no more - at this stage - than opinions, which (as another aphorism has it), are as common as cloacas - everybody has one. And the E & LAAA 'alternative' - yet to emerge as a properly-constituted organisation with the necessary expertise and procedural manuals in place to support its operation - seems to me to be a chimera which has more 'A's' than might be useful..

I assume this is a positioning statement.

 

 

[kaz3g]

sorry keith not good as to that does not state when or how or timing the information has to be given stand to be corrected neil

"...reasonable opportunity at the meeting"

 

You have a shiny new rule that must be followed. Surely this is much better than when Steve R shut down discussion at his last AGM as President?

 

Kaz

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

On the ELAAA facebook page Keith has announced "The big day is getting closer!" and posted a photo of the ASIC registration of E&LAAA Pty Ltd effective 13 September 2016, with "Look at this, action is happening." ELAAA still describes itself as "ELAAA (Experimental Light Aircraft Aviators Australia) is a light sport aviation association yet to be approved to administer light aircraft in OZ."

 

I am assuming ELAAA is in negotiations to become a self administering sport aviation organisation under CASA? Keith may be able to cryptically update us on progress and who the directors are and what they hope to administer, and when.

 

 

[jetjr]

Will be interesting to see how they get on negotiating different rules from CASA than those dictated to RAA. Who is going to fund it?

 

 

[gandalph]

On the ELAAA facebook page Keith has announced "The big day is getting closer!" and posted a photo of the ASIC registration of E&LAAA Pty Ltd effective 13 September 2016, with "Look at this, action is happening." ELAAA still describes itself as "ELAAA (Experimental Light Aircraft Aviators Australia) is a light sport aviation association yet to be approved to administer light aircraft in OZ."I am assuming ELAAA is in negotiations to become a self administering sport aviation organisation under CASA? Keith may be able to cryptically update us on progress and who the directors are and what they hope to administer, and when.

Gotta agree that It would be nice to have some solid information about the new group, their aims ideals and policies, but we still seem to be in the "I know a secret nudge nudge wink wink phase". If the new group is to be successful it will need to develop it's communication style into something more mature and less nebulous.

 

 

[kaz3g]

in the back of my mind has been the thought that splitting the responsibilities for ultralight aircraft between two organisations potentially defeats the economy of scale currently enjoyed by RAAus.

 

I wonder if this new group has negotiated support from the SAAA owners to improve its base? If it has, that moves it even further away from the basic R&T brigade's aspirations.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

in the back of my mind has been the thought that splitting the responsibilities for ultralight aircraft between two organisations potentially defeats the economy of scale currently enjoyed by RAAus.I wonder if this new group has negotiated support from the SAAA owners to improve its base? If it has, that moves it even further away from the basic R&T brigade's aspirations.

Kaz

I don't think you have to worry too much Kaz.