RAAus general meeting

[kasper]

Sorry to have been so late in posting this - first holiday in a couple of years and I turned off the forums for a month.

 

The following has been put forward for distribution to all members of the RAAus for the upcoming general meeting from me as a member.

 

As you may be aware from my posts I am completely disgusted with the actions of the initial directors and whilst I would feel quite happy to see them staked naked covered with honey on a fire ants nest for their actions I am aware that many members are less exercised by their horrendous governance so I have taken an approach of staged resolutions that fall short of staking humans out for fire ants and allows members a graduation in level of censure.

 

I hope that in the very least members can support the first of the three resolutions as it does nothing more than call the initial directors to account for the errors in the governance and operation of the current election process. If passed this single resolution would be a very clear statement from members to the directors that we are watching and we care that in running the RAAus we want the people to not only care for the issues but care for actually operating within the rules.

 

In my opinion its a very weak position for our board and its directors to be in to to call for continued and increasing levels of compliance by members when exercising our privileges in flying when the people signing off the increases in the regulations choose to completely ignore the regulations WE as members put in place to manage them!

 

I will be asking for proxies for these resolutions and I will draw up a set of proxies that will operate to support number 1, 2 or all 3.

 

___________________________

 

Statement

 

The significant changes to the structure and constitution of RAAus were made on the basis that prior management

 

ignored the requirements of the association and the governance of the association was not capable of being held to account for their actions.

 

Unfortunately the initial directors of the company in calling and running the current "election" process did so in direct conflict with the new constitution they were instrumental in putting in place to address the poor prior governance. The directors not only failed to comply with the constitution but deliberately set out to run an election

 

in clear knowledge that the process did not comply. Whilst I personally find it reprehensible that people calling for and making significant changes should then immediately do equivalent failing actions I am choosing to put three resolutions to the membership in the hope that sufficient members are willing to at the least censure the

 

sidesteps for wilful disregard of the constitution even if they cannot support the later resolutions calling for the non-compliant election to be rejected and the initial directors held financially liable for the costs to RAAus of their action. The three result ions that will be put to the members are:

 

1. The members resolve to censure the initial directors for undertaking an election for directors of the company in a manner and under a process that failed to comply with the requirements of the constitution.

 

2. The members resolve to refuse to appoint any members as directors following the election process in July and August of 2016 as they have not been elected by the members in accordance with the constitution.

 

3. The members resolve to hold the initial directors personally liable for all costs incurred by the company in running the invalid election process and seek recovery of all costs from them personally. The members further resolve to not apply the indemnity to the initial directors as they were aware that the process was not compliant with the constitution prior to the costs being incurred.

 

Kirk Sutton

 

Member 7019

 

 

[coljones]

Sorry Kirk but I can't support any of your resolutions as the clear direction given to RAAInc by the passage of the resolution to set up RAA Ltd was to conduct an election for up to 5 board positions on the unincorporated organisation which was to morph into RAA Ltd on registration. It is quite clear to me that the new constitution intended that there should be up to 7 directors. RAAInc could have simply appointed the seven in its initial application to ASIC but in this instance did the democratic thing and ran an election AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION. I appreciate your concern but it wouldn't matter when the election was called and run as we would probably have achieved the same result. You have tossed some valuable insights into this debate but I think you should recognise that you are castrating mosquitoes. I think you should de-stress, sit back, think about the joys of flying and plan your revenge on the authors of this constitution, written for the benefit of lawyers and bureaucrats not those who really run large not for profits. Don was there for the long March, perhaps you should do the same.

 

 

[kasper]

Appreciate your point of view Col but factually I can just restate that the election process we just went through was not undertaken under the constitution.

 

And despite any twisting of words from the resolution that passed the new constitution the constitution only became effective on registration with ASIC so the election process was factually NEITHER as provided for in the constitution NOR in accord with the resolution passed by members to moved from Inc association to Ltd company.

 

But I respect your point of view and your right to not support any resolutions put at the general meeting.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Appreciate your point of view Col but factually I can just restate that the election process we just went through was not undertaken under the constitution.And despite any twisting of words from the resolution that passed the new constitution the constitution only became effective on registration with ASIC so the election process was factually NEITHER as provided for in the constitution NOR in accord with the resolution passed by members to moved from Inc association to Ltd company.

 

But I respect your point of view and your right to not support any resolutions put at the general meeting.

 

Cheers.

Kirk,

I can't help but wonder why you are so intent on smacking RAAus? (edited ...mod)

 

The RAAus Directir elections were completed during the period after the incorporation was approved by ASIC and are in my view completely valid. Looking back on the process, there is nothing that did not meet the spirit of the overwhelming result in favour of restructuring RAAus that you so vehemently opposed.

 

(Edited...mod)

 

Don

 

 

[kasper]

Kirk,I can't help but wonder why you are so intent on smacking RAAus?

The RAAus Directir elections were completed during the period after the incorporation was approved by ASIC and are in my view completely valid. Looking back on the process, there is nothing that did not meet the spirit of the overwhelming result in favour of restructuring RAAus that you so vehemently opposed.

 

Don

Don,

Simples here

 

1. I edited ...mod

 

2. I do not object to the incorporated form of RAAus - however it was not in my opinion necessary and the reasons put forward for it were vapourware. BUT I engaged repeatedly and with full detail as requested by RAAus management during its drafting to make it as good as possible but at every turn was blocked and told I was just muck raking - facts are I was not, I was trying to help and continue to do so

 

3. factually you are WRONG - the election process was commended and nomination closed BEFORE RAAus was approved by ASIC - it was after they applied BUT it was NOT after approval so factually you are wrong.

 

4. meeting the spirit of the intent from the change is exactly the slippery slope of horrendous procedure and governance that this lot were put in place to rectify but are clearly happy to continue to deliver - RAAus members deserve better.

 

5. there is a big different between 'smacking' RAAus and smacking the initial directors who are blatantly and openly ignoring the procedural governance processes THEY designed and WE approved - I will never smack the RAAus but any individual who want to be part of they management of it had best be aware I am heaps happy to smack them individually

 

edited...mod

 

Seems member apathy within RAAus will allow the current management to 'reinvent' and repeat the poor governance of the past RAAus and if there is an alternate out there - and if it were simply cheaper - then we might see those apathetic members of RAAus migrate and then RAAus management might just start thinking about lowering costs and restrictions rather than just adding more without need.

 

Edited...mod

 

 

[coljones]

Don,Simples here

 

2. I do not object to the incorporated form of RAAus - however it was not in my opinion necessary and the reasons put forward for it were vapourware. BUT I engaged repeatedly and with full detail as requested by RAAus management during its drafting to make it as good as possible but at every turn was blocked and told I was just muck raking - facts are I was not, I was trying to help and continue to do so

 

3. factually you are WRONG - the election process was commended and nomination closed BEFORE RAAus was approved by ASIC - it was after they applied BUT it was NOT after approval so factually you are wrong.

 

4. meeting the spirit of the intent from the change is exactly the slippery slope of horrendous procedure and governance that this lot were put in place to rectify but are clearly happy to continue to deliver - RAAus members deserve better.

 

5. there is a big different between 'smacking' RAAus and smacking the initial directors who are blatantly and openly ignoring the procedural governance processes THEY designed and WE approved - I will never smack the RAAus but any individual who want to be part of they management of it had best be aware I am heaps happy to smack them individually

 

But frankly I am up to the point of looking the concept that ELAAA offers as an alternate to RAAus and I cannot say that going forward I would not be open to looking at their documents and potentially working with them to get them up and running. And this is NOT me smacking the RAAus or bringing it into disrepute - its me looking for a way to get the management of RAAus to start listening to people and to operate in line with the documents we passed

 

Seems member apathy within RAAus will allow the current management to 'reinvent' and repeat the poor governance of the past RAAus and if there is an alternate out there - and if it were simply cheaper - then we might see those apathetic members of RAAus migrate and then RAAus management might just start thinking about lowering costs and restrictions rather than just adding more without need.

 

Ballantree Aviation Wowan

 

3 Axis

 

M Breitkreutz

 

(PE) 07 4937 1170

 

0418 198 016

 

Email [email protected]

[Keith Page]

Kirk,I can't help but wonder why you are so intent on smacking RAAus?

The RAAus Directir elections were completed during the period after the incorporation was approved by ASIC and are in my view completely valid. Looking back on the process, there is nothing that did not meet the spirit of the overwhelming result in favour of restructuring RAAus that you so vehemently opposed.

 

Don

Hello Don,

Here I am again.

 

I am wondering why all the moaning. I can remember the crowd yelling long and hard regarding the constitution none of them were really listened to. In my view that is very unfair that their concerns were not addressed, so now this situation has arisen.

 

To top all that I must ask, why the Tech Manual was not shown to the members before it was sent to CASA for approval?

 

What is next?

 

In my view, looks like there was some poor advice handed out.

 

KP

 

 

[jetjr]

It was shown to members and was back and forth to casa over a long time, years?

 

If it were reliant on being approved by all members we would be running on the old version for decades to come

 

 

[Keith Page]

It was shown to members and was back and forth to casa over a long time, years?If it were reliant on being approved by all members we would be running on the old version for decades to come

OK.. Must have been a very select few.

How come then, there was information sent about "When the tech. manual was ready it would be sent to CASA for approval"

 

When all this information was being sent about the manual had already been to CASA for approval.

 

Well one could stretch the viewings and drop the grass route members.. at least... Give the L2.3.4 have a look and some input NOT all of those people had the opportunity.

 

KP

 

 

[terryc]

Hi Kasper, you certainly have my vote for item 1and 2. I need to think about 3. I think you also have Don's vote also because he has always promoted processes and procedures and the principles of good governance on this site many times so there's two already.

 

 

[-Rod-]

It was shown to members and was back and forth to casa over a long time, years?If it were reliant on being approved by all members we would be running on the old version for decades to come

Just for the record the current RAA Tech Manual was initially produced as a confidential 'secret document'. Requests to release the manual in the same way as CASA, as a NPRM (Notice of proposed rule making), were refused and the new Tech Manual regulations have been implemented. Other than a select group of persons this manual was not seen by RAA members in advance of its introduction. Not an ideal result for RAA sport aircraft pilots, builders and maintainers.

 

Having as wide a group as possible view proposed rule changes always ensures a better end result. My view, is that this is what should have happened with the new RAA Tech Manual.

 

Rod Birrell

 

 

[turboplanner]

It was shown to members and was back and forth to casa over a long time, years?If it were reliant on being approved by all members we would be running on the old version for decades to come

Well that would be ridiculous wouldn't it.

I've previously mentioned that a good example of consultation is what Councils practice.

 

An example of reasonable consultation for a complete update of a Tech Manual might be.

 

Stage 1

 

Notification to all members that an update was planned.

 

Invitation for members to suggest improvements within 60 days of invitation.

 

Stage 2

 

Existing Manual components, proposals from committee meetings, submissions from members considered, and Draft Tech Manual produced

 

Draft Tech Manual circulated to all members with invitation for members to suggest improvements within 30 days of invitation.

 

Stage 3

 

Committee considers Draft1 and all member submission, and finalises Tech Manual for vote

 

Stage 4

 

Committee releases Tech Manual

 

In this case:

 

• All members knew there was an intent to update the Manual from the start, and if that was inappropriate, could point out why/stop it.
   
   
  
• All members given the chance to submit input at the start stage, rather than being accused of "sabotaging" a finished product presented for a decision. If they don't want to submit they don't have to.
   
   
  
• The Committee gets direct and well thought out submissions from members, some of whom are expert in various fields, then finalises the document
   
   
  
• All members given the chance to check a much more widely researched document for them to make a decision on.
   
   
  
• The Committee can finalise the draft knowing that all the members have made their thoughts known.
   
   
  
• The Tech Manual is likely to be what the members want.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[gandalph]

I can remember the crowd yelling long and hard regarding the constitution none of them were really listened to

I guess different people have differing views on what constitutes a crowd.

"None of them were really listened to." Really? Is that verifiable or an opinion. Keith, I'm not saying you are wrong -I am now very careful about appearing to criticise anyone these days . If you have some facts to back up your assertions than I'm sure we would all welcome the chance to see them. It might make it easier for members to make their own minds up as to what's true and whats conjecture. That would surely be a good thing yes?

 

If you are simply putting forward your opinions then there is no need to trouble you for verification.

 

p.s.I hope you don't feel threatened his post, or that I'm baiting you in any way, that is not my intention, I just expressing my opinion, and I'm sure you'd support Napoleon's dictum on opinions.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Just for the record the current RAA Tech Manual was initially produced as a confidential 'secret document'. Requests to release the manual in the same way as CASA, as a NPRM (Notice of proposed rule making), were refused and the new Tech Manual regulations have been implemented. Other than a select group of persons this manual was not seen by RAA members in advance of its introduction. Not an ideal result for RAA sport aircraft pilots, builders and maintainers.Having as wide a group as possible view proposed rule changes always ensures a better end result. My view, is that this is what should have happened with the new RAA Tech Manual.

 

Rod Birrell

Thank you Rod,

""""""""It was done in secret""""""". Now the next question.

 

What else is done in secret?

 

Open and Transparent are not in the equation.

 

Well jetr you must be gulable telling us we all saw the manual.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

I guess different people have differing views on what constitutes a crowd."None of them were really listened to." Really? Is that verifiable or an opinion. Keith, I'm not saying you are wrong -I am now very careful about appearing to criticise anyone these days . If you have some facts to back up your assertions than I'm sure we would all welcome the chance to see them. It might make it easier for members to make their own minds up as to what's true and whats conjecture. That would surely be a good thing yes?

If you are simply putting forward your opinions then there is no need to trouble you for verification.

 

p.s.I hope you don't feel threatened his post, or that I'm baiting you in any way, that is not my intention, I just expressing my opinion, and I'm sure you'd support Napoleon's dictum on opinions.

Hello gandalph,

Rod has answered the question, " Was done in secret".

 

I can remember the yell regarding secrets, well this is the biggest exercise in deception I have seen.

 

This manoeuvre has answered a lot of questions for me.

 

This is supposed to be a members organisation.

 

KP

 

 

[gandalph]

Just a thought... Could the Board have had some knowledge that there was a rival group forming and decided to initially produce the draft Tech Manual as a confidential document. Wouldn't that suggest that the Board was acting in the best interests of the membership? Given that there is a CASA employee with, I am told, strong links some founding members of the new E&LAAA group, perhaps the Board was applied the confidential status to prevent any perceived conflict of interest becoming apparent between that CASA employee and the new group.

 

There's some wriggle room between Rods statement that the Doc was "initially produced as a confidential secret document" and Jetjr's statement that "it was shown to members and was back and forwards to CASA over a longtime". Can Rod tell us when the confidential protection was lifted? I guess if JetJR is saying that the draft was made available to (obviously some, not all) members - then, if he's correct, there must have been some sort of consultative process involved. Whether the consultation was wide enough to satisfy the majority of the membership is yet to be determined. If Keith and Kirk are correct in their assessment and enough members agree with them, then the question of whether that consultation was wide enough to satisfy the majority of the membership could be settled at the forthcoming General meeting.

 

We live in interesting times

 

p.s Keith, Jetjr said

 

It was shown to members

you misquoted him when you said:

Well jetr you must be gulable telling us we all saw the manual

You may feel that I'm nitpicking but misquoting can be misleading. Whether the mods take offence at "gulable" (sic) is another matter.

 

 

[gandalph]

Hello gandalph,Rod has answered the question, " Was done in secret".

I can remember the yell regarding secrets, well this is the biggest exercise in deception I have seen.

 

This manoeuvre has answered a lot of questions for me.

 

This is supposed to be a members organisation.

 

KP

No Keith, Rod said:

 

the current RAA Tech Manual was initially produced as a confidential 'secret document'.

I think that the words "initially" conveys more meaning that you are willing to acknowledge. Note: the underlining was added to the quote above by me for clarity.

[jetjr]

never said everyone saw it Keith, but im sure everyone interested knew it was coming. Ill bet if you asked or contributed you could have been involved

 

You cannot manage a regulatory process by concensus especially where the regulator is dictating the terms. There was always going to be unpopular changes partly because old manual was so poor.

 

Sections or chnges were no doubt discussed with Casa individually, negotating the least impact possible hopefully. THEN once complete whole document sent for ratification or approval. Pretty normal for complicated documents

 

Whats the point of lengthy member discussion if casa is telling them how its going to be.

 

Why would they ask someone like your opinion? Youre convincd theres some consiracy going on and unlikly to be helpful or positive towarda any changes

 

 

[Keith Page]

never said everyone saw it Keith, but im sure everyone interested knew it was coming. Ill bet if you asked or contributed you could have been involvedYou cannot manage a regulatory process by concensus especially where the regulator is dictating the terms. There was always going to be unpopular changes partly because old manual was so poor.

Sections or chnges were no doubt discussed with Casa individually, negotating the least impact possible hopefully. THEN once complete whole document sent for ratification or approval. Pretty normal for complicated documents

 

Whats the point of lengthy member discussion if casa is telling them how its going to be.

 

Why would they ask someone like your opinion? Youre convincd theres some consiracy going on and unlikly to be helpful or positive towarda any changes

At least the the L2.3.4 people should have seen it because it concerns them.

The other big question as you know a lot about it, how dose it fit with Part 149?

 

Part 149 is what we are about to come under. If it is not compliant with Part 149 it equates out to be a deficient document.

 

KP

 

 

[jetjr]

Where did i indicate i knew much about it?

 

Just know a bit about the process.

 

Seeing as you lnow all about it, does the new version ( or the old one you seem to prefer) fit with 149

 

 

[octave]

Part 149 is what we are about to come under. If it is not compliant with Part 149 it equates out to be a deficient document.

Keith the answer to that would be found by reading the Technical Manual -Issue 4 Available on RAAus website

 

 

[Happyflyer]

At least the the L2.3.4 people should have seen it because it concerns them.The other big question as you know a lot about it, how dose it fit with Part 149?

Part 149 is what we are about to come under. If it is not compliant with Part 149 it equates out to be a deficient document.

 

KP

Just a wild uniformed guess on my part, but I suppose submitting it to CASA and getting approval means compliance with CASA regulations.

 

 

[Yenn]

I thought that the reason for changing rAAus to a limited company was that it would come under ASIC and there would be no chance of any hanky panky. Now if the election was un constitutional ASIC should be advised and then they should do something about it. If those who are forever whingeing say that ASIC won't do anything, then I say we can assume that it is not considered serious and just get on with it.

 

I have my problems with the current situation, but I am willing to see if the new board perform. At the moment looking at the RAAus site I find it hard to believe that RAAus is performing as it should, but I am willing to give them some time.

 

 

[frank marriott]

never said everyone saw it Keith, but im sure everyone interested knew it was coming. Ill bet if you asked or contributed you could have been involvedYou cannot manage a regulatory process by concensus especially where the regulator is dictating the terms. There was always going to be unpopular changes partly because old manual was so poor.

Sections or chnges were no doubt discussed with Casa individually, negotating the least impact possible hopefully. THEN once complete whole document sent for ratification or approval. Pretty normal for complicated documents

 

Whats the point of lengthy member discussion if casa is telling them how its going to be.

 

Why would they ask someone like your opinion? Youre convincd theres some consiracy going on and unlikly to be helpful or positive towarda any changes

Without wanting to get into a debate about the process I can assure you I had input (with support) on certain matters during the "short" time I spent on the board but it was submitted in its original form without amendment.(the actual vote on approval is available on the RAAweb site - far from unaminously ?

 

I even received a phone call from Michael Link stating that this will be the case and any amendments can be made during the 3 or 6 months phase in period (after it was submitted to CASA) I asked myself "why was I putting in hours of reading and making suggestions if it was to be ignore?".

 

A major point in my decision not to stand for re-election, I didn't stand in the first place to be a rubber stamp for "a few". It is all recorded on the internal communications.

 

I refuse to go through the BS again as if I couldn't achieve change whilst a board member I am certainly not going to waste my time now.

 

I was successful (with support of other directors) in changing a couple of matters in the ops manual but ZERO in the tech manual - work out for yourself what is going on there! - the only guarantee is I will not waste any more of my time until a change in process occurs (if ever before the RAA as we know it ceases to exist).

 

If you have any doubt ask any one that was on the board prior to the changeover. I doubt anyone would challenge the facts (I naturally kept copies for my own reference/proof if required)

 

Ask yourself why was the board planned to be reduced to 5 and only increased to the minimum of 7 by a motion from the outgoing board - it could be considered to get rid of other opinions, but make up your own mind on that - bottom line I am now an observer, not a happy one, but certainly NO interest I wasting any more of my time.

 

 

[jetjr]

A detailed tech document has to be able to be altered and updated to suit changing needs, not doing so is what left us with old outdated tech manual for years

 

Im pretty sure L2 and others got to review final drafts, no idea who though of if the direction changed. The board and others had their input into key components inc MARAP.

 

Ive no idea what changes were proposed, but if casa wouldnt swallow it then it couldnt happen, no matter how sensible or otherwise.