Admin Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 The "Secrecy Clause" as you guys refer to it as is a normal "Confidentiality Agreement" that most corporates get their employees to sign. In this case I refused to sign one for three reasons: 1. I was elected there by the members who have a right to know when things are amiss. An example I used (and just as a discussion example only) is say a board member embezzles a million dollars from the Association. Half the board members don't want the embarrassment of it so they decide to keep it confidential and the members don't get to hear about it. They then start to ask questions why their membership fees increase yet I am not allowed to tell them why - the board is then viewed as a "secret society" the very thing that I am trying to break down. 2. I would be relinquishing many of my rights as an individual member. As it was if I were sitting at the table as a board member I am not allowed to tell the members who voted me in what was happening. Yet, if I pushed my chair back and stopped being a board member and became a normal member as a viewer, I could walk out that door and say who said what to whom in the board meeting. 3. I stood to get on the board to try and get more information out to the members and that is what I am doing first before I start tackling other things on behalf of all members. The whole thing is really a stupid argument though. Anyone could sign a confidentiality agreement and go and tell the world anyway - you can't physically stop someone from doing it and anyone who says that a piece of paper is going to stop them is a load of hogwash. What is the most important thing is that you members must vote for the people that you believe will have the integrity to know the difference between what should be kept confidential and what should be released to the members. Some current board members have tried over the last 5 years to squash in any way they can this website and forums from getting as big as they now are as they have feared that the "secret Society" would be found out. Even at the last board meeting one member was rallying other members to question my integrity on what gets posted here. My reply was "have they also asked any other board member if they were going to post anything on Pprune which they have as much ability to do as I have here?" - they were singling me out but more on that another day. Board members should conduct themselves responsibly towards the betterment and integrity of the Association as a whole whilst at the same time being responsible to the members who "own" the Association. We should not run out and create headlines for ourselves by releasing information that isn't appropriate or manipulate it all for our own personal gain but rather act within the law of common decency and above all be responsible. I always told the people that I worked with don't come to me with a problem unless you also have at least one possible solution. What I would like to see is if an issue is taken back to the members in the form of information distribution then we at least offer a possible solution instead of just running around with arms in the air. Some of you have said that to get a better idea on wages blowout we should know what the staff were getting paid - that is not going to happen as a person's wages is completely confidential isn't it? and even asking to know what someone is earning is just not appropriate. I came in late on all this so I can't really say much about it and it was even discussed without me at the time being a board member however I wouldn't do any of their jobs for the money they are earning especially with the high costs of living in Canberra but I can understand that they do it because they love what they do for all of us and the Association. I believe the problem is a lot deeper then what John has stated. The reference to a cost blowout on wages...well it is only a blowout if the total spent exceeds what has been budgeted for. Now here is the possible solution! The budgets need to reflect proper costs not just what we are spending now but also what we should be spending in terms of impact of risks and risk mitigation. Example: When we created the budgets we performed the necessary due diligence and research and found amongst other things that a normal person doing the same kind of job as one of our staff members is doing earns $10, we are paying someone to do that job for $6, the budget risk is $4 - we have to ensure that we can at all times cover that risk and this has to be considered in the budgeted surplus and defined as a risk component. If you don't budget a surplus of in this instance $4 minimum then you have an incompetent board of management. Now that person doing the job for $6 suddenly says I can get $10 down the road at CASA then the board has to make the decision of whether to use the risk contingency defined in the surplus or not - is this a wage blowout or just the board making a decision to use the risk contingency? Perhaps the incumbent is not worth $10 so the board only decides to use $2 of its contingency...the point is effective business management has been used beginning from the initial budget planning process, the due diligence and research, correct information flow to board members and appropriate decision making. This may not have even been the case but as I said the problem is much deeper than this as the board itself needs to have appropriate business skills and knowledge to make proper and informed business decisions professionally. Like any organisation, the costs have to be covered. In this instance in terms of the amount of wages being paid the board has to now act professionally (and not just a bunch of CFIs etc) to cover those costs in an appropriate way. We only get just over 100k for CASA to run an entire Association of over 10,000 members, responsible for more schools and training centres then CASA do themselves in GA, more aircraft then all types of aircraft flying in New Zealand and then, CASA burden us with extra reporting requirements, risk management processes etc etc etc whilst giving us less money in total then what they pay just one of their inspectors. We need to perhaps first have a look at if we really do have a problem or not, what are our income streams and how can we maximise them and other opportunities, the CEO needs to look at operational efficiencies but above all also noting who our stakeholders are...you, the members. That's if a problem does really exist at all! Myself, I propose to wait until I can do my own research on it and for the new Treasurer to have a look as well - remember, there will be a massive blowout right here if anyone tries to keep anything hidden or the full story is not told and then I will let you guys know and if there is an issue what the board is doing about it...for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Nicely said Ian and agree 100%. I think the new treasurer really needs to comment but we can't expect that until he has had a chance to review the situation and financials properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 So, In summary Actual wages <= budget = OK (irrelevant of whether they are more or less than yrs past) Actual wages > budgeted = problem that will require cuts in other areas, or an increase in incoming revenue Until all those things are known (relativity of actual wages to Budget) and the deficit or not of revenue to expenditure then we should keep righteous indignation in check and let those that have responsibility discharge it. People who identify an issue should provide sufficient facts so that we can determine if there is a problem. While a large percentage increase can be grounds for concern, something that used to be provided for nothing, or the proverbial peppercorn $1 that suddenly has a real cost associated with it, when those percentages are calculated (except for $0 of course) they will be staggering, so high in fact that nobody will take them seriously and as a result to determine issue or otherwise we get back to relativity of actual to budget... With respect to confidentiality agreements, agree that no paper will ever, of it self, prevent a confidentiality breach, what the paper does is bring right to minds eye the fact that there will be consequences through breach of contract and potential damages. No willfull considered and though out breach will be prevented, however the "loose lips sink ships" type of passing comment might be better controlled. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirius Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 a person's wages is completely confidential Yes it is. If a board member elects not to sign a confidentiality agreement and breaches board confidentiality, (such as wages for example), he leaves himself open to individual action for redress. It is therefor up to that individual board member to use common sense when making published statements. Otherwise he places himself outside the protection of any liability insurance. The duty of an elected member of the board is to the organisation, and in the case of an incorporated association, that responsibility is to the members who ARE the organisation or association. (With a company it is to the shareholders. Same thing, different jurisdiction). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Not necessarily Sirius. Handling of public money (ours) is taken very seriously, and there are many organizations where salary levels and salaries are on the public record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirius Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Salaries in whole are part of the annual financial report for the year ended and are open to scrutiny when they are presented to the members. The members accept or reject them there and then. Speculating on future trends on public forums is not the place for dissection especially on PPRune where I note it has mercifully been consigned to history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Well said Ian, except for one point. I still cannot see that talking percentages is the correct way to go when comparing wages. I still need to know dollars. We have had problems with teachers in Qld demanding more money and rejecting an increase of X% saying it was not enough and expecting the electorate to back them. Not on. I still want to know what I am talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sain Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 What i'd be more interested in knowing (personally) is how long has it been since the wages of employees were reviewed and a pay increase awarded? If its been more than 3 years or so, then that increase is still below the increase in the cost of living over the same period, and probably well overdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qwerty Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Whatever the increases in salaries, I have been assured that the actual pay rates for all personell are reasonable. In fact the comment was "I wouldn't do their job for the money they are being paid". This information (and that's all the information there was) came from a reliable source. With that, I suggest we leave the issue alone, The board in the end are not idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sain Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 There is some interesting information in the financial officer's report... Why are RA-Aus paying so much for phone calls in this day and age? VOIP guys - many of the VOIP carriers are capable of providing a small to medium business grade phone system, with many additional benifits apart from being a crapload cheaper than telstra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 VOIP is being implemented at the Office as we speak - there are some technical issues relating to the decommissioning of the old Commander system but they are being or have been overcome so the office should start seeing a reduction in the communications cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMcK Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Hi All, To try and keep members informed and stop some confusion by the membership, and at the same time not divulge actual salaries, perhaps I could repeat a couple of statements I made to the board re the salaries, before going in camera to discuss the actual amounts. This information was available to any member who wished to be an observer at the meeting (and from memory there were 2 member observers present) I made a statement to the effect that our staff are our greatest asset and virtually no individual thinks they are paid too much. But we are a non profit association, funded in the main by member subscriptions, and we must live within our means. I tried to explain that the large salary increases sought by the CEO were, in my opinion, excessive. (particularly after the increases just 12 months previously). I stated that from my experience in business employee cost blowouts can destroy a business, and more modest increases should be granted. There is a major problem with a business like ours that grants yearly salary increases. You get the issue of "The compounding of the wages bill" Anyone who understands "compounding" will know what I mean. We do not pay salary's that one could get in private industry, or in some branches of Government. But all wages are relevant. A well paid person would think our wages are very low, while a lower paid person would think our wages are generous. However, to try and generalize, I also made the following statement at the Board meeting. "That if you were a department head at one of our senior high schools, (I can only speak for Qld) or a senior university lecturer with 2 degrees and a masters degree and over 30 years service you would find it financially rewarding to come and work for us." John McK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Could John Mc K please explain the last 2 paras of his post above. They seem contradictory to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 So a department head or university lecturer is poorly paid and RAAus staff are better paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobcat Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Can anybody tell my why John Mack is no longer treasurer of RAAus,he was voted out last nov meeting,maybe he is just exspressing his own personel opinion,if he was correct in saying he be still there today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Can anybody tell my why John Mack is no longer treasurer of RAAus,he was voted out last nov meeting,maybe he is just exspressing his own personel opinion,if he wascorrect in saying he be still there today. Bobcat, I thought John just didn't stand again for the Treasurer's role not that he was "voted out" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cloudsuck Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 If the job of CEO RAAus was advertised in The Australian tomorrow, I would expect to see a salary package range in print including any car and entitlements etc. Perhaps the members could see a salary package range (give or take 5k) of the old salary and the new salary. Unless the members know the vicinity of the package, it is hard to see if we are getting value for money or not. We must be very very careful of all this. Many bankrupt organisations have been born out of boards granting massive pay rises to the executive while shareholder's investments disappear. While we are not shareholders, we are stakeholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qwerty Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The job was advretised recently.....what did the ad say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Nothing but I I didn't think the part that said "Tasmanians need not apply" was very fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qwerty Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 That, Torbo, was a carefully orchestrated plan by the powers-that-be to keep any source of clear, logical thought and analysis out of Canberra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cloudsuck Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 That, Torbo, was a carefully orchestrated plan by the powers-that-be to keep any source of clear, logical thought and analysis out of Canberra. That was just a low comment by Turbo. A Tasmanian would have been the perfect chioce! We all know that two heads are better than one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Querty, saw on the 7 oclock report tonight that there are only 5 sperm doners in Tasmania, are you one of them ??......if not why not ??........................................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qwerty Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Maj, I like to cut out the "middle man" and make the donation direct. :super: 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