Pete Greed

Well we attended the meeting (20 hours driving all up) and watched with interest the meeting as it unfolded. Had to feel sorry for a couple of long standing executive members who were clearly out of their depth with regard to finance and administration. The President presented more like a Managing Director complete with legal council and it was evident from the start who was in control.....even though this was challenged. The responsible responses from members ( on a range of topics) put beyond doubt the concern by members for the future of RAAus. The motion by Geoff Kidd just prior to lunch set the tone of the meeting from that point on. I guess some members of this forum might say that the interrogation did not go far enough however I feel that of the members present most were satisfied with the outcomes.. Where to from here? The last motion of the day gave instructions to the Board to report back to the next general meeting.....essentially a score card on what is being achieved with the reform agenda. This will be the litmus test of what this meeting was all about. In reality the real work has just started and it will be up to the membership to drive the process. The proposed sub-committee structure will have an important role to play in consolidating a proper strategic plan....not an operational plan but one that gathers in the strategic thoughts of the membership. A good CEO will then convert those to the various actions required. What are the wishes of the membership, where is the innovation and bugger me why are we in Canberra?

Ian: An MOA/Membership agreement could include a code of practice and the rules of engagement. Sad that this is now necessary, but thats the way things are going. However with some simple base rules its amazing how trust can return Pete

I would suggest that a sub-set of the national body (RAAus) already exists and does not need to be invented. That sub-set is the regional network of recreational flying clubs and includes hundreds of hard working people many of whom are already RAAus members and who understand the sector and its component parts, People (volunteers) from all walks of life who bring to the community based sector the professional skills that, in the past, has made Australia the great country it is today. What we need is a communications process that works both ways, is well informed at both ends, and delivers for its membership at all levels. The distillation of regional strategic thinking, combined with a Board selected and elected for its knowledge and sector experience, working with a skilled and professional CEO/General Manager and staff, would surely be the ideal As suggested previously participating regional clubs could be established under a Memorandums of Agreement to ensure that harmony is retained. Turbs: as an ex-publican I think we need to discuss this over a beer (or perhaps a red wine). Just a matter of getting the order of things right.

Just a couple of comments as RAAus explores a new way forward. The comments are made in the context of bringing our governance and management systems up to a standard befitting an operation the size and diversity of RAAus. It would appear from some of the postings that there is currency to restructure the committee to a more corporate model - a skills based Board with lesser members ( say 4 to 6). A smaller board would bring into question the use of the States and Territories as a source of elected regional representatives. Personally I do not think it matters where our elected board members come from so long as they represent the total membership and have the necessary skills to think strategically, govern responsibly and employ wisely. A published CV at election time should satisfy members on that score. Perhaps the other most pressing issue revolving through the many thousands of posts on this forum is the question of communications with membership. If a regional approach to communications was taken as opposed to a State/Territory conduit via elected representatives, we could bring into play registered Clubs (under an MOA) that could inform the Board and conversely kept members up to date on Board decisions and Board activity. Of course individual membership would be retained and would accommodate those who have little interest in the organisation other than to obtain their flying certificates and register their aircraft. To my mind it is the regional Clubs that hold the future of recreational flying in Australia - it is where the passion, education/training and innovation resides. Clubs that are made up of people, not necessarily with academic qualifications, but with life-skills and experience that are already contributing in a very positive way through their own local affiliations and networks. A formal partnership with RAAus and regional Clubs, would bring benefits on many fronts including a better informed CASA and an improved working relationship with other government agencies. No doubt this concept will challenge those who see the immediate operational problems as all important. However without proper governance the roll out of operations will always be problematic. Pete

Any sort of aircraft that keeps the over 70's in the air has got to be good for the soul ......who gives a stuff about their performance on the ground Love my kit built Jabbie.

Ian: The MOA/U is a sound and innovative way to link like organisations whether they be non-profit or for profit. With the rules of engagement set out it and agreed to, it provides smaller operations the opportunity to work cooperatively and share the rewards. It is now happening in the Australian small business sector on a much more regular basis. Pete

David your frustration is no doubt felt by many on this forum. However we need a statement from the board in response the the many questions being raised prior to the GM. My concern is that the lack of governance process is the cause of the operational issues and their resultant negative impact on RAAus members. The Board needs to understand their role in allowing what is a nothing more than a governance mess to evolve and tell the membership how they are going to address it to ensure that it does not happen in the future. This does not need a GM but the GM would be the appropriate means of communicating a Board response to the membership. Depending on the response the membership will have a clearer understanding of the way forward. I know some of the Board are up to it....but is it a majority? Pete

I just fear that the GM could be wasted if the questions are not put to the board prior to the Feb meeting. Surely an avenue for action is via our State Reps. Pete

We need more than just answers from the Board at the GM....we also need pointers to a way forward. The GM must also be a meeting of conciliation because without it there is no way forward. The proposal by DWF (David) acknowledges the history, and flawed Executive governance and management of RAAus, but more than that it gives the board a chance to explain itself, in writing, prior to the meeting. The actions and motions that might then flow from such a scenario would, more likely, be proactive - rather than what is more likely to be a negative and reactive Board response. Pete

Getting up a CEO/General Manager PD without attending to the governance and management structures would be almost impossible. When it comes to crafting a PD the Opts Manual is flawed and the default position still remains with the Executive for most decisions. It is the later that is splitting the board and is the cause of most angst. Until the majority of board members accept responsibility for their part in residing over a dysfunctional governance system nothing will change. Professional help is available outside the knowledge base of the Executive. Just a matter of biting the bullet. What about it board? How about supporting one another in doing the job you were elected to do on behalf of the membership. Pete

Tecky: The structure doesn't work. The Ops Manual would be seen as a joke by any well run operation. From experience I would also see the expertise of the board a little differently to Ian. The key to any board is the team approach they bring to governance. A capacity to refine an organisations strategic directions with the application of collective wisdom. Not necessarily specific subject knowledge (although that is useful), but ensuring that management (the CEO/General Manager) has the ability to assemble a strategic plan and staff the capacity to carry it out. That is where the investment of industry qualifications, and financial resources, needs to be directed. Pete

I think what many members (especially new members to the forum) are now asking is “What is the next step?” Enough evidence has been gathered to encourage the membership to successfully call a general meeting; and for the board to “please explain”. There is also enough evidence to raise serious questions of the Executive and their approach to the governance and management of the organisation, which IMHO is the core, of what is wrong, and what went wrong over a long period of time. These are questions not just for the general membership, who remain largely ignorant of the going-on’s within RAAus, but for the board who have allowed, no doubt under ongoing executive duress, for the hijacking of both their, and our, organisation. Until professional assistance is engaged, and proper governance and management structures are put in place, the chance of history repeating itself, with similar personalities being installed, is a real possibility. Without a drastic change in the culture to our governance and operational structures this whole exercise, of bringing the board to account, will have been wasted. I can also understand the passion and the anger that underpins the responses expressed in many of the posts on this site. However do not turn that anger on those who are also trying to find a way through the mire. They are not the enemy. For this fiasco to be sorted by the board would be a fantastic result. However, from all indications, and from recent communications with our local board representatives, that is going to be a big ask. If the board will not take the initiative who, or what, will? Is the board, as a whole, being encouraged to find a solution, while at the same time being told by the executive that there is not a problem? Already members who cannot attend the Feb 9th meeting are allocating proxies that will be based mostly on trust, for without knowing the motions that might be put; proxy carriers are accepting that responsibility on behalf of other members. We on this forum know what is desired but not so the bulk of RAAus members. An indication of at least some of the scenarios that could be communicated to the wider membership would be helpful in the allocation of proxies. It may be that all the general meeting can achieve is re-setting the strategic direction of RAAus. Any action taken by the executive, such as stepping aside, would be a bonus. One thing is clear however and that is the involvement of professional assistance in bringing the organisation up to the governance and management standards befitting a national operation the size and scale of RAAus. And that is the undisputed role of the board. All of us in our various clubs should now be spreading the word to members. I know within our small club there is very healthy debate. What a pity RAAus has never seen the strength of the regional networks – looking inwards rather than to where the skills, talent and practice of recreational aviation resides. Pete

Andy, by now most newer members to this forum have formed an opinion regarding the current operational structure of RAAus. Clearly from the posts some members have reason to be concerned, and even bitter, about their treatment while part of the past RAAus governance/management process. Exposing the flaws in both governance and management of RAAus has been an important exercise and to me has shaped my views (and I am sure the views of others) on what I personally feel about the future of RAAus. During my long career in both management and as a board member of local and national organisations I have also been exposed to bullying tactics which were hurtful and inconsistent with my role as a board member. It was ironic however, that by resigning from that board, I allowed the practice to continue. I am passionate about recreational flying and see the need to have a strong national and regional presence - but we must work within the constraints of our constitution. The special general meeting is the first step in bringing about the sort of cultural change so badly needed - bullying is an insidious culture that pushes aside good practice and divides like minded people. Fighting poor governance with poorer governance is not an answer. The motions to be put at the general meeting will be critical in not only changing the strategic direction of RAAus but also alerting the RAAus board to the fact that the members are not an unruly rabble, but committed people able to think through the issues and provide workable answers. So, apart from lobbying our State representatives on the Board, the general meeting is an opportunity for direct member contribution. What's the next move? It may be appreciated by those wanting to vote on member issues, if some draft motions could now be developed for discussion. The release of such material would also be an educative experience for RAAus board members who may be following this forum. I guess it will be the board that will ultimately receive the motions and will have the responsibility to act on them. Pete

Governance is ultimately based on trusting elected members, while management is about a business relationship. Both need to be measured and assessed to ensure that the stewardship of the organisation remains in strong capable hands. Micro management by amorphous, disconnected individuals or groups is not an alternative, or option for a constituted and incorporated association with agreed structures and processes. Pete

Thirsty: This is a major impediment to the operational structure. Under the current arrangements no one takes responsibility and governance and management are just a merged mess. Pete.

Starting from scratch without an appropriate organisational structure in place runs the risk of history repeating itself. Whatever the process, it is the elected board members that act on behalf of the members and who have a responsibility to set the strategic direction of the organisation. That is why they are elected. Their other responsibility is to report back to the membership on the collective decisions that are part of a democratic decision-making process. The general meeting called for the 9th of Feb is a formal procedure built into our constitution that ensures that the process of decision making is consistent with good governance. If our governance is found to be wanting then members will have the option to re-organise the Board at the next AGM. Do members (whatever the number) have a clear idea of what the ideal FAAus organisational structure is? If the postings on this site are any indication then the answer is most likely no! New strategic directions and re-vamped governance/management arrangements are critical topics for discussion at the Feb 9th meeting. If positive change is to be made then I believe that independent professional assistance will be required. Such an action would need to be adopted by the board if the proposal was to come from a special general meeting. As an organisation we also need to preserve a degree of dignity and good practice while working through what Turbo has described as a complex situation Pete

I agree with Sue....there are very simple, efficient, in-expensive ways of doing it. What appears to me however is the lack of reporting via the CEO/General Manager directly to the Board. Seems that the important stuff is/has been filtered through the Executive Committee. Just the same I think the penny is finally dropping and progress is being made. Keep up the good work Jim. Pete

We also must remember that Jim is also one of our elected Victorian representatives with that special status of "Board member". His support in framing and supporting any resolutions/motions coming from the membership will be of critical importance in re-establishing healthy RAAus governance. As members we also have a responsibility to ensure that things are put right by using proper and fair process in keeping with our constitution. Like it or not the elected Board is responsible for the stewardship of RAAus and the meeting on Feb 9th will be the opportunity for members to express, in a balanced and constructive way, what we believe is wrong with the organisation. Some will say there is nothing wrong with the organisational structure of RAAus and that it is all about people - the Board and Management. From my own experience I would strongly disagree with that opinion and look forward to seeing RAAus take the positive steps to update its governance and management structures befitting of its position as a national leader in recreational aviation.

We stuffed up the CASA audit because of poor governance /management processes. Lets get it right and move on. Happy new year Pete

The RAAus contractual relationship with CASA is the single most important arrangement that RAAus has to manage on behalf of its Membership. The contract, sets out in fine detail, the way in which the operation will be managed and the compliance requirements to preserve, and, to ultimately renew the contract. The shape of the RAAus/CASA operation would have been negotiated and determined by representatives of the board (perhaps the Executive), and CASA, when the first self-regulating contract/deed of agreement was drawn up. Almost, and without exception, with this type of contract, a professional manager will tick the compliance boxes (part of that positions duty statement), but it is the board that has ultimate responsibility to sign off on behalf of the RAAus membership. The contract with CASA is separate to the other aspirations the RAAus board may have for the association. Aspirations that would normally form part of a strategic plan. Remove the CASA contract from the RAAus equation and the organisation could operate along the lines of a fairly simple club type entity. I personally would not support such a scenario as I believe the role of RAAus is to self regulate recreational flying on behalf of the membership. From reading the various posts I also believe that some simple but "organisation changing" decisions need to be made, by the board, to correct what are some very basic governance/management impediments within the organisation. If the board cannot source that advice from the membership it should go to a recognised professional in the field. Thats my two bobs worth Pete

The issues confronting RAAus have been articulated many times on this forum. Who did what to who, dodgey decisions taken by both board and management and/or a combination of both (the Executive), the size and scope of the operation, its "contract" with the Commonwealth Government(CASA), a rapidly growing, membership based organisation as opposed to a corporation and a way of communicating with the membership currently considered by many, as less than ideal. It paints a picture of an organisation in transition - but transition to what? This is what the debate should now be about, and that debate needs to be led by the board in concert with the membership. At the special general meeting it is likely that the board will take the high ground and attempt to explain away at least some of the identified non-communicated issues. What we as members need to know however, is how the deficiencies of past governance and management practice are going to be addressed and by who or what. We need to be very specific in how our questions are crafted and presented as they will contain the answers to the way in which our organisation can/will move forward with confidence. Pete

Turbs: In another life I was involved in multi-million dollar contracts with the Commonwealth Government. In tendering for those contracts it was imperative that the cost of the service plus a margin for growth and development was factored in. The tenders also required a detailed operational and financial plan, including the staff required to operate the service. Assembling the tenders required 100% support from the board/committee, management that was 100% across all aspects/components of the tender and expert help contracted in from outside. I feel for your desire to make the process simple and have argued at the institute of Company Directors training sessions that the Corporate model of governance is not totally appropriate for the community based sector. We are stakeholders not shareholders. We do it to provide member services - the corporate sector does it for profit (and fair enough). The separation of roles and responsibilities between the board (governance) and management (operations) must happen otherwise no one can, or will, be held accountable. Your concern about members paying for management services should not be an issue if the tendering/contract with CASA is properly constructed and implemented.

From some postings there is still a tendency to mix governance and operations - the committee of management scenario. OK for small operations but not appropriate for a national organisation with a contract with the Commonwealth Government (CASA). Even Jim's initiative to bring in a recruitment agency will fall short without a change in board culture.......Who or what is determining the roles and responsibilities of both the board, and management? There is clearly work to be done - perhaps it is being done?

Jim: Congratulations on a very positive governance initiative. Was it the board that briefed Face to Face or was it a management process? Once again well done. Pete

Hi Macca: Debate in any organisation is a healthy part of the governance process. Sometimes we can even agree to disagree (as I do with parts of your argument). The important process is the dialog or communications between the stakeholders/members and the board/committee. From experience, I have personally found this to be wanting. This forum, with its warts and all, is but one of the important communication options available to members and people will make their own judgments about what is posted - (based, I would hope, on the truth of their own convictions). The board and management of RAAus is not the font of all knowledge - most of that resides in the various individuals, clubs and associations that makes up the recreational flying movement nation-wide. The job of the Board/Committee is to interpret the messages and strategic directions suggested by the field, then, with their own skills and talent, convert them into RAAus policy. This is a mature proactive process based on sound communications as opposed to the seemingly reactive, internal policy deliberations of the past. Like David I hope you have a very happy Christmas and look forward to your contributions in the new year All the best everyone.........Cheers Pete