nomadpete

Move a motion:-

That RAAus develop a email list for dissemination of RAAus news items - as a method of board communicating issues arising to members. A "member's advice" page advising members of the board/executive's intention to communicate and asking members permission to be included in the email list shall be included in the magazine, the members response to be returned by email to RAAus office.

Purpose of the motion:-

To allow RAAus permission to contact members by email.

To establish an instantaneous communication path to all (or at least the majority of) members.

To promote regular updates within the RAAus community, thereby minimising mis-information and rumours.

To allow any board member's voice to reach the membership, either individually or as a group, so long as they take individual responsibility for their email content.

I just gotta post something here just to get this thread back to the top. The thread was intended to start debate around formulating questions and possible consequential motions for the Feb General Meeting.

Please start listing questions that you would like to ask (nicely) at the meeting. Questions that can lead to positive motions to help get RAAus back on track. We have surely all vented enough here. It's time to come up collectively with some positive process to get some answers and then be able to select some positive motions to vote on, to restore proper governance and transparency. Here are a few ideas.........

What process has been implemented to bring RAAus record keeping up the the standard required by CASA? Possible answer = (a) none (b) a process explained - could be great or could be flawed.

How many aircraft registrations are presently lapsed due to issues identified by the CASA audits?

How long will the backlog take to clear?

What KPI's are written into the new position of General Manager?

What internal auditing is being set up by RAAus to ensure that pilot certificate records are p to date and adequate for any CASA audit?

Is the constitutional reform committee active? What is the timeframe before members are advised of its recommendations? Pending the answer, move for it to be set up with a timeframe for a response.

What would you ask? Then based on the possible answer, would you feel that a motion should be moved to fix a problem.

If we don't go in with a orderly plan, we run the risk of the meeting degenerating into an anger fest - which would not serve any useful purpose for us and perhaps only play into the hands of the secret clique who keep calling us concerned members a small bunch of trouble makers. I would dearly like to see the meeting reveal that we are justly concerned and we want to contribute to a positive outcome. But to achieve that we should have some consensus on the order and content of questions, and possible motions.

Communication includes

Advising us what are the board's two year strategic plans, and ten year strategic plans for RAAus. Obvioiusly they would have to formulate these first.

Advising us what are the procedures that have been set up for keeping all our RAAus records in accordance with the agreed CASA standards. They've had over a year to do that urgent item.

Advising us what progress has been made on that

Advising us how many aircraft are presently grounded, and what is the catch up rate of re-registrations

Advising us what is the plan for an internal audit of pilot licencing. It would be likely to be a problem as big as registrations - best to fix it now.

Advising us what is the present state of our finances, and what is the forecast for this current financial year (should have had one of those last year)

Advising us When the constitution review is targetted to be completed.

etc, etc, feel free to add to this list for the edification of any wayward board members who may accidentally read this forum

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

Full agree with you there. BUT -how do we convince the board that it is a good idea? They are clearly aware of the postings on this forum, not to mentions the contact made by members through other avenues. So they are already aware that a significant number of members are in need of open honest answers. How do we convince them that keeping their secret cone of silence is NOT a good way to run RAAus?

As noted by others, the GM has rather broad questions. So we risk being fobbed off with politicians whitewash style answers.

As also noted , we would have tabled specific questions if only we knew a little more about the true state of affairs, so we could ask the right questions.

From the outside we are not in a position to know the sequence of events in each of our 'problems'.

So how can we encourage this open communication without attempting to force it at the GM? Even then, what process is open to us to make it happen?

I have no financial training what so ever, I picked up on the revenue side being down a fair bit below what it should have been. This led to a discussion with the board who audited the membership figures.Bingo, we go from 13000 members to less than 10,000.

I feel that I have made a positive contribution to the RAA.

 

I'll admit picking through the records is painful but at this point of time with the dysfunctional exec control of the board, its just about having a go until we can resolve the exec/board issue. This threads help explain why the exec/board needs a good shake up.

Yes, it seems that a few things noted on these forums have resulted in 'coincidencidental' action by the board. It works when letters and phone calls have no effect! Can I thank you for us losing 30% of our members? Seriously though, thanks for your positive contribution. There are too many uncertainties in what the board feeds us. As a member, I feel somewhat helpless and that makes the anxiety caused by lack of board communication all the worse. But to go deeper int othe financials needs the work of people who have the ability and also the credibility if they bring an anomoly to light. Yes the board clearly needs a shake-up. Lets not shake them up too much though - we still need a functional board.

I'm new on this forum. Looking over the RAAus threads here, I am surprised to see that there has been so little activity. Especially considering the significance of events since the last AGM at Heck Field. I believe that meeting was probably the best attended AGM in RAAus history. People who attended have reported that there were many more members present than was officially reported (an unknown number of attendees were not able to sign the attendance book). Numbers around 300 were reported. Whatever the real numbers, that unprecedented amount of member involvement should send a signal that things allegedly happening have shaken many members out of their fog of apathy.Yes, there were upset members present. Although some were feeling that there was too much aggression shown at the time, I personally think they were just trying to get some answers from an uncommunicative board. Normal polite requests had failed to satisfy their questions (prior to the meeting). As for the constitutional change, it only brought the requirement for calling a GM up to the same standard required by all other corporations (100 signatures).

Anyway, I just thought that a forum thread titled "RAA - upset" might have attracted a few more postings reflecting the latest developments in an upset RAA.

A dot point summary would make it easy for people to find here where there is none of the clutter found on other web forums. Any volunteers?

From what I have heard quite a number of RAAus members have tried to get information updates from the offices of RAAus that would reassure the members - but without success. That silence is deafening !

The biggest trouble is that because the Board fails to properly inform the members, it simply encourages people to fill the void with gossip and rumour. I really have no idea what the board is doing to resotre order, if anything. They just down't tell us. There seems to be some paranoid fear of telling the truth. Alternatively the truth may be too incriminating......

If the board could pluck up the courage to lay out before us the facts (the true facts, not the sanitised ones) surrounding the numerous issues that have caused all the concern, the GM would probably be a boring non-event.

We do appreciate that the board are volunteers, but they still have obligations and duties to fulfill. Our biggest fear is that the board themselves don't have a grip on the size and implications of the problems. The absence of frank information, combined with what appears to be incompetence, people are getting extremely concerned. The consequences of that unanswered concern may be an over-reaction by worried members, which has the potential to do more damage to RAAus than has already been done by the board and executive.

PeterT

Ouch !

but point taken.

Seriously, I'm just curious. I totally appreciate the investment of time, effort and cost that is being offered by our knowledgable analysts. When it comes to analysing account statement, I do not have the skills required to know what I would be looking at. Apologies to those concerned.

PeterT

Ar you guys still wading through those heavy tomes? Fallen asleep maybe?

There's lots of us common unwashed folk waiting with baited breath for some gems of wisdom to fall. (Or bombshells, strike out that which does not apply)

It must require a supercomputer called "deep thought"........

Thanks Andy.Well said.

Yean:

I have no qualms about sending my proxy. This is because I have spent considerable time debating the possible issues which may come up at the GM, with numerous people. My proxy holder has a very good idea of my sentiments about the politics that have been aired on the rumour mills (bearing in mind that these all need to be clarified at he meeting by the members of our board). I fully expect some of the agitation has been blown out of proportio. I equally expect that there will be some genuine issues come to light that will require further debate and tabling of motions. If any of the allegations mentioned in the various forums are true, we shall definately see some action taken by members. Not all the information I have heard has come from the forums. For instance there has been robust debate in our club, over the past year or so. There have been stories shared by members who have had personal experience with some of the "issues" mentioned in these forums. However none of this is as good as getting full and frank answers from our Board or executive. That is what the GM is all about. So I fully trust my proxy holder to carry out my wishes with integrity in regard to votes on any motions tabled at the GM. This is not a lynching party as some detractors fearfully suggest. It is simply members of an association asking for honest open answers from their Board and executive - in a fair, democratic and constitutional manner.

Seems that there no recent posts here. Has the discontent surrounding RAAus executive and board resolved itself? The General Meeting is coming up soon.

Jim,

Thank you for starting an open channel of communication. I believe that there is not much that should be kept 'in camera' or secret. After all we, the members are better able to understand the reasons for actions and events if we are provided with all the relevent inforamtion about stuff. And that includes the lead up information that is essential to put things into context. The only reservations that folk may harbour is a fear that a personal circulation list may become a selective way to communicate with a target group. That willprobably be used (by those afraid that truth is a problem) as criticism of your efforts. I fully understand your intentions are simply to provide a pathway that RAAus is at present reluctant to employ. I believe that the larger your circulation list is, the better it is. Preferrable please don't differentiate based on geographics or demographics. That way the messages will not be seen as being selective information.

Hopefully the content will eventually become rather boring reading. Then we will know that things are improving. When thing are going well in an organisation there are no exciting press releases and no shocking bombshells to read in the bulletins.

Most of all thanks for including the members in the information loop. You have the support of many members to back up your courageous move. From where I sit, you are showing the integrity that we are all crying out for. Keep up the good work.

PeterT

Personally I reckon that would be a win for the membership. I don't really care how it is that he is prevented from doing more damage than he has already done. But what about Middo and Eugene?

It appears to me that it is not possible for one individual to hijack the complete control of a board all by himself.

There are rules and consequences for bad behaviour. It's covered under the section that deals with disciplining of members. The board can discipline anyone it wants to for the type of behaviour this board has exhibited over the last twelve months (and before). So, who wants to ask the board to discipline themselves?Now I've finished my sarcastic post - can anyone else see some fundamental problems with the constitutions approach to discipline?!?!

No, it all looks good to me. The board DOES have a system in place.......

You're right Alfa, the slightest incident now and he could lose his house.With four legal opinions now alleged to confirm that is no longer President, the legal implications of his actions after the date of his resignation have been steadily multiplying.

 

For example, if someone was to go after him for workplace bullying, the implication of a person involved in workplace bullying while impersonating an official produces a much more compelling case than someone arguing he was just doing his job, perhaps a trifle abrasively.

Has anyone considered the possibility that SR is already planning to abdicate his throne just proir to the Feb meeting to avoid facing the music?

That would alow the rest to use his departure as proof of "It's alright folks, WE've fixed it" and thereby keep the status quo - and just appoint another figurehead.

Uncontested reps appear to be a concern but you can elect someone who promises all sorts of good things and does an about face with bad personality change once "in power". The more interest WE take in electing our reps the better the outcome will be. That's a non specific "motherhood" statement that is true.Our level of voting participation is very low. It's a bad look and gives legitimacy to the view that no-one really cares as long as you get to fly.

No one can write rules expecting them to cover all situations. Some situations are not anticipated. If a group pretty much ignore the rules you are still nowhere.

 

The less complex they are the better. Clear line of command (and responsibility that goes with it) and know what your policies are and don't go against them. If they are not appropriate change them but do it transparently with the right amount of input from the membership. That way we have direction and purpose.Nev

The rules should be relatively simple, but they must have teeth. There will be no responsibility taken unless there are consequenses for poor behaviour.

Rather than pushing the roundabout of structural modelling, or fine tuning of org charts, I think it is rather more important to focus the Feb meeting on the first, most fundamental priority -

1. Establish specific events where person/s have actually broken our rules (spelled out in the constitution)

2. Bring about appropriate consequences to those individuals identified as having broken our rules (as the rules stand now).

Only after that has occurred, will we be in a position to make the important revisions of the constitution, and of the org structure.

Only then will the communication channels down to the members start to open as they should.

Only then will the members be able to see which of our quieter board members are not part of the problem.

We should not expect to 'fix' all our woes in the one meeting. Just look after the first step of the rebirth of RAAus.

This will require a couple of specifically targetted questiions to be tabled at the meeting, followed by specific requests to be actioned by the board.

No matter how hard you try to prevent it, there will always be individuals who make their success by breaking the rules, or by bullying. At this time we just need to take a stand against those who may lack the integrity to do their jobs properly.

Just my opinion, don't take it too seriously.

Sure, the lead up questions are required first. I hadn't thought of that.

1. Did SR send an email resigning as President ?

2. Did SR send an email resigning as Nth QLD representative. ?

3. If 2 is correct, then why did (a majority of) the board feel they had the authority to reinstate a regional representative who had resigned, without reference to the electors of Nth QLD ?

4. Bearing in mind that SR's resignation apparently rendered him no longer a member of the Committee under the constitution,will the board please remove him (in accordance with the constitution) from the board, and from his present position of acting as President of RAAus, until such time as the conditions stated in our consititution have been fulfilled in regard to his appointments?

5. Has the Board informed the RAAus members that the Elected Committee member for Nth Qld has resigned, and that the constitution requires a by-election to select a replacement? If not, will they please do so? When is this planned to occur?

Now that I look at it, the process does seem to demand a lot of separate questions, and maybe a flow chart.

Peter T

So to bring it up at the special General Meeting which has an especially general agenda........

Question No:2 for the Board:

Please advise the members now, on what points did RAAus fail the four successive audits?

I feel that we need to have a list of specific questions to table at the meeting. How about that one? Is there any reason to keep the questions to ourselves at this point? Would it be more productive to air the questions in advance?

Peter T

Back to the topic - the alleged Accounting Issue......

I am not much good when it comes to deciphering the accounts. A bit like decoding a weather report. Can anyone please spell out the accounting "Issues" in laymans terms for me? I need more understanding before I take up the cudgel.

Peter T

OK, here goes.........

Question No:1 to the board:

Bearing in mind that SR's resignation apparrently rendered him no longer a member of the Committee under the constitution,will the board please remove him (in accordance with the constitution) from the board, and from his present position of acting President of RAAus, until such time as the conditions stated in our consititution have been fulfilled in regard to his appointments?

Please feel free to add all and any tuppence worth's to that starting point (time for me to get kevlar suit!).

Peter T

Nomadpete, There is a kit-built GA-912 reg No 19-3562 currently for sale in Bowen NQ. Current owner Dave Baily did not build the aircraft but he should have the Ph no of whoever did . Aircraft was completed in 2004 down near Gunnadah I believe. Daves' Mob is 0459251625...caution he is a talker, so attemt to stay on subject.....good luck .................................Maj...

Happy New Year.

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

PeterT

Maj... Would you pleeeeeeeease nominate for the board at the soonest possible opportunity!

I had been avoiding getting into the detail of my problem, but I may as well air it....

The fuel tanks are mounted in the wings. They are a glassed basin rivetted up to a alloy top skin which forms part of the torque structure of the wing. Whilst replacing the tanks I discovered that one tank had two rows of rivets along the main spar, and the other had one row of rivets along the main spar. So I called up the master and put my question to him - which arrangement was intended? After some email exchanges it was revealed (to my shock) that the original plans were stored on a hard drive which has been mislaid. So no definitive answer was available from Ballina. Yes, the GA-55 looks similar, but you can never be really sure. If I can get a copy of them it would certainly help. Maybe the GA-55 was the kit version of the factory built GA-912, or more likely I have the Rotax powered version of the GA-55?