TK58

Part of the board's role is to ensure it has a capable CEO. If it doesn't and it fails to address the situation (e.g. by mentoring and development to address any weaknesses in the CEO's performance) then the Board is not doing its job. That has nothing to do with the form of incorporation. As part of the development of the Constitution the constitutions of a variety of member services organisations were examined, including professional associations, motoring organisations, other RAAOs and so forth.

That is without a doubt the silliest thing I've heard anyone say in this whole debate. RAAus is a member services organisation with a multi-million dollar turnover and significant qausi-regulatory responsibilities. To suggest that the group responsible for strategy, policy and governance of that organisation doesn't need "basic business skills" displays an almost incomprehensible level of ignorance of both the responsibilities of directors and the requirements of the organisation. Sorry Kasper but I can't take you seriously anymore.

It seems some are determined to see nefarious intent no matter what information is put in front of them. Almost every member who has ever expressed a view, including almost all of the current board, agrees that 13 is too many for an effective and cost efficient board. As to voting, the board works hard to achieve consensus on issues under consideration and usually succeeds. I can't think of a resolution in the past 2 1/2 years I've been on the board where there were more than one or two dissenting voices by the time an issue was put to a vote. And on different issues different individuals will dissent. The voting record is published. Go and take a look. Eliminating dissenting voices is not the reason for reducing the size of the board. Under the new constitution the board cannot appoint directors except to fill a casual vacancy (i.e. if someone steps down for some reason), in which case a director so appointed must step down at the next general meeting. Since there are two general meetings per year, any such appointment can only be for a maximum of 6 months and typically half that. The constitution does allow for directors to be remunerated for their time. However any such remuneration must be voted by the members before it can be implemented. If the members don't want to remunerate the directors it can't happen. The current constitution doesn't allow remuneration at all. Given the amount of work associated with being an active and effective director (let alone being President), not to mention the loss of earnings associated with attending meetings from time to time (not everything can be done on weekends), there is an argument that some sort of remuneration is warranted. However this should be (and under the new constitution is) up to the members. Reimbursement of reasonable expenses is standard practice at all levels of any business and has been the practice in RAAus for a very long time. Since the current Executive has been in place this has been tightened up considerably. For example, board members are now required to purchase their own drinks at official functions and meals for partners are no longer reimbursed. Both of these were standard practice 3 years ago. Board members also no longer get their ASIC paid for by RAAus. The current Board agreed that these examples (and others) were not reasonable expenses, despite being longstanding practice.

Nonsense. The role of the board is strategy, policy and governance, not management. The form of incorporation doesn't change that.

I suspect we're not going to agree on this, but try this example. You pay for a 6 month subscription to a newspaper. Near the end of the 6 months the newsagent issues an invoice for a further 6 months. You decide you don't want to receive the newspaper anymore so you disregard the invoice. What will happen? Will the newsagent pursue you because by not paying the renewal you now have a legally enforceable debt? Or will you simply not receive the paper any more? Same with your car insurance. The insurer issues a renewal notice. If you don't pay it they don't come after you for the debt, because there isn't a debt. They simply stop providing you with cover. Why would you think RAAus is any different?

There may be a perception (in some quarters) that this is all about "cementing the power of the Executive", but it's actually about improving the organisation by ensuring competent governance and a corporate structure fit for purpose. How would you do it better - keeping in mind that among the goals are continuity (there's a lot of corporate knowledge held by the board) and ensuring that directors are actually qualified for the role, not simply the only person to put their hand up (as is the case with half of the current board, including all three SQld reps) or the winner of a popularity contest (the rest of the board)?

I should add, thanks for taking the time to be specific about your concerns. It makes it much easier to address them than feedback such as "the document's full of errors". Cheers, Tony

Kasper, I can respond to some of those points. Firstly, I am not a lawyer (I understand you do have legal qualifications) so I'm basing my response on the extensive legal advice RAAus has taken on this matter - both from a very senior aviation specialist (as Don has mentioned) and also from a firm specialising in corporate constitutions. Transfer of existing members and assets is enabled by a positive vote on the special resolution to adopt the new constitution. This SR (which is being finalised as we speak and must be presented to members at least 3 weeks prior to the meeting at which the vote will be held) will not be a simple "let's adopt a new constitution" proposition. It will be a multi-part proposition specifying the steps that will need to be taken to implement the new corporate structure. But it will be a single yes/no vote because otherwise we risk the untenable situation where some elements get approved and others don't - as we saw with some of Don's SRs a couple of years back. In relation to the membership register the expectation is that current practice will continue. Members do not get removed from the register, they are marked inactive. That's how we currently have a database of something like 30,000 current and past members. Members typically aren't marked inactive until some time (months) after the renewal due date unless we receive information that they will not be renewing. Examples of classes of membership include life members, affiliated clubs and the like. The new constitution provides flexibility for the organisation to create and remove classes subject to a no disadvantage clause. Late payment will not cease your membership and require a new application, but it will mean you are no longer current and cannot vote, should not be flying an RAAus aircraft and are at the whim of the insurer as to whether the members' liability cover applies for an event that occurs while you are not current. It is each member's responsibility to ensure they remain current by renewing on time. RAAus assists in this by sending renewals out 4 - 6 weeks prior to the due date and by providing multiple channels for renewal, including a 24/7 online facility. This is not changing. Delegation to the CEO does not preclude the CEO from delegating to the staff. This is how most organisations function - the board directs the CEO who in turn directs the staff. The board delegating directly to the staff is a recipe for the kind of chaos and dysfunction we had a few years back. Your concern around 16(d) is unfounded. Registration (or membership) renewals are not "monies owed to the company". If we issued a renewal and you hadn't paid then they might be. But since we don't issue the renwal until after you've paid, you don't owe RAAus money (in the sense of having a legally enforceable debt) simply by not renewing either your membership or your aircraft's registration. The cross referencing issues are acknowledged and I expect will be corrected in the next release. Personally I'm a little embarassed by these since I've reviewed the document a number of times. In my defence, having read the document 47.6 million times and picked up many issues that were corrected before publication, it's somewhat understandable if a tendency develops to only focus on the changes as each new revision comes along. I'll be giving this extra attention going forward. I think you're misunderstanding 36.7. A director who has served 9 years or more (3 x 3 year terms) may only be re-appointed or re-elected by special resolution. That is, if they wish to continue, they won't face a normal election, they will have to be supported by a 75% majority of the members. This is to ensure renewal on the Board but still provide a mechanism for someone to continue if that is the wish of the members. I don't understand why you see that as illogical. The members' charter will be published soon (within the next 2 weeks I believe). RAAus already has email addresses for over 92% of members and this has resulted in significant savings in postage and stationery. We encourage all members to deal with the organisation by electronic means but recognise that is not going to be possible for everyone. The more traditional means of communication will remain. Our systems already have the capability of recording each members' preferred method of communication. This is not something that's technically challenging. I hope that helps. Just one final comment. You and others seem determined to believe there's some underlying nefarious intent to create opportunities to disadvantage or disenfranchise the members, and that everyone involved is an incompetent fool (or worse). That is simply not the case.

In RAAus this is handled by exception. The Board doesn't vote on accepting new memberships or on renewals, however the Board will make the decision (informed by professional and legal advice) if the staff raise a concern about a particular individual. It is not expected this will change.

Ian, your experience of several years ago has been discussed and it is absolutely NOT the intention to deliver a constitution (either deliberately or inadvertently) that will enable a repeat of that debacle. When the draft of the members' charter is released (soon) this will become clearer. That document will outline the (very few) circumstances in which a person may be denied membership. Those will include things like criminal activity related to aviation, threats of violenece (or actual violence) against members or staff, etc. It will definitely not include criticism of the organisation or political activity such as agitating for change as grounds for denial of membership. This is an area where CASA takes some interest as well. Since the regulations require that in order to fly under the exemptions granted by CAOs 95.10, 95.32 or 95.55 you must be a member of RAAus (or HGFA in some cases), CASA requires that we make membership open to all comers. Similarly, it is not the intention that the Chairman will deny any member a vote at a general meeting. There is a mechanism for the Chairman to make a decision in circumstances where someone's eligibility to vote is called into question. The most likely example is if another person at the meeting questions whether someone is in fact a member. In that situation, and in order to enable the meeting to continue, someone has to have the authority to determine whether an individual is what they claim to be. It's entirely unremarkable that that should be the Chairman. This is an example where the text may be altered to avoid misunderstanding and make it clear that the Chairman may not deny a person a vote so long as that person is a current member. Which brings us onto another concern that people seem to have around whether late renewal will invalidate membership. The answer is no it won't, provided the renewal is not unreasonably late (e.g. months). The expectation is that day to day practice in relation to renewals will be the same as it is now. However there are some things where there has to be a cutoff. Eligibility to vote requires that you be a financial member. If you haven't renewed you cannot be regarded as being a financial member. Similarly, cover under the members' liability insurance requires that you are a financial member. And exercising the privileges of your Pilot Certificate also requires that you are a current member. If push comes to shove in relation to the insurance or you flying without a current PC, RAAus won't have any discretion because RAAus won't be in control of whatever action the insurer of CASA might take. Some have argued there should be a grace period and on the surface that seems reasonable. But what should it be? A week? A fortnight? A month? 3 months? No matter what it is, this same issue will still exist - what happens to someone who misses the extended deadline? Since renewals are issued 4 - 6 weeks prior to the renewal due date, and we now have systems in place to enable renewal instantaneously online, as well as the option of sending payment to the office, the argument that there should be a grace period is weak at best and, as I have pointed out, a grace period doesn't address the problem anyway. Current practice is that a period of some months goes by before the office decides "this person isn't going to renew" and the member gets marked as inactive. That won't be changing. But that doesn't make you a current member if you haven't paid your renewal on time. At some point people have to be responsible for their own action (or inaction).

You're assuming those constructive comments were consistent with the goals of the whole constitutional change exercise, didn't conflict with other constructive comments, and were capable of adoption without creating other issues. Any expectation that suggestions from anyone would appear verbatim in the document is somewhat unrealistic, but that doesn't mean they weren't given due consideration.

Rhys, you are fundamentally misunderstanding (and misrepresenting) the document if you think it promotes the board appointing the board. All directors must be voted in by the members. The only instance where the board can appoint a director is to fill a casual vacancy, and where that occurs the appointed director must stand down at the next general meeting. Your repeated insinuation of bad faith on the part of the board towards the members is offensive and wrong. What is it you think we've been doing since before the last AGM if not giving the members an opportunity to tell us what they want? Just because we haven't gone about it in the manner you might prefer (e.g. some sort of survey) doesn't invalidate the process or the outcomes. We've done surveys on other things (e.g. NatFly) in the past. The response rates were abysmal. We've met with far more members and gained a more comprehensive understanding of their views by attending flyins and other gatherings than we ever would get from a whole series of surveys. Not to mention the input we've had from those (including some on this forum) who have taken the trouble to write in. It's easy to find fault. But being constructive is much more useful (and welcome). Cheers, Tony

A proxy form will be published at the same time as the special resolutions to be voted on (at least 3 weeks before the meeting). You can send your proxy to the office (ensuring it arrives by 2pm on the day before the meeting) or you can give it to someone who will be at the meeting. If you give your proxy to someone who will attend the meeting you have the choice of directing your vote (e.g. vote yes to all resolutions, or yes to 1 and 3 and no to 2, etc.) or you can give a person an open proxy which allows the proxy holder to vote on your behalf as they see fit. The former is essentially a postal vote. The latter essentially gives the proxy holder an extra vote.

Yenn, don't rely solely on what other people tell you about it. Read it yourself and decide. The current consultation draft is not perfect and it was never intended (or realistic) that it would be. It definitely is not what will be put to the vote, although the final version will be substantially similar - with all identified errors corrected. I understand from the CEO that a new draft will be posted sometime next week. The document won't be changing after the vote - assuming it gets approved at the GM, any change will require another vote of the members. A lot of people are getting hung up on concerns that appear to be based on misunderstanding of the document and how it will be applied. Where the text can be altered to avoid such misunderstandings it will be. However not all misunderstandings are the fault of the document - there certainly are examples that stem from incorrect assumptions some people seem to be making rather than an objective reading of the document. With the vast range of backgrounds and experience in the RAAus membership, a document like this is never going to satisfy everyone on every point. And the consultation process isn't either. If you've made a suggestion and it hasn't been taken up that doesn't mean you've been ignored. Similarly, if you've made a submission and haven't received a personalised response that doesn't mean it's gone into a black hole, that we're not interested in people's ideas or that we're conducting a "faux consultation". The key question to ask yourself is this - does the proposed constitution represent an improvement over the current situation? If it does, vote for it. If you believe it doesn't then don't vote for it. Personally, if you don't think it's better than the current constitution I'd be wondering whether you've read and understood either document, but that's just my opinion. If you've got constructive suggestions for improvement, send them in. I can assure you they are being carefully considered.

There's another element in all of this that I haven't seen discussed. Quite a few of the things that members have been arcing up about in recent times relate to requirements that were always there but haven't been enforced (and many people seem to be unaware of). For example, how many of you have calibrated your Altimeter in the past 2 years? That's been in the Tech Manual for at least the past 8 years, but not many people seem to be aware of it, and even fewer do it. If we want CASA to take us seriously and extend our privileges (either by granting new ones or by relaxing existing restrictions) we need to demonstrate compliance with the regulations as they are now. CASA's view of the world is that if you're not compliant you're not safe - regardless of how seemingly ridiculous the requirement (e.g. declarations every 28 days for Jab passengers, etc.). We can argue till we're blue in the face that that's a dumb approach, and we can work (and are working) to change it. But for now that's the world we have to operate in. Cheers, Tony

Perhaps, although this forum is available to everyone and very few (in percentage terms) use it. Also, look at the effort that goes into moderation of something like this forum. It's a cost RAAus can't afford at the present time. However it has been discussed and is on the list for the medium term. As Andy has said, the immediate goal is to return stability to the organisation - both financial stability and organisational stability in terms of staff turnover, processes working effectively, etc. We're pretty close to achieving that so then we can devote some attention and resources to 'nice to haves'. Cheers, Tony

Hi Rhys, It's in the minutes of the October Board meeting. While I have been among those very critical of that particular individual's actions in recent years, I changed my view after seeing from the inside what's actually involved in governing an organisation like RAAus. That doesn't mean I agree with everything that was done, but there's no denying the contribution this individual has made over a lot of years and I have no concern with recognising that. Cheers, Tony

Thanks everyone. Sounds like a call to Bluey's motel is in order. Appreciate the input. Cheers, Tony

John, Not sure where you're getting your information from but the risk of RA-Aus collapsing any time soon is low and there is no expectation RA-Aus will be ceasing normal operations. Whilst there is a budget issue at present, due to a number of factors, the organisation has significant reserves and will not be running out of money. Further, none of the litigation matters currently on foot are expected to exceed the organisation's insurance cover. Whilst there are some who appear to wish for the demise of RA-Aus, they would be unwise to be holding their breath waiting for it to happen. Cheers, Tony

Planning a trip to Lightning Ridge in a couple of weeks and looking for advice on accommodation and options for ground transport.

Actually Turbo you're wrong about that. On a per hour flown basis RA-Aus has more than halved its fatality rate over the past 10 years, last year notwithstanding. The average number of fatalaties per year (including last year) has been fairly steady (actually a statistically insignificant decrease) while the number of hours flown has more than doubled.

The Board determined early last year that registration renewals should be dated from the date the payment is processed (which is the last step before the certificate is issued) rather than the date of expiry. It has emerged that a different message was communicated to the staff at the coalface and they have been operating on the basis that dates were not to be changed. That has now been fixed and all renewals from late last week should be dated from the date payment was processed. We are discussing how to deal with those who were 'shortchanged' without imposing further workload on the office. An announcement will be made in the near future.

Members Liability insurance is due for renewal at the end of October. There has been no discussion yet with our broker, so all the rumours are just that - unfounded nonsense. We have recently renewed the PI and PL insurance, which protects the association and its workers, not individual members. This policy costs less than 10% of the premium for the members' liability (about $30k compared with over $320k). We had a slight increase in premium, which given our recent claims history is unsurprising, but we also got an increase in cover.

This is what the Board decided when it considered this matter in March 2014. Further, since the restriction is only mentioned in the context of training, the Board has determined it doesn't apply to qualified pilots. Same goes for the new Ops Manual (soon to be released). It removes the "in the circuit" part but still only mentions it in the context of training.

Love to know where you heard that Keith since the Board had not made a decision on Saturday.