David Isaac

There was plenty of talk about change but that wont happen unless the members do it and it will be successful if it has support. Most here agreed changes should be put forward and I am certain it would get Board support if it is fair and equitable. So unless we do it ... it wont happen. That needs to be done and should be done for the evidenced issues at least. If the rules are right, fair and balanced I think the issues will go away. I believe theye are doing a great job in spite of all the innuendo here. Maybe we should do a joint publication with the SAAA and defray costs.

I rest my case ...

Keith, how could we possibly know? You are the one telling the story, so please enlighten us with a straight answer if that is at all possible and please spare us the innuendo.

Well this will be an interesting ride folks. Best of good fortune to them. God knows they will need plenty of it. Long live competition for competing services. Not sure how they can offer competing services though.

Hi Rod, What you have highlighted is a fundamental test of any new or existing regulation. You must first establish there is a problem then establish the cost of the regulation to offset the risk and then do a cost v benefit (CBA) to establish whether a regulation is justified. This has been a major breakthrough in building regulations and deregulation generally as I eluded to in my previous post on regulatory reform in the building industry. If CBA were applied to the Civil Aviation Act and regulations, much of the CASA bureaucracy would disappear. But for that to happen, the Federal Government will have to step in and hold them accountable for their actions. Most of the Feds haven't got the balls and there will probably be no action until the industry has been destroyed. We are close to that destruction now; at least in the terms of personal bankruptcies in the aviation industry. RAAus surely MUST NOT follow the CASA example. We need to exercise prudent caution in the application of internal policies and regulations. We don't need to 'impress' The CASA with our over exuberance for personal policies that don't stack up under a CBA, otherwise we are as bad as them.

Great video buddy. The age old proven techniques, real nice to see. Long live timber.

Where is that one going? Staying In NZ?

I have copied this post from the other thread 'RAAus General Meeting' as I think there is some confusion on what the central issue is. I agree the organisation is working effectively under the new Board. I dont believe the issue currently under discussion in this thread has anything to do with whether we should be an 'Inc'; or 'Ltd Co'. The issue has been somewhat confused by two separate threads. The issue at hand is clearly around the fact that a member appearing to follow the provisions within the new constitution attempted to put some resolutions to the AGM/GM in October and was denied that right as a member.This is a significant issue regardless of whether we support the resolutions or not. In any case I doubt they would get support except perhaps the first one; BUT that is NOT the issue here. Again this is not about stopping achieving anything. I think the new board are doing a great job in their endeavours to sort out the issues. The issue appears to be that either the board has incorrectly denied the resolutions, or we are not interpreting the constitution correctly, but I fear it appears to be the former. The simple solution here is to clear up the poorly worded constitution by a resolution to do so. Members on this forum agreed that was necessary, yet have not done that when we had opportunities to put special resolutions forward for this AGM and did NOT. So it needs to be done for the next General Meeting. We need to get the constitution right and no one would deny supporting a resolution that has support to do that. You simply cannot have a constitution that by its confused structure denies members rights to put resolutions of any kind.This isn't about costing legal money at all; so lets clear up our thinking on this and work towards some sensible resolutions to put forward to clean up the constitution and make sure we lodge them correctly which by my reading will need some clarification.

I agree the organisation is working effectively under the new Board. I dont believe the issue currently under discussion in this thread has anything to do with whether we should be an 'Inc'; or 'Ltd Co'. The issue has been somewhat confused by two separate threads. The issue at hand is clearly around the fact that a member appearing to follow the provisions within the new constitution attempted to put some resolutions to the AGM/GM in October and was denied that right as a member.This is a significant issue regardless of whether we support the resolutions or not. In any case I doubt they would get support except perhaps the first one; BUT that is NOT the issue here. Again this is not about stopping achieving anything. I think the new board are doing a great job in their endeavours to sort out the issues. The issue appears to be that either the board has incorrectly denied the resolutions, or we are not interpreting the constitution correctly, but I fear it appears to be the former. The simple solution here is to clear up the poorly worded constitution by a resolution to do so. Members on this forum agreed that was necessary, yet have not done that when we had opportunities to put special resolutions forward for this AGM and did NOT. So it needs to be done for the next General Meeting. We need to get the constitution right and no one would deny supporting a resolution that has support to do that. You simply cannot have a constitution that by its confused structure denies members rights to put resolutions of any kind.This isn't about costing legal money at all; so lets clear up our thinking on this and work towards some sensible resolutions to put forward to clean up the constitution and make sure we lodge them correctly which by my reading will need some clarification.

Bull, For the benefit of us all would you explain the point you are trying to make about Don's post.

Not sure that would happen in a General Meeting Neil. The chair can control the protocol to a degree, but he can't silence members. An attempt to do that should be met with a 'Point of order' from the floor.

I don't necessarily disagree Scotty. I am not entirely clear on the matter either as I said. But an Annual General Meeting is still a General Meeting called for a specific purpose to fulfill certain requirements under the Corporations act. There are certain things that must be done at an AGM. The AGM is certainly the one compulsory meeting per year for any Australian corporation. I don't think we use the terms Special General Meeting or Extraordinary General Meeting anymore; they are just General Meetings called for specific purposes where only resolutions with required notice to all members can be voted on. Yes usually the AGM is closed and then it becomes a General Meeting which is no longer the AGM, so it may just be a protocol thing that really has no basis is law for all I know. Certainly there is always another meeting after the AGM obligations have been dealt with. The question is, does it need to be specifically separated? Maybe some legal person on here can advise whether it is that rigid. One thing is for sure, it ain't that clear in our new constitution is it?

I also agree with you. The pity is it would appear the member in attempting to put the resolution has been blocked rightly or wrongly. It would have been better to allow the resolution to be put and voted on and we all know what the outcome would have been and the matter would have ended for the reasons you have stated. The problem now is that it appears their has been a denial of members rights, compounded by the fact the resolutions were the subject of a matter the member had previously raised. Whereas if the resolutions were to be put the matter would have ended ... But alas ... The matter is now unnecessarily complicated. And now this issue of denying resolutions has put a spoke in the wheel for any other member wishing to raise any legitimate resolution when they believe they are following the process In the constitution. Oh what a tangled web we weave ... But we should wait until we hear the official reason for denying the resolution in fairness to the Board.

Scotty, I think you will find that a General Meeting that is called an Annual General Meeting is just a General Meeting that has certain minimum statutory requirements. These minimum requirements are stated in the constitution. Usually once the formal statutory requirements are met in the AGM it is usually announced as completed and the meeting still continues as a General Meeting, so I dont see any impediment to putting up duly notified resolutions. There is some confusion out there about AGMs, and I may also be confused, but I dont see any error in the calling of the AGM or the call for resolutions. Maybe someone else can explain it better than me. The confusing issue is the date for resolutions being called for prior to 23 September. Prior to 23 September is at least 23 days before the AGM; that date appears to conflict with the requirements for member resolutions found in Clause 27 of the constitution. Any one else care to offer an opinion on this?

This was the notice to members of the AGM and the invite for resolutions. Not sure where the date of the 23rd came from, certainly doesn't appear to match the constitution requirements. RAAus AGM & Safety Summit The Board of RAAus invites all members to the 2016 Annual General Meeting 15 October 2016 Adelaide Biplanes Flight School Aldinga Airfield, Colville Road, Aldinga SA 5173 The day will begin with an RAAus sponsored safety forum from 2:00PM - 3:30PM. The AGM will be held from 4:00PM - 5:00PM Any member intending to submit a resolution must do so in writing prior to 23 September 2016. Members may appoint proxies to represent them. Both the safety forum and AGM will be broadcast live on the RAAus Member Portal on the day. Following the AGM, RAAus will host a BBQ dinner at 6:00PM where the 2016 Maintainer of the Year awards will be presented. This will be a ticketed event (free BBQ with a cash bar) and seating will be limited to 120 people.

We all would, but does NOT change the fact that all members and directors are legally bound by the terms of the constitution. If a members rights under the constitution are denied we return to the bad old days.

T True Scotty, but a resolution put my members to an AGM is Not general business.

Welcome Lance. You will have fun here

Companies normally call for resolutions ahead of any announced general meeting, they clearly have an obligation to do so. If I recall correctly they did for the AGM.

For the benefit of members; the following is from our new constitution: Members’ resolutions and statements 27 Members’ resolutions and statements 27.1 Where the Company has called for resolutions, any current Member with voting rights may give: (a) written notice to the Company of a resolution they propose to move at the general meeting (Members’ resolution), and/or (b) a written request to the Company that the Company must make available to its Members a statement about a proposed resolution or any other matter that may properly be considered at a general meeting (Members’ statement). 27.2 A notice of a Members’ resolution must set out the wording of the proposed resolution and be signed by the Members proposing the resolution. 27.3 A request to distribute a Members’ statement must be given to the Company at least seven (7) days prior to a general meeting and set out the statement to be distributed and be signed by the Members making the request. 27.4 Separate copies of a document setting out the notice or request may be signed by Members if the wording is the same in each copy. 27.5 If the Company has been given notice of a Members’ resolution under Clause 27.1(a), the resolution must be considered at the general meeting for which the resolution was called. 27.6 This Clause does not limit the right that a Member has to propose a resolution at a general meeting under the Corporations Act. 28 Company must give notice of proposed resolution or distribute statement 28.1 If the Company has been given a notice or request under Clause 27: (a) in time to give notice of a proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement to Members with a notice of meeting, it must do so at the Company’s cost, or (b) too late to give notice of a proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement to Members with a notice of meeting, then the Members who proposed the resolution or made the request must pay the expenses reasonably incurred by the Company in giving Members notice of the proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement. However, at a general meeting, the Members may pass a resolution that the Company will pay these expenses. 28.2 The Company does not need to give notice of a proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement to Members if: (a) it is more than 1,000 words long, (b) the Directors consider it may be defamatory, © Clause 28.1(b) applies, and the Members who proposed the resolution or made the request have not paid the Company enough money to cover the cost of giving notice of the proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement to Members, or (d) in the case of a proposed Members’ resolution, the resolution does not relate to a matter that may be properly considered at a general meeting or is otherwise not a valid resolution able to be put to the Members.

where are you located jetjr?

Gold ...

Kirk, Please post the RAAus letter denying your resolutions as soon as you get it, along with a copy of your correspondence to the Board making the request to lodge the resolutions.

Very concerning Kirk; have you re read and checked the constitution? I will have a good look myself and come back. Probably be a day or two though before I can come back. If you are correct, the actions will have to be challenged.

You are being gentle Nev.