AlfaRomeo

You don't find post 70 positive? I'm afraid I'm too easily baited by KP. I did try to lighten up my response with smilies - clearly I failed. I will try harder to ignore him in future.

Not when it came to Myles appointment and not when it came to Ed's call for my way or the highway. The last one he only had the support of Middo and Caban - the other 7 opposed. That is not 50:50

Well, I have to say I found the aeronautical engineering discussions more interesting than the other stuff. Probably a good time to rules a line under this poll as, after all this time, it is sitting at 50:50 I fear the result of this poll is clouded by what people thought they were voting for. Few, I think, actually oppose a SMS or somebody to promote and control it. Plenty, including the Board Majority, did not approve the gift to Myles. I hope no clear thinking member would applaud the assumption of autocratic power and abandonment of good governance as a way of doing business. The argument for "emergency" has been proven by the effluxion of time (and 20:20 hindsight) to have been, at least, an over-reaction. All in all, an ugly example of poor governance. Hopefully, it will not be quickly forgotten and it will never be repeated.

So Keith, more dire predictions from somebody who clearly knows what CASA is thinking and drinking. So, what happened? And what will happen next?

Correct Powerin. Anyone who wants to understand the RA-Aus Constitution needs to read it and consider what they read in the light of the ACT Associations Incorporation Act and the accompanying Regulations and the Model Rules that live within the Regulations. All reasonably well written and not difficult to read (except for RA-Aus Constitution). Then, when you have decided how our Constitution can be improved, write motions for Special Resolutions for presentation to a General Meeting (either the AGM or the Natfly GM or a specially convened GM). Then persuade more than 75% of the members who vote on the motions to support your motions. A slightly easier way is to put your suggestions to the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) who can be reached via RA-Aus Office. Exactly how it should be and is in a number of Associations I know of. I don't believe there is any latitude allowable. Allowing the Board or Management to make up the Rules as they go is what got us into our current mess. My conviction is that if you don't like the Rules, follow them anyhow and propose motions for Special Resolutions as outlined above to change the Rules into being how you think they should be. If the Board or Management operate outside the Rules, the things they do in that manner may not have the effect intended. They may result in invalid or unenforceable contracts or expose the rule-breaker to severe personal costs because they have exceeded their powers, i.e. acted ultra vires.

Only from the Presidency but not from the Board. Nothing on RA-Aus yet. Perhaps they might all change their minds over the weekend?

At least it's not in Canberra - Middo was overruled on that one. A pity about Friday but that should help to keep a few Board critics away. Might have been difficult to get people away from the Aero show on Saturday to go to a meeting. But, I was going to Ausfly anyway. Hope its not as cold overnight (or as wet) as last year's Ausfly. Last time I was at Narromine it hit a record 47 deg C. Some on the Board may think it could get that hot on Friday 13th September and not go? Something like the no show at Queanbeyan?

Mark and Wayne are progressing digitising of the entire registrations data to achieve just what you suggest KGW.

I resemble that remark!

Mark Clayton, GM, has been appointed Public Officer.

Unsubstantiated assertion and use of the pejorative "fall apart" as if it had no strength in the first place. Relevance? The Committee of a P&C or a local Aeroclub are hands on workers, collecting and banking cash, writing letters and sending out notices to members, etc. RA-Aus has employed staff to do the day-to-day work. If Board Members get involved in the administration and operation of the Association they are meddling and getting in the way of the people we pay to do that. We need our Committee (Board) Members to act like directors. They need to be focused on strategy not tactics. They need to be looking well into the future and setting strategic direction. They need to understand reports from the employed management to ensure Policy is being followed and the managers are following the corporate plan (including budget). Sounds like Director work to me not active committee work. No matter how many times you like to assert that they are (technically) Committee Members it is not what we need them to be. And we don't need to move to a different form of incorporation, we just need them to recognise what RA-Aus needs and DO IT. Relevance? Try reading the Constitution TP. The President gets one vote on the Board same as the other 12 Board Members. He/She has no powers granted to him/her by the Constitution or the Board to lead or direct the Board. The Constitution, Rule 14A, assigns the President the role of "Chairman" of all meetings. A good chairman will get the best out of the Board not by leading but by drawing the best out of each Board Member not by ramming his/her views down their throat and going to war against anyone who dares to resist the will of the chairman. I can accept your assessment of Eugene Reid. But, are you suggesting that Steve Runciman and Ed Herring were weak leaders? Ineffective perhaps but weak? I was with you up to there but then you suggested: Why have one if you are not going to comply with it? It becomes that when argument gives way to assertions and unreasoned denial. Well, I have read that Act a number of times and was pleasantly surprised to see it is one of the most straight forward, easy to read and understand Acts I have read. So, TP, if you have a point how about making it explicitly and quoting your references to sections and/or case law? I am very over the veiled suggestions you always seem to make that somehow we just don't understand what's going on or what the rules are and that you are the only one that does. It is not a complicated relationship with the Government, it is a very simple and clear cut and well documented relationship. There are the aviation laws and the Deed of Agreement. Pretty straightforward to my way of thinking. Even the members who just want to go flying have worked that one out when their aircraft is chained to the ground. Agreed. And it might even provide some protection for the lives of those involved directly in Recreational Aviation and the people that they do it around and with. We all understand there has been an intolerable delay from Feb 2012 until recently in getting moving on rolling out the SMS. But it has started and it will build momentum. And CASA is going to keep prodding to make sure the Board gets on with it. The argument on the Board is not whether we get a SMS it is how the expertise to get it up and running is acquired. There is no argument about the improper offer to MB. That has been wisely and properly decided by the Board in the negative. There will be quite a number of amendments put to the Members at the coming AGM and a complete restructure at the AGM after this one at Natfly 2014. I can only assume that is a bait. Play nice, please. Everyone knows that Steve Runciman shut down the CRC - the original CRC and the revived CRC - because he was not in control of the changes to be proposed. More than 75% of voting members approved the work done by the members who had made up the official CRC - not included in the 75+% were Runciman and Middleton who campaigned against the improvements. It has but nothing good has come out of your post and this is absolutely the last time I'll engage in a conversation with somebody so reluctant to do more than assert a point of view - one you are perfectly entitled to but substantiated by no more than assertion.

TP, I put to you a reasoned argument quoting facts and referencing the Constitution and you come back with a one-line assertion. No argument, no facts, no logical contradiction of my argument. If that's the best you can do, please do not quote my work and dismiss it with a wave of the imperial Turboplanner royal arm. If that's the best you can do, please do not comment on my arguments. And that is not even English. Translation please. Perhaps some punctuation might help?

Surely their can be good politics and bad politics? Not all politics is bad? So, if I were a Liberal voter, I would see Julia Gillard and her mates as "playing politics" but if I were a Labor voter only Tony Abbot and his lot would be playing politics? Individuals working together is often described as teamwork and usually seen to be a good thing. Maj, do you honestly believe that the people who are complaining about the appalling management and god awful governance we have witnessed bring RA-Aus to its knees are just "playing politics"? Do you really think that there is "no case to answer", "nothing to see here, move along"? That no matter how badly RA-Aus is run we should just turn the other cheek, look the other way?

The Executive should be looked on as being a Sub-Committee of the Board. The Executive work for the Board not the other way around as Ed Herring and Steve Runciman before him seem to think. The President is not the commander in chief unless you are talking about the President of the USA. Our President is the Chairman of the Board and his job is to get the best out of each Board member and create a team environment. Ed is clear in that he wants a team of ONE! There is a huge difference between cooperation and appeasement of a bully. It is totally improper of Ed to ask for Board Members to forsake their fiduciary duty and rubber stamp every one of his improper decisions like giving a six figure salary job to a fellow member of the Executive as long as the fellow member of the Executive first resigns from the Board. The question of appointing an STCC was put to the Board at Temora. The Board did not decide to do it - Ed then acted contrary to a decision of the Board. That cannot be the way to run a corporation unless you own 100% of the shares. And, guess what? Ed does not own RA-Aus - he just acts that way. CASA deals with Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated - the legal entity. There is no legal entity applicable to the Executive. We have 85 days until the new Board and the New Executive take office at the AGM on Saturday 21 Sep 2013 (my guess). Hopefully, we can survive that long with the current dysfunctional Board. If you want to go to the AGM, and you don't want it to be in Canberra, you will need to get onto your representative(s) on the Board and let them know loud and clear you do not want the AGM in Canberra.

Maj, please tell us what you mean by "politics" - I think we all understand "egos" = what people have who don't agree with your way of looking at things? I hear this "politics" all the time that we are being killed by "politics" but I honestly don't understand what it is in this context. Perhaps the Board Members who said they would back Ed presumed that Ed would not want backing for anything illegal or contrary to our Rules and definitely not for anything that would involve "jobs for the boys" because they (and Ed) had sworn at the Queanbeyan EGM would never happen again. Should they have put those provisos into their pledge of loyalty or were they entitled to believe they were a given?

Our mate Wayne Matthews is doing a good job. And Mark Clayton is backing him up as well. I have real confidence in the Office now that they have good leadership and access to resources and less interference.

A Deed is usually used to avoid reference to the Law of Contract. In a contract, at its simplest level, somebody does something and earns a quid pro quo for doing it. Countless thousands of pages have been written on the Law of Contract and we are not going into that here especially as we are talking about a Deed not a Contract. So, under the Deed of Agreement, obligations are created for CASA and for RA-Aus. Simple enough. CASA does not want it to be a Contract or it would be a contract. CASA does not want to be seen to be paying RA-Aus for services rendered. It wants to give some money to RA-Aus to assist with Administration costs but sees it as an opportunity to get something for the gift. The Deed is not confidential from any member of RA-Aus who merely has to go to Fyshwick and ask to see the document at a time convenient to the office. You may not be allowed to copy or publish what you see but see it you can.

No question about might or might not - we all understand that the Board holds the power to expend Members' Funds and, by Board Resolution in Feb 2009, the Board established authority limits exactly as Mick describes them. Note, the Resolution is a formal Board decision, a decision of the Board. Now look again at what the Constitution (Rules) says about what the Exec can and can't do. The words in Rule 11 (iv) make it crystal clear that the Exec cannot act contrary " . . . to any decisions of the Board . . . " Turbo, selectively quoting a few words from Rule 11 (iv) that give powers without also quoting the restraints the same sentence imposes does not enhance your argument. Even if it were not just Ed acting alone, which he said he was, but the Executive acting in concert, they cannot act contrary to Board decisions. They cannot exceed their Board delegated authority. Chances are Ed was not aware he was exceeding his authority as, chances are, he hasn't got a sound understanding of the Constitution, the Rules by which he must operate. It is not a procedure guide it is the law of RA-Aus. To consciously act contrary to the Rules should earn sanction. If you asked Ed tonight he would tell you he still believes he did not act contrary to the Rules. Clearly, he still does not understand the Constitution. The Board has the right to delegate its authority to commit Members' Funds. It does not require an amendment to the Constitution nor a By-Law - just a formal decision of the Board. That decision is then recorded in the RA-Aus Administration Manual for all to see and comply with. The office staff would have no basis on which to pay the STCC as the position was not created lawfully.

Richard, I understood exactly what you meant. Where understanding deserts me is why you could think I would be happy to have RA-Aus in a smoldering ruin when I have put in a monumental amount of time, my money and emotional energy into having it be successful. Why would I be happy to have my Tecnam Sierra rusting away in a shed while still paying for a hangar and insurances? It is not good governance that will bring RA-Aus down but bad governance that has brought RA-Aus to its knees and that bad governance has been perpetrated by the people you are supporting to go on and do more. As hindsight can show us all, a great deal more time than Ed claimed. There does seem to be a 24 carat misunderstanding here that will, however, be clarified this week as Ed is again DEMANDING that at least 7 out of 10 Board Members abrogate their fiduciary duty to the people who elected them and hand ED their vote, no questions asked. It is the poorest understanding of Good Governance for Ed to even ask for such a thing. Any Board Member that gives it to him is automatically in breach of their fiduciary duty. No, No and No. In fact, RA-Aus is much richer for having people with the level of training and skills that you have achieved. The hallmark of Recreational Aviation I have personally found is that it is a friendly place and there is no looking down your nose at anyone. There is an issue of whether you had an axe to grind as a person with something at stake (like me) or if you were more like Turbo enjoying the verbal jousting as a mental exercise. If RA-Aus goes down I cease flying and lose a great deal of money on my aircraft. With your qualifications and a C172 you are perhaps more independent of RA-Aus. Regardless of any of that you have a perfect right to express an opinion and bring facts and logic to the debate and we are all better off for your having done that and I thank you for taking the time and trouble for doing so. Doesn't mean I will agree with you but that is not the issue. Quoting my record of what have I done with RA-Aus was not intended as blowing my own trumpet but was in answer to the suggestion that we just criticise don't do anything positive. Unfortunately, encouraging people who have acted unilaterally in defiance of the Board is exactly what got RA-Aus into this mess. And, no, it is not necessary to do so again to get us out of it. What Ed did was lazy. He was not prepared to do the hard yards to persuade people to his point of view as you need to do in a democracy. Ed was not born right he has to earn it the same as the rest of us. Nobody elected him to be the one-man dictator of RA-Aus. On the question of posting under your own name or an alias . . . I have posted on here both ways at different times. There are advantages and disadvantages of both. An advantage of the nom de plume is that what I write is fairly judged on what I write not who is writing it. Rather than dismiss an argument on the basis that "yeah, you would say that . . . " The argument put rises and falls on the quality of what you write. I quite like that idea. If you'd like to know more send me a PM and I'll tell you. But then I'd have to . . .

Well, some days back I offered the compliment to all posting here that I was very impressed by the standard of posts. Catching up tonight with what’s been posted over the last few days, I think we all need something new to argue about because we have descended to the bottom of this well and there is no light there and the air has a particular stench to it. Let’s examine a few gems, the first form Turbo: Turbo commented: If we examine what A/R wrote, it can readily be seen that it was a question of Keith Page and not a statement or allegation. Keith, as you might recall had said he was going off to do some more research and, in the hope of him introducing the slightest modicum of balance, I asked him to check facts that might not support his position as well as the ones that might. So, what was I supposed to apologise for - asking a question of Keith? What relevance has whether Myles was employed immediately before the time he was offered the job? Well, did not Myles propose that RA-Aus needed such a position created and recommended himself for the job? So, if Myles was gainfully employed and gave up a higher paying job to accept a lower paying job, as he has been said to have inferred, then that could be interpreted as a selfless act and thereby add to his credibility. However, if he had been out of permanent employment for some time when he came up with the suggestion for himself to be given a six figure salaried position with the organisation that he was a Board Member of then, could it not be argued that his credibility would thereby be diminished? If it was Myles who brought the issue of his employment status into the argument can a claim be reasonably made that it is a private matter? Hopefully the thoughts in the previous paragraph will assist the Maj with his question: I’m afraid Keith Page has not produced a single piece of logical argument nor one shed of new fact. All we get is repeated statements virtually all of which are unsubstantiated allegations usually peppered with pejorative aspersions. Turbo argues elegantly and is forever introducing new facts and opinions on facts. Unfortunately, it seems to me none are aimed at getting to the reality of the situation just circular arguments to back up a position, a contrary position, that was adopted very early in this discussion. Full marks for consistency but I am having real trouble trying to get past a couple of fundamental flaws. Turbo’s arguments, elegant as they are, like a flawlessly constructed house of cards sat on a shaky card table. The shaky card table takes the form of a belief that the ends justifies the means and that there was a real emergency and that only Ed had the answer and that it would be OK for all Board Members to abrogate their fiduciary duty to the people who elected them and hand Ed Carte Blanche. Having trouble swallowing all that. REastwood gives us the following insight: If I was predicting the demise of RA-Aus (which I am not) then I’m not sure how hindsight applies. And then there is the oft repeated words to the effect of stop telling them what they are doing wrong and help. The solution/problem conundrum. Glib but not very logical. We all have to accept here that we are swapping theories here as to what is wrong and what could be done about it. Fact is none of us have any power to change anything other than by casting our vote or even engaging in politics to the extent of campaigning for people who we believe CAN fix the issues introduced by the Old Boys Club of Middleton, Reid, Breitkreutz ably supported by recent additions to that prestigious Club in the form of Runciman and Herring. We, all of us, banging away on our keyboards here are engaged in an interesting intellectual exercise that could almost be summed up as “they orta” or, “if I was the boss . . .” So, please, don’t tell me that I can reduce RA-Aus to a “smoking reck” by posting a few words on RecFlying. The people who are doing a very good job of that are the people you (excepting Turbo) elected to GOVERN RA-Aus. So, I served as a Board Member, proposed and had accepted the creation of the Constitution Review Committee and was the Chair until Runciman canned it. I worked with the Admin Manager and wrote a paper for the Board proposing the replacement of virtually all the obsolete, non-standard and defective office equipment including the PABX and computers. I campaigned for more than three years to get the Board to accept the principle that the Constitution and the Rules embodied therein are not a procedure guide, not optional but an instruction on how to operate RA-Aus from the people who OWN RA-Aus, no, not Middo and Herring but the ordinary members like you (excepting Turbo) and me. Come to think of it, is that a C172 lurking behind you? Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn't that mean I should be saying except Turbo and you? I drafted and had accepted by more than 75% of the members who voted, four amendments to the Constitution in an attempt to make the Board accountable to the members. I worked with a few other concerned members to obtain more than three hundred signatures to requisition a General Meeting so the Board could come out from under their cone of their silence and explain to the ordinary members why RA-Aus was in a shambolic state and why we didn't find out about it until it was virtually too late to do anything about it. So, Mr Eastwood, what have you done and for that matter what has Keith Page done other than mock those who have been busting a gut for years to rein in the excesses of a Board with no respect for the constitution or good governance? People who have just put RA-Aus through the worst year of its existence. rhysmcc asked of Turbo: Rhys, I would refer you to the Constitution: “36. Inspection of books. The records, books and other documents of the Association shall be open to inspection at a place in the ACT, free of charge, by a Member of the Association on request at any reasonable hour.” This Rule means exactly what it says. An ordinary member is entitled to inspect any document that RA-Aus has. There is NOTHING that is confidential including the Deed of Agreement. You may not be allowed to copy it or disclose its contents to others but you are perfectly entitled to look at it. Maj asked: Aerosafe facilitated the Risk Assurance Workshop for RA-Aus Board and CEO in February 2012. I found them to be very professional. They would have been very cheap because CASA offered to pay for them to present the workshop but RA-Aus took so long to get around to arranging it that, by then, the offer had lapsed and RA-Aus picked up the tab. The post that finished me off came from the master of clever arguing, Turbs himself: Or, if you turn the telescope around the right way, the alleged emergency that was supposed to see the end of life as we know it has not materialised. If Ed’s proposal had made sense to anyone and not been about jobs for the boys it could easily have been dealt with in less than 48 hours. As it is at least half the Board is vehemently opposed to Ed’s unilateral action and an overwhelming majority is opposed to the jobs for the boys appointment of Myles. Enough. Somebody needs to rule a line under this thread and move on to something that produces a useful discussion.

From my discussions with the staff at RA-Aus, I have formed the view that they are not only working very hard on the Rego issue but are bringing increased resources to bear and some smart systems of work. This is clearly starting to pay off and we are seeing in the last Update that the processing rate is increasing rapidly. Not high enough yet, but definitely going in the right direction and the rate of improvement is very likely to continue to increase. My only regret is that if this approach had been promoted by the Board in November last year, instead of the penny-pinching approach they had adopted, the backlog could have been eliminated months ago. I agree strongly with Ross that the Office are doing a great job and we are lucky to have such a dedicated group of people working hard for us. They certainly have my gratitude.

There is a statue of me in every town in NSW . . . I even signed one post with my mafia name.

My understanding is that the Board has voted overwhelmingly NOT to employ Myles so there will be no need to judge his performance in September. The Censure motion, at this stage, looks like it will not get up. Hopefully Ed accepts the verdict and gets on with the job and works within the Rules in future.

Keith, it is always good to work from the facts and thanks for bringing the info on Myles's experience to light. Also, I have not heard anyone argue that RA-Aus does not need a an SMS. As you would be aware, every place in Australia where work is undertaken must, by law, have a safe system of work. While you are digging into Myles's employment history you might let us know how long he had been out of work before accepting the gift of the STCC role from Ed. CASA, when they wanted to set up their SMS, engaged AeroSafe. They did that because they have a very modern approach to risk assessment and safety management. I can judge their quality from my experience of sitting through a two-day Risk Assessment Workshop for RA-Aus. They were very good at what they do. They had highly qualified people and good systems for getting to a clear understanding of the risks faced by RA-Aus and how each of those risks should be managed. Unfortunately, Myles was unable to attend the Workshop. I'm afraid I don't share your high regard for Myles's skills. I have seen how he writes and noted his performance as a Board Member and was heavily underwhelmed. And I notice that John Gardon is adamant that Myles would be a very poor choice for the job based on his assessment of Myles's skills and work ethic. But, Myles's capability to do this job is not the issue. The issue is that he sat down with Ed and between them they came up with a plan to employ Myles. Conflict of Interest alarms should have been screaming - "Don't do it! The fact that they went through with it borders on corrupt practice. If something similar had happened in a Government department it and the AG got onto it, it could involve a trip to ICAC or the equivalent.

Well, here is the good news on RA-Aus finances. With the job of Admin Manager to be filled, the Board has the opportunity to re-title the role to "Manager Finance & Administration" or even "Manager Business Services". In plain English, they have the opportunity to employ a qualified accountant who has good affinity with IT (and most young accountants do). The role could also include the Company Secretary routine duties. The role of the Treasurer is simplified if there is some in house expertise and the Treasurer has access to an external firm of accountants he can consult the way we consult a firm of lawyers when needed. It will always be better if the Treasurer has experience to CFO level in a medium to large corporation and knows the questions to ask and understands the answers. There are plenty of qualified accountants with CFO type experience among the 10,000 members. The Treasurer would always be able to talk to one or more of them - if he/she knew who they were. That is where the Skills Register comes in that was promised to us by the Board at the Feb 2013 EGM. I would be pleased to assist Jim if he were to be appointed Treasurer but there is no way I would want to associate my name (either of them) with a Treasury lead by a previously failed Treasurer like Dave Caban. The move to install DC after he performed so badly last time that it took a vote of no confidence to get rid of him. Even then he refused to go and had to be removed and another Treasurer appointed. Those on the Board who are pushing DC for Treasurer are engaging in a very cynical exercise and, in my opinion, an abuse of power to keep a reform minded individual like Jim Tatlock out of the Executive.