AlfaRomeo

This thread is a huge credit to the contributors that I have been reading. I don't agree with all the conclusions but I greatly admire the clear thought that has gone into it. Quite a few on this thread have written some of the clearest, best argued points of view I have read in years. I have formed the view that our present troubles date back to a time when the Board did something wise. Lee Ungermann gave the Board a great deal of notice that he would be moving on. The Board of the time set up an excellent process to find a new CEO. The process was well run and a unanimous selection made by the Selection Panel. Within as little as two weeks of the new CEO taking up office, the Board realised that they had made a huge mistake - they had in fact hired somebody who knew how to manage a not-for-profit organisation and, worse than that, had the audacity to start managing it! Within two weeks the new CEO was effectively dismissed and the then President, Eugene Reid, quietly slipped his mate Steve Tizzard into the CEO position without first consulting the Board. Eventually, the Exec went to the Board and obtained a retrospective ratification of the appointment. So, we then had a CEO who had not had to apply for the job or be considered in competition with other candidates. That was bad enough but then, for his complete term in the job, he was allowed to do pretty well whatever he liked and not do whatever he didn't feel like doing and was untouchable, beyond criticism. Any criticism of his many mistakes were excused by the Executive. And so, most of the problems we now face were created during his term or were not detected or addressed in his term. The job he had originally been hired to do, re-write the Ops Manual, languished for three years and was not completed until after he left the office. With this awful example of not following a proper process, is it any wonder that those of us who were aware of the last "jobs for the boys" burred up when the deja vu of Myles's appointment was announced? Getting back to the future . . . There is not that much wrong with our rules that by now we couldn't have straightened them out - if the Constitution Review Committee had not been shut down by Steve Runciman in the middle of last year. That decision was supported by Ed Herring. To me it was clear evidence that the personalities did not want change. They still don't want to have to follow the Rules. Ask Ed and he will tell you, he has done nothing wrong. No remorse, nothing. It does not matter a rat's rectum what rules you have or how well the Constitution is written or what deed is signed with CASA or what the organisation structure is, what the Admin Manual requires, if those on the Board have not read the rules (most on the Board) and have no regard for the Rules (this and previous Execs). If you don't have respect for the Rules you have no organisation and all you have is anarchy. What does the Board need to do, to keep RA-Aus out of trouble? How about a bit of integrity? Do what you have agreed to do - Deed of Agreement. Do it in accordance with the Rules (Constitution and Board Resolutions). As somebody above said, it is not rocket surgery.

No point advertising because only Board Members are eligible to be elected to the Executive of the Board. To get a Treasurer with more appropriate skills, qualifications and experience, you would need to have advertised months ago to get such a suitably qualified person to run for the Board and then stand for election to the Treasurer position. This is not a member of staff, it is a Board Member with particular responsibilities and authority.

The announcement of Gavin's resignation has now been amended, as it needed to be, to exclude the by-election for WA. Ed Smith, a fellow with a good reputation, will take up the WA representative position on the Board at the AGM in September.

According to the Rules (Constitution), all positions on the Board Executive comprised of the President, the Secretary and the Treasurer, are voted on by the full Board at the Board Meeting that follows the AGM each year. So, yes, the Treasurer elected by the Board to replace Michael Apps in that position will hold the Job until the "new" Board takes office at the September AGM. I believe Michael Apps resigned from the Treasurer position because he could not stomach being a member of an Executive that would do the squalid, grubby "jobs for the boys" deal that saw Myles slipped in the back door in a repeat of the unscrupulous way Eugene Reid slipped Tizzard in the back door - and you know how badly that stunt paid-off. This is the proper democratic process at work and nothing like deals done behind closed doors to give one of the Executive (Myles) a paid position with RA-Aus.

That would be a pretty scary document. I have urged incoming Board Members to do two things in this regard 1. Get a thorough briefing on the cover provided by the Office Bearers Liability Policy; and, 2. Get a written paper from Senior Counsel on the liabilities of volunteer, unpaid Board Members of a not-for-profit Association. In that way they can make a judgement as to what they are risking by being on the Board and whether the cover should be enhanced. The Constitution Rule 36 allows any member to inspect any document on the following basis: "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." The "place" is Pirie Street, Fyshwick.

You have to remember that at the time the SMS was signed, I had been on the Board about 48 hours. Steve and I were still on the same side at that time. It wasn't until Tizzard grounded the Junior Flyers in direct contravention of a Board direction and SR let him off with an implausible "miscommunication" story that we started to not see eye to eye. I think the extraordinary pay rise for Tizzard was the thing that made it very hard for us to work together effectively thereafter. And supporting Tizzard again when the Insurances were allowed to expire and . . .

Yes refer post 540 in this thread. I don't know the current status of the SMS (neither does anyone outside a select few) RA-Aus Fyshwick Office should be able to assist you but you could ask your rep on the Board. We'd all be interested to hear what he has to say. True. But this is the right way to go about it wouldn't you agree? Get the template right by consulting the CFIs and then give them a deadline to have it operational.

As posted in another thread about Gavin's Resignation, the following is an extract from a very recent email from Steve Runciman: "The SMS . . . is in existence in RA-Aus now and it was accepted by the board at the Sep 11 board meeting and since that board meeting it has been gathering dust, despite the best efforts of some of us to get this thing moving!" Is that sufficient evidence for you to now accept my many, many, many times assertion of this fact? Steve's memory is correct. I've checked the Board Minutes for Sep 2011 and it is all there.

True that a Safety System is more than a document signed, sealed and delivered but for those who like you doubted my word, following is a direct quote from my former ally and ex President Runciman: " The SMS . . . is in existence in RA-Aus now and it was accepted by the board at the Sep 11 board meeting and since that board meeting it has been gathering dust, despite the best efforts of some of us to get this thing moving! " Is that sufficient evidence for you to now accept my many, many, many times assertion of this fact?Steve's memory is correct. I've checked the Board Minutes for Sep 2011 and it is all there. The SMS represented the single most important Policy decision taken by any RA-Aus Board in many years - if not ever! So, whose job was it between Sep 2011 when it received Board approval and June 2013 when the roll out of the SMS to the to the FTF's commenced? Let me assure you that no part-time, geographically-challenged Board Member was going to be actually doing this work. It was not the job of Board Members to carry out this Policy, it was the job of the CEO to GET IT DONE. So, if after a couple of months the President checked up with the CEO and asked where it's up to and got the reply "not started" what should the President (Runciman) have done? Perhaps ask what extra resources were needed to get the job done? Report back to the Board that there had been a delay? Should the President have included a progress statement to the Members in the RA-Aus magazine? So, after 6 months, still nothing is done. The response from the CEO as I recall it was "other priorities have prevented me getting to this work and I'll report back to the Board in 6 months from now". Would you then vote in favour of an extraordinary pay rise of 15% for the CEO? I didn't but the Board majority including Ed Herring did vote in favour and it was carried and paid. Can anyone imagine such a thing happening in the business world? Immediately prior to the Feb 2012 Board Meeting, Aerosafe (a firm recommended by CASA) facilitated an excellent Risk Assurance Workshop for the Board and the CEO. It was attended by all Board Members as I recall, except for Myles Breitkreutz. From that workshop a number of Actions were recorded and most naturally fell to the CEO to GET DONE. I doubt that any of them were done before he eventually "resigned". So, if after 12 months, the President was still reporting "not done" and "we are failing CASA audits" would not the members be wondering what the hell was going on? CASA clearly were wondering but the members were perhaps, blissfully unaware. True. Absolutely true. The buck stops with the Board. It was the CEO's job to get it done and the Board's job, through the President to see that it was being done. Between Board Meetings the Executive is charged with getting Board approved policy executed. Runciman and Middleton were the majority vote on the the Executive for all of the time from when the SMS was signed off until quite recently when Ed Herring joined Middleton. The latter two omitted involving the Treasurer (Michael Apps) in their STCC scheming, probably for the same reason as they didn't consult the rest of the Board - they didn't think that their unsavoury approach would be supported. "defy" OMG! The hide of the Board to have an opinion on whether the President's illegal conduct was worthy of censure. For just about the first time in years, the Board has stood up to the bully boy tactics of a runaway President/Executive. They are to be congratulated for showing real backbone and requiring an end to poor governance and demanding the Board live up to the unqualified assurances given to the members at the Queanbeyan EGM. This has been the problem all along - unwarranted secrecy. Secretary Middleotn, the person you would think would be publishing information to the members, has been Secretary for all this time. In my view, Middleton is one of the prime architects of the Mushroom policy. This is the person who was asked at the Feb EGM if he was aware of any other legal actions against RA-Aus and answered NO. That was hard enough to swallow on the day and since then we have found out there were several actions commenced on behalf of grounded aircraft owners and importer(s). Hopefully this change will be a Board who holds the Chief Exec (GM) accountable and respects the Constitution and starts to communicate effectively with the membership. If those things were happening for the last two years we would never have arrived at the awful situation we find ourselves in now. Perhaps Gavin could have included in his resignation statement exactly why he felt the need to bail out with just 3 months to go. Guessing is pointless - unless we hear it from the source we will never know. Gavin will be remembered for his curious posts here and for having supported from day one to his last day, a Board Executive that has overseen all but the destruction of RA-Aus.

I would like to reply to this properly but finding it impossible on my iPad. More later but suffice to say that all I have written here is 100 % true. If you want a copy you are entitled under our Rules to request one and get it. Don

I could tell you but then I'd have to . . . Essentially what he has been saying elsewhere. That he had to do it because it had to be done and he felt that the Board had given him the right to act unilaterally. Clearly, the majority of the Board have said they would support him as President but equally clearly, they don't believe that included Carte Blanche. Don (aka AR)

The 26 page template sent to the FTFs was just that, a Template. The document we signed off in Feb 2012 was the base document for the system. What CASA wanted was for it to be auctioned and implemented, a not unreasonable request. But for the lack of industry on the part of our former CEO, it would have been rolled out 12 months back. So, clearly, CASA and I are in total agreement. :-/

And, as for sending a copy to CASA, as I have said many, many times before, Jonathon Aleck and Lee Ungermann attended the Board Meeting to receive their copy and thank the Board for taking that important step. What happened after that I don't know because I wasn't there and successive Presidents have not told us - anything.

Turbo, Turbo, Turbo . . . no wonder I say things over and over! Yes, there was a full-blown, multi page SMS document signed off by the Board at the Feb 2012 Meeting. You want a copy? Join RA-Aus and ask for one. It is not a figment of my imagination. I would be surprised. I only joined the Board in late September 2011. It was all new to me. I can't speak for the others. What evidence do you have for saying that RA-Aus is not in compliance with the Deed of Agreement requirement for an SMS? Will it be in compliance when the CFIs return their completed templates?

The roles of the Treasurer and Secretary are oversight of the functions largely executed by the Admin Manager and his/her staff. The Board members in these roles have a responsibility to ensure compliance happens rather than do it themselves. The Treasurer for instance needs to see that plans are in place to get the Budget done in time. The Treasurer should meet and be the senior point of contact between the Audit Partner and RA-Aus. These two should agree audit schedules and reporting schedules. The Treasurer needs to get the best understanding of the financial reports. This could involve working with the Accounting staff and external accounting services providers and doing a few sums for themselves. The Treasurer must be able to advise the Board regarding signing off on the Accounts and provide answers to the membership. The Treasurer has an obligation to satisfy themselves that the commercial and accounting systems of the organisation are sound and well/appropriately controlled. The role of the Secretary is analogous.

HITC, firstly you removed the remark before I read it so no offence possible. Second, I will try to lift the tone (a lot). Frustration is there on both sides of this discussion but I shouldn't let it get to me either. Let's get back to the facts: - there is an RA-Aus SMS and it has been on the books since Feb 2012. - the template for the SMS has been rolled out to the FTFs and they have a date to have it completed by. - OH&S (WH&S) law Australia wide requires every place where work is undertaken to operate a safe system of work. talk to any CFI and you will (hopefully) find that they have what they consider to be a safe system of work. - Most airports are owned by Local Government. Sure as eggs they will have an SMS and require that all aspects of their empire abide by it. It is certainly the case at the three airports I frequent. - For many CFIs the job of re-documenting their SMS in the format dictated by RA-Aus is not an onerous task just annoying. They will get the benefit of a more formal SMS and having had the incentive to re-visit and review their own SMS. All of the above does not say RA-Aus has done nothing and that CASA would have good cause to shut us down. I will never agree that breaching standards of Good Governance is OK. I say yet again, abandoning good governance and keeping secrets is what got RA-Aus into this mess in the first place. It is not the way to get us out of it.

Thanks. A technique I learned from my wife - it works on me. No, Alan, Chinese whispers happen accidentally due to the "photocopier effect" it is not intentional on anyone's part classic example "bring 4/6 we're going to a dance". It was questioning the validity of 4th hand info but not as a reflection on the communication process not the communicator. and innuendo [allusive, usually depreciatory remark or hint] to suggest was was a mate of Ed, and later "...your mate Ed..." True allusive and true judgmental but, that is the public perception that is created when two people get together and one suggests the creation of a job and that he'd be ideal for and the second person approves the job without reference to anyone else and gives it to the person who thought it up and asked for it. And just to rub the salt in the resignation is announced coyly as "to pursue other opportunities" and the next day the "other opportunities" is revealed as a very controversial appointment of jobs for the boys (damn! there I go quoting myself again). Can't help but be a bit judgmental about that smelly situation. Firstly, my apologies for the "Slater & Gordon" crack. Turned out to be not as funny as I thought it would be. Not funny at all actually and not something to joke about here anyhow - ever. However, the paragraph you quote I thought was pretty straight forward no alluding going on there - straight statement.

(My highlight)Ed and Steve Runciman must have read your book! Not the usual approach to team work but it might work in the trucking industry - not know for working on Boards.

Some big assumptions here TP. Firstly you are assuming that only the President has a good idea as to how to comply. Perhaps the Board had a view the President didn't like? Neither the past President nor the current one have shown a preference for listening to their Board preferring a "command and control" approach. Another big assumption. Who knows what goes on at Board Meetings or on the Board Forum other than the participants. And they aren't telling! No published Board Meeting minutes, in breach of a Board Resolution, other than the last meeting. Prima facie, there seems to have been a "lull" between approving the formal RA-Aus SMS in Feb 2012 and rolling it out to the FTFs that has only just happened in June 2013. How or why that happened, perhaps the Board could explain to us at the next General Meeting. Sadly, there is only one Board position that will be contested in the coming election. NSW/ACT has a healthy contingent of good candidates plus David Caban. It is clear that the incoming Board will be a much better proposition than the one that took office in Sep 2012. Whether it will be any more effective or stick to the Rules we will have to wait and see.

Is it not folly to "cry wolf"? Isn't that what Keith has done? Nobody doubts CASA's ability to do just that. There are grave doubts that they would take the decision lightly. That they would take this action because some people have been critical of governance and communications failures defies logic.

I spoke at length with Ed on the phone and have also spoken with three Board Members and written to another. Now, imagine if 1,000 of our 10,000 members did that and they became well informed and communicated their wishes to the Board? A good thing? A good start? Not really because despite the Board Members getting drowned in those enquiries 90% of RA-Aus members would still be in the pitch dark and would not have communicated their preferences to the Board. That is no way to communicate with Members. Steve Runciman always used to say "ring me" but very few people did - why? Because that is a ridiculous way to attempt to have a meaningful communication with 10,000 peopel.

Feelings? You mean like bitter disappointment that what Ed said in front of the EGM last February counted for nothing and yet we took him at his word? Feelings like disbelief that Ed's judgement was so off that he thought he could just ram through HIS way against the express wishes of the Board majority? Feelings like astonishment that Ed would nominally commit RA-Aus to a course of action with CASA that he had not first obtained approval from the Board to make that commitment? What will he be telling CASA tomorrow afternoon and will it have been approved by the Board or will it be more of Ed shooting from the hip? Did you ever stop to consider that the majority on the Board might actually be right? Is it not totally disrespectful to people you don't know or know how they voted or why? People can't be damned because they have a different view of how this matter should be resolved. Clearly, Ed is not listening. Do we not run a democratic system? Majority rule? There is nothing about a democracy that says the majority will always get it right but they have the right to have their view acted on. It is a bit like the jury system, a crap system but better than the alternative. The Board Majority will not have a bar of the nepotism that Myles's appointment represents - Ed has to support that not the other way around. Ed is just another Board Members he does not out rank the Board, he is the servant of the Board. He is not the Captain in the left seat. That is not how a Board works. Have a look at the definition of bickering. "Yes it is/ no it isn't / Yes it is". That is bickering. An interchange of assembled facts, tied together with a logical train of thought is not bickering even if you don't like the outcome of that process.

(My highlights)What you seem to be suggesting HITC, is that our elected representatives who don't subscribe to the principle (lack of principle?) of "the ends justifies the means" should forsake their principles and do whatever Ed wants done HIS way? Use of words with a pejorative context is hardly elevating the debate. These are the sorts of words that could attract a "slur" criticism from Turbo except that he agrees with your pretext. You don't seem to get that ignoring the Rules is what got RA-Aus into this mess in the first place. In aviation I have learned that Rules are not optional - you don't get to just follow the ones you are OK with. This was not a new lesson to me but rather expected. The same principle applies in all walks of life. And, please explain to me how you came to know that there is a CASA Directive motivating the President? Have you seen it? Has it been published in the Members Only Section of the RA-Aus website? Or are you presuming?

Not sure who said that or how it applies to me? Not a slur or innuendo is it? (definition: "Innuendo" - Italian suppository?) If it seems I make the same point over it is because it is still valid and has never been the subject of a logical, argued correction. All we get is unsubstantiated statements of a contrary position that basically adds up to "the ends justifies the means" and we had to do it and stop criticising the breach of good governance. Tempting as that may be there is no slur nor innuendo about Keith in anything I have posted here. Saying it doesn't make it so TP. 10/10 for that one. However, as it turns out we now know that it is NOT true - but don't expect to see a retraction any time soon from KP. Tiger flying large aircraft and carrying fare paying passengers is rightly subject to a higher standard than need be applied to ultralights - a sport know to have certain risks that the people who take up that sport are well aware of and manage to some extent. I doubt that Tiger makes for comparing apples with apples. Like to elaborate your innuendo so that I can copy it to Slater & Gordon?

Sounds like Chinese whispers arriving here third or fourth hand and therefore impossible to know if this is correct. Indeed Keith, where is the truth? Do you have this from a Board Member or, perhaps your mate Ed? CASA looking at the way RA-Aus is being operated could well be considering their options. The facts would not be lost on them that RA-Aus is not well run by the majority of the current and recent Boards. The Board was dragged by the members to an extraordinary General Meeting four months back to account for their governance and communication failures and yet we have just witnessed the biggest governance failure ever (President Ed acting in defiance of the Board) and communication failures like Myles resigns to pursue other opportunities" when it really was to accept a gift of the STCC position from his mate Ed. And now you tell us that RA-Aus is on the brink of being shut down but we won't learn of this from your mate Ed until after it has all happened? It is not hard to despair when you see these things happening over and over.