AlfaRomeo

Not an expert on this TK but I think you will find it applies to 95.55 ultralights that have a Type Acceptance approval but not LSA. No idea about 95.10

Could not agree more Frank. Very well put. As a further caution, CAR35 (insert new name) approvals are not applicable to LSA. Each LSA has an individual (Special or Experimental) Certificate of Airworthiness from the manufacturer. You need the Manufacturer's approval to change anything.

One way to overcome the issue of "While a mix of accounting, legal and technical backgrounds would be good, it will be hard to achieve through democratic elections" would be to directly elect the Treasurer and Secretary. These are roles where specific technical skills and experience are a great advantage. So, when somebody runs for the position of Secretary, a statement of legal and company director skills and experience in the pre-election statement will aid the members in making their choice. The Chair should continue be elected by the elected Board from within their numbers. And we should get away from the Aero Club analogy of "President" who is the chief executive of the Club and call the role what we need it to be: Chair/Chairperson/Chairman/Chairwoman depending on how PC you want to be.

Thanks Sue for taking the time to do this analysis and sharing it. The format of the report on the RA-Aus website is the standard report as it pops off the RA-Aus Accounting (computer) system. It is detailed and to that extent quite useful as a one-off or backup report but it is not really a management report and its layout/format does not make it easy to read. A level of sensible summary would actually make it more informative for the non-accountants. Monthly reports for other than the staff are not of much use unless you really love to read and analyse this data and understand the swings from month to month. More meaningful reporting would be for Quarterly periods as the monthly swings smooth out. The Quarterly reports should show how we are going against the Budget and how it compares with the same point in the previous year. And then, a brief commentary on the major differences by somebody in the know would save us all some head-scratching and asking the dumb questions. Finally, each Quarter there needs to be a revised forecast done which will give the Board an idea how the full year is looking like ending up. The full year Forecast will give an indication of how the Management plans to get back in line with Budget or show that a conscious decision has been to step away from the Board approved Budget. For example, not too many of us would be expecting the result this year to be close to the original budget. The Board should know by now how far below budget it is likely to finish up. For monthly or quarterly reports to make any sense, accrual accounting principles need to be applied throughout the year and not just done as a (financial) year-end adjustment. In particular, depreciation and interest earned needs to be taken up month by month. At Half-Year end we should also see a Balance Sheet and perhaps a Source and Application of Funds report. Unfortunately (for me), I don't have my copy of the Magazine yet so I can't comment on what is in it other than to guess that it will suffer from interest earned in the period but not accrued in the period overstating the loss in the first half year. I applaud the presentation of what we now have from RA-Aus and the intention to keep this info flowing to the members. It has a long way to go before the reporting is smart and comprehensive but I am very willing to give the new management time to get on top of this as it has never been done well in the past - ever. If you remember back a couple of years ago, when Steve Runciman took over as Treasurer after a vote of no confidence in David Caban (can't believe he is running for the Board again), there were grave suspicions around that RA-Aus was in deep financial trouble. As an apparently prudent step to avoid going into the red, Steve pushed through an increase in the fees structure. From memory, the fee increases included annual membership going up from $160 to $185 p.a. a 15.6% increase. Once Steve had a chance to bring the accounts up to date after 20 months of severe neglect, it was apparent that RA-Aus was not going down the gurgler and the increase was probably not necessary particularly considering the very strong financial reserves built up over many years. However, we have seen the revenue from that increase disappear into thin air as it has been frittered away by poor management over the last two years. Hopefully, our new management will be able to get us back onto an even keel once they get past the registrations fiasco that is currently knocking our profitability for six.

That sounds reasonable Pete but you may be putting the emphasis on the wrong word. To raise an item at the meeting that was not on the Agenda, it has to be labelled "urgent". If it was so urgent and at the forefront of a President's mind, why had he not put it on the Agenda two weeks beforehand? Why was it allowed to get to the level of urgency that made Ed feel he could abandon any form of due process and go unilateral? Why would not the President, the Secretary or Ed himself called for a vote on the Board Forum back in April? Why were the ordinary members kept in the dark about this unfolding calamity? Sorry for all these rhetorical questions for which the answers are perhaps obvious.

Mick would be a great addition to the RA-Aus Board. He has skills, experience and integrity that we desperately need. He has my vote.

Mick, Thanks for your very interesting contribution to this debate. I agree with pretty well everything you wrote. Pete, I agree that our current Board have shown disregard if not disdain for the Constitution we currently have. I would be prepared to bet a schooner or two that many have never studied it and just don;t know what it says. I think it would be an even safer bet that they haven't read the Act or its Regulations. So, as Pete says, what's the point of a much more complicated structure because it could be even more easily ignored. The problems we have seem to me to stem from the fact that a number of the people on our Board, unfortunately in the majority, are out of their depth. I don't doubt for a second that they are well meaning or that they have done a lot of good things for RA-Aus over its relatively short history. However, the organisation is now of a size that requires management by people who are familiar with how modern Boards operate and how Boards should relate to the employed management. Simply, we have too many on the Board and most of the people we have on the Board do not have the skills, qualifications and experience that would equip them well to do the job that needs to be done. They get on the Board because they want to help steer RA-Aus, are widely known and liked and live in a particular geographical locality. At one time during 2012, seven out of the ten Board Members were CFI's. That is not the Bio-diversity that is needed and critical skills were not available. Running a small business, probably not incorporated, does not necessarily equip you to act as a Board Member of an organisation the size of RA-Aus. We need a simple structure that values relevant skills above post code of residence. We need a Board that is small enough (5 or 7) to bond as one team yet large enough to incorporate diversity of skills and experience. We need a President, or more correctly, a Chairperson that sees their role as bringing the Board together and getting the best out of each Board Member and builds teamwork. The structure must respect a chain of command that operates from the Board through the the chief executive (currently the General Manager) not one that has individual Board Members believing that they have a role in the operation of the business of RA-Aus. Even the Treasurer must be in the mode of a Finance Director - an advisor to the Board - rather than the chief financial officer. On the basis of our recent experience, Board Members must promise to uphold the Constitution and accept that they must resign if they breach the Constitution. There must be that level of respect for the Rules. I can't see any reason in this day and age to have a Board Executive that can act independently of the Board. The Board should not have to be making decisions on day-to day matters as that is the work of the General Manager. With all the electronic means of communication available today, their is no need for an Executive.

For the umpteenth time, the RA-Aus Board signed off on an SMS at the February 2012 Board Meeting! Jonathon Aleck and Lee Ungermann (iirc) attended a part of that Board Meeting to thank the Board for having finally achieved that milestone. After having established the SMS, the next stage, obviously, was to roll it out to the FTFs. This was clearly a task for the CEO to manage. The CEO was also assigned a number of tasks that came out of the Risk Assurance workshop that preceded the Feb Board Meeting. The SMS was just one element of the overall risk management strategy for RA-Aus. At the Risk Assurance Workshop, there were many other risks (in addition to the Ops/Maint risks ) considered, documented and action item list produced. These included financial risks. Sadly, over the next 12 months, the CEO never managed to get any of the tasks related to the SMS or the management of other risks far enough up his priority list for anything at all to happen. No criticism of the CEO was allowed by the old guard who had gifted him the job and in fact he was given a 15% pay rise just two months after the annual (December) payrise had been paid. This increase I argued strongly against but was unable to get sufficient votes to stop Runciman, Middleton, Herring, Reid, et al, pushing through the increase. Despite asking that if they were going to pay the increase that some form of performance criteria be attached to the CEO's salary increases this also was turned down by the old guard. By this time it was obvious that there were serious issues surrounding registrations of LSA aircraft. The Tech Manager resigned and then more problems with registrations were discovered. And then the insurance renewal that had been coming for only 12 months was mismanaged by the CEO and the broker, resulting in the liability insurance cover lapsing and a series of week by week extensions came in to play. In the real world, every business in Australia is obliged to provide a safe system of work for those employed in the business. A safe system translates as a Safety Management System. Every publicly accessible airfield and probably all private ones as well have to be managed for safe operation. Nothing new here. Any FTF that does not operate a safety management system now would be not just nuts but in breach of the duty of care that they owe to employees, clients and the general public. So, what we are all really talking about here is getting a bit more systematic and documenting the system to an approved template. You not only have to have a SMS you have to be able to show you have - one written down. I am not suggesting that formalising the SMS is a bad thing but it doesn't mean we didn't have one all along. Part of any system, of any kind, is a feed back loop. You set out to do something and then you check the result to see if it is what you expected and then you adjust the system and go round the loop again. RA-Aus has an audit function in the form of the Ops and Tech Managers. The Ops people go around doing, well, audits of the FTF operations. They are checking that the FTF have systems in place to ensure their schools run well, produce good results and protect their students. For that matter the CFI of an FTF is the chief auditor of his school. Every day he will be looking at what's going on and making judgments about how things are going. CASA has run their own Risk Assurance Workshops using the same people, Aerosafe, that they recommended to RA-Aus. One of CASA's risks that they need to manage is RA-Aus. Some aspects of their risk management strategy is to require RA-Aus to go through the same Risk Assurance Workshop, have a documented SMS, check up on RA-Aus to see they really do have a sensible SMS actually implemented across all its operational areas. What happened between May 2012 and June 2013 is anybody's guess because this Board is never going to tell you for fear that they will be seen to have failed the people they represent. We know that Jim Tatlock and John McKeown have tried to slip us some information and been roundly abused for it. The things we went to Queanbeyan to see the last of were Secrecy, poor governance including jobs for the boys. Anyone notice any change since then? If anything it is actually worse now. If RA-Aus is to have any chance for the future, we need a new Board. To get that members must learn about who is standing and VOTE!

Please don't try and tell me that if the Board passes a censure motion against President Ed because they feel he acted improperly and went against the declared wishes of the Board Majority and gifted a plumb job to a mate that CASA will mount a raid on RA-Aus and shut it down and ground 3,500+ aircraft and 10,000 pilots indefinitely. Please, try a realistic threat not codswallop like this one. We used to get that same dumb story trotted out with regard to the previous President. "Stop picking on Steve Runciman because he might get the hump and walk away and then RA-Aus will cease to exist or will be run by the dregs of humanity that are the remainder of the Board. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. There are some very good people on the Board who would be quite capable of running RA-Aus with the support of the Board as a team in a democratic way and respecting the letter and spirit of the Constitution not trying to weasel their way around the words to justify an improper act.

Well we all know how Middo got his list for his campaign against the General Meeting. And we all know who paid Middo's postage to get himself 300 odd proxies to cover his rear end. Compare those actions to the group of 300+ who requisitioned the General Meeting completely at their own expense and dragged the Board kicking and screaming to Queanbeyan. MIddo likes to whinge about how much the General Meeting cost RA-Aus but it was a fraction of what it cost the 180 odd who paid their own way to Canberra. And, SAJF what evidence do you have to support such a scurrilous (and false) accusation? I think you owe Airsick an apology instead of being an apologist for those who have all but destroyed RA-Aus.

Well, Keith if you thought a lot of post 180, you perhaps haven't caught up with post 203 where post 180 was closely inspected and some balance and quite a few corrections offered - none of which have been repudiated by TP. After you've read both 180 and 203 please comeback to us with your insights. Thanks AR

You are right of course, thanks for reminding me DD. The powers that were still manage to stifle any attempt at progress.

Please be very clear - their is NO By-Election necessary for SQ and no by-election will be run for SQ as a consequence of Myles's resignation. The Constitution at Rule 16 (iii) states that "If a vacancy occurs in the Board at time no greater than six months from the time of the next group election applicable to that Board position, the vacancy shall be deemed to be a casual vacancy and need not be filled in the interim period." Myles simply resigned about 3 months before his term would have expired anyway. It would be madness to try and run a by-election and have the winner's term expiring in September 2013. Nobody is that stupid. Myles Breitkreutz's and John McKeown's terms were due to be completed at the AGM in September 2013 and neither were nominated to contest the coming election by 31 May when nominations closed. Because Trevor Bange and Tony King were the only members nominated for SQ, they will be elected unopposed. End of story.

In the Rule you refer to TP, it says the Executive is formed by those three roles. Not by one or two but by all three. Without all three it is not the Executive.

Ed is coming to the end of his first two-year term. He has been an avid supporter of the former CEO and of the President that he succeeded. He can't be compared to people like Jim Tatlock who, despite severe bullying, stuck to his guns in objecting to the poor governance and cult secrecy he encountered. To be fair, Ed's frankness has been breathtakingly refreshing and his zeal to get RA-Aus onto a proper business footing is to be greatly admired. With the Myles appointment though he has overstepped the mark by the biggest margin possible. This was an awful way of going about something that may well have been worth doing. Whether we could have brought in a highly skilled, well resourced and expensive consultant for 12 months to get things in the compliance area back on track and to initiate training programs as a part of the roll out of the SMS to all of RA-Aus, we will never know. Now we are effectively committed to a permanent STCC who will cost, my estimate, about $1 million every five years - forever! Compliance is an integral issue for the Technical and Operations Managers. It is what they do. They could have been assisted by a consultant to get more done and more professionally for a period and then gone on with it themselves. A consultant could have been brought back in to audit compliance every two or three years, much the same as we have financial auditors come in every year. You will find that they have very similar responsibilities as directors and while the Board is, technically, a "Committee of Management" under the Act, RA-Aus has chosen that they be referred to as the BOARD. Alan, get over it - that's what they are. And that's what RA-Aus needs them to be. We have an employed management and we need the Board to be a Board. In fact it does. The Executive is formed by the President, Secretary and Treasurer. It is not formed by any one of them acting alone. Why would it not be reasonable to think that it would be by simple majority? It does not require unanimous voting so a reasonable person would expect voting of the Executive to be democratic and by majority decision. Like much of our Constitution, this could be better written. However, it makes it clear that the Executive is the servant of the Board. It says the Executive can not make decisions that are contrary to Board decisions. I don't think you would have to look far to find where the Board had decided not to do what Ed did. That is a straight conflict with a Board decision. There was no emergency. The definition of an emergency is the ordinary Oxford English definition. There is no need to define a word that is in common use. This matter had been under consideration by the Board for some time. Ed says he was under pressure from CASA to act but CASA would never apply undue, inappropriate pressure and require Ed to act in contravention of good governance. They would not have required and did not require him to make a decision without Board support. Ed voted for the disbanding of the Constitution Review Committee because the leader of the Committee was no longer a Board Member. He voted also for its reinstatement with a Board Member as its chair, Myles Breitkreutz. What happens now? do we see a rushed move to shut down the CRC again? This position can not just get dropped in September. We now have this position permanently. Can you imagine how CASA would feel if we were to go back to them and say we had this role for three months but now we think we can do without it? In summary, Ed has breached the Constitution, the Deed of Agreement (failure of good governance) and has exposed himself to substantial financial risk if any payment is made to Myles. Truly, this could have been done so much better if as much though went into it as aggression.

nomadpete, Don't be too convinced of Turbos argument without having another read of those clauses of the Constitution. I am not a lawyer but I think the plain English reading of those clauses could never get you to Turbo's position. For example, the Executive is defined as a group of three people who can act "in concert" not individually as servants of the Board. Ed stated publicly that he acted alone. As such, it is not an act of the Executive just the President. The President, on his own, has no powers under the Constitution other than to Chair all meetings and act as the Spokesperson for the Association (Rule 14A). Even as spokesperson for the Association, he would only be able to communicate what has been approved by the Board or, between Board Meetings, what has been approved by the Executive. The Executive is the servant of the Board not its master - a point the Executive led by Steve Runciman could never get their minds around. The Executive should at all times be acting as they would expect the Board would want them to act. Ed has as much said that he did what he did in spite of the balance of opinion on the Board. This is the polar opposite of what an Executive with integrity should do. All powers in RA-Aus are invested by the Constitution (Rules) in the elected representatives acting in concert as the Board. The Board delegates those powers by a Board Resolution to individuals including the Treasurer, the Executive, the General Manager and the Administration Manager. Note the President does not have such a delegation. Their are proscribed limits to those delegations. The individuals who exercise those delegated powers must not exceed their proscribed limits. If they do, they are acting Ultra Vires (beyond their powers). The doctrine of Ultra Vires requires that if, for example you had a delegated authority to commit for expenditure up to $5,000 and you authorised the commitment of $15,000 then the last $10,000 comes out of your private pocket because you have no authority to pick it out of RA-Aus's pocket. Ed, acting alone, had no authority to commit RA-Aus to an expenditure in the tens of thousands of dollars. He is exposing himself to Ultra Vires if Myles is paid a single cent. Ed claiming to have "carte blanche" approval to do anything is a logical nonsense. A number of Board Members have already repudiated the concept - not gone back on their word but made it clear that they never gave Ed their Board vote to spend any way he chose to. No President with any regard to Board integrity would even ask for such a thing. Any Board Member with an eye to their fiduciary duty would never give such a thing. All of this adds up to the denial of natural justice of members. Any member who feels they should get a crack at the job gifted to Myles could logically mount a legal claim to have been denied natural justice under s50 of the Associations Incorporation Act. So, what we took the Board to Queanbeyan to explain to them was that dysfunction had to cease. They promised it would and yet what do we get - even worse dysfunction than we have ever seen before.

SAJF, due to my poor communication skills you have read an insult of your flying skills that was not intended and, as a low hour pilot myself, I would have no authority to offer. I was trying to suggest that if, in aviation matters, you were happy to ignore rules and good process as you seem to be in business administration, then you would in fact be an unsafe pilot and I choose not to fly with unsafe pilots. I fully accept your assertions that you are a safe pilot and I will be much more careful in future not to make such obscure comments which can so easily offend. Now to the question of whether you have the right to hold a view contrary on the question of Ed's creation of the STCC role and gifting the job to the person in the Executive who came up with the idea. You, unquestionably, have every right to hold any opinion with which you choose to be identified. The purpose of this forum, as I understand it, is to air all sides of an argument and that is extremely healthy. This is achieved by: exchanging facts in support of your argument or in contravention of an alternative view; tie the facts and logic together to establish a sound, well argued position; have those with other facts challenge the facts supporting your argument; have those who see a flaw in your logic, challenge the apparent fallacy; respond to those challenges of fact and logic with either agreement or a contrary position This process produces more than just an opinion - with good faith, it will get us to a useful end point. If somebody has a different position to yours and challenges your facts and logic it is not intellectual bullying. It is not insulting and it is not bickering. It is engaging in the mentally stimulating process of argument which should see us all finish up at the same point - if we are prepared to put our faith in fact and logic not just the cult of personality - but he's a good bloke and good people do good things and good people don't make mistakes. I'm sure you can see the fallacy in that logic. When somebody on this forum puts a a point of view and the next 25 posters show that view up as just an opinion with no factual or logical support, it might look like bullying but in fact it is just a process to get to the correct position. If you don't want to engage in an argument - just state a position and walk away - that's up to you. But if others say things you disagree with then you are free to challenge their facts and logic and persuade them with other facts and correct logic that they have a flaw in their argument and that your position is the correct one. Absolutely nothing is achieved from bickering -yes it is / no it isn't. Putting blind faith in a person, no matter how high my regard for that person, is not my way of determining what makes sense. Thinking through a position, gathering facts and testing logic is.

Close your eyes and ears and hope for the best - not sure I'd want to fly with you on that basis. These guys don't want help from just anyone. They actively discourage it unless it is from a sycophant like yourself. It is really very simple: - work within the Rules set out in the Constitution; - abide by the Deed of Agreement with CASA; and, - don't breach the Associations Incorporation Act. How is that for starters? If they just did that much there would be a lot less to complain about. Oh, and don't give jobs to mates - use above board, generally accepted recruitment practices. If these blokes did all of the above there would be no desperate times. We got into this mess because they didn't stick to the Rules they had agreed with CASA. And, when CASA pointed it out they let 12 months go by and 700 planes grounded while they fiddled around not doing enough about it. They sit on $2.75 million of members funds but won't spend the cash to get the processing done. And you want the people who can't see any of the above being wrong to have your unwavering support. Very generous SAJF but not very smart. They don't need help doing it they help to see what needs to be done! But nobody can tell them because they don't want to hear it. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

The Board Members are blissfully ignorant. They don't know what their liability might be, don't care and don't have anywhere near enough insurance cover to protect their house and Superannuation. The incoming Board Members need to be asking now and demanding proper cover before accepting their election to the Board. Trevor & Tony - this means you.

Ed, given what's been posted on here by ordinary members despairing about the malfunctioning of the Board Executive, do you think it might have been worthwhile having one more go at checking with the full Board on a telephone conference so that the creation of the STCC position could have been done within, shall we say, more conventional processes? Can you really claim that the Executive acted in an emergency when one member of the Executive learned of Myles's appointment from reading your announcement on the RA-Aus website? Do you intend to use this "crash or crash through process"again? My way or the highway? Do you think it is a good precedent for the President of RA-Aus to set - that you don't have to comply with the Rules if you are pressed for time? Also, can you see how appalling Myles's appointment looks to the ordinary members fed up with the nepotism of the past and the havoc that jobs-for-the-boys has wrought on RA-Aus? I'm sure it looked like a good idea at the time to appoint Steve Tizzard without advertising the CEO job but look how that turned out. Can you see that the great majority of the outcry has to do with you usurping the Board and going back for a retro approval the same as Runciman/Middo used to do? Very few are criticising the creation of the STCC position but most are shocked by the way you went about it. The criticism relating to Myles's appointment is mainly not directed at Myles personally. If any Board Member had been gifted that job it would have smelled as bad. However, the fact that Myles suggested that he resign and be given the job entitles some severe criticism to go his way, personally. The overriding issue is a question of judgement and there are plenty who would give you a score of 0/10 for judgement on this one. Seems the message of the EGM on 9th February to you and from you has been flushed. At the EGM you told us all that there'd be no more bullsh!t and that things would be done properly in the future. Well, this not my idea of "properly". If the Board does not consider and vote normally on the creation of the STCC position and undo the appointment of Myles to the STCC position, you will be feeding the call for another EGM. If the ordinary members have to go to the considerable expense of time and money for another EGM I can guarantee the restraint shown by the members who paid there own way to Queanbeyan will be notably absent. And before Middo gets any cute ideas about using RA-Aus resources and members funds to try and save his ar$e again he will cop an injunction preventing him from doing it and sending him a personal bill for the last one. Not happy, Ed.

Fair call Ig - there is an inconsistency there that deserves an explanation. The (my) problem has something to do with the old saying that words were invented to disguise our true meaning. What I should have said is that Ed believed he'd never get his proposal approved by the Board. It is my belief that he actually would have got it up. This is based a bit on 20:20 hindsight - the commentary from Board Members, since the announcement, that they are not opposed to the creation of the STCC position. But by the same method, I have not heard any come out and say that appointing a long serving Board member and current member of the Executive into the role would be a good look. Especially when Myles suggested himself while he was still a member of the Board and the Executive. Surely nobody currently thinks that the jobs-for-the-boys approach is still a good recruitment strategy? That in itself is a damning commentary on the judgement exercised in this instance by Ed and Myles.

Right lets cut the crap. This was not an emergency. The Safety Management System was adopted by Board vote at the February 2012 Board Meeting - yes 2012. The previous CEO did not get anything done on it after its adoption because as he said "other priorities" prevented him from doing anything on the SMS. This standard of performance although unacceptable was backed to the hilt by Ed, Runciman and Middo, to name a few. The Board have been in breach of the CASA Deed of Agreement for the best part of 12 months if not longer. The cut off for having done something is, iirc, 30 June. No doubt Ed was up against it to make a bold impression on CASA in two weeks. However, let's NOT make CASA the villain here. They have been incredibly reasonable all along considering RA-Aus's poor performance. There is no way that CASA would encourage RA-Aus to act contrary to principles of good governance. The Deed of Agreement with CASA specifically prohibits acting contrary to the principle of good governance and sound administration. It also prohibits RA-Aus from breaking the Law - not that that is necessary. Why did Ed act without even informing a member of the Executive? Because he knew he did not have the numbers on the Board to get it through - especially if you include the nepotism aspect of Myles's gift. Ed's action is a concrete vote of no confidence in his fellow Board Members - if they now return the "compliment" he can hardly expect otherwise. Nobody wants to see Ed leave the Board or the Presidency - I couldn't have said that about his predecessor. Ed has the personality and industriousness and aviation knowledge that RA-Aus desperately needs. The censure motion is unfortunate but it is clearly needed to get the message across that Ed was appointed Chairman of the Board not benevolent dictator of RA-Aus whatever he thinks the deal was. I believe that if Ed had gone to the Board with a proposal to create the position of STCC he would have got it approved. I doubt he would have got the grubby deal to appoint Myles approved because the Board is a bit sensitive to failures of jobs-for-the-boys in the recent past. And they are aware after the Queanbeyan EGM that the members will not tolerate that sort of crap any longer. The Boar dwill be held to account!

RA-Aus insurance cover for Office Holders (Board Members) is still perilously low. Any Board Member who has some regard for hanging on to his house and super should be demanding an opinion be obtained from at least Senior Council at RA-Aus expense setting out what a volunteer (unpaid) Committee Member is liable for. Ordinary negligence or just gross negligence? Also, would doing so little to resolve the CASA audit issues be considered ordinary or gross negligence? Would failing to monitor the activities of the Tech Manager and General Manager for three years be considered gross or ordinary negligence? Would running things so badly that $2.75 million (all of) RA-Aus Members Funds is lost be considered a minor flum or gross negligence? Sadly, it seems most on our Board are happy to assume none of these issues affect them and it may come as a rude surprise that "best efforts - I'm only a volunteer" may not have been enough if best efforts = crap results.

Some things we can be sure of and some we are speculating about . . . While Ed took full responsibility for what he knows is a very bold decision, don't think for a moment that Middo's finger prints aren't all over it as well. This decision had the support of the Board Executive. It is unbudgetted expenditure and outside the Executive's authority but they approved this move. The urgency that saw this desperate move rushed through had nothing to do with not having time to discuss with and seek the views of the Board. That could have been achieved in a couple of days. As we know the Board has been considering this proposal for months if not years. The urgency was that this Board was never going to support appointment of a STCC any time in the foreseeable future. Ed's decision then is that CASA would be placated and lives may be saved if this position is created - NOW and that the only way the STCC appointment was ever going to happen was if he did it now in spite of the opposition from the Board. Seeing that Myles was available, and that you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, Ed went for the full Monto .

To clarify comments about rolling into AOPA or SAAA . . . It was in the situation where RA-Aus had collapsed or was imminently about to collapse. If the rego and licensing functions were stripped and everyone was in the CASA/RPL system, there would only be left one role for the remnant RA-Aus - advocacy (+ cheap stuff). That could easily fit into either AOPA or SAAA. We probably have more affinity with SAAA except for a few of the old guard who loathe and despise with a passion the SAAA. You would roll into another organisation because you still had some of the $2.75 million net assets left and didn't want to leave them behind for the ambulance chasers to gobble up.