AlfaRomeo

Keith, How can you possibly assert that a couple of days would have made the slightest difference to this imperative? If Ed had written his proposal up on the Board Forum and asked his colleagues for an urgent vote within 48 hours he may well have been given the go-ahead to create the position and install Myles in it. Two days is not an eternity unless you are two years old. This intemperate behavior smacks of toddler reasoning ability. We are entitled to better from our elected Board. Now that Ed has created the position, RA-Aus is stuck with it in perpetuity. Could you imagine going to CASA in October and saying well, we tried a Safety Training Coordinator but it didn't work so we got rid of the position. Impossible. This function will absorb of the order of $200,000 each year of members funds. Ed has made a commitment of $1 million over a five year period without seeking approval from the people we elected to make those decisions. Who died and made Ed the only person in Australia who knows what RA-Aus needs to kepp CASA off its back? In the proposal to the Board the other small item that a good manager would include is how it is to be paid for. Ed could have gone to CASA and asked them to up their contribution from $100k to $300k. It is possible that they would have see that as a positive step and agreed. But, because he acted precipitously, that opportunity has passed and the Board will now have to get the $200k p.a. from the members by upping the fees up from $185 to $205 p.a. to cover the cost. I'm not complaining about the fee hike just that none of these proper business considerations were looked at. Just Ed shooting from the hip rather than acting in a business-like manner as he said needed to happen. How would Ed's Board (in his non-RA-Aus life) feel if, as the General Manager, Ed had spent the equivalent amount above his financial delegation from his Board and above his Budget? I doubt they would be saying things like "gutsy move, Ed". In my experience they would be saying "Don't come Monday!". Why should it be any different a response here? Ed argued loudly at the EGM last February 9th that RA-Aus has to be run on a more business-like basis. Yet, his first action has more in common with an African dictator than the Chair of the RA-Aus Board. I don't doubt the bona fides of Ed's intent here but it has shown an incredible breach of approved procedure. Cutting corners is exactly what was done by certain Tech Managers and CEO's in the past and what sent RA-Aus into the spiral dive that we are currently "enjoying". Is it really too much to ask that The President, the Executive and the Board abide by the Law and the Constitution? I get the impression that half the Board have never read the Constitution and the ones who have happily ignore it. Keith, would you support a new Constitution that says the President can rule by decree and that he does not have to consult the Board on any matter and is not subject to any restrictions that would otherwise be imposed by the Constitution, The Deed of Agreement with CASA or the Associations Incorporation Act?

No question this is a ballsy decision. Trouble is that Ed crossed too many lines to push HIS view of what RA-Aus needs and did not do the right thing and bring the Board along for the ride. Ed is not the Chief Executive, he is, effectively, the Chairman of the Board. It is not up to him to take executive action. It is for him to bring the Board together to make a decision and have the employed General Manager execute the will of the Board. Not that hard really if you have any respect for due process and understand your role. Surely OME, you would have to agree that this job-for-the-boys is not a good look? Why have a Board if we only need an Ed?

When CASA absorbs Recreational Aviation into their empire in the first half of 2014, RA-Aus can roll its assets into AOPA before the ambulance chasers can get their hands on them. The shell of RA-Aus can then be wound-up. To get their hands on the substantial assets of the soon to be defunct RA-Aus, AOPA would have to agree to establish a Recreational Aviation Chapter and allow the assets from the former RA-Aus to be used only in connection with that chapter. That chapter could specialise in advocating for Recreational Aviation and put together deals for members on insurance, fuel, tyres and similar. Too easy!

If Ed had put to the full Board his proposal to recruit Myles into a new job and the Board had had a robust discussion on the proposal over two or three days, would we have missed the boat for the delay? NO! What catastrophic ill effect would a delay of a couple of days have caused? After all, this Board has failed to act decisively on these issues for the last 12 months or more? It could be reasonably argued then that Ed's decision was rushed, inappropriate, looks awful, destroys confidence in our new President, is beyond his authority to act, and the claim of excuse due to emergency just does not hold a single drop of water. Ed has acted as if he is the only one on the Board who has the answer and as if he has unlimited authority to do anything that he thinks is a good idea. How do you spell dictator?

Well, I guess it is no mystery now as to why Myles resigned from the Board. Under the Rules, he can't earn money from RA-Aus if he is a Board Member. You could then ask, which came first, the need to get Myles off the Board or the need for a safety training co-ordinator? Or is Myles ready for a Tizzard style semi-retirement at the members'expense? As usual, all speculation because we just don't really know what is going on at bullsh!t HQ other than it seems to be on the nose - as usual.

That by direction in the Constitution (Rule 15 (iv)) were due to be published on 30 January 2012! Only 4 months late. Due to poor accrual accounting practice, the first 6 months does not include its fair share of investment interest income. This fact was exposed at the EGM on Feb 9th.

Bit of thread drift going on here . . . Happy to argue organisation structures in a new thread but we were talking here about a member of the Board Exec resigning "to pursue other opportunities" and then, miraculously, bobbing up the next day in a tailor-made "job-for-the-boys". His resignation announcement carefully separated from the gift of a new job by just one sleep. And we have a brand spanking new President setting a breathtaking precedent of a job for a mate on the strength of his sole discretion: "This is a position created by myself and i take full and absolute responsibility for the appointment." Are we all comfortable with that? - unilateral decision, no need for anyone else's input? - no need to be in the Budget, - no need to be approved within authority limits previously set by the Board? Or, should we expect the President to be working within the Constitution, budget, authority limits, involving the full Board and upholding due process? Ed's predecessor was not troubled by such niceties but even he never went quite this far off beam, did he? Should we remind Ed that he is a member of a Board and that the Board has rules that apply to even him?

Ed is in Canberra as we speak having a crisis meeting with the Staff and setting a plan to get us all out of the poo. I personally wish him best of good luck. I do hope he lets us in on the plan. I hope the plan includes getting all our records digitised so that they can get away from the paper war that they are currently losing. CASA would like the records digitised - it will make the handover so much easier at the end of the year when we all get an RPL.

InFlight adjustable (IFA) props are great stuff and I'd love one. In a seaplane they are almost a basic requirement. Forcing people back to experimental seems a very adverse step. You'd think that there could be something worked out with CASA (their call not RA-Aus) to keep IFA props on, as a minimum, seaplanes but really on any aircraft where you can afford one. They get you off the ground quicker and get you to your destination sooner and save fuel. All good stuff.

Turbo, We have disagreed on whether they are or should be a Board of Management or a Board of Directors. I understand that, technically/legally, you are of course correct. This is an Association with a management committee that only styles itself as a Board. Our Constitution still has the Treasurer banking the daily takings! I can assure you that does not happen. The Incorporated Association structure is an historical fact. It came from a time when RA-Aus was much smaller and, like an Aero Club, was managed by the Committee (Board). What this organisation needs is full time professional management. You are NEVER going to get that from an RA-Aus Board/Committee. They can't be full-time and we just don't seem to care about any qualifications other than Post Code. However, we do have a full-time, professional manager employed. Therefore, the Board needs to step back and guide at the Policy level not on an operational level. The Manager needs to be held accountable by the Board for the approved plan/budget and their execution. Our real problems are the result, I believe, of having had a top manager employed who, in my opinion was ineffective to say the very least. And he continued to be ineffective for a number of years. I believer we are in so much trouble because the Board did not hold the manager accountable for his ineffectiveness. I also believe that a member of the Board virtually acted as the top manager until he resigned recently and thus took away from the employed top manager any requirement to do anything useful.

Let's not beat around the bushes. Myles Breitkreutz is a member of the old boys club - been there forever. He needs to make way for new blood. Gavin Thobaven - well, after he showed his colours on here, I need not comment further. We need somebody new from W.A. Paul Middleton - at the heart of RA-Aus problems and ring leader of the old boys club - unfortunately not up for election this time. Dave Caban - a former failed Treasurer and on the Board for 12 of the last 13 years. Should have got the message when last defeated and stayed away. Member of the old boys club. Eugene Reid - failed Treasurer, longest serving board member, old boys club founder. Surely there is one other person in Tasmania who could run against him. Don't think he's up this time either.

RA-Aus were getting Dean Tompkins trained up to be, like Neville Probert, a person approved by CASA (NOT a CASA person). However about a week before the recognition was to be given to Dean he was sent home to SA. He was quite surprised when that happened as he was having a lot of success on knocking over the backlog and was about to have a hell of a lot more. Pity . . . .

All the information you need is in the "Registration Update" on the RA-Aus website. Isn't it? It does seem reasonable to me that a Registrations debacle update should tell you more. If they were really trying to give you a clear picture of how it is all going they could tell you things like: - how long will my aircraft be in the backlog? or, - how many aircraft are in the backlog in front of my aircraft? - when will the aircraft backlog be eliminated? - Has my aircraft been added to the "better hope your aircraft is not on this list" as have CTLS, Pipistrels, early Stings, other aircraft from the Euro 450kg environment, and anything with an inflight, variable pitch prop . . . But there are some interesting statistics available to you if you want to do the simple calculations on the numbers in the Registrations Update Table, like: If there have been 1,345 renewals between 15 Nov 2012 and 24 May 2013, how many could be done at that rate in a full year? How does that compare with 3,500+ that come up for renewal each year? If there have been 48 renewals in the last week, how many would get done in 52 weeks How does that compare with 3,500+ that come up for renewal each year? The answers for those not inclined to drag out a calculator are that at the current rate, about 2,500 would be processed in a full year giving a deficit of 1,000 aircraft. But, that's nothing for anyone to worry about because this Board has been doing its absolute best for the 190 days in question and, after all, what more can one do but your best? And they are only volunteers. Unarguably, this Board has demonstrated that this problem is beyond their best endeavors. On the Board's own numbers, after 27 weeks, the situation has deteriorated rapidly rather than improved markedly. Perhaps Steve Runicman did these calculations and decided that he should give somebody else a go at a problem that he was unable to put a dent in and that actually got a lot worse under his leadership? Middo admitted to 100 aircraft being in the backlog on 9th February at Queanbeyan. On closer questioning he was prepared to 'fess up to 200. By Natfly it was said to be 400. But, is it really closer to 700? And heading for 1,000? Who knows? If this world class maladministration and poor governance is what you'd like to see continue, then do what 80% of the membership always do, allow this Board to be returned unopposed in the upcoming elections. Or forget and forgive and just vote them back in because they are well intended good blokes, doing their best. Many on this Board have been there for years or, like Middo were once part of the Management. If you want a different outcome you will need to do something different. Find out about the other candidates who have nominated and will be announced in the June edition of SportPilot. Invite them to your aero club BBQ for a chat. The current mob (Jim T excluded) have had their day and they need to go. They have overseen the RA-Aus spiral dive into deepest trouble. Please, Vote - and for the sake of the future - Vote for a new team on the Board!

email to all with email addresses would be most effective but at least on the RA-Aus website. I can't see why it was not up at 0900 on the day it was effective and notified to the Board rather than 36 hours later and after it had been on this and other fora for 24 hours.

Can anyone tell me what possible basis there could be for keeping the resignation of the President & Nth Qld rep CONFIDENTIAL from the members who elected him to the position? What planet does the RA-Aus secrecy department come from? Could you imagine the resignation of, say, the President of the United States of America being confidential from the voters who put him there?

What Turbo said. Ask and you will find out or be passive like 80% of RA-Aus members and this Board will keep you in the dark and feed you bovine excreta. Perhaps 600 aircraft that should be registered and flying but are sitting on the ground gathering cobwebs might just be a clue that all is not well. Four failed CASA Audits, Financial Statements not available at the AGM, breach of CASA Deed of Agreement, breaches of the Corporations Law . . .enough for you to start wondering? Quite true. However, this can be an expensive process when you look how big this country is. Even a relatively small state like NSW requires quite a bit of getting around. For example, living say in central (coastal) NSW, you could put in, say, 24 hours in the air plus a few nights in motels just to get around to perhaps one-half of the members. That could cost the individual $3,000 and there is no recompense for that. And then when you get on the Board you face a barrage of ill informed criticism from people like us. And what if you did all that and didn't get elected? Would not feel too good. When every member reads in the SportPilot as to who has nominated for the elections, make a point of getting your club to send an invitation for the candidates to attend a club meeting and put their agenda and answer members questions and listen to members opinions. Then you might get the Board you can respect and that feels accountable to the members. What we have now, largely, are people who have not faced an election - they were either elected unopposed or returned unopposed. Our twice resigned now ex-President had not one vote from a member to put him on the Board. The Presidency had only one candidate and so he got to be President without anyone voting for him . The small number of members in FNQ could not muster a second candidate and thus did not get to vote. Since nobody voted them in why would they feel accountable to the members? They will tell you they behave the way they do because nobody cares. Whose fault is that?

Sinking ship? Rats? One can only wonder . . .

We all had high hopes that, after the promises by the Board to clean up their act, the first thing that happens is that we find we were deceived into believing at there were only 100 aircraft on the ground when the true number was more like 400!!! There can be only two explanations - incompetence or lies . . . You choose. Then we have another huge stuff on Insurance or is it not incompetence but the other thing? Perhaps one day we may find out. The Board were asked at the AGM at Heck Field if they were going to do a better job on Insurance than they did in 2012. They swore they'd do better. But if what Andy describes is "better" . . . Ad it leaves an awful smell hanging in the air.

At the Queanbeyan Meeting Michael Apps, NSW/ACT went right off at all RA-Aus members because not enough voted. We are lucky if one in five casts a vote - and then we end up with a Board who, imho, have shown they couldn't run a p1ssup in a brewery. In Sth Qld this time there are two seats up for grabs so you have to vote for at least two people, preferentially. The counting is a little complex but is a sound system. I hear that John McKeown is not running again which is a pity but John has certainly done more than his fair share and copped nothing but abuse for his trouble. Anyone who by voting (or not voting) rewards Myles for his contribution to the worst year RA-Aus has ever known by putting him back on the Board will get what they deserve - more dysfunction! This useless Board needs a very long vacation and RA-Aus needs some real talent to get us headed in the right direction and away from the brink where the current Board took us and held us for months.

It would be interesting to hear from the three who chose not to attend the Clayton's Board Meeting why they chose not to attend. One can only assume that they thought the meeting was improper and they did not want to be associated with it. They need to take the bold step of telling their members why it was an improper use of members funds even though that will risk their being ostracised by the Old Boys Club clique on the Board. It would be even more interesting to hear from the OBC why one of the the three was not invited until well into Friday afternoon. It would be interesting to have the Board lift their cone of silence long enough to tell the people who paid for the meeting what the agenda for that meeting was, what information was passed to those present, how much this meeting cost including the cost of the lawyers present, and an extra nights accommodation for up to 10 Board Members and what actions were taken as a result of that meeting of Board Members that wasn't a Board Meeting. But, don't hold your breath, it seems to me that this Board will only ever tell you what they think you need to know. And they certainly don't think you ever need to hear anything but smoothed over good news that puts them in the best of good lights. Does the word "corruption" cover that behaviour? I don't know. A.B.

John, Just before you let it go altogether . . . I think we would all agree that an immediate (within 24 hours) cash payment of say $5,000 to the next-of-kin would be appreciated by the immediate dependants of a pilot who suffers fatal injuries in an aircraft accident. It takes one worry right out of a truly terrible situation. The only question is how would RA-Aus accommodate that desirable thing? It is unfair to rely on the always generous few making donations. What would it cost? Well, based on the average 6 fatals p.a. mentioned above, that would equate to a cost of $30,000 per annum Insurance companies could do that same calculation and charge $50,000 p.a. to allow for bad years and profit. Or, RA-Aus could just self-insure (i.e. absorb the cost). What impact would that have on the bottom line for RA-Aus? With revenue from members running around the$2.5 million and an annual surplus target of $250k the answer is bugger all, to use the technical bean-counters' terminology. In a bad year (10 fatals) it might $50k off the surplus that, with cash reserves of $1.75 million and net assets of $2.5 million, we just don't need. To me this is a no-brainer. It is desirable and affordable. Why not just do it? A.B.

Technically, they are "responsible" to the Board Exec. But organisationally, any real CEO would make sure the managers were doing their job. Our last CEO relied on his "duty statement" to avoid responsibility. Our Board Exec located in FNQ, Tassie and Dog Plain were unable or unwilling to do the CEO's job for him so it all went down the toilet.

We had the opportunity last year to have our accident investigations come under the ATSB who would have given 30 day preliminary reports. Our Board Exec and the CEO failed to follow up on the offer and it has probably lapsed by now. If the investigation is done under the ATSB legislation prosecutions cannot flow from the info they disclose. That way there is no need for anyone to lie and the real causes of the accident are found out and communicated. In the present system where RA-Aus help the Police, if any safety issue arises that needs something like an AD, the RA-Aus staff make sure that info gets published de-identified of course. There is no way the Ops manager would sit on that sort of info and not do something about it.

Not at the Half Year - that's a doddle. End of year is not impossible either just difficult. Actually takes a bit of planning and consultations with the external accountants. The Rule 15 could be better written but even in its current form it is doable.

Good stuff Mark. Obviously, if you want some of those things in the Constitution, it requires a Special Resolution, 21 days notice of motion and 75% pass mark of those who vote. However, there are some instructions we should be able to give the Board at the Meeting. The first thing must be just do what you are already supposed to do. Like a synopsis of Board Meeting Minutes within 30 days of the Board Meeting. Don't hold a meeting of Board Members and not invite three Board Members (McKeown, Birrell and Tatlock). How do Victorians feel about both Vic Reps being on the outer with Runciman's clique and not getting an invite to the SOS meeting they are having on Friday? You should be proud of their integrity but perhaps not so happy with Runciman and Middo for excluding them. Anyone like to turn up at the Office at 0830 on Friday for a rowdy demonstration against the Claytons Board Meeting? Board: Don't withhold any information from any Board Member - ever! Do comply with the Associations Incorporation Act, the CASA Deed and the Corporations Law! That would be a really good start. And don't appoint an ordinary member (Runciman) to the Board without them first going through an election process. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows you to do that and beware the ramifications for having done it. We have to get this Board out of the way of thinking that they'll decide what we need to know. There really is very little that must be hidden from members. Very, very little. Was anyone aware that the Constitution Review Committee has been reformed after Runciman pulled the rug on them last year? Might have been nice to have read something about that in the Magazine? Sounds like they could use the benefit of input from yourself Mark. The new CRC is Canberra based so you are in luck! As Ian posted elsewhere, where is the Half-Year (31 Dec) financial results that should have been in the February edition of the Magazine according to the Constitution Rule 15? Runciman said in his letter to the editor that they were going to do better on getting the financial results out. Would be hard to do worse than they did at the AGM but this is not better. No commitment to actually do what the Constitution obliges them to do. When are these people going to get the idea that compliance is not optional? Best endeavours is not good enough - compliance requires, well, compliance!