AlfaRomeo

How does the WA member get a list of RA-Aus members private email addresses so that he can send out his clearly political propaganda email? This is surely a breach of Privacy? There is a clear RA policy that forbids such an action precisely because many, if not most members, have specifically denied that use of their email address. Gavin - have the guts to get on here and name names and state facts. Name one single piece of misinformation! You can't because there have been NONE! This is a deliberate attack on the democratic, constitutional processes that have been invoked by 300+ independent thinkers. How can you call that a small group of members? It's close to four times the number of members who put you on the Board with a majority of just one vote. That's one way to describe RA-Aus reaching the lowest point in its entire history with hundreds of member's unable to fly airworthy aircraft because the RA-Aus Board did not take CASA seriously not once, not twice, not three times but four times. Is it true Gavin that RA-Aus actually failed one audit four times? The original audit and three follow ups? The first audit may have been unprecedented but it was forewarned months ahead of it being done. And the second, third and fourth audits were preceded by guess what? The first audit! You mean Middo, Eugene Reid, Myles Breitkreutz, Dave Caban, Steve Runciman, Rod Birrell, John Mckeown? Have your fellow Board Members all thanked you for this slur? But who were not on the Board for the 2nd third or fourth audit failures. And you were on the Board for all four audit failures. Were you too busy to worry about CASA Audits? Gavin, try reading the Constitution one day before you leave the Board. It is not that hard and it is written in plain English. If you want to change the Constitution, do what all other members have to do - put a motion for a Special Resolution with 21 days notice to a GM or AGM and achieve a 75% majority. Have a go and see how easy that is to achieve - it's a bit more difficult than changing the rules on the fly with no forethought. The Constitution was amended as recently as at the last AGM, just a few months ago, by a majority vote of 75% to allow exactly that. Every member of RA-Aus had the opportunity to vote on that motion that was given much more than 21 days advance notice. But now you seem to want to change the Constitution without notice and by a handful of your chums. Deny all you like that you are not trying to gag the meeting but if you have a meeting and no motions may be presented or voted on it starts to sound very much like a "Claytons Meeting" - the meeting you have when you do not want anything to be done. You seem to me to be desperately trying to prevent the Board being held to account for any of its numerous governance and management failures. If you had nothing to fear you would want open discussion and full accountability. Sorry Gavin, but that is not correct. Read the Constitution and the Board's own By-Laws (No. 10 para 1) and you will find that you are required to: "Represent the Members of the RA-Aus as a whole and the Members of the Region specifically" (my emphasis). All in all, this appeal from Gavin comes across to me as an attempt to denigrate members who have serious questions to ask of a Board that has racked up a succession of management and governance failures that have brought RA-Aus to its knees and left a sizeable number of its members unable to fly. As has been shown above, it also appears to be an attempt to circumvent the Rules in the Constitution whose ink has hardly had time to dry. Gavin, if you understood the contents of this post, you should immediately issue a retraction of that letter that is deeply offensive to RA-Aus members who have every right and reason to be gravely concerned about the state of RA-Aus affairs.

The Board Exec certainly gives me the impression that they have not got the slightest clue when it comes to recruitment. Despite a string of failures, they again have lurched into a poorly planned recruitment process. "Better to get someone quickly than someone good" seems to be their rationale. Choose a Canberra only agency for a National Association chief executive. How can you give the job to a recruitment agency when you don't even have a job description done? Does it go like this: RA: "Get us somebody quick, we're desperate. F2F: "What's the job you want done?" RA: "Can't say because we haven't worked that out yet" F2F: "No problem, we'll put an advert on Seek for one week, in the school hols, and and see if anyone notices" RA: "Must have a charismatic disposition!" Good grief! Can't we do better than this?

Closing the applications on 18 Jan having been in the hands of a recruitment agency and on Seek for one week is an utter, utter mockery of process. How many of the people we might like to consider would be on annual leave during January (school holidays) and unlikely to ever know the job was on offer. And why would a National Body go to a Canberra only recruitment agency? Why not go to a recruitment agency that has some clout in the aviation industry. They want the Gen Mgr to have aviation industry experience so why wouldn't they want the recruitment agency to have demonstrated success in aviation industry appointments. It seems that the Board want this process to fail. More jobs-for-the-boys? Who do they have up their sleeve to slip into the job on the grounds that it needs to be filled urgently and they are being hassled by CASA to get somebody on board?

They are great questions to put to your local member's rep. We would all like to understand that. Yes. It was included in the Thread "President Resigns and . . ." The important bit said something to the effect of "this is official notice of my resignation from the Board and as President". The key points are that he was not making an offer to resign, he was notifying of something that had already happened - that he had resigned - Past Tense. His resignation was not forward or post dated. It was immediate and unconditional and it was a resignation of both his North Queensland Board Member's position and as President. Runciman, despite continuing to pass himself off as President, resigned from the Board. End of story. The Board has no power under the Constitution to fill a casual vacancy on the Board by any means other than an election by Queensland members who live North of latitude 22 deg South. On this logic, Runciman is not President and is acting Ultra Vires. He needs to be very careful or he may end up with a very big bill to repay to RA-Aus.

Well said Jack. It is difficult in this two dimensional forum to make yourself properly understood by others. I'm sure now we all appreciate how well you do understand the issues. I contend what some have said above about "democracy". When 300+ RA-Aus members sign a petition to call for the first ever extraordinary General Meeting for RA-Aus it is a good indicator that the membership has been awoken from their apathy by the alarm clock of grounded aircraft. (apologies for the many mixed metaphors) So, I would maintain that a great number of members have taken real democratic action that is allowed under our rules of association (The Constitution). On the issue of secrecy, I despair that the current Board Exec know or can operate any way other than by secrecy and whitewash like Middo's latest epistle on the RA website. The ONLY way to get these people to tell us: what's going on, how we got into this mess, how we are going to rapidly get out of this mess and how we can set RA up for a much, much brighter future is to drag them, kicking and screaming, to a General Meeting and put them on the spot and ask them the questions at point blank range. If you think "kicking and screaming" is a bit colourful, re-read what Middo wrote in his abuse of position piece that accompanied the Notice of Meeting. How inappropriate is it for the Secretary to prejudge the issues to be raised at the meeting and be so dismissive. He's supposed to be impartial as is the Chair of the Meeting. Can anyone suggest to me that Runciman, Middo or Reid could ever be seen as an impartial Chairman of a General Meeting that has been called to review their performance? Will they do the right thing and arrange for a genuinely impartial person to Chair the GM in February? I sincerely doubt that they would give that one moment's consideration. It is really unfortunate that Middo and Reid, who each have very long service with RA-Aus, find themselves under severe criticism for the current situation. But, these were the people who handed the CEO job to their mate Tizzard without it even being advertised or any competitive interviews. And then kept in that job despite his questionable performance. You just can't run RA they way they used to when it was a small club of enthusiasts. This is now a sizeable enterprise and it needs to be run very professionally. Being a volunteer is not an excuse for RA-Aus being put in the desperate situation as it now finds itself.

It is indeed. No insurance and up to two years in the clink is a very strong set of incentives to not fly unregistered - even if you ended up doing that inadvertently because the Board Exec directed that reminders not be sent out because that was adding to the backlog and making them look bad or was that worse. More good advice, as you say, "in the environment we find ourselves in at the current time". That environment was created when the Board Exec seemed to think it was OK to stop sending out renewal reminders so that they could claim they were "winning the battle". In years past you could have relied on getting the reminder from RA in good time so that your rego would never expire and you would never have flown an unregistered aircraft. But now, as webbm says, you need to include checking your rego label as part of your pre-flight. What a ridiculous situation that is. I heard that when it was brought brought to CASA's attention that RA had stopped sending out renewals, CASA stepped in with big boots on because they considered holding back renewal notices as being a SAFETY issue. RA then very quickly resumed sending out renewals. And now we have a new (11/01/2013) report on the RA website from Middo that still just glosses over the actual situation. No mention of: how big the backlog is and whether it is getting bigger or smaller? why they shut down the rectification work between Christmas and New Year as more aircraft were added to the list of "lawn ornaments"? how long people can expect their aircraft to be grounded? what's happening to the FTFs that may have had training aircraft grounded? what's happening to the importers and distributors whose aircraft cannot be released to customers? what's happening to the Members Market sales because rego transfers are delayed? There is no doubt Middo is putting in a big effort to try and fix the problem and he should be thanked by aircraft owners for doing that. It is also good to see that he now seems to understand that more resources were needed to be employed if the backlog was ever to be reduced. However, there is still nothing like the resources being committed to the catch-up that is required. We see no evidence that the efforts to date have even allowed them to tread water. Because they are not giving us hard facts but merely encouraging whitewash you have to wonder how fast they are going backwards? And how big the backlog will become? Full credit to Dean Tompkins who, I'm sure would much rather have gone fishing than be caught up in this mess. He is doing a fantastic job and RA would be in a very, very deep black hole without his great efforts. However, the Board Executive that includes Runciman, Middo and Reid cannot be thanked for being primarily responsible for the creation of this crisis. Their mismanagement of the CEO and his of the Tech Manager(s) is how this mess was created. In my view, the Board Exec have been very slow in getting stuck into fixing this problem of their own creation. It seems like that they have never appreciated that it was a crisis and needed crisis management and maximum resources and smarter systems committed to fixing it. I can hardly believe it, even though it is widely reported, that the instruction was given to the Office Staff to lie to members who enquired about why their rego was being held up. There have been numerous reports of members having been told "its just a computer glitch". Is there anything this Exec won't do? Roll on 9th February and a new beginning for Recreational Aviation!

The "other Board Member" was of course Middo. So, do we have a person passing themselves off as President who deliberately makes misleading statements on National Media? Would that be "bringing RA-Aus into disrepute"? Punishable by excommunication? I guess he at least could take his trike over to the HGFA. EDIT: Punctuation!

By appointing an ordinary member to the Board and not allowing the NQ members stand or to vote in a by-election for the NQ Board position they have breached s50 Natural Justice.

Greybeard, we are a tiny bit off topic. If you want to read all about the President's Resignation and reincarnation, there is another thread on here devoted to that mystery. But, you are completely right, Runciman once resigned could not un-resign there is no such process available (there is no such word even). I'm sure RecFlyers won't mind too much if we summarise it all for you as: Runciman said something to the effect that he didn't have the unanimous support of the Board, and that he therefore quit as Nth Qld Board Member and as President. His resignation was unconditional and did not require anyone to accept or decline it. By the time it was received it was a done deal and Runciman was an ordinary member like the rest of us. Well, perhaps not so ordinary - a bit more precious? The next day, it seems the Board decided by majority vote that he could be the NQ Board Member and President again. If he had only quit as President the Board would be completely within their Constitutional rights to reappoint him President but, as he quit as NQ Board Member, he ceased to be eligible for the Presidency. The Board does not have the right to make anyone a Board Member. To achieve that you must face an election process and win! That Runciman resigned is a fact he acknowledges. The Board have not been able to produce written legal advice that approves their action of appointing Runciman to the Board. They say they will seek such advice around mid January. A person with real integrity and respect for due process would stand aside until legal support was able to be produced. So, FT's amusing statement on the irony still stands tall: an ordinary member presently holding themselves out to be President with the gall to accuse JT of improper conduct when all JT is trying to do is fulfil his duty as a Board Member. Gobsmacking irony! Could be the definition of irony that Wikipedia has been looking for. Apologies to JT and now, back to topic . . . Alf

The term Executive Director was used until Lee Ungermann asked if he could use the title CEO. Nobody outside RA-Aus knew what an Executive Director was and everyone, everywhere immediately understood what a CEO is with the possible exception of the last incumbent. I very much doubt that any of those changes to the Constitution went to a vote by the Members.

Jim, Congratulations again for your principled stand. While it is exactly the duty you took on when you were elected it can become quite arduous to achieve when those around you don't seem to realise that they owe the same duty to the members. It is hard to fathom how little is understood, by some on the Board and the Exec in particular, about what a Board Member's duties are. Perhaps this comes about from spending so much time in command & control environments or at low level positions in the Public Service? Who knows? In their professional life they appear to have been excused duty when it came to management training. What they really need to know is ignorance is no defence - especially when they have been told and yet continue to feign ignorance of their fiduciary duties. Attempting to overtly create two classes of Board Members: - those trusted sycophants in the know and - those independent minded to be kept in the dark is a very perilous path to tread and will invite the attention of the ORS and possibly ASIC. Firstly, by doing this, they remove any liability from the Board Members so victimised and kept in the dark and, secondly, they double their own culpability for all the ills of the organisation. Anyone know how to spell insane? But, rest assured it is not bullying because our Führer has done the course and he cannot possibly be a bully - because he said he isn't. And he would know.

The primary purpose of this meeting is to get the Board to communicate with the members something it seems that they have resisted up to now with enormous resolve. The first item on the Agenda gives the floor to the Board to give an account of their stewardship of RA-Aus. An honest account, I believe, would show that there have been many poor decisions made and the result has been RA-Aus pushed to the brink of existence. You just can't do that and expect everyone to sit back and say that is good enough. There will be many questions asked of the Board and I get the feeling it will be like pulling teeth trying to get straight answers if the last AGM is anything to go by. Motions from the floor will arise. No doubt about it. What they might be nobody can really say until the Board has been given a fair hearing. Based on the information most of us will have heard for the very first time, decisions will be made on the way forwards. I would expect that the Board will receive instructions from the floor phrased as motions directing them, for example, to form a Finance sub-committee with no more than one Board member (the Treasurer) plus say three members who have recognised finance qualifications. This will fix the appalling lack of compliance with the Constitution and the Act and raise the standard of reporting to the Board and the ordinary members. Will the Board Executive receive some kind of censure from the floor? Depends on the accounting they give of their time on the Exec. If they have done the wrong thing they can hardly expect a pat on the back. Every member of RA-Aus has the right to be at the Meeting on 9th Feb or send a proxy. Anyone giving a proxy gives it to somebody whose judgement they trust. The person they give it to will hear things at the Meeting that the Board has declined to communicate until then. Based on what they hear they will want some action from the Meeting. Why else have they come to Canberra? Members who attend the meeting will have spent, in total, in excess of $100,000. The Board will have spent, I'm guessing, more than $10,000 for the Board Members to fly in and be accommodated and to attend. If the Meeting is made ineffective by the Board getting cute with rulings on points of order, etc., they will have severely frustrated the democratic aims of the members and wasted a vast sum of members funds in the process. If that happens, I think there will be a very heavy price for the Board to pay for any such cavalier approach.

Cooda, Rule 20 (viii) seems quite bizarre to me. You would have to wonder who dreamed up this Rule. It is not taken from the Model Rules in the Regs. I have no idea what the author had in mind would be good about having such a rule on our books. For example, imagine a candidate did a deal with a friend who was on the staff of RA-Aus and between them they cooked an election so that the candidate got elected. Rule 20 (viii) would seem to say that anything done by that person in the capacity as Board Member would be binding on RA-Aus. Even after it had been found out and the Board Member disqualified.

There are some on the Board who look at their title "Members Representative on the Board" and see only "Board Member" and think "Director" or "Powerful Official". Clearly, when Jim looks, he sees "Members Representative". Well done Jim, I know it is not easy to hold your nerve while standing against a bunch of would be bullies. But in the end, their ineptitude just makes you giggle. And there are enough of us with great determination to drive the Board back to democracy, good governance, sensible management and collegiate teamwork and away from a command and control dictatorship.

RA has a membership database called, I think, "Pulse". That's what Mick Poole would have been looking at during Board Meetings. From any database, it is a very simple and quick process to come up with the number of members in each category of membership - Ordinary, Honorary, Affiliate, Temporary and Life. If Runciman wanted to know, he could have known by 10 a.m., 2 Jan 2013, an hour after the Office opened. Why would he have to wait until 7 Jan? If the membership numbers were being deliberately fudged (up), it would leave room for a number of scams like overpaying insurance to a broker and getting a kickback. Personally, I would be amazed if that has happened. For the record, Secretary Middleton, at the last AGM, announced with pride that "Membership numbers are still growing,and as of July this year we had 13,123 members of which 11,616 were pilots. I am sure you will agree these are very heartening numbers." A count recently provided from the Office said there were 9,416 members of whom 8,968 were flying members. And there was another report, not from the Office, that there were 15,000 copies of the magazine produced each month. The only thing clear here is that the most significant statistic for RA, the number of members, is not known by the President or the Secretary whose main job includes meeting the requirements of s67 of the Act "An incorporated association must keep and maintain a register of its members . . ."

Why ask the ORS for reports? Why not just complain to the ORS that the Board have breached the Act in several aspects. And let CASA know that the Board have breached the Deed of Agreement. The Deed requires the Board to Act within the law. Breaching the Act breaches the Deed. And there are plenty of other things agreed to in the Deed that this mob have not got done. Wait. The Board are only volunteers so any FU of any proportion we should just live with after all they are doing, as they tell us, the best they can. Wait. That really is absolute BS. If the best they can do is ignore the Constitution for months on end (financial reports) and breach the Act in several areas, and breach the Deed of Agreement, their best really is not good enough. Keep going this way and best endeavours could see us with RA bankrupt.

The Board is given that right by toe Constitution. Nobody can say otherwise. But, the Board must choose from among their own ranks. The Board cannot appoint an ordinary member President. And please, let's not attempt analogies with Whitlam and Runciman. The Royal prerogative and RA are, let me assure you still unconnected last time I looked.

Yenn, the purpose of the meeting was set out as to hear from the Board for their handling of the affairs of RA and then have a Q&A session. On the basis of what we find out at the meeting some motions are expected from the floor. If we went to the meeting with motions already written it would prejudge what the Board has to tell us. Giving a proxy to somebody is trusting them to vote as you would if you were there. You would not want to give your proxy to anyone you did not trust or even to somebody you did trust unless you have given them instructions on how you would want them to vote. There are some things it is hard to see that the Board could explain satisfactorily. For example, secrecy. How is it that the first most members found out about four audit failures was when their aircraft was grounded. Or, that for four days the staff were instructed to lie to members and tell them it was due to a computer glitch when it was really due to CASA pulling the right to register aircraft because RA had proven beyond any doubt that they could not be trusted with aircraft registrations. There are other issues that may be explained to the satisfaction of the members present. It is vital for as many to go to the meeting as possible because you can then make up your own mind and even move a motion if you think you have a reason to do so. Also, the meeting will only be a success if it results in a way forward being established. Just sacking the guilty will not fix the fundamental structural issues plaguing RA.

Just for fun . . . In the ordinary sense the Feb 9th meeting can be described as an extraordinary general meeting as it is not a scheduled general meeting. It was requisition in response to an emergency - members aircraft stranded on the ground. But, the Board decided that does not justify an emergency and would have preferred the meeting to be held 125 days after it was requisitioned but caved in and put it on 77 days after it was called for. Now that is audacious! As of the last AGM, and against the wishes of the Board, RA has one scheduled GM each year to be held on Easter Saturday at Natfly. RA has one (of course) AGM each year in late September. An AGM is a special type of General Meeting with the agenda carved in stone in the Constitution. It requires the Board to have copies of the audited accounts available before the meeting and for each member attending the AGM. Didn't happen as the Board were too busy doing . . General Meetings, whether scheduled or extraordinary have the same form. And are not bound by the restrictions that apply to an AGM. A general meeting can be described as a special general meeting if a motion for a special resolution is to be voted on at the meeting. A special resolution is one which if passed by a 75% majority would amend the Constitution. 21 days notice is required for a special general meeting and 14 days notice for an general meeting (scheduled or extraordinary). Hope this is of use.

Got to love democracy when it works! Well done YCNK!

The first CASA audit in Nov 2011 was not in response to the Old Bar incident. It had been scheduled long before that. No doubt the CASA auditors (Lee Ungermann was one of) interest was sharpened by the Old Bar incident. That incident should have been a huge warning to RA. But for an enormous amount of good luck, there could have been multiple fatalities of non aviation people. That incident had the potential to wipe out the $2.5million of RA net assets and bankrupt RA. Yet 12 months later we were still failing CASA audits. That was not CASA's fault. Numbers painted under wings are there to identify law breakers. They are essential to safety over time. Their absence won't cause wings to fall off but they are a serious safety requirement.

Turbo, I must respectfully disagree with you and support Sunfish. I believe we have a dysfunctional Board. Sacking the entire Board and replacing them without fixing the structural problems will get us back to,where we are now very quickly. We must have fewer Board Members and selected on the basis of skill not geography. There are problems with the management reporting structures that need to be fixed to avoid a CEO with no responsibilities. We cannot function with a CEO or GM who reports to the Board only twice per year. People wonder about member apathy but they only have the opportunity to participate once per year at the AGM. We need more General Meetings per year so members are engaged and the Board connected to the members more often than once every two years. Even with a Board of 13, it seems no Board Member can spare the time to do the governance properly let alone take on strategic planning and advancement. There were three notable resignations from the Board in recent times (not counting the President). Driven away by legal threats, insurance inadequacies and frustration that the amateurs would not listen to the Professionals. A PhD, a jet freight business proprietor with 200 engineers on staff and an experienced graduate accountant. And they were replaced by, a failed Treasurer, another CFI and a an enthusiastic amateur. RA has not been well managed by a Board but the same people could be good at Policy if they are supported by a highly competent and motivated professional MANAGER! Aviation knowledge is desirable but not as critical as a proven track record of top level management. RA does not need to have the superstructure of a BHP just because the Board stay out of the office and leaves that to the employed management. All the Board needs to manage is the Chief Executive whatever his/her title. What might have worked for Sporting Shooters may not work for RA and so far history is not on the side of RA being run by the Board Exec.

"Sack the whole Board!" might give some members a good feeling, especially those whose aircraft has been grounded for some time with no clear advice on when they might be able to get back in the air. On the basis of their many failings, it could be argued that "sacking the lot" is deserved. It could also be argued that "sacking the lot" will give us the clean sheet from which to rebuild without any influence from the people who have created the mess we are in. However, I still see sacking the whole Board as extreme and probably unnecessary at this stage. It would be difficult to justify a sacking (Natural Justice) for the new Board Members like Jim Tatlock and Cliff McCann who can not be held responsible for the current calamity. They really did inherit the mess as opposed to people like Dave Caban and Myles Breitkreutz who've been on the Board for most of the last decade or so. I would not be concerned by a decision of the General Meeting that removed the current Board Exec (Runciman/Middleton/Reid) who were most responsible for the appointment and/or supervision of CEO Tizzard and two Tech Managers and for the CASA audit failures that lead to aircraft sitting on the ground. I have enough faith in the 10 remaining Board Members to be able to recognise that the members want real change. The General Meeting will, hopefully, give them some instructions to better see what changes are needed. If that message does not get through in February, then just seven weeks later, at 11 am on Saturday 30th March 2013 (at Natfly Temora) we have another opportunity to reinforce the message. That meeting is already scheduled and you may right now write to the Secretary providing him with questions on notice for that meeting and items for the agenda including ordinary motions and even motions for Special Resolutions to change the Constitution. It is your democratic right to do that under the changes made to the Constitution at the last AGM. All you need to be is a financial member of our Association. Some people are clearly worried by some of our more intemperate outbursts on RecFlying. These are often "off the top of the head" comments. A lynch mob would not pass the Natural Justice test and any rash move would simply be invalidated. On the other hand, people who are going to the expense (around $1,000 for many) of attending the meeting are getting themselves well prepared and thinking through what needs to be done and how it may be achieved. These are not hotheads but experienced people who care enough about RA to put considerable personal effort and money into getting RA back on the rails and setting it up for a much brighter future.

I would go a little further and suggest that if we lost all three of the Exec on or before 9th February, it would be a positive step ahead for RA. With those three relieved of their commissions, the remaining 10 Board Members might just reach the realisation that the membership is distinctly unhappy with an Exec who do not feel obliged to observe the letter of the Constitution. "It is accepted that these [Financial Statements] are later than we would have liked . . ." was the form of Runciman's abject apology for being 3 months late with the Financial Statements and breaching the Act in the process. The remaining Board Members might actually start to see themselves as Members Representatives instead. They might also realise that they need to change their behaviour or leave the management of RA. If another three Board Members resigned in protest against the democratic will of the General Meeting, we would still have 7 remaining and more than enough to steer RA until by-elections have been held or a new constitution is approved at Natfly or the next AGM.

The first failure was put down to the then Tech Mgr not doing his job. There was no criticism allowed of who you would think was his boss, CEO Tizzard. The Tech Mgr reports to the Board according to the Ops Manual. And the CEO relied on that technicality plus the fact that he should be able to rely (absolutely?) on the technical capability of the Tech Mgr. Nonsense I hear you say? Your call. So, conveniently, the then Tech Mgr resigns and we get a new Tech Mgr who, after a few months in the deep end of a cess pit, is sacked! No criticisms allowed of the CEO presumably for the same reasons. No criticisms of the president or Board Exec allowed and the Board are only volunteers and cannot be criticised either. Anyone want to trust these people to get it third time right?