AlfaRomeo

I believe the relocation people talk about was Lee Ungermann being moved to Brisbane to be the "Northern Operations Manager". This would, you would expect, have been approved by the Board of the time. People like Eugene Reid, Myles Breitkreutz, Dave Caban, Rod Birrell would have been on the Board then. If anyone wants to know more, ask one of them. Lee subsequently went to work for CASA of course. We will know the details when the Board are in a position to tell us. That of course may be around the 12th of never if we go on past performance. To be fair, this could affect personal reputations and we do not want to damage anybody's unfairly. We must let the auditors do their work and report to the Board. The Board may have to involve the Police if there has been apparent fraud. Let's leave it to the experts for now. That doesn't stop us worrying about the accounts not presented at the last AGM.

Some requests for information will need to be given to the Board "on notice" like "Please have available for each member attending the General Meeting the full written text of the questions of, and answers from, the Board's legal adviser in connection with Steve Runciman's resignation from the Board and his subsequent reappointment as Nth Qld members' representative. This seems like it is the only way that anyone other than Middo will ever see "advice" that has now achieved mythical status. If this advice turns out to be "verbal" (oral) it is worth as much as the paper it's not written on. Other questions, many starting with the word "Why" are likely to arise as a result of answers to questions by Board Members.

Methusala, Tendering a resignation could be seen as an offer to resign. Such an offer could be accepted or declined. But, when the email is specifically stated to be taken as official notification that a resignation has happened then there is nothing that can be accepted or declined as it has happened. It is absolute and unconditional. From that point on, only an election can reinstate a person to the Board. In my view, this Board, by illegitimately giving a Board position to Steve Runciman is compromising every decision they now take. If SR had the best interests of RA at heart, he would step aside and end this bad situation. That they tried to hide the fact that SR resigned and the Board's decision to attempt to reinstate him should make anyone wonder. Having now staked their reputations that they were right they have painted themselves into a corner and can't back away from what to me is a looney decision. And RA will be left to clean up the mess so created.

Spot on David! Why would anyone want to go to Canberra at considerable personal expense when they could be spending it on real aviation? Nobody wants a General Meeting. The only reason 300+ members signed the requisition was because it was the only way they could get some facts out of the Board Executive. If they had been prepared to talk to us, we could have just enjoyed the holiday season. My guess is we will get more than 100 to the General Meeting and it will cost, on average, more than $500 per member. So $50,000 because the Board Exec like to be super secretive and ignore the Constitution and breach the Act as if it did not apply to them. I bet many on the Board still don't know what Act we are talking about (Gavin) and those that have an inkling still haven't read it. They by their actions don't feel obliged to act within our Constitution or apologise if they breach it and take corrective action (Treasurer).

The previous Treasurer that received a vote of no confidence from the Board was the recently returned to the Board, Dave Caban. I don't think there was any impropriety involved, just an inability to do the job or perhaps that was unwillingness? Eugene was dropped as President by a Board who thought he was ineffectual and he was desperate to get back into the Exec. even if it was in a job that he had no skills for or interest in doing. What it seems he really wants is to be President again so,he can wear his Greek Cruise Ship Captains uniform with all the gold braid. By now, Eugene should have also been given a vote of no confidence for his failures as Treasurer. Seems the Board are not really bothered by their breaches of the Constitution and the Act if you go by Runciman's letter to the Editor.

Maj, benchmarking as the technicians like to call it can be helpful for all who engage. But, I always felt that you had to fix the obvious things before you set out to see what everyone else is doing which is more for fine tuning than basic setup. But this Board cannot see the basic flaws in the org structure. ST claimed he was not responsible for the Tech Manager stuff ups on two grounds. First he believed that he was entitled to rely on the special knowledge of the Tech Manager. Second, the TM reported to the Board not to the CEO. Have a look at the Ops Manual. That is what it says. Has the Board worked out yet that there is a problem with relying on the technical capabilities of the Tech Manager(s) and being letdown? Happened twice. Get rid of two tech managers and rely on a third? This is nuts! The Captain of a ship is responsible for what goes on in the Engine room. He can't just rely on the word of the Chief Engineer. The Captain must interrogate the Chief to make sure he knows what he is doing - before the ship loses drive and ends up on the rocks. RAAus is too big for the current style of "management". It just has not worked. Runciman's resignation created the space for a new, more professional approach that is so foreign to the current Exec. Now all we need is for the other two to take responsibility for the mess they have crated and fall on their swords as well and then we can get on with the future. Maj, we need professional managers not just people who shxt birdseed or own/operate FTFs on the Board.

Didn't Runciman resigned recently leaving a vacancy for NQ?

Turbo, again you are right in theory but what you describe is so far away from where we are now you can perhaps forgive me for being pessimistic about reaching Nirvana as you describe it. For example, with 13 Board Members, they have the devil of a time to fill even one subcommittee with one Board Member. Plenty want to be on the Board but very few want to actually do anything. The Teasurer needed 3 months to get the Financials from being signed to being on the website. Some could have done this in one day. That is what leads me to think that RA has to be driven from GM level and just guided from the Board. When was the last time RA had a Board with genuine drive, zeal even?

Would have been nice if they had done the organisation review, rejigged the org structure so that the Tech Manager reports to the GM. Not to the Board through the GM. And then perhaps clarified the GMs job description and the Tech Managers as well. A more realistic time to closure of applications and wider advertising particularly of the GM role might have been more convincing. Assistance of a recruitment consultancy can be helpful or a smokescreen. Who knows what this will be? Quick closing of the applications period does raise an eyebrow. As always, proof will be in the pudding. Was somebody's mate given the job or will it be genuine, for a change. Will the "preferred candidate" be given the interview questions beforehand and coached in the answers? One thing is very clear - the current Exec should stand aside from the selection process due to their previous string of abject failures.

Firstly, regarding Macca, my last comment is "how do you spell troll?" The only way to live with trolls is to totally ignore them and I will, henceforthth, take my own advice on the subject. Turbo, while you are technically right about RA having a management committee and not a Board I totally disagree on a practical level. In my view, RA needs a Board and a genuine Geeneral Manager nothing remotely like the CEO of the last few years. Sunfish may be technically incorrect as RA is an incorporated Assoc but he is spot on practically. RA does not need to change its form of incorporation to get the technics right but it may be desirable to end any confusion. This is a job for the Constitution Review Committee to consider. In my simple view, the problems RA face at the moment are down to mismanagement. Members have mismanaged who they have allowed onto the Board, the Board has mismanaged the CEO and the CEO does not seem to me to have appreciated the meaning of the word "Chief". I believe our current structure could work but we need a Board with skilled people on it not just CFIs. Critically, we need a very capable and industrious General Manager. The coming General Meeting is the democratic process at work. It is the members stepping away from their previous mismanagement of the Board and reestablishing the members as the owners and top managers of RA. The Board seem to have acted as if they had absolute power and we know what absolute power does . . .

On their website they nominate 9 specialties including mining and oil & gas. No mention of Aviation or not for profit. There are firms in Canberra who claim an aviation speciality. Have to wonder why F2F got the job.

Back to topic. Fact: Steve Runciman resigned as Nth Qld Board Member and thus became just an ordinary member. Fact: The Board purported to make ordinary member Steve Runciman President of a Board he was not a member of. Fact: Steve Runciman is still an ordinary member not a Board Member and can not become a Board Member again unless he goes through an election process. Fact: any action taken by the Board or Board Exec is potentially invalid while SR acts as though he were a Board Member. Fact: Middo has not provided any legal advice to the Board and refused to provide it to ordinary members who ask for it. Why not? Got none? Macca, got any facts? Or just lots of hate and misplaced pity? Your extremely vitriolic attack against the people as opposed to a logical crushing of their arguments is identical to Steve Runciman's standard operating tactic. Could "Macca" be a pseudonym for . . . you know who?

And most Management Accountants are CPA and most public practice accountants are CA. An accountant can only create the info. It is up to the Board to choose to communicate with the members and this Board invariably chooses minimum to no communication as the preferred approach. Accountants need to be managed the same as any other professional. Give an accountant free reign and they can do a lot of good or a lot of damage. It is up to the top manager to get the best result.

We do appreciate you taking the plunge here and the good work you are doing by adding facts which kill rumour. Steve Runciman has repeated many, many times that if we want to know anything just ring him and all will be answered. But if you ask him you will find almost nobody does. Why? Who knows and why doesn't matter. What does matter is that as a communication strategy it has been tried for years and gets a near nil result. Point is members don't ring him and they won't ring you. If they did how would you handle 2,000 calls just from Victoria? So, even if members did ring their Board member, it would be very inefficient. RAA needs a better communication strategy than that. Then there is the strategy of expecting members to volunteer to help. That doesn't seem to work too well in the real world either. What might work is a targeted call for assistance along the lines that we need people with skills x and y to assist with project z. Offer to cover out of pocket expenses. Now, that could produce very good results. Thanks again for taking the time to see what some of the more vocal members of RAA are thinking.

Only a Board Member can be Treasurer. We have 13 Board Members, of them how many are accountants? Nil? Perhaps we should elect people based on their skills not where they live!

RAA do not have a qualified accountant on staff. They rely on the external auditors for technical accounting. They do have a clerk who is high quality and learned on the job. There is virtually zero IT expertise in house but Bas is doing a great job in getting some real improvements.

A smart accountant can do the job better and in less time with less effort than your average Tasmanian Flight Instructor - and I'm not talking about cficare. A person without much experience in general management or finance will not be as successful.

Need? Perhaps not need but there can be a distinct advantage especially if we are talking business accountant (usually CPA) rather than chartered accountant (CA). I see the Treasurer more as the Finance Director. And as you say 68V, an employed accountant is a top priority. Most younger accountants have good IT skills and RAA definitely needs that. So the "Finance Director" has a quality control role and is an advisor to the Board. The FD reviews the process for putting the Budget together but preparing the Budget is the job of the CEO supported by Manager reports and the accountant. The CEO presents the Budget to the Board as his/her plan and the FD assures the Board that the process for assembling the Budget was good and then asks the difficult questions of the CEO. If you are on the Board and you don't have a clue about finance then do us all a favour and don't put your hand up for the job. Alf

Rocketing, you bring a good degree of moderation to this discussion. Thanks for joining in. As has been said, some of us have been ground down by the track record of some Board Members (sadly the majority) and now we almost expect them to exhibit the Cassanova touch with their every endeavour.

Of course, putting it on the website does not meet the requirements of the Act to have copies available to all before and during the AGM. Also there is, incredibly, a substantial minority of members who do not have access to the RAA website for a number of reasons.

Shags, We'll be sorry to lose you to GA - please come back and share your wit and wisdom sometimes when you get the urge. Note 1 is part of the 8 pages of tech stuff deliberately omitted. However, the Auditor's Report, a critical document was also omitted but by mistake. To rectify this stuff up, the info that was put up on the RAA website is complete with no omissions. Too bad for anyone who doesn't go there. The 26% increase in the pay to senior staff may well have provoked the current audit checks but we don't know that as a fact. Based on Note 14 "Related Party Transactions", this massive increase relates to just the top 4 or 5 managers - "Key Management Personnel". It is a pity no explanation was offered by the Treasurer for this at the AGM. Perhaps a member might like to write and ask him what it is all about and pass on what they find out. Good luck with that. Most of the stuff ups that have happened over the last 12 months or more have been kept very quiet by the Board Exec, to the members' utter frustration or blissful ignorance - whichever way you want to look at it. However, with a financial investigation it is quite different. It was essential that we find out from RAA that financial auditors have been called in because the word would have leaked out and speculation would have been out of control. Until the auditors have done their investigation and reported, there should be virtually nothing more said about this issue. Speculation now can adversely affect the reputation of people who may be completely innocent. It could end up a matter for Police and there is no way anyone would want to compromise a prosecution. At least we can be very confident our Board will be able to maintain secrecy on this matter, it is after all what they do best. So, we should all just take a deep breath and wait patiently until we can be told in detail what the problem was, how it came about and what's been done to fix the financial control weaknesses so it does not happen again. Alf

If it were truly an "Emergency" General Meeting wouldn't it have been on before Christmas? Instead of putting the General Meeting back, they could have brought the Board Meeting forward from February. There was more than enough going on for the Board to talk about that shouldn't wait for a couple of months. As you say, they just needed to put it off as long as possible and hope all the bad news went away. Putting the General Meeting off to Easter would certainly allow time for a heap of all new problems to be created by the people responsible for the current mess. For example, I don't think Eugene & Middo's records with selecting management staff have exactly covered them in glory and yet they are currently launching into recruiting two absolutely key management roles. Tizzard's employment might have been a job for a good mate but perhaps he has not been the most successful Chief Executive RAA has had, considering the last 12 months or more under his command. How many Tech Managers have we had this year - 2 going for three? How long did Tizzard's predecessor last, was it two weeks or four? Nah, lets be fair. Let's cancel the General Meeting and give them all a couple more years to get us back on track. Clearly, they are on top of their game and everything's going well.

Not sure how you can associate "more informative" and that statement on the RAA website. I know I'm a little slow but, based on that statement, how would you know if somebody fudged an extra beer on their expenses or held up the payroll! Not knocking bringing in the auditors but I don't think you'd do that unless you suspected there was something seriously not right. Let's hope not. You can forgive errors but not fraud - if that's what it is. We've seen enough RAA funds peed up against the wall due to the current registrations stuff up without waving goodbye to more. Is there no end to the bad news coming from the Exec?

So, after more than 40,000 viewings of this thread are we any the wiser on the basis of information from the RA-Aus website? I'm not. Why is it that the Board, who all read this site and make up many of the viewings but almost none of the posts, cannot see that there is a demand for information? Has RA-Aus posted any of the Audit reports on the official site? Any information of any kind about the Safety Audits that is quantitative not general waffle? What will it take to wake up these people, our representatives, so that they get the message that we want to know what TF is going on.

Col, If a Board Members is "convicted" of an offence against the Act and fined, RAA and its insurers are prohibited from paying the fine for the Board Member. I seriously doubt that they could even justify paying for a legal defence. If the matter was defended and lost then the Board Member might find himself in the position of having to reimburse RAA for the cost of the defence. The point is, do not break the law!!! My bet is that many of these blokes haven't read the act and just don't know that they have committed an offence.