AlfaRomeo

Pete - Could not agree more. Alf

An action against an individual Board Member would have to be taken in the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). The outcome could be for that individual to be disqualified from being a member of the Management Committee (Board) for a period set down by the ACAT. I can't imagine a financial penalty being imposed but the Act does provide for a fine of up to something like $2,000 for an offence against, for example section 73 of the Act. But, the penalties are there for a reason - to deter people from committing the offences. The Registrar-General of the Office of Regulatory Services could, if he/she chooses to, initiate such an action if the Committee (Board) Member has committed an offence against the Associations Incorporation Act, 1991. Treasurer Reid appears to have committed a number of offences against s73 of the Act and so may have the Chair of the last AGM, Paul Middleton. Both could be disqualified for not providing the Financial Statements at the AGM. The Minutes (unratified) of the AGM that are published on the RA-Aus website include a false statement "Financial Statements and the Auditors Report for the financial year ending 30 June 2011 were tabled and read by Eugene Reid, the Treasurer". As anyone who was there would know, the Financials for neither 2011 nor 2012 financial years were available at the AGM held at Heck Field. As the Financials were signed off by the Board and the Auditor on 30 August, but not presented to the AGM, it is possible that all Board Members, not just the Exec, are guilty of an offence against the Act. The offence against s73 of the Act was dismissed lightly by Mr Runciman in the December/January edition of SportPilot: ". . . these (financials) were later than we would have liked and will strive to improve in this area.". Could it be that the Exec see the Associations Incorporation Act, 1991 as a guideline rather than any sort of binding obligation? Perhaps no one on the Board has ever had a good read of the Act to see what it requires of people who take on Committee (Board) roles. KGW: "I don't believe any member of the Board (I prefer to call them The Management Committee) took on their roles as a personal power trip". Perhaps a glance at a photograph of a former President dressed in the civilian equivalent of an Air Commodore's uniform might raise an eyebrow about "power trips". Or perhaps a discussion with some of the four or five most recent Board Members to resign mid-term term, in part due to the overbearing, command & control style of Mr Runciman might also raise a question about "personal power trips". I would very much hope that nobody does the job for personal gain as only reasonable, out-of-pocket expenses may be reimbursed by RA-Aus. However, as there is no financial internal audit, how would we know? Why would the financial records be in better shape than the registration records? The external auditors do not look for detailed "errors" in the way internal auditors do. Why has the CEO not sought routine internal audit? Alf

Problem, what problem? Just ask Middo, he'll tell you "we are winning the battle" and "The backlog of aircraft which have no identified issues on file has been dealt with". And that, what ever it means, is the truth - Secretary Middo wouldn't lie.

Requisitioning a General Meeting could be seen to be an extreme move. However, it became necessary when the Board Exec failed the No. 1 reason for being of RAAus: members having registered aircraft that they can operate (above ground level) with their pilot certificates. The other primary reason we needed the Board to stand before the members and give an account of their actions and inactions was because they seem to be unable to fully communicate any other way. How we got into this situation, the full truth about this situation and how we are to get out of it and how/why we will never be in this situation again have not, imho, been genuinely forthcoming from the Board Exec. There have been breaches of the Constitution by the Exec in financial and minutes reporting and their attempt to appoint Mr Runciman to the Board after his resignation. There was the unsuccessful attempt by the then President to block reform of the Constitution by cancelling the commission of the Constitution Reform Comittee. The Board has also cancelled the GYFTS committee. We must get from this Board a quantum leap in honest communication with the members. They must take seriously their obligations to CASA for good governance. They must hold sacred the Constitution of RAAus that at the moment they don't even give lip service. Macca, is this an extreme view, middle ground or an understatement? Should the Board Exec stay in office when they have so little regard for the Rules set by the members of RAAus? I'll leave that for you to judge Macca but I would be very interested to hear that judgement from you when you have had time to think about it. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to get the Board's honest view on these matters. They just will not tel us.

Macca, my apologies. My post came across as aggressive and worse. It was not intended as such. I'd like to blame text as communication but that would be a cop out. Just poorly expressed. Your question deserved better.

Macca, there were around 300 members who requisitioned the General Meeting. That is not a few trouble makers. While some Board Members may have earned a break from Board duties, the main aim of the General Meeting is to secure a better future for RAAus. An end to nepotism, real two-way communication and no more secrecy! We need a revamp of the Constitution and even the management structure needs modernising. There are 13 Board members. You could sack half and you'd still have enough. We are not short of Board Members but we are short of expertise on the Board and at the top level of Management. You interested?

The answer is Board sub-committees. There are as we all know, some very talented, experienced and highly skilled members who would be prepared to do some work but not want to sign up for two years as a Board Member. The current Board have killed off the GYFTS Committee and shut down the Constitution Review Committee. Perhaps the Ops Manual Committee is working now but how would anyone know about that?

Prima Donna = First Lady. Are you calling us Michelle Obamas?

John McK for President!

Thanks Dodo. Great explanation. You should be on the Board!!!

John, thanks for continuing to be one of the few Board Members who can not only spell communicate but actually do communicate - both send and receive. Some seem to have their finger stuck on the transmit button. A question though, How is this a "very technical matter"? Is n't it just a question of checking a file against a checklist? How many engineering degrees does it take to decide if there is a photo of numbers on file or not. Similarly for all other items that need to be on file as per the official checklist? Surely this is a bulk clerical exercise? If all the records were online, you could write a computer program to do the checking. In fact, if they were online no errors would have been accepted by the computer program (if written correctly). There could be separate checklists for each aircraft class, LSA, UL, 95.10 etc.

How do you feel about job security? The new GM better be pretty careful . . . Robbie Costmeyer (CEO) shown the door; Steve Bell (Tech Manager) shown the door; Adam Finn (Tech Manager) marched out the door; Steve Tizzard (CEO) shown the door (through which he could see his grandchildren frollicking . . . ahhh ... ) New GM . . . . anyone want a sweep on how long he/she lasts?

I wasn't asking the questions . . . perhaps because I already know the answer? It is important that people find out for themselves from the source not get it second-hand from an anonymous writer on a public forum. And it is important that the Treasurer finds out for himself so he can answer an intelligent question or two from the members. I'd be prepared to put a couple of bucks on him not having a clue. It took him 3 months after the accounts were signed off to publish them so, on that basis, don't expect a quick response to your questions.

You can ask but should never quote them as the source. They do not deserve to be brought into this mess. However, if they sit back do anything the Board asks of them, like "tell the punters we have had a computer glitch" when they know that registrations have been withheld by CASA then they become complicit in the downfall of RA-Aus. BTW I have heard from more than one person that that actually happened. Quite agree but then the President & Middo shouldn't be saying the "Board" are working flat out when in fact it is just two out of 13!

Why guess, why not just ask the Master of the Treasury, that noted financier, Eugene Reid? The President said you could and should.

Why not just ask to join the RA-Aus Constitution Review Committee? Oh, that's right the Board killed it off.

From one who was there, I feel the Minutes are a heavily sanitized version of what went on. There was uproar over the President's Report and for a while it looked like the Meeting would not accept it at all. The Minutes look long at 18 pages. However, when you take out the 10 pages of Questions on Notice and the pat answers from the President (in absentia), a couple of pages of the vote on the Special Resolutions, a couple of pages for the formalities, a page or so of the Meritorious Service Award for Carol Richards, the the six hour meeting was summed up in 3 pages. For example "A lengthy discussion was held on Insurance matters" was summed up in one line! Questions of the Board from the floor were recorded but not the answers! This is a mockery of Minute taking. Perhaps what they say is correct "All power rests in the hands of the Minute taker" or in this case the Minute's editor.

Steve, I agree we are not too far apart - just a question of how conservative should you be. What RA-Aus lacks is as you put it a long term view of where we want to be in, say, 5 or 10 years time. It also lacks some 21st Century information technology. Make that not some but a lot. Office systems are heavily manual and prone to error - fancy that? We don't have the modern communication capability that is desperately needed but not welcomed by a Board hell bent on confidentiality or, in plain English, secrecy. Stupid thing is despite all the secrecy, as soon as aircraft started to be grounded everybody began to understand just how bad things had gotten behind the great walls of Fyshwick. And who doesn't learn more on Rec Flying than from the RA-Aus website?

Be careful Riley, if you ask too many hard questions, they just cut you off and refuse to communicate.

Steve, you might want to have another look at RAAus assets. There is more cash than you can poke a stick at $1.8 million. You could be right about the building being over valued but the Board and the Auditors have just signed off to say it is OK at $1 million. Natfly costs RAAus about $30,000 but gets Revenue of more than that. It is not any sort of a risk to RAAus reserves. The big risk to Reserves is under insurance of stuff ups by the Board and Staff. The target of 10% surplus each year is the wrong target. The right target is more like your idea of a % of total turnover for one year. Current net assets are virtually 100% of annual turnover and in my view is over the top! It means that fees have been too high for years. Edit : added a bit

Mr T, I have to disagree with virtually everything you have said regarding RAAus. Can't comment on Sporting Shooters - might to dangerous to argue with them. RAAus being managed by the Board or the Exec has been a dismal failure. The Board are not just there to serve the members but their primary job is to keep aircraft flying. Failed with a capital F. Trying to run this business with amateurs who are spread from Townsville to Tassie is not a good design. We need an effective professional full time employed management. We need a Board to stay out of the Office and work at the highest level. They should not attempt to manage other than the a general Manager. Ops & Tech managers should report to the GM not the Exec nor the Board.

Riley, by supporting the Exec and particularly Ex Pres Runciman, Gavin is aligning himself with those who are part of the problem - not part of the solution. He needs to look harder at what he is being fed by the Exec and spit most of it out.

It may not make the ex-President look good but, being true, it cannot be defamatory.

Having blamed one tech manager and shown him the door because he wasn't to be trusted, did they then hire a more trustworthy Tech Manager only to show him the door a few months later? What a fabulous management system! I wonder if Harvard knows about it? Incidentally, who wants to be No. 3? Could you imagine anyone who knows anything of what happened to the last two lining up to be No. 3?