DonRamsay

I thought I would complete a proxy for the AGM but I don't know who to nominate as a member and member number &/or alternative must be specified. Also the Proxy form is an appendix to the constitution and not in the Forms section where you might expect it to be.

Proxy form is now available to download from the RAA website.

 

 

Keith,

 

One of the first thing I did when I joined the Board back in September 2011 was to read the Constitution. I was probably one of very few who had ever undertaken such a rash move. Having read it I immediately understood why few had ever got past the introduction.

 

The document as a whole if submitted to Law lecturer at any University would have been awarded a grade of "F-".

 

Having come to that conclusion, I wrote a paper and presented it to the Board at the February 2012 Board Meeting. In the paper I set out what I thought needed to be done and named a small team of four people who had the capability to review and re-draft our Constitution and present the re-draft to the Board for their review. It was not the role of the original CRC to present Special Resolutions to the Members for a vote. That step was to be undertaken by a consensus Board decision. The Board voted unanimously in favour of the establishment of the CRC.

 

The original CRC had been toiling for about 4 months when Steve Runciman , Paul Middleton and Ed Herring with support of a Board majority terminated the CRC.

 

Under extreme duress of the February 2013 extraordinary General Meeting at Queanbeyan, the Board promised to re-start the process of Constitutional Review and Organisational Review. A second CRC was formed lets call it CRC2 for clarity.

 

None, zero, zilch of the original CRC was invited to join or contribute to the CRC2. None of the research or documents or experience of the original CRC was sought by CRC2. This was no accident but policy of the Executive of the day: Runciman/Middleton/Reid.

 

The reason given for the dismissal of CRC1 was that the committee had no current Board Member. When a year or so later CRC2 was appointed the nominated Board Member was Ed Herring. Members of the CRC2 were former RA-Aus Secretary Lynn Jarvis, Max Brown and Ken McKoskey. So now you know who to talk to about the lack of anything from the CRC2.

 

Before presenting any of the 25 Special Resolutions for a vote by the Members each SR has been passed to CRC2 for their review and comment. This has been useful with good suggestions coming from CRC2 which led to improvements to the Special Resolutions finally put to the Members.

 

The current crop of six Special Resolutions were put to CRC2 but I was advised there was insufficient time to review them. To some extent that was because I was late drafting them. I had intended to cease after last September because I was advised CRC2 would be right to present something to the next General Meeting at Natfly. When I found out that was not going to happen, I reviewed the Special Resolutions presented at Narromine last September and found that the failure of 4 of the 15 presented had left some holes in the Constitution. There were interdependencies between SRs that passed and SRs that didn't pass.

 

The six SRs we've proposed this time are intended to repair those holes in the Constitution and don't do much more than that. The 7th SR has been moved by Rod Birrell and is intended to have the Board work more effectively when a member of the executive is absent for a period longer than two weeks.

 

I understand that CRC2 was to present a paper to the Board prior to Natfly and that we may all get a briefing on what they're up to at the Natfly General Meeting.

 

Keith, I hope that gives you the information you were seeking when you started this thread.

 

Don

 

 

Turbo,

 

As usual you do the hard yards and go back to the source documents. I was surprised though that you didn't quote s70 on page 45 of the Act. s70 relates to how Special Resolutions are made. In particular, s70 (b) requires that a Special Resolution must be " . . . passed by at least ¾ of the votes of those members of the association who, being entitled to vote, vote in person or, if the rules of the association permit voting by proxy, vote by proxy at the meeting.".

 

We can have pretty well any Rule that 75% of the Membership who are prepared to vote will approve but we can't have a Rule that conflicts with the Act. Sadly, due to the backward nature of the ACT legislation, postal voting for Special Resolutions is not allowed by the Act.

 

RA-Aus does allow proxy voting and so the two ways allowed by the Act and the RA-Aus Constitution to pass a Special Resolution is by voting in person or by proxy. There is no allowance that I could see for passing a Special Resolution by postal voting.

 

RA-Aus of course elects its Board Members by postal voting which, as you point out, is specifically allowed.

 

In a Club with say 100 members, limiting the number of proxies to 5 might make sense. Similarly requiring 5% of the membership to call a General Meeting would also seem reasonable. But, in an Association with 10,000 members those numbers don't make any sense at all. The 5% to call a General Meeting was changed to the lesser of 5% or 100 members by a Special Resolution passed by more than 75% of those who voted, in person or by proxy.

 

What the right number is for the maximum number of proxies held by one person is not something that springs to mind. Take the example where many members might chose to nominate the Chair of the Meeting as their proxy. That would be convenient because there will always be a Chair if there is a Meeting. But the Chair could end up with, literally, thousands of proxies. Should those votes not be counted just because the members could not get to Canberra, Temora or Narromine or Heck Field or you name it?

 

. . . but another committe, known as the "Executive" was imposed on top of that. This allowed decisions to be made behind the backs of the Committee, and that still hasn't been fixed.

Well, to some extent it has been fixed - as long as this Executive actually reads the Constitution and elects to abide by it something that was not a feature of previous Executives. At the last AGM we had presented a motion for a Special Resolution that pinned the Executive as a "sub-committee of the Board". Also, the role of the President was amended to include the direction that the President shall "Act as spokesperson for RA-Aus while strictly observing the will of the Board".

 

It is my belief that when (note: not "if") the Board is reduced to 7 or 5 members, there will be no need for an Executive. Boards should not be involved in day-to-day matters as these have been delegated to a full-time employee the General Manager. So, the Board can make its high level policy decisions as a Board with no requirement for a sub-Committee as we currently have.

 

Don

 

 

I've not flown into Coffs or Sydney, but just by looking at the VTC's I don't think you could even begin to compare possible transit lanes. The Sydney route (outside of the control zone) is far and low enough not to impact RPT operations. Where's coastal through Coff's zone even at 500ft would conflict with the aerodrome traffic.

Good point. I don't know the area well (from the air) as I've had to avoid it. But if 500' is not a good idea how about 2,500' or 3,500' wouldn't that be well out of the way of incoming/outgoing RPT? At Williamtown they opened up a GA lane that goes right over (across) the runway at a safe altitude. Why not let suitably trained and equipped RA-Aus pilots through as well?

 

I would be in favour of CTA endorsements for RAA, provided the correct training.

It's not so much CTA Access as CTA transit - all we need is a VFR route that is a similar principle as Victor 1, i.e. day VFR at a height that is not going to interfere with GA/RPT traffic or put us into the trees (or the drink).

 

Many of the Airspace reservations that currently exist were determined before TCAS became universal. RA-Aus aircraft mostly didn't carry or use VHF or have transponders and GPS was unheard of. There really needs to be a thorough rethink of airspace classifications that tie up vast areas on a "just in case basis" but are active 24x7 - like Williamtown. That point has been made to the (Warren Truss's) Government inquiry. Hopefully, somebody just might actually do that.

 

Don

 

 

I am definitely warming to the idea of moving Natfly around for promotional and equity reasons.

 

We have two opposite approaches to how/where you hold the national flyin and can be very successful. The obvious one for us is the EAA and Oshkosh. The slightly less obvious but well known anyway is the Ulysses Club AGM that is in a different location every year and is a huge logistical exercise but unbelievably well attended.

 

The Oshkosh approach preaches to the converted whereas the Ulysses approach speaks to a much wider audience.

 

The equity issue is that one day we probably should have a Natfly in WA. Obviously it will be small and many of the importer/distributors won't see the value in attending but if we got enough notice (3 years?) then it could just be a success.

 

If we go down the path of a NATFLY on wheels (or wings) then that is one less reason to have the Office at an airfield and an airfield big enough to cater for a NATFLY.

 

My original thought was that having the Office at an airfield is not so much so the members can fly in spending a few hundred dollars to do what they could have done with an email or a $1.20 stamp. They should not, however, be prevented from flying in though if the urge overwhelms them to so do. It should be located at an airport so that the staff in the office SEE aviation everyday that they come to work. They then get indelibly imprinted on their brain that their reason for being is to facilitate aviation - recreational aviation. You just don't get that in Fyshwick or a capital city.

 

If we are doing things well, access by or to CASA should be rare and that makes it insufficient reason to locate near or in Brisbane. Some might think that being close to CASA is a good reason to not be in Brisbane (or Canberra).

 

SAAA survives and is prospering despite being based at Narromine with Dubbo just 20 minutes up the road. They have their successful annual flyin (AUSFLY) at Narromine, where they are based. That is a low cost, convenient approach for hosting AUSFLY.

 

We have an Ops Mgr at Temora, an Asst Ops Mgr based in SEQ and a Tech Mgr working out of Melbourne and I think all that works well these days. None of them would need to relocate.

 

I agree that it would be nice to sort out our strategic plan and get our fee collecting systems web-based and self service before we move out of Canberra. That way we will have less (no?) disruption of service and we will move only what and who needs to be moved.

 

That doesn't mean we can't go through the exercise as we are doing here of hammering out the criteria of how to judge which location is optimum. And it wouldn't stop us from applying that criteria against all the usual suspects plus a few ring-ins to choose where RA-Aus should call home.

 

It does not have to take up a lot of time of the Board or the General Manager. The Board commissions the project the GM takes on the Project Sponsor role and a Relocation Committee Chairman takes on the job of Project Manager drawing resources from the 10,000 brains that make up our Association. It could all be run and done by the AGM if it got the go ahead soon.

 

If we wait for a host of other very important things to be done, getting based in the right location could blow out to ten years from now.

 

 

Letitia,

 

As the regulations are written at the moment, if you can't get a Class 1 or 2 Medical you can't get a Drivers Licence (Aviation) medical. Any condition that would prevent you from getting a Class 2 would automatically make you invalid for a DL(A). Oddly enough, you could get a Class 2 (through the DAME's discretion/judgement) but would be refused a DL(A).

 

How crazy is that?

 

Don

 

 

I thought I would complete a proxy for the AGM but I don't know who to nominate as a member and member number &/or alternative must be specified.

Sorry to be so long getting back to you KGW but I've been away from the keyboard for a few days getting some character flaws worked on.

 

You can nominate the "Chair of the Meeting"rather than try and guess who will actually Chair the Meeting. You can be sure that there will always be somebody acting with that title regardless of whether the President Chairs or somebody else does. When you nominate the "Chair of the Meeting" you don't need to quote a Membership Number or an address or nominate an alternate. You will need to direct the Chair how to vote on your behalf by indicating which motions you want to vote in favour of or against.

 

Also the Proxy form is an appendix to the constitution and not in the Forms section where you might expect it to be.

True. In the past the Office has part filled in a proxy form with the date of the Meeting and the titles of the proposed Special Resolutions. I don't know why it didn't happen this time and I have suggested to Mark Clayton that he put a form up on the RA-Aus website for Members to download and complete.

 

I don't think it would be valid to nominate the Chair of the meeting as while it is normally the President, that may change and the President may not be the President by the time the meeting is held & even if he is, the chair may be delegated to someone else & neither of these people may be who I give my proxy to.

See above - "Chair of the Meeting" must always be a valid person - its just whoever occupies the Chair.

 

Also in the contacts section it still shows Rod Birrell as President & Michael Monck as Secretary & their member numbers are not available either.

Rod Birrell announced his resignation to be effective at a future date - early April as I recall. The change from Rod to Mick Monck won't be official until then.

 

Don

 

 

Oscar, your argument for Natfly as a moveable feast has a certain aptness considering when it is held.

 

That aside it is a very persuasive argument that I could readily support. I personally have been to a few Natfly events at Temora and while a great location, it would be good to go to othe rvenues in future. I have to caution that it would be a bit of a nightmare for whoever gets the massive job of Natfly co-ordinator compared with going again at Temora.

 

The Temora Council gives massive financial and in-kind support to Natfly. And we have a couple of Temora residents who put in a full 12 month effort when the event is at Natfly. If you were to speak with Carol Richards, Tony King and Jill Bailey and still come away with the same point of view, you would have my complete support.

 

There have been suggestions of using a professional event management company to run Natfly. There are plenty of arguments each way that I wouldn't want to canvass on this thread but it would make a relocatable Natfly more feasible if less profitable.

 

Having Natfly at the RAA HQ is of course just one reason for having the HQ at an airport.

 

I'm also warming to the notion of the RAA Base being at an airport within cooee of Brisbane. While it will be handy to be geographically close to CASA it might be a disadvantage if we were too close, e.g. Within walking distance. Like your in-laws, it is good to have them close enough for them to be useful but you don't want them on your doorstep every time they get a bright idea. Also, with the current parliamentary Review going on there is no guarantee that CASA will be around in a couple of years time and we could be back to talking to the NTSB and the Federal Dept. RAA staff in Canberra might even view a move to Brisbane as "doable" compared to a move to Temora or Charleville.

 

 

Does the average RAA Aus member really care where the HQ is?. Most of us never go there, contact only by mail or email, and really want to be left alone to fly. Seems that we might be thinking of spending members funds on something that may be better off left lie and have the funds spent on more important things like reducing membership fees, etc etc.

It is possible this could lead to real cost savings. Canberra is an expensive place to live and work. It is expensive to get to and from. Real Estate is very expensive both for staff and the Association. Salaries and conditions are driven by the major employer in the ACT with generous superannuation and entitlements.

 

The Office was valued at $1 million but valuations have come down in recent years due to the GFC. It is still possible we could get a better facility for the same or even lesser investment. Not having to transport and accommodate staff for Natfly would also be another saving. It is possible that some government support would be available to further defray costs. There could be de-centralisation incentives from State Governments. Some Councils in Regional areas just want to sell off their airports for real estate dollars but some are very committed and supportive of aviation.

 

 

Surely Don, this is all horse before the cart stuff.

Col,

 

Look along any highway these days and you will see putting the cart (car) before the horse (float) is the modern way to do things.

 

A little more seriously, I don't see the need to do everything in a serial fashion. We need a lot done in a short time and the only way it can happen is with a number of committees working hard and in parallel.

 

Despite anything else we don't even have a clear picture of what RAA will be doing in 5, 10, 20 years and the current board is seemingly stuck, or silent, about its view of the future or what it gages the feelings of the membership.

I agree that the project of deciding where RA-Aus should be based is not the top of the priority tree but that doesn't mean it should never become a priority. That point has been raised and answered a few times in previous posts.

 

What is particularly apt though is your question of what RA-Aus will be in the foreseeable future - say 10 years. Who can see further than that? My idea of what RA-Aus will be in 10 years is only one view among 10,000 but it seems fairly clear to me:

 

• I don't foresee major changes in aviation legislation that would see CASA (or its replacement) take administration of Recreational Aviation inhouse.
   
   
  
• I also don't see RA-Aus going bankrupt even though we are going through a period of using up financial reserves at the moment.
   
   
  
• I do see RA-Aus having a similar reason for being as presently exists.
   
   
  
• I don't see RA-Aus branching out into entrepreneurial ventures.
   
   
  
• I do see us "sticking to the knitting" - that is, maintaining and enhancing Operations and Technical Manuals that will be a good balance of risk and reward (non-financial).
   
   
  
• I see us becoming much more efficient in our Administration through smart, self-service, web-based systems.
   
   
  
• I think we could well see RA-Aus membership plateaued or even declining over the next ten years.
   
   
  

 

 

 

What all that tells me is that we could chose a location based on logical, relevant, appropriately-weighted criteria and thereby identify a permanent base for RA-Aus.

 

In all the 180 posts so far I haven't heard anyone say that we should stay in FYSHWICK because nowhere else in Australia would be more suitable.

 

RAA is at the moment a two headed horse - one part licencing, registration and discipline - the other, advocacy in looking after members entitlements and access to safe, affordable aviation.

Agreed. However, we create a lot of admin work for ourselves by tying how RA-Aus is funded to renewal of membership and aircraft registrations. GA doesn't do that and RA-Aus needn't either. We'd be better off getting the initial issue of Registrations and Pilot Certificates right than having the bulk of our efforts in routine clerical work. That all begs the question of how RA-Aus is funded without extracting cash for membership and registration renewals. A slightly circular argument because if you didn't have to go through the annual renewals you wouldn't need as much revenue to cover administration costs. The real kicker though is the grossly inadequate funding from CASA.

 

The reason for having a Magazine is the need to have official communications between the Board/Management and Members, e.g. Notices of Meetings and much more. The Magazine could be delivered as an iPad/Android App and broadcast to a much wider audience very cheaply. Notices can be sent via email and the website but a few of our members might actually have to recognise we have entered the third millennium and get a bit of 'net training from their grandchildren. That could knock more than $50 p.a. off everyone's fees. The liability Insurance through our group scheme is, I believe, vastly cheaper than any individual could ever achieve.

 

The rest should be funded partly by a user-pays approach and largely by CASA as they do for GA .

 

RA-Aus could then devote its cash and energies to lifting the level of safe recreational aviation through education and training.

 

Your committee may be better off working out what RAA is rather than having a narrow view on one minor aspect of RAA operations.

I can't claim ownership of either the Committee or even the idea. It was Kaz who kicked this discussion off but it is an idea that has been around for years - perhaps its time has come?

 

Anyhow, the quesiton you ask here is perhaps the work of the Constitution Review Committee? I agree it must be done if the CRC's output is to be valuable. No point re-writing the Constitution just to correct the grammar.

 

 

That's why a Committee should look into it rather than consign us to Fyshwick for all of eternity.

 

I think if you go back over the earlier posts you will find that question has been asked and answered a few times.

 

 

DLW,

 

Like you, I think I am entitled to my opinion - no more, no less. Facts, on the other hand belong to nobody and to everybody. They speak for themselves and don't need anybody's support - as long as they are facts and not just opinions or rumours.

 

"the outgoing president obviously told a number of people before he left the position"

 

Fact? Opinion or just Speculation?

 

"next time i hear something interesting that members of the site might like to here i wont bother until i run it past you."

 

Good to see you are prepared to defer to those who are old enough to know where the Caps lock is.

 

Can't we move on from this nonsense?

 

 

I wonder if somebody here in the know can ask the office staff their thoughts on relocation.

Dazza,

This will be an important part of the Committee's job - if/when a Committee is commissioned by the Board/GM. It is probably better left to them than give the office staff a scare when the project might never get off the ground.

 

Any Committee will first need to determine the objective criteria by which you would judge a candidate location. They will then need to come up with a shortish list of good prospects. Somehow, I doubt that Charleville will make it to that list .

 

Next will be collecting hard data on all the aspects a location is to be judged on, matters like weather, RPT access, airfield, housing, jobs for partners, education, etc. etc.

 

Once they have chosen one or possibly two for the very short list, they would need to do a comparative cost/benefits analysis of the transition from Canberra to the new location(s).

 

I imagine the Board will make the final choice on the recommendation of the GM.

 

 

I think we should not under-value having the office located at an airfield. I've worked in businesses that had their Head Offices in Sydney or Melbourne with manufacturing and/or mining activities in regional locations. There is no doubt in my mind that the people resident at the regional locations had a much better focus on the business. Quite often the focus in the head offic was who had the best parking spot or where to have the next posh lunch.

 

Coming to work everyday and hearing aircraft taking off and landing rams home that this is an Association of Aviators. The entire reason for being of the Association is to facilitate inexpensive low regulation aviation. Having the office staff see and smell aviation every working day is of real value.

 

We should also not underestimate the value of being able to conduct NATFLY at the place where RA-Aus is based. It is not an imperative but there is a real advantage.

 

So, no difference between Inglewood and Warwick?

 

 

Errr, the original post was dated the 7 march, the 'official announcement' stated that the resignation occurred on the 7 march. The only thing that the dates don't match up on is the 3 day delay for the official announcement. Nothing premature in that. The only 3 days involved was for the board to decide on a replacement.Sorry, I think your conclusion about 'premature speculation' is 100% incorrect and very much out of order.

Grey Beard, "premature speculation" was 100% accurate as the claim of Rod's resignation was four days before he actually advised the Board that, in time he would be stepping down.

 

Despite being accurate, I agree it was intemperate and and out of order. We like to think that RecFlying is not another PPRuNe and that we like to maintain a decent level of decorum. So, remarks like "premature speculation" do not belong here.

 

Refer also post 32 in the "President Resigned" thread.

 

 

. . . raa members are being shafted. its not about insurance that makes raa members have to pay rego because the insurance you get is included in the membership fee and not the rego.

I agree that on the surface it looks like "raa members are being shafted".

 

When you look at the components of the Membership Fee (@ $185 p.a.):

 

- about $70 p.a. is for the Magazine (est. for 11 copies p.a.)

 

- about $50 p.a. is for the insurance (guess but would cost a lot more if you bought it yourself)

 

- about $65 p.a. is to cover the salaries and office costs (the remainder).

 

Add the $135 p.a. of the 3,500 aircraft owners and they each face a cost of $200 p.a. that GA aircraft owner/pilots do not have to pay. In summary,

 

• 3,500 Aircraft owner/Pilots pay about $1.2 million (excl Insur & Mag)
   
   
  
• 6,500 pilot-only members pay about $0.4 million (excl Insur & Mag)
   
   
  
• 10,000 members pay an additional $1.2 million (Insur + Mag)
   
   
  

 

 

All up about $2.8 million.

 

Apart from the obvious inequity for aircraft owner/pilots, this is a lot of money raised from members and provokes the question: GA costs are covered by whom? Can you guess who?

 

Next question comes up is: How does CASA get funded? Levy on AVGAS + Consolidated Revenue?

 

Why is RA-Aus not funded the same way as GA when many RA-Aus aircraft are now fuelled by AVGAS?

 

In the early days, RA-Aus/AUF aircraft were fuelled by 2 stroke or MOGAS. The excise on these fuels helps to pay for roads but, aircraft are not supposed to travel on roads. Operators of off-road diesel equipment (principally open cut miners) get a rebate of the excise. Should RA-Aus MOGAS users get a rebate of the excise on fuel used in their Rotax 4 strokes?

 

Is it RA-Aus's fault that it gets only about $100k from CASA and not $1.6 million? To some extent it is but, do you think CASA is happily going to cough up $1.6m p.a. without a fight to the death? The Federal Government is (rightly) squeezing every drop of (public service) blood out of every stone (Dept.) it can and is not likely to give CASA an extra $1.6m to pass on to us, is it?

 

So, now we get to the RA-Aus Rule that goes along the lines of "The person who complains most about something that is not right - and RA-Aus funding is not right - gets the job of fixing it".

 

Quo Vadis DLW?

 

 

 

Would Inglewood be better than Warwick?

 

Would either have equivalent facilities to Narromine or Temora.

 

Would either be more member-centric than YNRM or YTEM?

 

Don

 

 

" I fear she doth protesteth too much . . . ". W Shakespeare

 

 

Only problem with Inglewood is it's in the wrong time zone. Every time we have to cross the border into Qld we have to wind our watches back 200 years . . .

 

 

Yeah weren't you the guy that scoffed and ripped into someone else here who mentioned this resignation a few days ago? An apology to her seems appropriate about now no?

Thanks sfG.

Gnarly, if you look at the date of her post (3 days before the actual resignation) you might assess that post as a bit of

 

premature speculation?

 

and that's never a good thing.

 

 

Good to see the Board operating in a considered and controlled fashion. This is what Good Governance is about.

 

We owe thanks to both Rod for his service as President and to Mick for taking on this difficult role at a difficult time.

 

Don

 

 

On the RA-Aus website:

 

Change of President

 

March 13, 2014 | members

 

On 7 March Rod Birrell announced that he would be stepping down from the President’s role and resuming his position as an ordinary board member. The President’s role is one that demands a lot of time and effort and as a result Rod feels that with his personal interests and business duties he can no longer give it the attention that it deserves.

 

Since this time the board has called for nominations for a new President and held an election and at this time wishes to publicly announce the role will be filled by Michael Monck. Michael, Rod and the rest of the board will now be working to transfer responsibilities from Rod to Michael in a timely manner.

 

In the meantime the Secretary’s position has been left vacant and the board is now following the correct processes to fill this office. When this process is complete we will make another announcement to inform the members.

 

Michael Monck

 

For and on behalf of the board

 

 

Definitely worth considering. There are some of the Old Guard who consider the SAAA as the real enemy. I think there is great synergy possibilities with the SAAA in particular but also with some of the others like HGFA and GFA.

 

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/2014/03/new-assistant-operations-manager-appointed/

 

RA-Aus are pleased to announce Mr Neil Schaefer as the successful applicant for the position of Assistant Operations Manager, who will be commencing on 17th March 2014.

 

 

I know for a fact that there are Board Members watching this thread with interest. Like most threads on here it wandered in and out of focus a bit but I believe there is a great deal of usable thinking that has been committed to writing that will be of use in jump starting the project.