DonRamsay

. . . Voter turnout, including proxies, was a bit disappointing at about 250 out of 9500 members - only 2.6% approx.

Thanks DWF. The drafting of the Special Resolutions involved around 15 direct contributors and another 25 or so who reviewed them for us. It was a big job.

 

 

Regarding the low voter turnout, I think in part it was due to the difficult Proxy voting system. I am hoping our amendment to introduce Postal Voting will lift member participation in our democracy considerably.

 

 

 

If the voter turnout had been better, the self-interest of some Board Members (Reid, Middleton) would have been defeated by the ordinary members. This is particularly so for the max 3 terms (6 years) before taking a 2 year break and the requirement for a dismissed Board Member to take two years off.

 

 

 

 

Next time, a bit more notice and an opportunity for member debate of the resolutions before hand (plus a bit more lobbying) may produce more interest.[/Quote]

From here on my plan was to feed ideas to the Constitution Review Committee. I really only put these Special Resolutions because the CRC seemed to be in recess. Spencer Ferrier, Lynn Jarvis, Ken McCloskey and Max Brown are good men all and we should all get in behind them.

 

Even still, every one of the 9500 ordinary members are perfectly entitled to put motions for Special Resolutions to a General Meeting (despite Ed Herring thinking otherwise and voting against Every amendment "on principle").

 

The next opportunity to further Constitution reform is the General Meeting at Temora at Natfly over Easter 2014. I would be surprised (& disappointed) if the CRC did not have major reforms put to a vote at Natfly.

 

Perhaps as people come up with ideas for reform they could be posted in a new thread especially for that purpose?

 

Don

 

The arguments for not having the AGM at Natfly revolved around the inconvenience for staff and Board members. While I felt this lacked customer focus those opposing had sufficient vote to block the proposal.

 

I was very disappointed at the approach of Ed Herring who had a big swag of Proxies. I believe his stand was illogical because all of the proposals had been cleared with the Constitution Review Committee and all their recommendations incorporated into the proposed changes. Wen Spencer Ferrier declared his support for all proposals, it made Ed look a bit . . . And when he voted against a typo being corrected there was a bit of a titter through the room.

 

But, as I told Ed, he is entitled to his view.

 

 

Flew back this afternoon to avoid weather that was predicted. Bumpy flight with a 20+ knots tailwind and CAVOK. But for the turbulence, it would have been a very quick flight. Even at reduced speed was still seeing 125 kts ground speed.

 

I was selected by CASA for a drugs and alcohol test just before departure. Negative to both of course. This is an initiative I strongly support and thanked the poor CASA bloke doing the tests. He offered the helpful tip to be aware that Codeine is an opiate and could give you a positive reading on the drugs test. E.g. Codral cold tablets and headache pills.

 

Meeting went well and has largely been correctly reported here. The one Andy was not told was the requirement for a Board Member, if booted off by a vote in a General Meeting to stay off the Board fro Two years. e Board did not like that one at all. There was a suggestion that "special interest groups" could unfairly punish a Board Member.

 

The vote counts are now up on the RA-Aus website.

 

The Board, particularly the longer serving members and those who may have been feeling threatened voted heavily against the resolutions restricting them to three terms and to having to stay off the Board for two years if they were kicked off by a vote in a General Meeting. The Secretary's duties amendment was intended to make the Secretary responsible for things happening rather than him/her having to do the actual duties. Everyone was surprised that didn't get up as, visually, the only person who voted against it was Ed Herring and his many proxies.

 

The question on Notice from Arthur was a bit of a bombshell. He asked how much the QC's advice cost for Runciman regarding the Feb EGM and what did the advice say. It cost $1,800 and so far Runciman has refused to let anyone see it even though it was paid for by RA-Aus Members Funds. The President has zero delegated authority from the Board to spend money. That is $nil. This one is not finished and Runciman is either going to have to pay for the advice or release it.

 

Very smelly!

 

All in all, I was satisfied by the Meeting. Our proposed amendments got a fair hearing, were overwhelmingly supported by members not on the Board or cronies of the Board. 75% is a high hurdle (as it should be) so getting 11 through was a not a bad result.

 

Board Member Michael Apps was particularly supportive of the initiatives speaking passionately in favour of ones like the max three terms for Board Members.

 

Thanks to all who took a keen interest and voted. Next time all 9,500 members will be able to vote by postal vote without having to worry about a proxy making it to the meeting. That will be the beginning of real democracy!

 

Counting votes and Proxies was done by two RA-Aus stalwarts in Ken McCloskey and Max Brown. Under very difficult circumstances they did a great job of it.

 

 

Neil, we may still have a few to go but Jim is definitely a keeper!

 

 

Neil,

 

I don't think they even sacked the Accountants.

 

Perhaps we need to give the Board a directive at the AGM?

 

Don

 

 

Apologies for reviving this thread but it seemed like the right place to remind all that Proxies have to be in the hands of RA-Aus by 1000 on Thursday,12th September 2013. If you give your Proxy to somebody, RA-Aus has to get a copy and the person who received the Proxy will want to bring a copy with him/her to the AGM.

 

So, last chance to have your say. I will of course be at the AGM and am happy to carry anyone's Proxy.

 

PM me if you need my address and member number.

 

Don

 

 

Frank,

 

As I recall when the 2 year rego thing was tried they stuffed up the accounting and then threw the baby out with the bathwater. It will be back.

 

 

It is so refreshing to see a Board Member like Jim responding. A great and welcome change from previous Board Executives.

 

 

With regard to three Tech Managers in 18 months I would remind all that Steve Bell resigned. His employment was not terminated. I believe it was in the best interests of RA-Aus and Steve Bell that he did resign. I have never understood the summary dismissal of Adam Finn and have never known enough of the background to be able to make a judgement.

 

I believe Wayne accepted the job in good faith and put in a mighty effort to get the job done. For various reasons that didn't happen. Wayne is now well shot of RA-Aus and is in the process of putting the experience behind him and getting on with his life. Nothing that is discussed here is going to change that situation.

 

As has been said above, there is no way both sides of this story can be laid out for all to see in a public discussion. A few people who are close to Wayne and have had discussions with Board Members who are prepared to speak frankly off the record, can form a view. But I doubt that there is any way their conclusions and the reasoning behind can be discussed publicly.

 

As a member, I am prepared to give the current Executive and the incoming Board the benefit of any doubt and let them get on with the future. Unlike the previous Exec who gave us all sorts of undertakings at the Feb 9th EGM and lived up to none of them I have confidence that RA-Aus is now being steered in the right direction. All my interactions with he new GM give me a confidence that I never had with his predecessor.

 

The turnaround is not going to happen overnight. There are many ills of previous administrations that have to be overcome. What I am confident about is that simply extrapolating the performance of the previous Exec (Runciman/Middleton/Reid) and applying that to the majority of the new Exec (Birrell & Tatlock) would be shallow and incorrect thinking.

 

With the coming AGM, we start with a new and vastly superior approach and commitmanet to governance and systems improvement than we have seen in many, many years.

 

Don

 

 

Some of the blame will rest with the aircraft owners. We currently have two aircraft out of registration awaiting information from us. There is nothing more the office can do. . . .

Sue,

 

If the only problem or the major part of the reason for the delays was recalcitrant owners, we would not be having this conversation. My point was that however the problem arose, it has been know for at least 8 months and yet there is no indication that RA-Aus is winning the battle and that an end to the backlog is in sight. RA-Aus has simply not taken the issue seriously enough to commit the resources to get it fixed in quick time.

 

There are issues like the Ibis and the 450kg Euro aircraft that were never going to be solved quickly and had to involve a solution acceptable to CASA. But the great bulk of the current cause of the backlog is a failure to go hard. That is not a comment about the efforts of the Staff who have toiled very admirably in very low morale times. It is a simple statement of fact that insufficient resources have been applied to resolve the bulk of the backlog issues in a reasonable amount of time.

 

Don

 

 

. . . It shows that the decline in the number of RAAus aircraft registered has stopped and is now on the increase again. It also shows that the number of "Aircraft Deregistered" has doubled and is still on the increase.Still a way to go it seems but hopefully on the right track - however it would be nice to see the process speeded up somewhat.

I wonder if the upturn in the graph will be reversed by the Tech Manager being on leave for a couple of weeks immediately before his termination and then the lull while we await the recruitment of a replacement. The current acting Tech Mgr was assisting Wayne but is now temporarily, at least, replacing him. Doesn't seem like more hands to the pumps but perhaps fewer?

 

 

Keep that up and we'll smoke you.

Does being "smoked" involve actual fire and a stake?

 

Or is more like being locked in a shed with lots of aged kippers?

 

Don

 

 

Keith,

 

The idea of having a skills register has been around for quite a while but became a task, accepted by the Board, on 9th February 2013. Now, almost 7 months later, work has commenced to fulfil that promise. Clearly the concept of a skills register originated well before Ed and Myles attempted to gift the STCC job to Myles.

 

Jim is to be heartily congratulated for taking this task on. As Treasurer, with end-of-financial-year just gone and the AGM in a couple of weeks, I'm sure he is already flat out. You have to wonder why he has had to take it on rather than one of the Board who might not be so busy with RA-Aus matters.

 

Don

 

 

The reasons there was a registration debacle hitting the headlines back in November 2012 could indeed be found in poor management and governance in the past going back over perhaps a decade or more.

 

RA-Aus had a wake-up call 5 or 6 years ago when a Sting crashed with, tragically, two fatalities. The aircraft registration was dubious and an action for negligence was taken out naming RA-Aus and CASA as co-defendants. That should have been enough to stir a Board and the Management into real action. Then, in 2012, four audits from CASA were not addressed with the urgency CASA would like to have seen and finally CASA withdrew the right to register our aircraft.

 

However regrettable, virtually none of the above is relevant to the question of why we are still having issues with registrations 10 months later. And one Board member is actually suggesting it could be another 12 months before we get back to "normal".

 

Surely the problem is just a matter of logistics? Once you have an understanding of the size of the problem you can calculate what resources are needed to eliminate the backlog within an acceptable time frame - and apply the resources. I can't accept that 10 months is an acceptable time frame and the prospect of the issue running for a year and 10 months is way beyond my capacity to understand. Yes, the appropriate resources will cost money but it is money we have in cash reserves and there would be no reason to extract additional funds from members to redress the issue.

 

RA-Aus has just two core functions:

 

• approve pilots to fly;
  and,
   
   
   
  
• approve aircraft to be flown.
   
   
  

 

 

All under the umbrella of Safety.

 

How can it be OK to fail in one of these two core functions for over a year, once it has been pointedly brought to your attention?

 

While I believe that the Management is doing the best it can with the resources granted to it by the Board, I wonder what will it take to get the message to the Board that not enough is being done - soon enough?

 

 

We were certainly spoiled for choice in the NSW/ACT election. This makes it even harder to understand the low voter turnout. I know a lot of members who said that they didn't know enough about the candidates to choose one to vote for. We need to give members a better chance to know the candidates. This means more than half a page of text in the Magazine. Something for the new Board to think about, in time. Not just a question of attracting more and better candidates but giving the members the knowledge to cast a vote with confidence.

 

 

Congratulations Mick Monck! A well deserved win. RA-Aus is much the better for having a person with your qualifications, experience and skills join the Board.

 

Thanks also to the other candidates for making this a genuine exercise of democracy as opposed to the situations where, too often, Board Members have been returned unopposed.

 

This sets a standard for all regions to emulate: a number of strong candidates offering their services to the RA-Aus membership.

 

Mick, we look forward to hearing from you in future on your progress against the matters you mentioned in your pre-election statement particularly improved communication and good governance.

 

 

. . . These Motions for Special Resolutions are they a "big bit premature?" Think so.Beacuse the Reform and Constitional (they are now combined) review committees have not finished their work.

Why not wait till their work has finished?

 

If any of these resolutions get up that means the reform and constitutional committee have done all that work for nothing?

 

Am I correct in thinking that?

Keith,

 

The short answers are:

 

- no, not premature as the sooner these changes happen the better for RA-Aus;

 

- no need to wait until CRC has finished as there is no significant crossover or conflict with their work;

 

- no, the CRC will not have significant re-work on the basis of these proposed reforms in fact, they may actually reduce the amount of work that the CRC has to do.

 

I think I have mentioned the following before but in case you missed it, at the risk of boring others, I'll repeat the process for coming up with these proposals for change.

 

I have been in contact with the CRC and Reform Committee for several months on these issues. They are fully aware of what we are proposing and have provided us with a number of very good suggestions for changes which have been incorporated in the proposed Special Resolutions. I had also passed the draft of the Special Resolutions to the General Manager for a check on practicality aspects as he will have to live with the changes if adopted, and to Spencer Ferrier and the Board. In addition to all of those people perhaps another 20 sets of eyes have been over the drafts.

 

From the very beginning of the development of these changes, I have been in consultation with the CRC so as to avoid crossing over the areas that they and the Restructure Committee are concentrating on. If you think about it, those Committees, now one as you say, are looking at some very big picture stuff like the form of incorporation for RA-Aus, Board size and composition and how it Board Members become Board Members.

 

Keith, does this answer your concerns?

 

 

Sage advice Oscar.

 

I'll drop a note to the Mods to see if they can delete the video.

 

 

Thanks Bill.

 

I'll pass it on to my Board Rep(s) at RA-Aus.

 

 

Very good point. Perhaps you would like to ask your Board Rep to bring this up with the rest of the Board and have RAA DO something about it?

 

 

The reason for having the AGM at Natfly is the same reason that the SAAA and the EAA have their AGMs at their respective fly-ins. The point being that the greatest assembly of members of all three of these associations is at their annual fly- in and the best way for the best attendance of members at the AGM is to have it in conjunction with the annual fly-in. We want members involved in their Association and attending the AGM is a good start.

 

Having 15 members turn up at the AGM when held in Canberra does not achieve the aim of significant involvement. It does nothing to convince the Board that they are accountable to the members for their abject failure to comply with the principles of good governance.

 

The cost of the change of end of year is minimal and a once off cost.

 

And, you can discuss anything you like at an AGM or a GM. You can't present any motion at a GM that has not been given the required notice either 14 days for ordinary resolutions or 21 days for a Special Resolution. You can only propose motions for an AGM that fit within the specific business of the AGM. Many organisations like RAA have a General Meeting commence on the closure of the AGM to keep general business separate from the AGM.

 

 

Thanks Mark. You would think that AirServices would be willing to wave some fees here to encourage better radio comms.

 

I'll definitely be proposing this to a few of the local clubs.

 

A mate of mine has set up a weather station at his home airstrip and put it up on the net. Great for him when heading home to see exactly what the weather is doing at his destination. It was not get expensive to establish and a lot more clubs could do likewise especially as the AWIS network is being shrunk.

 

 

Well done Tony! That's a huge task you have taken on. We now need everyone to get behind you do what they can.

 

Tony, somebody just pointed out to

 

me that you didn't give your name in this post although you have of course elsewhere here.

 

 

Oscar,

 

Agree with all you have said there. The Restructure Committee is looking in to alternative forms of incorporation and should give us apresentation at the AGM. While I believe we could make the Incorporated Association work it is not where I would have gone. Limited by guarantee is probably better suited to the size and style RAA needs to become.

 

 

In the end this comes down to a balancing act - kind of risk versus reward. Risks of burn out but stays on the Board. Risk that RAA members typically won't challenge a sitting member. Risks that with thirteen Board members there are plenty who coast along and keep new talent off the Board. Then there are probability issues like how probable is it we are going to get somebody so good that none of the other 10,000 members could do as good or better job. Ask a few who have been on the Board for 6 years whether they are not a bit burned out? If they say they are not then it'is because they have not been going hard enough in my view.

 

If passed in September there will be no immediate effect. But there could be an effect over the next 6 years. As somebody said even the USA president only gets 8 years.

 

If we got somebody who was so brilliant that we wanted them for longer than 6 years, we could in 6 8 or 10 years time amend the constitution to allow for that. Highly unlikely in my view.

 

Regarding the Constitution Review Committee there is a bit said about it already but happy to summarise for you. The CRC was formed as a result of a motion I put to the Board in Feb 2012. It was cancelled by Runciman immediately afterI resigned from the Board even though I and the other members of the CRC were quite prepared to work on and report to the Board.

 

The Board reformed the CRC this year with Myles as Chair and all new members and no reference back to all the work that had been done. The Board again suspended the work of the CRC earlier this year. The Restructure Committee was formed after the Feb EGM at Queanbeyan. With the CRC suspended and the Restructure Committee in deep thought and neither the CRC nor the Restructure Committees proposing amendments to the AGM in September a few of us went ahead and developed the 15 that are being put a vote. We deliberately avoided the areas that the CRC/Restructure Committee were looking into. We passed all 15 proposed amendments to the CRC, Spencer Ferrier, the Board and the General Manager for their comments. A number of changes were made to the draft proposals on the basis of comments received. What has been proposed is version eight.