DonRamsay

Mark, what would it cost to purchase such a setup?

 

There are plenty of bad radios around the lower Hunter Valley and three clubs that could pool resources and install such a system.

 

 

Thanks Sue.

 

Thanks also to Ross and David for making a contest of it. Far better than to have another Board Member who was nominated by two members and then duly elected unopposed. Despite all the drama of the last 12 months, all but the NSW Board position were filled unopposed.

 

Both David and Ross pass the "good bloke" test with dare I say flying colours. It is up the NQ members to work out the criteria that will sway them to vote for one or the other. Clearly both have a commitment to Recreational Aviation and want to see RA-Aus returned to a position of respect and successful.

 

The Board needs people who understand how to make a business run and be successful and who have a commitment to playing by the Rules and in a teamwork environment.

 

Once you have voted, try to make sure every member you know has voted as well. We can no longer afford the rampant apathy of the past.

 

 

By their very definition, unintended consequences are never anticipated. If they do eventuate, they can be rectified albeit with some delay due to our last century communications systems. The Board can of course make by-laws that, as long as they are not in conflict with the Constitution, can clarify a Rule or establish a procedure to give effect to the obvious intent.

 

 

Sadly, fear of being held to account for their mismanagement has lead some Board Members to resign rather than just doing the right thing. It has also probably contributed to them being more secretive than less. Unfortunately, best intentions just doesn't cut it when we have perhaps as many as one-third of the fleet on the ground awaiting registration. The people who got us into this mess are not the people to get us out of it.

 

Letting the Board alone to manage how they choose to is actually what gave us the worst year in the history of the AUF/RAA. Natural apathy of ordinary members induced by being in an information vacuum allowed the Board to bungle on until there was very nearly nothing left to save. A healthy management team would value informing the members and being given informed feedback. Secrecy , jobs for mates, lack of effort by most on the Board and misdirection by a hard working minority is not and never will be a recipe for success in any form of organisation.

 

 

Now that'd be really gnasty!

 

 

I don't think so Gnarly, even his own people hate him with a passion despite the fact that he is likely to save 80% of them from getting voted out

 

 

turboplanner said:

 

What's going on here is a diversion - fixing things that aren't broke . . .

Are you suggesting, Turbo, that there is no merit in any of the 15 proposed changes? If not, which do you agree with and which would you vote against if you were an RA-Aus member - and why?

 

. . .while turning backs on the most urgent issues to be addressed - recruiting good candidates and actually getting people to vote.

I do find that criticism a bit unfair Turbo. I've put a major effort into getting some aspects of the Constitution fixed. I've been campaigning for Constitution Reform for several years. As you know, I started the Constitution Review Committee back in Feb 2012. It was cancelled by the Board a few months later before it could do very much. The Board restarted the CRC in early 2013 carefully avoiding any contribution from me. It was soon after put into suspended animation again to allow the Restructure Committee to report. I understand it is functioning again now - but how would anyone know anything about any of that?

 

I agree there are serious issues other than the issues we've addressed but are you suggesting Turbo that I should have instead devoted my time to badgering members to run for the Board and put forward a proposal to make voting compulsory?

 

In fact, I have made a serious contribution to getting three members to accept nomination for the Board elections so I repudiate the bit about turning my back on the issue of candidates and voting. I am happy to concede that I never considered for a moment proposing that voting be compulsory or even whether that is desirable or enforceable.

 

In the last four years I have seen virtually no effort made to inform members of the major issues, which would have got them fired up enough to do something to ensure their flying had a good future.

I don't know if you know Turbo but a few of us have been trying to do exactly that starting at the 2010 Natfly when David Isaac, Geoff Kid and myself and a couple of others put questions on notice to the Board. Those same people have been working hard behind the scenes since then culminating in the Feb 2013 General Meeting in Queanbeyan supported by more than 300 members. And the same people have been campaigning for votes to change the Board makeup. That's what you call democratic action as opposed to armchair criticism.

 

. . .I think there is some merit in these assertions in that these amendments are not the complete answer and we certainly need to recruit good candidates and reduce voter apathy. . . .

It is fair to say is that the 15 amendments we have proposed are not the biggest issues. In consultation with the Board, the Constitution Review Committee and the Restructure Committee we deliberately steered away from the big issues that they were working on. However, when we learned that neither of those Committees would be ready to propose any changes at the 2013 AGM, we felt that it would be a shame to let the AGM go by with nothing tangible achieved. And so we came up with fixes that we thought had merit but didn't cut across the work being done by the Board sub-committees.

 

. . . It is a pity that they were not publicised earlier to allow for more debate and refinement.

I agree that it would have bee better to have got them up here a lot earlier before they got chiseled into stone. We had been working on them for the most of May and June. It took from the end of June into mid July to get them to the magazine publisher. As it is they went through eight editions and past 30 or 40 or more sets of eyes. This was not a one-man job.

 

There is a danger that people may think that passing these Special Resolutions will fix all the problems. It will not!

Agree 100% - this is just a start.

 

In my view we need to:

1. Review and confirm or amend the Mission Statement and Objectives of RA-Aus.

2. Review and update the Structure of the organisation in light of step 1.

 

My thoughts on this are on the "RA-Aus organisational restructure" thread post #131.

 

3. Amend the Constitution to meet the needs of step 2.

 

This will probably require a complete overhaul and rewrite.

You've just listed the terms of reference for the Board Sub-Committee charged with doing this job.

 

Strange thing is most members wouldn't know that such a Committee existed, who is on the Committee or how to contact them. I don't know if this "in cognito" situation is by design or by accident.

 

I understand that the Board Sub-Committee will have a presentation for us at the AGM. Not sure how many of the 10,000 members will get to hear it but I doubt it will be a very big percentage.

 

 

If, in what to me seems to be an unlikely situation, we find that we have a Board Member who is of such incredible value that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to force them to take a two-year vacation, there is nothing to stop anyone from proposing that the Rule be changed to 4 terms.

 

My thinking and experience tells me that most mere mortals, of the ilk we attract to the RA-Aus Board, will have earned two years off for good behaviour after grinding away for six years. I actually think it is unfair to the individual in the sense of "stretching the friendship"to ask them to serve for 8 years or more. It seems to me like we would be collectively bludging on such an outstanding individual.

 

No Board Member will be affected in 2013. Rod Birrell's and Eugene Reid's current terms are due to expire at the 2014 AGM. Both, to my knowledge have served extremely long terms.

 

This Rule change is not going to suddenly dump the entire Board out the door.

 

 

Oh dear! Gnarly, Gnrarly, Gnarly . . . Et tu Brute? The unkindest cut of all . . .

 

Where are the mods when you need one?

 

I did try to hide my gall behind a :-), guess it didn't work :-(

 

 

And maybe the proposals as well.

The proposals are now up as first post of separate threads to keep the discussions on topic. No need for them here, just insert Don Ramsay Member Number 026026 of 49/1 King Street Newcastle NSW as your proxy and tick the box that gives me the right to vote yes to them all :-).

 

 

The form they are using, adapted from the one on the RA-Aus website looks like the attached.

 

Proxy Form Sept 2013.pdf

 

Proxy Form Sept 2013.pdf

 

Proxy Form Sept 2013.pdf

I can see merit in Turbo's argument in the general case but, in the particular case of RA-Aus, I believe this is an essential change and will do vastly more good than harm. In my longish career, I have not seen many examples where somebody sitting in the top job for a long time was beneficial. Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Richard Branson and Bill Gates being notable exceptions to what I consider a general rule.

 

 

As I was about to leave on the Sunday morning in 2012, a CASA fellow I had been having dinner with wandered over for a chat. I was going to get a quick ride in an interesting new aircraft before I left and was standing near the plane waiting for my mate to come back. The CASA guy was interested in the aircraft and started asking me questions about it. After a few minutes, I realised he was actually doing a ramp check. A bit sneaky but harmless enough. They don't worry me at all especially if they are done in a non traffic policeman style.

 

 

If the proposed Special Resolution, including the argument(s) for and against, is presented to members early enough to provide an opportunity for debate and refinement then Postal voting is definitely the way to go. I think this format should be encouraged (required?).

If we pass this proposed amendment, the Board can nut out the details and encode them as by-laws.

 

The only time a proxy could be useful is where there is a motion from the floor. In this case the proxy giver would have to be very confident that the proxy holder held very much the same views as they did.

Our Constitution does not allow for motions from the floor because we have so many members who could not conceivably make it to a general meeting. For example, any meeting venue in the Eastern States pretty well rules out attendance by any but the most determined (& wealthy) WA resident member.

 

 

Sounds OK to me f_t. By-elections can be expensive and take an immense amount of time to conduct. If they happen around the time of a "general" election they can cause a lot of confusion. Perhaps the Constitution Review Committee might like to have a look at that one? Probably too late to include on the Agenda for the AGM this year.

 

 

A good discussion doesn't need to sink to the level of words like "dumb idea". If you have a problem with an idea the intellectual approach is to argue logically for an alternative view. Comments like "very dumb idea"are more suited to an alcohol-fueled argument about football in a bar room. Simply casting aspersions does not advance the discussion. I have no issue with anyone who wants to argue an alternative.

 

These amendments took an intensive couple of months of hard graft to get drafted and a very wide group of RA-Aus members were consulted in the process and their suggestions incorporated. Consulting all 10,000 members was not available to me in the time and with the resources available to me.

 

Putting the proposals up here was intended to give more members a chance to ask questions in clarification and challenge the intent and outcomes so that members could form an informed view and be confident to vote. If I didn't want to hear alternative views I wouldn't have posted here.

 

 

As regards the three terms/six years with a two year break after that, arithmetic tells us that in a 14 year period a Board member can have been in office for 12 of those 14 years. Hardly onerous, I think.

 

The people we might want to hang on to for 20 years must be quite rare both absolutely and compared with the very plentiful people who we'd like to see the back of after a much lesser number of years. We have a clearly demonstrated situation in RA-Aus that members do not like to run against a sitting member. We also have a situation where we have some very small regions (by number of members not area). These have produced in the past lightweight candidates who remain in office for an eternity contributed little if anything useful but caused considerable damage along the way - and are still in office!

 

I can assure everyone, that if you put into being a Board Member of RA-Aus the time and effort that you should put in, after three terms you should be desperate to have a break. If you don't take a break, then you could well be facing the dreaded Aviation inspired divorce syndrome. I know I'm close already.

 

 

Again, I'll vote for this.

Thanks - in person or by proxy?

 

 

I doubt the apparent decline of Natfly relates to the effort or amrt thinking of the organisers or the volunteers. My suspicion is that it has been adversely affected by the slump in the market for new & used aircraft and accessories. There has been the odd decision made off the cuff like the one regarding not being able to win a competition if you've won before. And some ascribe CASA ramp checks as an issue. Ramp checks should not be a problem to anyone and have been conducted to my knowledge in a friendly, helpful manner.

 

 

Postal Voting is my preference to appointing proxies.

 

The only advantage of a proxy is if the proxy-giver allows their proxy to vote as they see fit on the day once they have had the chance to ask questions and hear the arguments for and against at the meeting.

 

 

- you lose the services of the very best talent right when you've got it.

If people were elected on talent alone, we might not have such a crisis on our hands.

Think how much better the talent will be coming back after a couple of years off the Board enjoying their flying.

 

In a period of 10 years they would only miss two - if they are that keen and that well supported.

 

 

If it's better to wear out than rust out I must be doing something right

 

 

Maj, Heck Field was a great success. I was initially proposing that the other General Meeting (not the AGM) should be shared around. However I was prevailed upon by the Board that one of the Meetings had to be in Canberra so the Board could have contact with Canberra (CASA/ATSB/Govt) people and the RA-Aus staff.

 

If you feel strongly about the non AGM meeting being a movable feast then you could put that to the members as an amendment to the Constitution. It's too late for this AGM but you could have it voted on at the Natfly GM/AGM. In the end, it is up to the members to decide how and when they want that to happen.

 

 

Thanks Don.

 

I've now opened threads for all of the proposed Special Resolutions with the exception of SRs 1, 2 & 7 which are pretty straight forward and unlikely to trouble anyone.

 

Thanks to Ian Baker for allowing (encouraging more likely) this extensive presentation of the proposed amendments.

 

So, over to you . . .

 

 

SR3 - Limited Board Terms

 

Currently, Board Members may serve an indefinite number of terms on the Board. This amendment to Rule 13 proposes limiting Board Members to three consecutive terms (six years) and then requires a two year break before coming back to the Board. This amendment avoids abusing the good will of volunteers serving very lengthy terms on the Board and allows for new input at Board level thereby maintaining a balance of experience and freshness. This amendment is also directed at reinforcing the pre-eminent position of the Rules over individual Board Member’s wishes.

 

SR8 - Removal of Board Members

 

In the unlikely, and so far unprecedented, circumstance that a Board Member were to be removed from the Board by the members in General Meeting, then that person would not be eligible to re-join the Board for at least two years.