DonRamsay

1. The President, along with the Secretary and the Treasurer are elected by the full Board to those positions and are empowered by the Constitution to make decisions for the Board between face to face meetings. 2. The Board had approved that instead of running Natfly, the President and CEO would visit as many fly-ins across as they could get to to meet members and discuss current RAAus matters. Their exercise was characterised as informing, explaining and consulting with the members. To have stayed in Canberra and said nothing about the biggest change facing RAAus since its original incorporation would have brought howls of protest from the nay-sayers. And then when they do expose themselves in face to face meetings with members there are, what?, howls of protest? FOr me that is 100%, 24 carat BS./ 3. Attending all those fly-ins cost the President, I would estimate of the order of >$10,000 in forgone consulting fees. There is not only no gain for the President but very considerable personal cost. The CEO was involved in meeting members, learning from them and informing and advising them. The CEO was doing what a CEO is expected to do - get to know the members. He has been able to meet a great many more members than he would have at any one Natfly (if we had had one) and members who are unlikely ever to get to a Natfly held in the Eastern States. Would anyone have wanted that he stay in Canberra and not gotten out and about? IN the trip to WA, there was a very hot issue related to PPC and the Ops Manual. Lots of heat resolved to the benefit of all involved. Much more effective than the email war that had been going on.

The Special Resolution was approved by an overwhelming majority of voters who outrank the Board. The SR was moved by individual members and the Board has no place in approving the moving of a SR. Let's not make things up; there was no smear here, just advising a person there was no point in getting upset, he would just have to wait and see what unfolded.Poor expression on my part and regretted. Being a bit hypersensitive of late.

I should have known better Turbs after all these years that your comment was not utter nonsense and that I had simply missed your intent. Perhaps it would have been a great deal better if I just said that I have great faith in the capability, direction and boba fides of the three initial directors. I am very confident that in 6 months fro now the fears and suspicions expressed here will have melted away and that all members will be able to see how well RAAus is functioning. I forget that I have been very close to the centre and am in a much better place to be able to have that confidence. I admit that anyone looking from the outside in could reasonably be suspicious that things have not changed and that the trend of ineptness at Board level may continue. Never a good idea to be posting after midnight. Don

Have a look at the video of the meeting.

True Missed point? Possibly, it is a little after my usual bedtime. Obfuscation - none intended (consciously). David, this is like two sides of the same coin. What I see as consultation and providing face to face opportunities for members to give their views others see as "promotion of the yes vote". As said elsewhere this is a no win argument. When people say we should have promoted the No case, frankly, we explored the no case and showed that it was a lesser proposition than the yes case. 90% of what I did on here was to counter false premises and misinformation. The calls for delay until it was "perfect" I found difficult to agree with because I've been at this thing sine 2010 and I just was not prepared to accept that something this good had to wait for something perfect . . . . one day down the track . . . maybe. Any refinements from here are not going to change the fundamental quantum leaps forward of smaller, better controlled Board and National voting. There is an opportunity now to work with or against the Board to do the fine tuning you require to be satisfied. I don't accept that a worthwhile SR will not get the acceptance of the wise, quiet majority. Good luck with some on here who vote against on suspicion or the truly banal "if it ain't broke . . . . " True and true. But, the Board Members who blocked some of my SRs were Board Members who would have seen themselves adversely affected e.g. long serving Board members who did not want their 25+ year reign to come to an end - ever. The new Board will be . . . new and their terms limited. Good question. Firstly, I think you'd have to agree that such a major proposed change required the level of exposure it was given. Any future changes are extremely unlikely to be of that level of complexity or impact. None of my SRs ever got any more publicity than what appeared on the Notice for the Meeting and believe me, I was considered a renegade by the majority of the Board led by Runciman, et al. Even then they did not campaign against my SRs in SportPilot or on here. So, no, a simple SR with modest impact would not warrant nor get the level of exposure given to a once in a lifetime change we've just gone through.

Geoff, Firstly, There is a lot more to Marketing than just promotion. Our CEO has an MBA with Marketing as his major. Secondly, Many current RAAus members, me included, did not know there is such a thing as recreational aviation. Sure, once your in, if you want to keep flying and enjoying the benefits of low regulation, economical flying, then you need to remain a member.

Show me the money! Point to one single dollar that was spent by RAAus on obtaining an in-favour vote. We've been over this so many times and it always comes back to: if the Board did not explain the proposed reform or give members the opportunity to provide suggested changes, it would have failed to communicate or consult. And, if our President took many days off from his paid work with zero compensation and travelled the length and breadth of Australia to provide face to face forums for member, you say he was spending members funds to obtain a yes vote. What annoys me intensely, is that we have a person of the calibre of Mick Monck who is prepared to make such sacrifices of time and money for no advantage to himself and is rewarded with mud-slinging. You blokes need to take a hard look in the mirror.

Happy to correct you on that. No Special Resolution can be put to the members by the Board - surely you know that and are just playing with words? In the unlikely case that you did not know, all motions for a Special Resolution, like any motion for any resolution put to the Members in General Meeting must have a proposer and a seconder and that is exactly what happened in this case. The reform project was originally sanctioned by a unanimous Board Resolution as far back as February 2012 and that included a vote from Rod Birrell. It was unanimously voted on again in adopting the RAAus Strategic Plan. Many drafts of the proposed Constitution were presented to the Board and amended on the basis of feedback from individual Board Members. I was not a party to the original drafting but did contribute several pages of questions and suggestions for change - all of which were dealt with to my total satisfaction. That opportunity was available to all Board Members. Three that I know of made no such attempt to make changes yet voted against the reforms when put to the members. Of those three Board Members who voted against the reform, one never uttered a single word to fellow Board Members but quietly raised 80 odd proxies to vote against the reforms. Another left any comment on the reforms until it was too late to make changes without having to defer the meetings at very considerable expense. The third didn't join the Boar until after the 3 weeks notice period had commenced. It never occurred to me to ask for a Board vote on the subject as I did not know that any Board Member was opposed to the reform. If we had taken a vote, Rod for instance, would have been obliged to maintain Board solidarity and not campaign against the reforms. Typical unfounded smear - not worth commenting on.

Keith, you've put those as questions rather than a statement so I'll respond that way rather than how my evil twin would like to. RAAus and RAAus are both NFP - no change. Staff contracts with RAAus are novated to RAAus - no change Payroll tax - no change.

Turbs, I don't know if you have FT ghost-writing your posts at the moment but that load was almost up to his standard. I honestly can't recall anything as absurd in a very long time. RAAus Inc. still exists and will do until it seamlessly morphs into RAAus Ltd - both of which are CORPORATIONS just one registered in the ACT and the other registered Nationally. All assets that now belong to a CORPORATION trading a RAAus will in future be owned by a CORPORATION trading as RAAus. In case you were not aware, an Incorporated Association and a Company limited by guarantee are both bodies corporate with the benefit of limited liability. Why is that so hard to understand or remember? What on earth are you implying by saying "the staff work for a company"? Is it that a Company is somehow soul-less but an incorporated association is a soulful? If that's what you were implying try talking to the staff and they will tell you that today they work for the best boss they've ever had and one of them told me that on the weekend and she's worked for 6 CEO's/GMs of RAAus. Whether it says Inc or Ltd everything for them is the same. Same contract, same pay, same great place to work. What were you asserting? That they'd come into work on Monday and say, well, I'm employed by a Company now might as well slack off and not care any more. Then there is the repetition of the utter nonsense about being "in the hands of three individuals" and "For some time". The fact is that the current constitution delegates to THREE people the power to make decisions for the Board between the end of the Board Meeting in October 2015 until the start of the Board Meeting in May 2016. Whereas, within 3 months of the transfer of incorporation, there will be at least 5 and possibly 7 Directors involved in every decision the Board makes and not just 3 as under the current constitution. To say otherwise would demonstrate that you do not understand what is going on. There will be a call for nominations in the July edition of SportPilot. There will be candidates declared in the August edition and and voting will close in time for the newly elected Directors to take up their seats as per the new Constitution at the AGM in Sep/Oct 2015. Why not try sticking to matters that you have done your usual meticulous research on instead of embarrassing yourself as you have with this post?

"Bullying" is total BS. For the last couple of months I have been attacked from every angle and accused of trying to entrench my position on the Board (I'll be gone by 30th June) trying to "enwealthen" myself when I have spent more than $1,000 of my own money on RAAus matters, getting to AGMs in 3 states and one territory, etc. But I don't call questioning what was being presented "bullying" - I call it robust debate. It has been in many cases ill-informed but all that provoked was an attempt to correct the misinformation. Attacking the person rather than their arguments is poor form and impolite but even still, what ever happened to "Sticks and stones . . . ."? What sort of a wussy society are we building when people want to throw themselves off a bridge because somebody "unfriends" them? If you can't stand to have your views questioned, go watch TV because it will just tell you what you want to hear and I guarantee it will never bully you. Use of the word "lies" was in my view unfortunate although I can understand how a person could come to that view when somebody writes something that is clearly factually inaccurate and should by rights have known it is factually inaccurate and does not declare personal interests that are promoted by relating statements that are wrong in fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but nobody is entitled to their own facts. The word "lies"implies that you have proof positive of the intent in saying something that you know or should know is completely false. Once again we are confronted with unsubstantiated "suspicions" that nobody can say are true or false. Suspicions are not even an opinion - they are like superstitions - based on some kind of whispering campaign and incontestable because they have no substance. And what on Earth would be wrong with soliciting a "Yes" vote for something that your study tells you will be good for RAAus? There was a lot of work that went into communicating to the members what the reforms were about and asking for feedback. That is not soliciting, that is consulting. The only thing I heard before the vote was that there was not enough consulting and after the vote was decided "consultation" suddenly becomes "solicitation". And that's the "big one" Keith? Really? Feel free to maintain your suspicions and superstitions but please don't ask anyone to take you seriously. Financials? Have a look at the video of the meeting there was a comprehensive presentation by the CEO on the financials. Bear in mind Keith, that the end of the financial year is 30 June not 30th April. The audited financial results for this financial year will be presented to the members at the AGM in Sep/Oct 2016.

There is a sizeable chunk of money in the budget to market RAAus to Australia in the coming 12 months. Now is the time to do that. How responsible would it have been to take our eye off the ball of getting RAAus out of the deep hole it was in and onto a survivable footing and launch into an expensive marketing promotion campaign? What would the message have been: come and join RAAus, we'll have your aircraft parked in a hangar and off limits before you can say "mismanagement". RAAus has put the big troubles from the past behind them and is now in a fair position to say "Come and join RAAus - we have safe, accessible, fun and educational flying just for you". A couple of years ago we had demonstrated that we couldn't manage the members and aircraft we had on the books then. How ethical would it have been to lure more people into that quagmire?

You see FT, Turbo thinks you are a genius and he'll vote for you . . . just as soon as he joins.

If only there were such an emoticon . . . . sigh . . .

Not intentionally I'm sure but completely wrong. I lost count of how many times I pointed out that both Inc and Ltd are corporations. The move to Ltd and Federal registration was to ensure the Board could never again operate in contempt of the Constitution as happened in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Try doing that when operating under the ASIC and see what sort of ton of hot bricks gets dropped on a Director..

As an ordinary member who, according to Col Jones put up approx 54,000 SRs I can assure all that a Special Resolution passes on its merit and does not need support from any Board Member. Whether 13 or 7 or only 5 Board Members they do not command enough votes to block any decent Special Resolution. Don

Nong, registering an aircraft that was not airworthy sounds like throwing good money after bad.

So, Keith you have now added fear of an uncertain future to suspicion of motives to eliminating temptations. I guess if you can't find any real or concrete to protest about, you ca always attack the ethereal: Suspicion, temptations and prognostications of doom. I truly despair about ever having a logical debate when all issues raised are just soeculations and emotions.

This is a little disingenuous Rod, when you consider the amount of time you have had to lobby for changes to the draft before it even went public, not to mention the six months since it was exposed nationally in October 2015. Instead, you leave it until it could not be changed before being put to a vote to oppose the reform. I have written something like 3 pages of suggestions and questions on the draft I read after being elected to the Board with the result that either the draft was changed or I was convinced that it was OK as it was. I was completely satisfied with that process, a process that was open to you long before it was open to me. The only thing that I have seen you express concern about is the reduction in the size of the Board to a maximum of 7 as that will cause you to face an election against all comers from all over Australia within a month or so of the transfer of incorporation from state to federal jurisdiction. If I want to remain on the new Board I will have to face exactly the same election that you would have to face at the same time as you. Don

The Special Resolution requires the Board to cause an election to be held that increases the Board numbers to no less than 5 members. There is nothing to stop the Board from increasing the number on the Board to the maximum of 7. No doubt we'll be discussing this in Canberra tomorrow, Rod.

Refer post #41

Dear oh dear. Sometimes it is hard to be polite. Keith, for your information, 026026 says I am a member of the "Members' Organisation" and so are the other 12 Board Members and so will be all Board Members of RAAus Ltd. Why would I or they be pushing something that will be harmful to us as members? Some may think I'm a masochist for trying to move RAAus forwards but I assure you I am not. Just does not make any sense at all to change the Constitution so that I am personally disadvantaged. My time on the Board, in total will be around 2 years. I am hoping that I can be a member for a lot longer than that. Also, you might like to reflect on the fact that if all RAAus did was to act as a members' advocate, all its other functions would go back to CASA and the CAOs. Is that how you'd like things to be? This member would not. I am happy to be a member of an organisation that gets exemptions from the CAOs because RAAus has its own Ops and Tech Manuals approved by CASA. I would rather face RAAus disciplinary system than CASA's. Incidentally, could you tell me the name of an organisation that is not a "member based organisation"?

No Ian, that's about 180 degrees from what I said Ian. Better have another read: "There will be some voting No, like Rod, for good reason like don't want less than 13 on the Board. I respect their right to do that and even to encourage others who agree with him to also vote No." It was the people who have not done the work to form a considered opinion that they would rather RAAus has 13 Board Members, voting for the Board by postcodes, no oversight by ASIC, etc.: "To vote NO because you don't have a clear understanding is a cop-out." No Board Members here but if you read what I wrote correctly you wouldn't be making that assertion.

Agree with most of that Kasper including that communication could have been better. But I believe enough has been done to allow a responsible member to seek clarification of any matter still in doubt. There will be some voting No, like Rod, for good reason like don't want less tha 13 on the Board. I respect their right to do that and even to encourage others who agree with him to also vote No. What I do have a problem with is people voting No on suspicion. And, worse than that urging others to vote No as well on the same baseless grounds. If you are not prepared to do the work, ask the questions and form a cosidered view then I have no issue with an abstention or even with giving your proxy to somebody you trust that you know has had a good look at the proposal. But to be in that particular position AND advocate others to vote is to my way of thinking unjustifiable.