Aerochute Kev

Not being honest??? I am looking for some proof accountability has improved. Yes I did vote. I believe our WA Rep is Ed??

Yes Jim, I do think think things have improved and believe there is some good work being done. Still a long way to go though. I don't have a problem with any Rep. I have a problem with the systems in place that allowed the previous mess to happen and the Reps not changing that system. Accountability may have improved "behind the scenes" but until the Board can show the members just how, it is optimistic to think you will gain the full support and trust of the membership. We are a 9500, or so, association relying on the goodwill of a few elected members, That didn't turn out so well last time. I cant see any reason why the Board could not announce what changes they had made to make things better. Surly that would make things even better for the Board. I did put out the challenge several days ago for one of our Reps to make available the confidentiality agreement and asked why our elected officials are denied access to information unless it is signed. Now you are here would you care to take up that challenge?

I'm not surprised. I think i have given a good account as to why i think change is necessary and in all this time you have only challenged my views but not actually given an account of why we should not make such important changes.

Thanks for that David. Where can we get more information as to what will be in that agenda, I cant find any info on RAAus site. Is there an agenda?

"Only the members have the power to change the REPs if they don't do it whose fault is it?" We do........We did............ No additional accountability.

We voted in new Reps on the basis of their claims to want to see things change from what was happening before. Their behavior may be better now but none of the process seems to have changed. That behavior could change at any time and it may take along time for us to find out. Of course it is within the power of the Board to change things, that is what they are there for. The secrecy and confidentiality agreements are not part of the constitution, merely a process, something that someone introduced at some time thinking it would be a good idea. Turned out it was, for the Board, but not such a good idea for the members wanting to be able to keep an eye on what the Board are doing. Any one of our Board Members could raise a motion at any Board meeting to have that document scrapped or amended so it cannot be used to hide information from members that they would ordinarily have a right to know.Don't forget that some of the Reps well involved in previous deceptions are still there. Of course if it did happen, we would not know who voted for or against that motion as the minutes we get are cleverly devoid of information on how our Reps individually vote, so we cant tell if any one of them are not actually supporting the ideals that they stated when we voted for them.

I had no idea I was signing up for a "serial pest"team, merely stating my agreement with the opinion he was stating at that time. That does not mean i agree with everything else some of those posters had to say. I agree we have some good board Members but I also remember the mess created when we had no information or control of the Boards direction. Some of those Board members may not have been at any fault but the members demanded more accountability and demanded an EGM to push that point. We have since changed some Board members but have made no changes to the processes that allowed that situation to develop in the first place. Regardless of how good or honest we think our current Board is, we must change the system to ensure such a situation can never occur again. Interestingly none of the Board Members elected since have been able to show they have been making any attempt to change the way the Board operates to make it more accountable. Members have been accused of being apathetic as a reason the problems occurred, and I could well have been one of those. Not so much apathy but simply a case of not actually knowing what was happening within our association. I was flying, I was happy. I now know and as I wish to continue with my flying privileges will do whatever I can to make sure I am kept informed as the Board, even the current one, seem unable to keep the members up to date with what is happening within our association.

I was hoping you were around to comment on this, Thanks Kaz Edit: Would this mean that the confidentiality agreement we are speaking of would not be necessary as those things that should ordinarily be considered confidential are already covered by other legislation? Kev

I'm not sure but don't think that information IS confidential. A confidentiality agreement between a Board Member and the Board itself won't cover this. According to our constitution it seems to be available to any member on request. From our constitution: 36. Inspection of books. The records, books and other documents of the Association shall be open to inspection at a place in the ACT, free of charge, by a Member of the Association on request at any reasonable hour. I assume this section of the constitution is to ensure that the staff or Board are not able to hide or otherwise deny access to important information to the Members (in reality, the owners of the organisation). Maybe we should use this clause more often!!

I understand this to mean he knows other Reps do not post here because of the negative feedback or personal attacks they may receive, not because they have been told they cannot post on a forum for confidentiality reasons. I'm pretty sure I have not said one personally negative thing about Maj or the job he is doing in his role as our Rep. If you find one of my posts that I have, I will withdraw it or apologise unreservedly because that is not my intention. As said before, this is not about what the Reps are doing but a system that requires a duly elected Rep, with lawful access to all RAAus information granted by the constitution, being withheld by someone unless they sign a further document swearing them to secrecy/confidentiality. THAT is not part of our constitution and I doubt would be even lawful. I'm not sure where you are going with this Techy, as we seem to believe in the same thing, that these documents should not exist and a duly elected Rep should have access to all information held by RAAus, as specified in the constitution, without having to swear allegiance to the Board "club". Communication with the members cannot be improved as long as it is in place. I have not claimed there should be no confidentiality at all, if the situation requires it, but that has to be determined by the Board on a case by case basis and not just a blanket secrecy on the whole of the Board activities. Perhaps that raises another issue in that any other elected official will be sworn into that position. Maybe it is time we did a similar thing with swearing in elected officials where they swear to act in an honest, open and accountable manner to the benefit of the organisation. Maybe a sworn oath will negate the need for such a confidentiality agreement? Just a thought.

It is not even about half truths or deliberately misleading, it is about the possibility of being told honest and truthful information, just not all of it. As an example (fictitious)..... If i was looking to purchase an aircraft Brand xxx but heard on he grapevine that brand xxx had such bad safety problems that RAAus had grounded the fleet. I contact my Rep and ask if this is true that all Brand xxx aircraft have been grounded? My Rep tells me that the Board has in fact discussed this aircraft type and they have not been grounded. (this is true but only the information he is allowed to repeat) What he is not allowed to repeat at this time is that the RAAus has contacted the manufacturer of Brand xxx and demanded they show what actions they have done to remedy the situation or the fleet will be grounded. I had been told 100% the truth, the RAAus had not grounded the fleet, but because I didn't know of the other actions taken, the second hand Brand xxx i just bought was grounded 3 months later and will likely never fly again. The Rep could not tell me the information that could have saved all that heartache because he had signed a confidentiality agreement and could have been disciplined if he had revealed the actions the Board had taken at that time. Yes, its only a fictitious story but highlights you can be told the truth, but not everything you needed to know. The Rep answered honestly, I may have asked the wrong question (but he couldn't tell me that) and the only thing that stopped him volunteering more information was the confidentiality agreement. I have no reason to disbelieve that Maj knows why other Board Members don't post on this forum.

I have not at any time suggested any of the Reps have lied. For them to do so would very silly indeed. What I am suggesting is that it is possible for us as members to base our opinions and views on information that has been supplied as deliberately incomplete. Not lied to but possibly led to a conclusion we may not otherwise have made by incomplete information. Contrary to some who believe otherwise, i have no axe to grind about Maj's performance and actually support the work he is TRYING to do on our behalf (or that of any other Rep). I am merely stating I have grave misgivings about the processes that are in place that seem to hinder their being effective in their roles as representatives of the membership.

Glad you have had it confirmed for yourself. As you have had regular contact with Reps and had no concerns with what you have been told, does it now raise concerns of what you may have NOT been told due to their signing of such an agreement? It is very easy to be unconcerned with an answer if you believe it to be the truth, but that now raises the question of.. have things been left out of that answer because of confidentiality that would have led you to a different view of the answer? You may never know. Kind of makes it hard to believe whats being spruiked by our Reps when they are not allowed to tell what is actually happening. There is no place for these agreements in the day to day running of the organisation.

Quote from Maj's post on 15 Nov 2013, in thread "Board Report". Sorry didn't know how to refer to it so cut and paste. "As promised prior to my election to the board, I intend to report on this forum as best I can from time to time. It will be very general in nature, and no names will be mentioned as I have signed a confidentially agreement to allow me access to all board info." I recall there was another post refrerring to not being effectual as a Rep if not signed but not found it yet. As can be clearly seen he was denied access to board information unless signed. As this was only 3 months ago can anyone claim things have changed and only have to keep confidential certain things?

One of the Reps on this site has stated he had to sign a confidentiality agreement or would not have been given access to certain information. He felt he had to sign it as if he had not, it would make him ineffectual as a Rep. - Kev

There are definitely Board members who want to do the right thing by the members AND communicate what actions they have taken. The problem is the secrecy/confidentiality agreements. No one yet has been able to say WHO makes them sign the agreement or what authority they have to do so, complete with a threat of withholding information from a member not signing that agreement. In my opinion that is nothing short of corruption. We will not fix this by changing a few Board members, the ingrained corrupt practices just continue with the new members, effectively gagging them from doing what they had intended to do right from the start. Here is a challenge for the few Board members who regularly appear here... Post a copy of the agreement you were forced to sign (are we not entitled to see what is required of our board members?), State who required you to sign it and what authority they claimed to have to do so. Surely there is nothing confidential being exposed in doing so. I wont be placing bets on the response (or lack of it) Kev

Or four, pretty hard to trust an organisation's management that lives on secrecy agreements.

No problem there Maj, its the Board Meeting minutes I cant get, not highlighted in blue or clickable. Kev

Thanks Maj, just had a look and maybe there is something wrong on my end as I still cant seem to get the Sept 13 Board meeting minutes. Kev

It would seem that decisions have been made and members not informed. We have no way to confirm this unless the requires documents are released so I fail to see how you can not be annoyed as you claim you would be. The usual response to any questioning of the Board Members seems to be the ridiculous statement that if you want to know such information perhaps you should stand for election as a Board Member. To me this clearly indicates they believe you have to be a Board Member to know such technical and complicated information that should be kept from us mere members. Information, i might add, that the constitution requires they divulge to members in a set time frame. Unless you have found a way to get a PPC (or any other non conforming aircraft) licensed with CASA that I have been unable to find, I'm sure the argument that if you don't like it, go GA RPL also has no place in the quest for information and accountability. Some of us don't get a choice about which organisation we are governed by so we try to ensure we know whats happening with the organisation that has a direct bearing on whether we can fly or not. I don't think that is unreasonable.

I guess I must be wrong to want to know important information as to how our organisation is going, and thinking it was the responsibility of the elected members to ensure ordinary members were advised of such information. My apologies, i didn't mean to step on anyone's "toes". Kev

If I had put my hand over the left of the screen and read this I would have sworn it was written by one of our past Presidents/Treasurers!! The only way we can be assured that nothing secret is going on is by the ones that are allegedly "keeping the secrets" telling us everything is OK? Sure.... That will work. The Board is there to make decisions, I don't think anyone disputes that. The Boards total lack of ability to convey those decisions in a timely manner to the membership via minutes to meetings or announcements on the web site is nothing short of pathetic management. (where are the minutes Maj?) Isn't this sort of behavior what got us in strife not so long ago, having people making decisions with no scrutiny or accountability? I think the time has come (did it ever leave?) to do what should have been done before and dismiss the whole Board, install an administrator and completely re write the whole rule book, complete with accountability and strict reporting procedures (with consequences if not followed) , before installing a new Board completely free of the pressures of secrecy and the "tow the line or we won't let you see anything important" type of bullying behavior that seems to be ingrained in senior Board members we have currently. We don't need our Board to keep feeding us platitudes on how well they have done, I want to see the proof in writing of all its wonderful achievements and be able to judge for myself if I think it really is as wonderful as we keep being told. Kev

Are we talking about different things? My understanding of a Flight Training Facility is the physical property used to conduct flight training. It is not the people that actually conduct the flight training (FTO) at that facility. When a CFI wants to use a property for training it is assessed by RAAus as either suitable, or not, for the type of flying training to be conducted there. If approved it becomes a Registered Flight Training FACILITY. With a FTF or STFT being only property, that property seems to me to be clearly covered under the policy as "property used to conduct flight training". Have the Board and GM been referring to FTF when they are in fact meaning the people or business (instructors) actually conducting the training (which you refer to as FTO)?

I thi I think the problem here is no one would be complaining about the confidentiality if the board had a very good method of communication that informed members of decisions/ general information in a timely manner. Quite simply, the board members are gagged and those that should be communicating, are not. There is no reason in this technological age that minutes of any meeting could not be made available within a week. (3 months and still no minutes of the board meeting in Oct 2013) You can't have secrecy AND a lack of information to the members. This will always result in members feeling left in the dark and that they have deliberately been excluded or ignored for unknown reasons. Until our board is capable of providing information in a timely manner, they do not deserve to be able to also keep everything secret.

I have just read the actual policy document on the RAAus website and did not find any reference to the exclusions of a FTF. There is however reference to an instructor and student pilot/passenger being covered. There is also reference to the property being used for flying activities being covered, it did not exclude a registered FTF. (which is after all a property being used for flying activities). From what I can understand of it, FTFs have not been excluded. IF i am correct, and If they are to be excluded in the future, I think it must be as a result of a request from RAAus to exclude them in an attempt to reduce the premium. (which is a pretty low act in my opinion, as the number of instructors would be a very small percentage of the total membership and those operating the FTF's are still members, still paying full membership fees, including the insurance component) Anyone else read it and come up with a different opinion?