Powerin

A two cylinder with up to 150hp would have a huge power pulse on each power stroke wouldn't it? Wouldn't that put a big strain on redrive and prop?

My interpretation is that the Secretary satisfied those rules by "calling" a meeting and announcing it's date within a month of receiving the requisition. If the secretary had failed to do that, members could have called a meeting to be held within 3 months. Not saying it's right, just that it seems (to me) to be within the rules.

Yeah, granted, 71 is a stretch....(b) is what I was looking at in that if the accounts haven't been audited perhaps it was because they weren't able to be "conveniently and properly audited" 72 deals with accounts being prepared in time for the AGM. Were any presented? 73 obvious 74 - were the accounts audited 14 days before they were required for the AGM? If so, why weren't they presented? The caveat is that "reasonable steps" need to be taken. It could be that reasonable steps were taken but they didn't succeed. (Sorry for the thread drift)

This case was used as a prime example in both the Board training programs I have undertaken. As established previously, the RAAus is registered in the ACT...it is listed in the register of Associations on the ACT Dept of Justice website.It is therefore covered by the above act. The Registrar (ACT Dept of Justice) WILL NOT take action if a Board or members of an association breech their own constitution. It is expected that the members of an Association resolve conflicts internally. Failing that, legal action is the only recourse. Again, I suggest that taking legal action on whether SR has resigned or not is not a wise use of RAAus funds. Indeed I am not sure members are authorised to use RAAus funds to undertake legal action and as such it would have to come out of members' own pockets. I do concede that if current or future court cases find that SR was improperly reinstated a legal can of worms could be opened. Having said that, the Registrar WILL take action if the Act above is breeched...including the power to remove Board (committee) members. By my reading of the Act our Board has breeched Sections 71 - 74 (or parts of them) in relation to the missing financials. The penalty could be over 80 penalty units (a penalty unit = $110)

The thing I don't get though is that no one in the registered office has the authority to deal with a resignation of a board member and any communication like this would be immediately passed on to the Secretary anyway to be dealt with and promulgated. So the person who would end up with a resignation letter anyway has just received it directly and the outcome is the same. If push came to shove I think a court would see it that way too. However, I don't think it needs to come to that. The membership has the power to deal with this at a General Meeting...should it be deemed necessary.

It seems to me that Gavin's advice relies on the resignation not being presented to the registered office of the RAAus from the Corporations Act (2001). In this day and age it is my understanding that electronic communication is considered written proof. I personally have electronically signed and emailed (or faxed) numerous legal contracts which are accepted as legal documents. So the fact that it was emailed is not at issue in my opinion. My quick reading of the Corporations Act indicates that it does apply in some aspects to an incorporated association in the ACT...but what aspects they are I don't know (see Kaz's post above). As a farmer I'm as close as you'll get to a bush lawyer in a kangaroo court

Better yet how about a pdf Attached below.... RAA - Runciman\'s Resignation Email-1.pdf RAA - Runciman\'s Resignation Email-1.pdf RAA - Runciman\'s Resignation Email-1.pdf

Yes...the only stipulations in the Act are that the Public Officer is a resident of the ACT and over 18yo and subject to any other restrictions in the constitution of the association. As far as I can see there is nothing about Public Officers in the RAAus constitution. Probably the staff of RAAus are the only ones with any close connection that actually reside in the ACT.....unless, of course, Slartibartfast wanted to be Public Officer

Kaz, I'm aware that becoming incorporated involves an association becoming a legal entity in its own right, but I'm wondering about the legal definition of "incorporated". To my mind "incorporated" means "to become a corporation". Would that mean that the Corporations Act (2001) does indeed apply to incorporated associations? I can't (yet) see anything in the Act that would tie it to an incorporated body.

Thanks Gavin. Despite the defensive nature of your post it is good that we can gain some insight into how this decision was arrived at. And really, that's all we ask.....openness and honesty. I assume this is the legal advice received by the board. Not being a lawyer it is hard to see how most of the Corporations Act applies to associations. I would have thought that a written resignation to either the Secretary or the Public Officer of an incorporated association would suffice as official notice. A letter presented to the registered office of the RAAus would end up with the secretary anyway. Be that as it may, there is indeed nothing set out in either the RAAus constitution or the Associations Incorporated Act regarding methods of resignation. I guess the Corporations Act is the next port of call for guidance. Sorry to harp on this...but RAAus Board members might do well to refer to other sections of the RAAus constitution, Associations Incorporated Act 1991 (ACT) and Corporations Act regarding the timeliness of presenting audited financial reports. Under ACT law several $1000 worth of fines are involved.

OK...so we've decided that various members of the board are acting outside the constitution. What do we do? I'm assuming it is illegal to operate an association contrary to its constitution? If Runciman continues on do we have any redress other than legal action? I recently heard a caller to legal segment on a radio talk back show who was outlining a similar situation with a national incorporated association (sporting I think) whose board were also ignoring their constitution. The guest lawyer's advice to her was that, unless the association wanted to drag it through the courts, with the associated expenses, the best thing to do was start a new association. I'm not in favour of that approach for RAAus, but it does make you wonder how we will hold these people to account. As an aside, forgetting all the other dramas, the fact we haven't yet seen any audited financials is a good example of everything we've been talking about. Firstly a clear and major breech of the constitution, and secondly there has been no communication (that I've seen) as to why! A simple note on the website or in the mag saying "sorry about that...I've been sick/busy/snowed under with audits/been away ...I'll get it out to you as soon as possible" and members probably would have accepted that. Instead we have nothing and are left wondering if the Treasurer is busy doing some "cooking" or perhaps is on an extended cruise in the Bahamas. To me, missing financials in an association with a $multi-million turnover is unconscionable

Fair enough. I guess a precedent had been set. And yes, it is neither fair nor naturally just. I just think that with everything else it is a side issue not worth losing sleep over. If members want to remove the president (or not) then it can be dealt with at the upcoming meeting.

Hmmm. I'm OK with the fact that the president changed his mind, withdrew his resignation and the board allowed him back. I'm not OK with the president incurring a legal cost at member's expense for the privilege of being able to change his mind. That should come out of his own pocket (and perhaps it did). In reality the RAAus probably retains the services of a legal firm for an annual fee and advice can be obtained at no further change. Let me just check the financial statements to see if that's the case. Oh...wait....

Let's not get caught up in whether SRs resignation is valid or not just because you want him out of there. It's not worth the legal hassle is it? Instead remember that a General Meeting can resolve to remove any board member. Constitution again: 17 Removal of committee members The association in general meeting may by resolution, subject to the Act, section 50, remove any member of the committee from the office of member of the committee before the end of the member’s term of office. The "Act" is defined in the constitution as the "Associations Incorporation Act 1991" (Australian Capital Territory). Section 50 of the Act says: 50 Rules of natural justice If an incorporated association exercises any power that it has to adjudicate a dispute between its members, or between itself and a member or members, in relation to the rights given to the members by the rules of the association, any decision made by the association is not taken to be valid unless, in any proceedings in relation to the dispute, the rules of natural justice have been complied with.

I don't know, call me naive, but John G's writings on his website are very prophetic. What we are seeing now is deja vu! You would think that people volunteering for the RAAus board would be working together for a common goal. Instead we see political in-fighting, egos and back stabbing. How can a board operate successfully without consensus and with such venom and animosity as seems to exist in RAAus? Who would want to volunteer for that? Here was me thinking aviation (and especially RAAus) was about following dreams and experiencing the freedom of flight. Silly me.

*sigh*

I think you could interpret that phrase to mean that the executive is subject to board decisions already made but executive decisions that don't go against previous board decisions would be OK. Not saying it's good...just one interpretation.

There's been some discussion of getting rid of the "executive". However, an executive commonly exists on many boards ostensibly to take care of minor day to day decisions or emergency decisions without needing a full board vote...but, of course, then informing the full board of those decisions. If you want remove the "executive" concept from RAAus a further change to the constitution is required. Here's the relevant bit..... "The President, Secretary and Treasurer shall form the Executive of the Association and shall be responsible for all matters relating to the affairs of the Association whenever the Board is not meeting and, subject to any decisions of the Board, shall make all the decisions necessary in relation to the Association's business and shall act in the case of emergency."

Win..here it is. It's in the Technical Manual.... Section 2.1 – Technical Manager’s Duty Statement

I would love to join the fray, but harvest waits for no man, woman or child. I'd be happy to make the 4 hr drive another time of year though.

My intention was not to "blame" members as such, but to point out that the board we have is the one we voted in. If it is true, as you say, that "the average member (didn't) know not only that there was a problem, but what kind of problem and who was responsible without any information to go on at all" , then how are members supposed know which way to vote to fix or avoid the problem? If we accept that the average member does not know what's going on, or doesn't care (and I'm fine with that) then our system needs to change to take that reality into account and prevent a board or management from taking advantage of that reality. And I'm not sure a few changes to the constitution is all that needs to happen because the constitution isn't even being adhered to at the moment. Would a limited liability company be easier to manage in terms of ensuring boards adhere to the constitution? It will cost more to run that way, but for the low cost Incorporated Assoc. option to work the members need to put more time and effort into the running of RAAus. I'm not sure that will happen.

It would be instructive to consider how we arrived at this situation. We have had many pages of posts, probably correctly, blaming Board incompetence. But who put the board together? WE, the members, did! And we have had several years of elections to be able to correct the situation. Yet it didn't happen. True, we elect our boards within the confines of the rules that are the constitution, but we also have the power to change the constitution and fortunately that has happened to some extent lately due to the hard work of a very few members such as Andy. So...what needs to change if we the members cannot be trusted to vote in a competent board? Voter apathy is a fact of life, I believe, and we have to compensate for this somehow. Many non-profit boards (including one I am a member of) are ditching the idea of regional representation and concentrating hard on getting people with skills to volunteer. This is not as democratic....but I believe pure democracy has not served RAAus well. It is ironic that when we did finally vote in some people with skills, they didn't last long. To sum up, perhaps a non-profit incorporated association, with a popularly elected regionally represented board is not a model that suits the RAAus. They are not just some club executive, they are a delegated regulatory authority that has some pretty heavy duty (and convoluted) laws and regulations to follow and enforce. Something has to change, what we have is not working. We can have a clean sweep and sack the lot of them....but how can we be sure the Board we next vote in will be any better? EDIT: There have been complaints about the Board executive.....an executive exists to take care of decisions that arise and need to be taken care of between board meetings. Given there is 6 months between board meetings this gives the executive a whole lot of latitude. It will cost us a lot more...but as has been said before, an organisation the size and budget of RAAus needs a lot more than two face to face board meetings a year!

...and did he say how was he going with those audited financial reports?

Just a little diversion.....it's interesting to note the number of long time forum members who have posted very rarely in the past but are posting in this thread. Seems to indicate to me the depth of feeling that's out there. Is it some sort of site record that Pete Greed has double as many likes as he has posts?

I was going to say "assimilated into the Borg Collective" ....but thought too many wouldn't know what that meant...and I didn't want to appear like a complete nerd. But then it's probably too late for that....