shags_j

Still haven't seen any reasons why CASA governance would be bad... (just curious why other people don't want it. I have my own reasons)

No, I think they will take in our suggestions and change their ways. I think we are in for a top, profitable, mistake free year.

The overwhelming opinion from people at the meeting was the whole "A small group of people causing issues". I tried to keep a low profile since it was my first agm but still, was hard to listen to it all.

Ahhh k

Clause 17?

Hi All, Just got to thinking. Noone seems to want a move to CASA for governance of what we do. Just to pose a question: Why is that YOU do not want to be governed by CASA?

and here: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-constitutional-changes.47652/

Yeah that was me mate. The financials give cause for concern. Huge increases in profit and big decreases in most expenses have resulted in a negligible increase in profit. Their answer that "costs have gone up" is not good enough. My analysis of the financials (though limited since as stated above we were nto given the notes to the financials) resulted in (these are all from memory): 25% increase in employee expenses (from $840k to $1.07M) $100k increase in "Other Expenses" And the big one was a HUGE increase in insurance. This leads to the question as to why our insurance has increased so much. I assume this has to do with the litigation that is ongoing. I know we cannot find out details about the court case but if this is as a result of the boards decisions, should the association foot the bill? Maybe we do want to protect board members to help promote people applying in which case we should foot the bill but how far is too far? Anyways, these are just all questions for discussion but I think the board needs to be aware that there will be increased scrutiny in future years. Any yeah Andy, I couldn't believe the blank looks I got from the Treasurer re: notes to the financials.

IMHO I don't think many of the questions were answered apppropriately (the insurance questions aside). Will be interesting to see the answers in the magazine. I mean the answer to the Jnr Membership questions regarding President going against board decisions was really just: Answer: "It was a mistake". Oops, well then we can just ignore these issues and move on *sarcasm*.

Show of hands only. I'm not saying there were definitely non-members voting though at no point (other than a register that was handed around) did they check to see if everone there was a financial member or not. All the votes were show of hands except for two of the constitutional changes which were foregone conclusions on the proxies alone. The only one that was up in the air (cficare said) was the 5% one. That is until the show of hands which was unanimous for on the floor. There was a guy sitting near me that didn't write his name and member number on the register so I assume that he wasn't a member but was still in attendance nonetheless (he did not vote on anything though).

Some though the votes were all extremely one way fromo the floor (ie. they were all unanimous from the floor)

I left at 3:30, right at the time that the CEO was stating that he had not yet had enough time to formulate answers to the questions put forward by David Isaacs. The general feeling I got from those around me and discussions at lunch was "small minority making life difficult for everyone else". The President's report was woefully prepared and I don't feel that many members questions were answered appropriately. But at least the constitutional changes got through so at least some progress has been made. Some other discussions were interesting around the insurance. Current litigation that they are not allowed to discussed has used up all the benefit from the insurance policy and any further cost or settlement for that particular case must come from member funds. I think this point is worrying or am I overstressing this one? Will be interesting to read the response to David's questions as we had no real response before 3:30 at the meeting itself. Cheers, Shags

There was definitely no checking to see if only financial members were present or voting.

Are you allowed to record the agm?

Too many Steve's, we should get rid of one to make it easier.

Relax. I meant Windsor. I am hauling my ass down there to observe and vote in favour of the changes.

A long time ago I set out to develop an android app that could sync to a web front end specifically for australians. Well work got in the way :(

Don't poke the bear...

How is voting at the AGM performed?

Don't neglect to the how tod o this stuff. How do we vote at meetings, how do we vote if we don't go to the meetings etc.

Thanks CFI. Was starting to think it wasn't important to vote on these changes ;)

Hi All, Since i've never been to an RAAus AGM thought I would ask some questions... 1. To vote on the constitutional ammendments, do I need to prefill any voting forms out or can I vote there on the day? 2. What exactly happens there and what should I keep an eye out for? Cheers, Shags

Preaching to the choir David. Problem is deisseminating that idea to the general community. The ones that are least likely to be proactive are the ones least likely to be on a site like this participating in these conversations.

I wouldn't go that far Turbo. There are a lot of people that just want to be a member to fly and do not want to get involved in the politics of it all. I think the majority of the people on this site (qualified statement) are more politically minded. I wouldn't call this laziness. There are some who have been through all of this before in other associations and just don't want the hassle anymore. Not having a go, just something to keep in mind.

Read speed cameras