RAAus Board Election 2019

[FlyingVizsla]

RAAus is calling for nominations to fill 3 Board positions. Nominations open 3 June 2019 and close 5 July 2019, 5:00pm EST.

 

The RAA Board consists of 7 members, with fixed, but staggered, terms; which means only a few have to stand down at each election, but are eligible for re-election for a 3 year term.

 

The Current Board: **Those standing down (as far as I know - please correct me if I am wrong)

 

Michael Monck (Chairman) 0419 244 794 [email protected] (Elected 2017)

 

Rod Birrell 0422 446 622 [email protected] (Elected 2018)

 

Luke Bayly 0421 463 967 [email protected] (Elected 2018)

 

Barry Windle (Replaced Tony King on retirement 2019 from 2018 election result)

 

**Alan Middleton 0407 356 948 [email protected]

 

**Trevor Bange 0429 378 370 [email protected]

 

**Eugene Reid 0428 824 700 [email protected]

 

Nomination information is in the Members Portal on the RAAus website. Being a member is the only qualification. Candidates are required to submit a photo and an election statement up to 750 words, to be published in the magazine.

 

At the "travelling around and meeting the members" gig that I attended this year, they were talking about wanting the Board to be more representative of the membership. They felt it lacked younger people, women, pilots with experience in weight-shift, gyro, 95-10, rag & tube, builders. But if you have the time and energy - NOMINATE!

 

 

[jackc]

Having read the nomination information I was under the impression they were seeking nomination for the board at BHP :-(

 

Make it too hard and the people who have much to contribute, won’t bother.

 

It would be viewed by many that the bar has been set to keep the incumbent board, to continue the direction of the RAA whether it’s in the best interests of its members, or not?

 

The only real avenue open to the members is to attend the forums and make submissions for changes that should be made.

 

IF members stick together for certain aspects of beneficial changes, only then is it possible to get somewhere.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[circuitsun]

So, the big question is, how do we put a bomb under the apathetic majority of members to at least dispense with those that are obviously not working in our interest ?

 

 

[octave]

So, the big question is, how do we put a bomb under the apathetic majority of members to at least dispense with those that are obviously not working in our interest ?

The problem I have is that I am prepared to listen to those who are unhappy but in the end, I can only vote (and I always do make the effort to vote) for those with the courage to put themselves forward. I can only vote from amongst the candidates that are put before me.

 

 

[kasper]

Ok - I have decided that I can commit to the time required as a director so any members fancy nominating me?

 

1. member and pilot since early 90's

 

2. instructor and L2 since mid 90's (not current)

 

3. have designed and built a 95.10 weightshift, owned and restored thrusters and drifters have a half built homebuilt of my own design here

 

4. hold a UK and US private pilots licence - the UK one is for microlights

 

5. was an elected board member in the UK of the British Microlight Aircraft Association

 

Currently not involved in any commercial aviation.

 

If you want to understand my opinions and stand on the current directions of RAAus and the management of the org wander though my posts on here.

 

Any RAAus members feel like nominating me? PM me through here.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Having read the nomination information I was under the impression they were seeking nomination for the board at BHP :-(

 

Make it too hard and the people who have much to contribute, won’t bother.

 

It would be viewed by many that the bar has been set to keep the incumbent board, to continue the direction of the RAA whether it’s in the best interests of its members, or not?

 

The only real avenue open to the members is to attend the forums and make submissions for changes that should be made.

 

IF members stick together for certain aspects of beneficial changes, only then is it possible to get somewhere.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

You are on to it Jack.

 

KP.

 

 

[circuitsun]

Kasper, I have followed your posts for some time, and would be very happy to nominate you, However I am new to this forum thing, .... how do I "PM" you ?

 

 

[circuitsun]

And thanks for putting your hat in the ring , You are offering to take on a daunting task !

 

 

[kasper]

Question.

 

Have other nominated candidates been asked to edit or change their election statements?

 

I find it odd that an election statement has to be acceptable to the board to be printed in the magazine and I would appreciate hearing from any other nominating candidate as to what if anything they have been asked to change.

 

Please private message me if you have nominated and been asked to change your statement.

 

Note - I will not be discussing here what I have been asked to change - I am only interested in knowing if others have been asked to change their statements as I have.

 

 

[kasper]

Update

 

Following further conversations with RAAus I was offered the opportunity to amend my election statement.  I thanked the board for the opportunity to amend my election statement after closing date of the nominations and did agree that 1 word could be changed to clarify part of my opinion.

 

I feel I need to let members know this as the election statement I now have with RAAus is not exactly as per my original lodged statement.

 

However, this was not sufficient and the board are further considering if they will publish my statement and if they do how it will appear.

 

Their nominated options - at their decision - will be:

 

1. publish as agreed (1 word changed from that provided)

 

2. edit the statement to remove what they find offensive and state that they have edited it

 

3. publish as agreed (1 word changed from that provided) but also publish a board response in the magazine against the statement

 

I hope they go for 1. because 2. and 3. to me look a lot like you can say whatever you like as your opinion provided we agree with it but if we do not we will say its not ok.

 

I'll update when I hear further.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Amazing behaviour in an election.

 

 

[jackc]

Amazing behaviour in an election.

 

Hand picking people they think eligible for election?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

This is the sort of democracy practiced in places like Iran. The editing of election statements is an abomination of process UNLESS it contains statements that if published could result in an action against RAAus (similar to the idea that Google can be sued as a publisher) in which case they should simply decline to publish.

 

Kasper, are you prepared to publish the statement on this site?

 

 

[kasper]

This is the sort of democracy practiced in places like Iran. The editing of election statements is an abomination of process UNLESS it contains statements that if published could result in an action against RAAus (similar to the idea that Google can be sued as a publisher) in which case they should simply decline to publish.

 

Kasper, are you prepared to publish the statement on this site?

 

Yes.  I had already messaged Ian and asked permission to publish here if there was an election before I knew there was an issue with the statement.  

 

Once i I know what RAAus are going to publish I will publish my statement here in any event.  

 

From the discussions today with RAAus there is no issue from the board that my statement is defamatory or leaves the board or company open to legal challenge only that they consider that my opinions are not factually correct in their opinion.

 

I’m perfectly happy to have my statement before all on this forum during the election process and am accepting that members may well consider that I’m wrong in my views and vote accordingly.

 

That’s what an election is all about 

 

 

[turboplanner]

 

That’s what an election is all about 

 

Of course it is! Candidates put forward THEIR views and the electors make their judgement on who is right and who is wrong.

 

 

[NT5224]

"Have other nominated candidates been asked to edit or change their election statements?

 

I find it odd that an election statement has to be acceptable to the board to be printed in the magazine and I would appreciate hearing from any other nominating candidate as to what if anything they have been asked to change".

 

G'Day Kasper

 

Just found this thread and it makes for illuminating  reading.

 

If your election statement has been  required to align with the views of the board even before you are elected to membership, that is most interesting.  You're doing the right thing by honouring the confidentiality of any correspondence  you have with the board for now, but I hope that after the election, regardless of outcome,  we get to hear a little more about this, and the nature of their objections. 

 

There are always two sides to every story, but at face value this all seems very strange.  

 

Good luck

 

Alan    

 

 

[facthunter]

ALL members get the magazine's contents one way or another but not all RAAus are  RE CREATIONAL FLYING forum readers. so it's not the complete answer.

 

      This does seem a little ODD to me. There would be rules this comes under. Does the AEC ( Electoral Commission) get involved if asked? I know it can with the constitution of Unions regarding conduct of elections there.. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

ALL members get the magazine's contents one way or another but not all RAAus are  RE CREATIONAL FLYING forum readers. so it's not the complete answer.

 

      This does seem a little ODD to me. There would be rules this comes under. Does the AEC ( Electoral Commission) get involved if asked? I know it can with the constitution of Unions regarding conduct of elections there.. Nev

 

I will neither laugh nor cry.  

 

There are NO written rules for the RAAus elections.  I have asked for them every year since the company was created and again yesterday asked M Linke for them so that I could review what’s happening with what the rules are. 

 

The board/CEO position is that the information pack and the emails are the AEC acceptable process. 

 

Personally I expected documented rules setting out items like how communication it to be made.  How many days nominations are open.  What to do in a tie.  What to do if there is potentially defamatory materials presented etc.  

 

if actual rules existed as members we could hold management to account to them and I would not this year be in a position where the board appears to be making up rules as they go along to address an issue that they see.  

 

Frankly not not happy with core processes and documents within RAAus and the direction we have moved over the past 6-7 years which is why I’ve nominated this year. 

 

 

[Admin]

Memories...........many years ago I forced a big upheaval in the way the RAAus board operates and more specifically the way the CEO operates and it forced a huge change and I very much strongly believe it is needed more so today but unfortunately those in power today have purposely made it a lot harder to achieve because.........it is all about personal biases and power and not just to the outside but also internal to other board members.

 

Good luck @kasper and I ask all members to get behind Kirk however if you are successful I presume we will lose you from posting here as this is what always happens...the gag order

 

 

[kasper]

Thanks Ian.  I am under no illusions that IF I am elected I will probably be at odds in some areas with current members of the board and/or management. 

 

As for gag that really will will not be an issue.  I accept the requirements of board solidarity when a decision has been made. However where policy has not been documented and board decisions made I am and will remain at liberty to discuss, offer opinions publicly and canvas views that I may or may not take with me if I am on the board.

 

750 words is not a huge length for a statement in an election but it is a practical length when it has to be published and digested by members.  During the election I am perfectly happy to engage with people and expand/clarify position as I can I I intend to do this openly. 

 

It may be through here if that’s acceptable or I may open a seperate website to document my positions on areas.  I will decide that as and when I have actual queues and questions to answer  

 

but it one thing that’s certain - if I am on the board I will remain as open and communicative to members and others interested in flying as legally allowed.  

 

 

[turboplanner]

I will neither laugh nor cry.  

 

There are NO written rules for the RAAus elections.  I have asked for them every year since the company was created and again yesterday asked M Linke for them so that I could review what’s happening with what the rules are. 

 

The board/CEO position is that the information pack and the emails are the AEC acceptable process. 

 

Personally I expected documented rules setting out items like how communication it to be made.  How many days nominations are open.  What to do in a tie.  What to do if there is potentially defamatory materials presented etc.  

 

if actual rules existed as members we could hold management to account to them and I would not this year be in a position where the board appears to be making up rules as they go along to address an issue that they see.  

 

Frankly not not happy with core processes and documents within RAAus and the direction we have moved over the past 6-7 years which is why I’ve nominated this year. 

 

That's what you get with an Incorporated Association, and had with RAA Inc, albeit needing to cover a lot more issues, but ironically the people who wantyed to change to a corporate  company structure, pushed the one message which resonated with people who didn't know anything about administration, when they said RAA wasn't suitable to operate like a cricket club, leaving out any advice that Incorporated Associations were set up for groups of any size which is why you can write your own Constitution for something National, like Sproting Shooters Association of Australia, Inc. or BMX Australia with not only covers the whole country, but nests within a world mamagement structure.

 

In RAA the "Board" Members were not directors, they were members of a "Board of Management" It was just egos that changed the rules from Committee of Management, so the change from these people all having a hands on management responsibility to Directors, who did not has come as a shock to a few of the people who pushed the organisation into its present position. And of course the well known apologists fir this move have shot through like a Bondi tram.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

It doesnt matter what sort of vehicle is used (company, association etc) it will be less than suitable for the purpose for as long as it is required to be both an advocate for members and a regulator of laws of the Commonwealth ( I can spot the conflict, can anybody else?), especially when those laws may potentially have criminal sanctions.

 

I often wonder how much CASA spends on regulating private VH aviation compared to the total cost to the community that is subject to Part 149 organisations. I suspect it is less. The RAA functions could easily be accommodated into the CASRs if under 600kg (760?) aircraft were incorporated into CASR 201.003 (my addition in red)

 

"Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

 Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or

otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or

arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair,

maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft, privately operated recreational aircraft or an

experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or

made in good faith in relation to any of those things. "

 

Together with some tweaking of maintenance regs (similar to what is now happening in Europe for aircraft upto 2700kg) and the pilot licensing similar to the UK and the need for RAAus as a regulator goes away and it can get on with advocacy and education largely free of the constraint of doing CASA's work.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It doesnt matter what sort of vehicle is used (company, association etc) it will be less than suitable for the purpose for as long as it is required to be both an advocate for members and a regulator of laws of the Commonwealth ( I can spot the conflict, can anybody else?), especially when those laws may potentially have criminal sanctions.

 

I often wonder how much CASA spends on regulating private VH aviation compared to the total cost to the community that is subject to Part 149 organisations. I suspect it is less. The RAA functions could easily be accommodated into the CASRs if under 600kg (760?) aircraft were incorporated into CASR 201.003 (my addition in red)

 

"Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

 Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or

otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or

arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair,

maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft, privately operated recreational aircraft or an

experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or

made in good faith in relation to any of those things. "

 

Together with some tweaking of maintenance regs (similar to what is now happening in Europe for aircraft upto 2700kg) and the pilot licensing similar to the UK and the need for RAAus as a regulator goes away and it can get on with advocacy and education largely free of the constraint of doing CASA's work.

 

RAA is neither an advocate for members nor a regulator of laws of the Commonwealth.

 

It's structure is spelled out by CASA in writing; it is a Self Administering Organization.

 

CASA does the regulating giving RAA some exemptions in return for RAA managing its affairs.

 

The clause you quoted about liability is necessary in relation to the activities you mentioned because CASA administers the categories mentioned.

 

RAA is still comfortably outside that control,  and so does not need to be listed in the liability statement, and the only reason more exciting developments haven't occurred is the fault of its leaders who for some years have virtually announced no new policies and have ignored the old ones like developing rag and tube and running successful fly ins.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Kasper, good onyer.

 

My big issues are about owner maintenance ( to be encouraged and facilitated ) and airspace, in particular providing safe-height corridors for non-controlled planes like most of us fly. 

 

In both these cases, I think the current RAAus board agrees with me, but they are under the thumb of CASA. They are not disagreeing with CASA enough for my liking, but it may be that they are getting a better outcome by this policy than my " fight them " preference. I think of the prison-camp capos as being like the RAAus.

 

A couple of years ago, I put in a submission ( hate that word) to ask that the outer half of the 4,500 Adelaide step ( 2,500 one side, 8,500 on the other) be raised to 6,500 ft.

 

There would be zero effect on RPT coming or going from Adelaide.

 

This submission has just been ignored. I sent it to RAAus, with a similar result. I hoped for more from the RAAus, remember that they finally got the 5,000 ft limitation raised  so you could cross Bass Strait with more safety.

 

Being forced to fly lower  than necessary is a major safety issue, and the "safety "authorities which force this upon us for NO REASON  other than they can, should be called out. 

 

If they endanger us for their own selfish reasons, at least they should do it against our kicks and screams, say I.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

RAA is neither an advocate for members nor a regulator of laws of the Commonwealth.

 

It's structure is spelled out by CASA in writing; it is a Self Administering Organization.

 

CASA does the regulating giving RAA some exemptions in return for RAA managing its affairs.

 

The clause you quoted about liability is necessary in relation to the activities you mentioned because CASA administers the categories mentioned.

 

RAA is still comfortably outside that control,  and so does not need to be listed in the liability statement, and the only reason more exciting developments haven't occurred is the fault of its leaders who for some years have virtually announced no new policies and have ignored the old ones like developing rag and tube and running successful fly ins.

 

 RAA is neither an advocate for members [Agreed as it demonstrably advocates for itself] nor a regulator of laws of the Commonwealth [bS Any reading of Part 149 and particularly the current Draft AC149 which is out for consultation clearly details enforcement. As CASA can only approve the Operations Manual if it is consistent with the laws of the Commonwealth (eg Day VFR) the Ops manual becomes subordinate legislation.]

 

It's structure is spelled out by CASA in writing; it is a Self Administering Organization. [bS the structure is ordained by the incorporating legislation (the Corporations Act) and the rules of the organisation registered with ASIC - CASA issues a Part 149 certificate to the ASAO on the basis of an exposition that details its key personnel capacities, policies and procedures, ie its operations and technical standards. see AC149 page :

"Chapter 6 - ASAO aviation administration and enforcement rules

Chapter 6, comprising section 36, defines, for the purposes of regulation 149.290 of CASR,

further requirements for ASAO aviation administration and enforcement rules. The requirements

relate to the inclusion, in an ASAO's exposition, of processes to report to CASA7 on the:

• management of safety risks arising from the overriding of a safety decision of a member

of the ASAO's key personnel

• notification of CASA by the ASAO, of an ASAO authorisation holder affected by an

enforcement decision of the ASAO of the holder's review rights

• inclusion in an ASAO's exposition of processes to notify CASA in relation to the

exercise of enforcement powers and preventive, corrective, remedial or disciplinary

actions taken by the ASAO."

 

CASA does the regulating giving RAA some exemptions in return for RAA managing its [aviation related] affairs.

 

The clause you quoted about liability is necessary in relation to the activities you mentioned because CASA administers the categories mentioned. [You missed the point - I was proposing that CASA should take over the aviation administration aspects of RAAus as has happened in South Africa]

 

RAA is still comfortably outside that control,  and so does not need to be listed in the liability statement, and the only reason more exciting developments haven't occurred is the fault of its leaders who for some years have virtually announced no new policies and have ignored the old ones like developing rag and tube and running successful fly ins. [perhaps you actually agree that RAAus should get out of the regulation business]