2020 raus elections

[Jim McDowall]

In our case, as an incorporated association, provided members were following the rules they had the protection of the deep pockets of the ACT Department of Justice.

Obviously you have never tried to get an association to play by its laws let alone the law. The bureaucrats approach is "go away and sort out the problem among yourselves". So individual members are forced to go to court to seek redress. Even then the courts are loath to interfere witness the High Court's decision in the case of John Setka and the Labor party.

[turboplanner]

Obviously you have never tried to get an association to play by its laws let alone the law. The bureaucrats approach is "go away and sort out the problem among yourselves". So individual members are forced to go to court to seek redress. Even then the courts are loath to interfere witness the High Court's decision in the case of John Setka and the Labor party.

Given that I've been President, Vice President Secretary or Committee Member of about 30 Associations and currently President of two, you would be a bit wide of the mark. At one stage I was President of an organisation which had about 20 Associations as members and we saw the very best and very worst in that lot. Every one of those Associations played by the law with the exception of a few individuals who were turfed out from time to time.

 

You don't start an independent Association expecting a government department to run it for you; you run it yourself and if it fails you fail which is the way it should be, so there's no point in trying to paint it as something that should be run or supervised by government, because the very essence of Incorporations is that they are self-administering.

[Jim McDowall]

you run it yourself and if it fails you fail which is the way it should be, so there's no point in trying to paint it as something that should be run or supervised by government, because the very essence of Incorporations is that they are self-administering.

In our case, as an incorporated association, provided members were following the rules they had the protection of the deep pockets of the ACT Department of Justice.

I'm confused by the foregoing conflicting statements.

Oppression of members by an association run by an iron ring of not uncommon. Trouble is most of the oppressed just move on. Those who seek assistance are forced to fund legal expenses even when there are blatant breaches of the law.

Breaches of the law should be prosecuted by the State, and if it is inconvenient for the regulators to administer the law then amend the law or abolish it all together.

Turbs, it appears as though you have always been on the inner circle of well run associations and perhaps it would be wise to consider what happens when an association, or similar, ceases to be run for the benefit of members, or in someways contravenes, say, the human rights laws as the RAA members disciplinary policy does (cant remember the actual name of the policy).

[turboplanner]

I'm confused by the foregoing conflicting statements.

 

 

"You run it yourself and if it fails you fail which is the way it should be, so there's no point in trying to paint it as something that should be run or supervised by government, because the very essence of Incorporations is that they are self-administering."

 

 

 

In our case, as an incorporated association, provided members were following the rules they had the protection of the deep pockets of the ACT Department of Justice.

 

 

Oppression of members by an association run by an iron ring of not uncommon. Trouble is most of the oppressed just move on. Those who seek assistance are forced to fund legal expenses even when there are blatant breaches of the law.

Breaches of the law should be prosecuted by the State, and if it is inconvenient for the regulators to administer the law then amend the law or abolish it all together.

Turbs, it appears as though you have always been on the inner circle of well run associations and perhaps it would be wise to consider what happens when an association, or similar, ceases to be run for the benefit of members, or in someways contravenes, say, the human rights laws as the RAA members disciplinary policy does (cant remember the actual name of the policy).

[turboplanner]

Sorry, I couldn't delete #54 and my time expired for writing the rest so please disregard it:

 

I'm confused by the foregoing conflicting statements.

"In our case, as an incorporated association, provided members were following the rules they had the protection of the deep pockets of the ACT Department of Justice."

In a case where a member or official has been operating within the Constitution and rules of an organisation, he/she is protected by the ACT DoJ or State equivalent if incorporated in as State [RAA Inc was incorporated in the ACT]. I'll leave you to go on the DoJ website under Incorporations to see how this works.

 

"You run it yourself and if it fails you fail which is the way it should be, so there's no point in trying to paint it as something that should be run or supervised by government, because the very essence of Incorporations is that they are self-administering."

 

DoJ is there to provide a financial safety net, not to run the Association, so the first essence of running it is to elect people who care about the member base and do the best for them, and there are literally tens of thousands of Associations around Australia where that happens.

 

Where that is not happening, the base, suggested model, Constitution provides a way to clean up bad eggs. You are free to expand on the constitution, so if you are smart you spend a lot of time building a fair and reasonable Constitution designed for your operation. That can extend to safety processes, safety officials, compliance and enforcement, sanctions/penaties/suspensions, and a Tribunal to ensure Human Rights, and more.

 

Oppression of members by an association run by an iron ring of not uncommon. Trouble is most of the oppressed just move on. Those who seek assistance are forced to fund legal expenses even when there are blatant breaches of the law.

No they are not, but the first step if for the affected members to vote them out. Where they have been corrupt and have managed to amend the constitution to suit their purposes, if you have enough member support there are process where you can sack committee members, amend the constitution back to a democratric base and fix those problems, but you have to have the knowledge of the regulations and processes.

 

Breaches of the law should be prosecuted by the State, and if it is inconvenient for the regulators to administer the law then amend the law or abolish it all together.

Effectively the States have done exactly that; abolished laws and closed Departments down so new laws didn't spring up e.g. Department of Labour and Industry in Victoria and their interstate equivalents, and in these cases there are no longer prescribed laws for safety standards, compliance and certification by inspectors etc.

 

 

Turbs, it appears as though you have always been on the inner circle of well run associations and perhaps it would be wise to consider what happens when an association, or similar, ceases to be run for the benefit of members, or in someways contravenes, say, the human rights laws as the RAA members disciplinary policy does (cant remember the actual name of the policy).

I usually was called in the remove the inner circle, but had to restructure a few Associations. Each case is a little different, but the bottom line is there has to be enough numbers who will step forward and vote at each step of the reconstruction. People of this site will remember the frantic posts before RAA Inc was closed down in favour of a company, all of them talking about RAA have=ing outgrown Cricket club status. There weren't enough people stepping forward to oppose them, and of course once they got what they wanted they disappeared. You can't work while there's apathy. A disciplinary policy is essential to RAA because otherwise you just have fresh air, and one or two bad members can destroy your association.

Edited August 26, 2020 by turboplanner

[walrus]

I am a recent member of RAA and have no comments to make one way or the other. I am a member of Two clubs that epitomise the good and the bad.

 

Club 1 has a very strong sub committee structure. Each sub committee has it’s own operating charter and its own budget. It makes decisions within the limits of its charter and budget and reports to the general committee. If the committee wants to do something extraordinary, they have to make a case to the General committee. Result? Happiness and a thriving club.

 

Club 2 has allegedly the same structure, but the sub committees have no autonomy. The general committee and President think that it’s their job to make all decisions and the sub committee members are just rubber stamps. I once spent a lot of time on a project for this club, when I presented my recommendations I was told:”we’re not doing that”. Decisions are made, unmade, countermanded, ignored because the “leaders” think they are infallible. Strategy changes with each new president. Result? This club, despite being lectured on governance, has no idea what it means. It will be lucky to survive covid19.

 

‘’Corporations are different again. The job of the Board is not to make operational decisions; its job is to ensure that the decision making process is solid and effective. It has a CEO for operations. The Boards job is to ensure the assets are protected, manage risk and hire and fire the CEO. ‘Managing risk” is critical, as the Directors of Virgin have just found out the hard way. I hope RAA has no need for any more lectures from me.

[Jim McDowall]

A disciplinary policy is essential to RAA because otherwise you just have fresh air, and one or two bad members can destroy your association.

The problem is that members are only members in order to comply with the law. If and when the "bad members" are actually bad or simply pains in the ass is sufficient to deny them compliance with the AVIATION law then the door is open to vindictive, unsubstantiated behaviour to enable the expulsion of a member.

It is a different matter if the issue is NOT aviation related, but in an organisation in which members have consistently displayed their apathy it is hard to see how a "bad member" situation could arise. When does open discourse about the management or other get to the situation where "the organisation has been brought into disrepute" for example? In-fighting in this type of organisation is part of the internal politics.

If the so called "bad member"'s behaviour is aviation related it should be CASA who removes his flying privileges, not a private organisation who is concerned about its reputation. Having lost those privileges, continued membership will probably no be an option for the member as there is no reason to be a member.

In any event, the disciplinary document, seeks to deny human rights such as the right to silence, and consequently the rule against self incrimination. These rules apply to civil as well as criminal arenas. CASA should refuse to approve the document whilst the offensive policies form part of the document.

[waraton]

Who has watched the meet the candidates videos being published by RAA. What are your thoughts.

 

[turboplanner]

The problem is that members are only members in order to comply with the law.

That's true for all associations where governments have dismantled their old prescriptive structures and allow activities to continue subject to being a member of a slef administering association, so the "problem" you are inferring is that members won't step up, join committees, vote etc.

My solution to that is, if you don't want to attend meetings then don't complain about our decisions, and if the decisions are fair you will have a dream Association. Of course if, as you previously mentioned you haved a bad group or dictator at the top, then you do need the members to get off their bums and show up to vote.

 

If and when the "bad members" are actually bad or simply pains in the ass is sufficient to deny them compliance with the AVIATION law then the door is open to vindictive, unsubstantiated behaviour to enable the expulsion of a member.

Sitting as a Tribunal Chairman was one of the most educational experiences I've ever had. The Tribunal hears the appeal of a member who has been given a sanction by the compliance and enforcement people. Sometimes people who have screamed their innocence are caught out in the appeal by a video or photo and everyone is stunned. After one of those cases the life of the party subsequently went on to threaten to kill his association secretary, so you might be experiencing bad behavious from one section of your association, but believe me there are othere association where the opposite is going on.

If you have a good constitution and good members you'll usually have a good experience.

 

It is a different matter if the issue is NOT aviation related, but in an organisation in which members have consistently displayed their apathy it is hard to see how a "bad member" situation could arise. When does open discourse about the management or other get to the situation where "the organisation has been brought into disrepute" for example? In-fighting in this type of organisation is part of the internal politics.

"bringing the association into disrepute" is a common activity of association wars, mainly because it's in the model constitutions and no one has bothered to set up a compliance and enforcement policy, so it's the only weapon in the locker. It's rare to see that happen but there have been classic cases in sports etc. e.g. the Presdident being convicted for doping a dog.

 

"If the so called "bad member"'s behaviour is aviation related it should be CASA who removes his flying privileges, not a private organisation who is concerned about its reputation. Having lost those privileges, continued membership will probably no be an option for the member as there is no reason to be a member."

If you're quoting from an organisation that doesn't know what self administration is then of course there are going to be bad decisions and actions where it will backfire on the people who got out of their depth.

In the case of recreational flying Airservices, ATSB and CASA all have prescriptive regulations which you must comply with as soon as you open the gate and stand airside.

Those bodies have their own compliance and enforcement systems, so you don't have to double up on them. An example is the CASA ramp checks which can take place at an RAA evene.

 

That leaves the Exemptions you have been granted, and compliance of your actions.

 

A good equivalent to study is the Sporting Shooters Association, where you have to comply with the prescriptive Firearms Act for your State, and on the way to the gun club you can be pulled over for a speeding ticket, and if the cop sees a gun not locked up you'll have committed a firearms offence and get a fine.

 

When you get to the range you'll be trained and checked by an array of officials who are administering safety at the range.

 

In any event, the disciplinary document, seeks to deny human rights such as the right to silence, and consequently the rule against self incrimination. These rules apply to civil as well as criminal arenas.

I presume you are talking about a disciplinary document which you've seen which is possibly illegal.

The associations compliance and enforcement policy cannot deny the human rights you referred to above, so when its drafted the wording must be legal.

 

CASA should refuse to approve the document whilst the offensive policies form part of the document.

The whole point of CASA allowing self administration is for the people involved in it to assume liability.

There would be no point in CASA saying, "you can managhe it any way you like but we are not going to allow a,b,c,d,e,f,g," - they be back standing beside you as a defendant if they did that.

[FlyingVizsla]

Sport Pilot August 2020 is now on-line at issuu.com - search for Sport Pilot 2020. Still have not received our print copy.

[slb]

email received Friday

 

Sport Pilot Magazine is landing in letterboxes! Keep your eye on your letterbox, because the all new Sport Pilot magazine will be in your hands shortly, if you haven't received it already!

 

Nothing in my letterbox yet

[tillmanr]

We don’t normally get mail on Saturday. Maybe you do. Cheers and stay relaxed.

[Jim McDowall]

There would be no point in CASA saying, "you can managhe it any way you like but we are not going to allow a,b,c,d,e,f,g," - they be back standing beside you as a defendant if they did that.

CASA is/has done exactly that. CASR 149 requires SAAO's to submit their expositions for approval. These expositions include all their policies. RAA's recent newsletter discloses that CASA has required changes to the discipline policy. IMHO if CASA approves something, then they own it as much as the SAAO. Part 149 is really CASA regulation by proxy.

[turboplanner]

CASA is/has done exactly that. CASR 149 requires SAAO's to submit their expositions for approval. These expositions include all their policies. RAA's recent newsletter discloses that CASA has required changes to the discipline policy. IMHO if CASA approves something, then they own it as much as the SAAO. Part 149 is really CASA regulation by proxy.

Yes, correct. I need to look at the wording, but this isn't the first time they've reassumed legal liability. When they do that there's no point in having Self Administering Organisations for whatever they've become responsible for.

[Jim McDowall]

When they do that there's no point in having Self Administering Organisations for whatever they've become responsible for.

Which has been my point about CASR 149 that I have been hammering on about for years.

[facthunter]

They should be aware of this. They have plenty of Lawyers on their payroll... Nev

[kasper]

And while everyone is looking at lifting the saso veil and taking things back to casa I’ll throw in that casa have required a heap of admin on build and design not within their caos but brought in through the tech manual where - apparently - casa would not approve the manual without change ... lots of back door regulation by remote through the saso

[facthunter]

With a very specialised section of aviation such as Our lot, I hope some consultation would be part of that particular field or Dog knows what weird things might happen. Nev

[turboplanner]

And while everyone is looking at lifting the saso veil and taking things back to casa I’ll throw in that casa have required a heap of admin on build and design not within their caos but brought in through the tech manual where - apparently - casa would not approve the manual without change ... lots of back door regulation by remote through the saso

While the principles are very simple, it's dangerous to just pluck a sentence or two and say this is self administration or this is not.

Just talking generally about industry, if there is an industry safety benchmark, such as an Australian Standard and you were operating to that standard, and something goes wrong then that standard may provide you with a defence. On the other hand if you weren't meeting that standard, someone might succeed if they sue you.

 

The same principle applies for industry benchmarks, where for example there might be accepted safe methods of using a chainsaw obtained over years of operations.

 

If CASA are providing a set of benchmarks they may not be prescribing what you have to do. If I'm being a bit vague it's because the discussion is also vague.

[turboplanner]

With a very specialised section of aviation such as Our lot, I hope some consultation would be part of that particular field or Dog knows what weird things might happen. Nev

In self administration the people directly involved, who have laid out their money on aircraft or training can come up with benchmarks, so it's a much better way of maintaining affordable safety than prescriptive legislation was because the people making the rules usually know their business better than government employees.

 

However, when the industry people sit on their bums and don't manage their affairs, it's not unusual for the government to start legislating safety regulations, which was done in the transport industry around 1999.

 

I previously posted a number of things RAA had been asked to do in 2010 which were never done, so RAA is exposed on those.

 

There was one batch of regulations CASA was introducing, which was to bring us into line with ICAO, and I would consider that just confirming Industry benchmarks rather than taking over.

[Jase T]

Anyone that tries to operate commercially on a ReOC and can remember the days before they existed will understand why it’s a bad idea to let CASA administer something that isn’t necessarily broken.....

[turboplanner]

Anyone that tries to operate commercially on a ReOC and can remember the days before they existed will understand why it’s a bad idea to let CASA administer something that isn’t necessarily broken.....

I can understand that; it's a pretty daunting task if you just want to take a few photos of factories, but the industry didn't organise and manage itself and it was members of the public and States governments reacting to cowboys that pushed it into the hands of CASA. I'm dealing with a case now where UAVs with around 3 metres length and wingspan are able to do aerobatics up to 1000' in one of Melbourne's busiest D Zones.

[tillmanr]

Sport Pilot magazine has arrived with voting material inside. Located eastern side of Melbourne.

[alf jessup]

Isn't Michael Monk the Australian representative for an overseas sourced RAAus aircraft as reported in Australian Flying? How do you spell conflict of interest if this is so?

Mike , apparently so, my bet is it gets a huge advertising plug in the mag if we ever get it.

[Jim McDowall]

I previously posted a number of things RAA had been asked to do in 2010 which were never done, so RAA is exposed on those.

Hi Turbs, can you please summarise those things which haven't been done or direct us to the post?