Jump to content
kasper

RAAus really do not care about procedures

Recommended Posts

So at 9.50 on a Sunday morning a RAAus Board Communique arrives in the email.  

 

Apart from NEVER publishing an election policy before any election and making it up as they go along they NOW decide a bit more making it up is required to cover a casual vacancy following a resignation from the board.  

 

What they have done - appoint the second placed unsuccessful from the last election - is  an option that could have been eminently sensible and fair ... BUT for a board that continually bleats on about processes and the need to be demonstrating best practice in everything we as pilot members have to do they are PATHETIC at doing it themselves.  

 

The totally inefrectual governong docs adopted when RAAus converted to company leaves members with absolutely no effective way of making management comply with the requirements of the docs. 

 

I am so so pi$$3d  off  with this I am going to be writing to parliamentarians about the forced compulsory membership to this organisation under CASA.  I know politicians will not create a skink or even care because the all mighty safety stick will be said to be needed but for f$&$ sake will members start taking at least a passing interest in blatant and repeated actions of the board and management that are improper and outside the operating rules of the organisation? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The financial statement seemed good until I noted in the last sentence the board advises it will meet again in March 2018.  Hope this is the only error in the figures.

Edited by JEM
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not personal Jem but your comment is indicative of so many members ... I can fly.  Finances seem ok.  So what if the management are driving a bulldozer through what little governance processes and controls the members are supppsed to have. 

 

Short of during the board for breach which is practically impossible the entire holding anyone to account no longer exists.  

 

At least with the putative alternate in  ELAAA they are up front that they are a company and we are purchasing services.  

 

Raaus management are a rule unto themselves and members may as well just abandon pretence that is an association md that directors are elected or representative.  

 

Edited by kasper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly have they done this time that disadvantages a flying member or aircraft owner?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCarthy - that’s the point. The outcome is prvobltbthe best outcome.  It just that it’s not actually part of the documented processes or authorities thatctje board is supposed to operate within. 

 

My issue is that management did not foresee the need for this - even though it was covered in the old RAAus and AUF processes - so just made it up on the fly.  

 

Its the gross failure to actially give a f$$$ about process when it impacts their ops that’s in stark contrast with what they have put through for aircraft and pilots that really makes me mad. 

 

And the fact that 99% of members will just ignore the process failures because it is not their interest or not to their disadvantage that is the real issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasp I was pointing out that they can't get the date right. Nothing to do with the first post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"RAAus continues to experience strong growth in both member numbers and aircraft registrations.  We also continue to see improvements in our safety record." 

 

1 year ago approx 3350 aircraft, today Sunday Feb 17 2019    3341 aircraft. The above is somthing a politician would say.

 

Why haven't any of the 2000 odd new members in the last year acquired aircraft ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the new board member flies a weight shift so that could be a good thing for the lower end of the membership. I mean in numbers not in Status. We now, at long last have someone to lobby on our behalf. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why did Tony King suddenly resign?. Two months ago Michael Monke was asking in his column if it was time for him to go hinting at a group within the board wanted him gone due to his non consultative ways. Tony King fronted the Senate hearing representing RAA with Spencer Ferrier the architect of the “Ltd liability company” that we have have now. (Described as having a “fractured dynamic”.)

All of a sudden Tony King is out of favour and has resigned - there must be a story behind this - was he pushed?.

Edited by billwoodmason
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

Why haven't any of the 2000 odd new members in the last year acquired aircraft ?

Members increase as All TIFF pilots, compulsory  join.

Aircraft builder have to  compulsory join to get the RAA cert to fly their machine.

I know we can join other organisations, But only one gets a none PILOT certificate.

spacesailor

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slb said:

At least the new board member flies a weight shift so that could be a good thing for the lower end of the membership. I mean in numbers not in Status. We now, at long last have someone to lobby on our behalf. 

 

He was ineffectual on the board (other then supporting M & M) before he was “voted” out, now appointed, why would there be  ANY difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billwoodmason said:

So why did Tony King suddenly resign?. Two months ago Michael Monke was asking in his column if it was time for him to go hinting at a group within the board wanted him gone due to his non consultative ways. Tony King fronted the Senate hearing representing RAA with Spencer Ferrier the architect of the “Ltd liability company” that we have have now. (Described as having a “fractured dynamic”.)

All of a sudden Tony King is out of favour and has resigned - there must be a story behind this - was he pushed?.

Tony King read a prepared statement, nothing really informative. Only old known information.

Spencer Ferrier did not know RAAus regulations.

Just wonder what was going on ...... secondly why did Tony King rock up with his legal team.

What were they scared of or what could have been asked of them.?  Hmmmmmmm?

KP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAA Constitution says

34.6 The Directors may appoint a person as a Director to fill a casual vacancy if that person is eligible under Clause 36.

It does not outline how this person is chosen, except by the Directors.  As a recent election had been held the results show who was the next most popular with the members.  They could have just picked a mate - then we would have something to complain about ....

As for Tony King's resignation, best to wait for reliable news.  He can't be voted out by the Directors, only by the members, under the Constitution.  Reading the Board Audit, he does not appear to be the problem.

 

The Constitution again:

37 A Director immediately and irrevocably stops being a Director if they:

(a) give written notice of resignation as a Director to the Company with the resignation becoming effective as of the date specified in the notice,

(b) die,

(c) are removed as a Director by a resolution of the Members,

(d) stop being a Member of the Company,

(e) are absent for three (3) consecutive Directorsmeetings without approval from the Directors, or

(f) become ineligible to be a Director of the Company under the Corporations Act.

 

Tony has been on the Board for many years

  • Like 2
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frank marriott said:

He was ineffectual on the board (other then supporting M & M) before he was “voted” out, now appointed, why would there be  ANY difference.

I've heard Barry talk. Sounded like a m&m shill to me. 

Maybe Tony was forced out just to get Barry in, and a guaranteed board vote for the m&m twins?

Just wild speculation on my part though......

Edited by Downunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't be voted out by the other Directors.  The Constitution says:

38.4  The Directors cannot remove a Director or auditor.  Directors and auditors may only be removed by a Membersresolution at a general meeting.

 

Tony has resigned.  There are only two scenarios (a) he has resigned voluntarily, or (f) he has resigned by informing the Board he is no longer eligible under the Act.  People resign for a number of reasons; pressures of work, family commitments, health.  Whatever, lets hear it from a reliable source.  He's been an active Board member for a number of years, so I doubt it is the Board as he's weathered stormier seas than this present one.  Someone who knows him may be able to shed some light.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed like Tony was sent as a Sacrificial Lamb to front the RRAT Senate Committee, to protect the 2 x Micks and other board members. 

Hopefully Tony hasn’t had to cop on his own, the full brunt of any abuse or complaints, etc. that should be more so directed at the Micks, RAAus Ltd, and its consultants and associates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NotSoSuperSonic said:

It seemed like Tony was sent as a Sacrificial Lamb to front the RRAT Senate Committee, to protect the 2 x Micks and other board members. 

 

Hopefully Tony hasn’t had to cop on his own, the full brunt of any abuse or complaints, etc. that should be more so directed at the Micks, RAAus Ltd, and its consultants and associates.

 

I was very impressed by the part he played; showed some class. As FV said, better to find out the real reason.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we really cannot complain about how a board acts. The whole system in Australia is stuffed up with company directors disregarding their legal obligations, because they know there in just about zero chance of them being held accountable.

Just look at the NAB and AMP. NAB has for years produced high profits and that was done in part by illegal activity. Ken Henry stated that the directors could not tell if they were acting legally, or illegally. AMP directors have for years plundered the company to provide fat pickings for themselves with no regard to customers or shareholders. Why should we expect any difference form RAAus.

It would be nice to have a good look at the financial statement, rather than the one they present.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 2:23 AM, turboplanner said:

I was very impressed by the part he played; showed some class. As FV said, better to find out the real reason.

So did Tony figure out that he'd been working alongside some shonky characters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2019 at 8:53 PM, FlyingVizsla said:

The RAA Constitution says

34.6 The Directors may appoint a person as a Director to fill a casual vacancy if that person is eligible under Clause 36.

It does not outline how this person is chosen, except by the Directors.  As a recent election had been held the results show who was the next most popular with the members.  They could have just picked a mate - then we would have something to complain about ....

As for Tony King's resignation, best to wait for reliable news.  He can't be voted out by the Directors, only by the members, under the Constitution.  Reading the Board Audit, he does not appear to be the problem.

 

The Constitution again:

37 A Director immediately and irrevocably stops being a Director if they:

(a) give written notice of resignation as a Director to the Company with the resignation becoming effective as of the date specified in the notice,

(b) die,

(c) are removed as a Director by a resolution of the Members,

(d) stop being a Member of the Company,

(e) are absent for three (3) consecutive Directorsmeetings without approval from the Directors, or

(f) become ineligible to be a Director of the Company under the Corporations Act.

 

Tony has been on the Board for many years

37 (b) seems fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Register for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×