Are you happy with the way RAAus is run by the employees?

[Captain]

Further to several recent threads, I pose the above question:

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The only employee I am unhappy with is the man at the top (CEO). The office staff have always done a great job for me, and are always cordial on the phone.

 

The Tech manager is the job with the major load, and I'm not even sure I would like to take that one on. I am not happy with the man at the top because he is not 'UL' enough, IE: too GA and too ex-CASA.

 

We have a vast pool of real UL talent in this country, and I'd rather see someone from that pool at the top with our interests #1 in their focus..................................................................................Maj...

 

 

[Captain]

The only employee I am unhappy with is the man at the top (CEO). The office staff have always done a great job for me, and are always cordial on the phone.The Tech manager is the job with the major load, and I'm not even sure I would like to take that one on. I am not happy with the man at the top because he is not 'UL' enough, IE: too GA and too ex-CASA.

We have a vast pool of real UL talent in this country, and I'd rather see someone from that pool at the top with our interests #1 in their focus..................................................................................Maj...

Madge,

 

To be clear, I am in no way referring to the office staff who handle every day calls. Like you, I have always found them to be EXCELLENT.

 

To those that have voted as they did in the bottom 3 poll questions, ..... do any of you want to change your vote now that the background to the Ibis grounding has been discussed on this forum? What a cock-up, that will surely be the subject of (another) Court action.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[nomadpete]

Gotta agree that the office staff do a great job.

 

As for the rest, well.......

 

Pete

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

according to the above poll it looks like the president and CEO have voted.

 

 

[pudestcon]

according to the above poll it looks like the president and CEO have voted.

And 44 others..... Hmmm, are they indicative of the way the entire membership would see this issue?

Pud

 

 

[winsor68]

And 44 others..... Hmmm, are they indicative of the way the entire membership would see this issue?Pud

How goes it in WA Pud? All emotion aside what are your impressions gathered from mixing with membership over there? Any issues?

How healthy is Ra-Aus in WA in your opinion?

 

 

[Camel]

The only employee I am unhappy with is the man at the top (CEO). The office staff have always done a great job for me, and are always cordial on the phone.The Tech manager is the job with the major load, and I'm not even sure I would like to take that one on. I am not happy with the man at the top because he is not 'UL' enough, IE: too GA and too ex-CASA.

We have a vast pool of real UL talent in this country, and I'd rather see someone from that pool at the top with our interests #1 in their focus..................................................................................Maj...

I totally agree with this quote from Maj and have asked why are the things at RAA happening because of a Casa audit and the CEO is letting this destroy RAA, we need some one at the top who knows the rules who can implement them in a hassle free way with little inconvenience and unnessecary beauracratic antics, as our CEO seems to be part of the problem that is not what RAA should be about. The tech manager has done something to me that was an insult which showed lack of research and after discussions with him he behaved appropiate and very courteous which leads me to believe he is pushed to do someone elses dirty work. The CEO must go as The statement below is not what is happening, more like destruction.

 

From RAA web site.

 

Section B. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

 

B.1 To take over, acquire, operate and administer the activities and property of the Company limited by

 

guarantee, known as Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.

 

B.2 To associate into, control, regulate and co-ordinate under one National Association, recreational aircraft

 

operations in Australia and all activities incidental thereto and to admit as Members of the Association

 

persons interested in the advancement and encouragement of and participation in aeronautics in all its

 

branches and, in particular, recreational aircraft activities in Australia.

 

B.3 To promote the co-operation of recreational aircraft clubs and similar associations interested in the

 

encouragement and development of recreational aircraft in Australia and to promote the mutual exchange

 

of ideas between such bodies and to encourage, undertake and exercise control of competitions, sporting

 

events, displays, tests, records and trials and to hold either alone or jointly with any other association, club,

 

company or person, recreational aircraft meetings competitions (including international competitions),

 

matches, exhibitions, trials and receptions and to accept, offer, give or contribute towards prizes, medals

 

and awards in connection therewith and to promote, give or support dinners, concerts, balls, lectures and

 

other entertainments.

 

B.4 To safeguard the interests of recreational aircraft clubs and similar bodies or any entity involved in activities

 

connected with recreational aircraft flying in any of its branches and obtain for them such monetary or other

 

assistance as may be possible by representations to Federal or State or any other appropriate authorities,

 

persons or organisations.

 

B.5 To make rules and regulations as necessary and permitted by law governing aspects of recreational aircraft

 

operations in which the Members of the Association or any of them are engaged and , in particular, but

 

without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing to make rules and regulations governing

 

certification of aircraft the conduct and activities of Members engaged in such operations in relation to the

 

use and control of aircraft including recreational aircraft of all types during all stages of flight and the

 

activities of Members whilst they are at, on or in the vicinity of any area from which such aircraft are being

 

operated, launched or handled and also in relation to the ground handling, maintaining, constructing,

 

repairing, testing, checking and transporting of the said aircraft.

 

B.6 To enforce such rules or regulations by the imposition of any appropriate sanctions or penalties (pecuniary

 

or otherwise) and/or suspend or expel any Member who has committed any breach thereof and to alter,

 

vary or revoke any sanctions so imposed.

 

2 of 23 | P a g eCONSTITUTION OF

 

RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA INC.

 

Issue 11 – September 2011

 

B.7 To set promote and maintain standards of safety for recreational aircraft by the specification and

 

dissemination of information concerning standards of airworthiness for aircraft, standards of workshops and

 

standards of knowledge for pilots and in particular, to specify, impose and enforce standards of skill and

 

competence reactive to all stages of flying operations and to require any Member to meet such standards

 

to the satisfaction of the Association before authorising such Member to engage in flight operations or any

 

stage or aspect thereof and to grant, issue authorise, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke under the rules of

 

the Association for the time being in force certificates and authorisations relating to aircraft, aerodromes,

 

flying instructing and flying schools and to the skill and qualifications of pilots, instructors, navigators,

 

drivers, mechanics and all persons managing, flying, driving, constructing, repairing or otherwise engaged

 

in connection with recreational aircraft or recreational activities and to do all things relating thereto as may

 

be deemed expedient and to make reports and recommendations to any clubs, authorities or persons

 

concerning the same.

 

B.8 As deemed necessary, to affiliate with any other national or international body having an interest or

 

concern in aviation particularly recreational aircraft.

 

B.9 As deemed necessary, to consider affiliation from any association, club, incorporated body or other

 

organisation having an interest or concern with aviation, particularly recreational aircraft.

 

 

[robinsm]

I have met the CEO 3 times. Each time he was drunk and mumbling rubbish. Real good look for the head of our organisation, not. Drop the bugger and get someone that at least projects a good image for the organisation.

 

 

[winsor68]

I have met the CEO 3 times. Each time he was drunk and mumbling rubbish. Real good look for the head of our organisation, not. Drop the bugger and get someone that at least projects a good image for the organisation.

Be careful Robinsm... You will get Ian in trouble with Ra-Aus's solicitors.

 

 

[robinsm]

Not with the witnesses I have, all times were at public functions in company. Pity really, the rest of the staff do a fantastic job for us. They work like one armed paper hangers and are nice and approachable as well. Never gad a problem talking to the staff, and never had a problem getting information and advice. They should be receiving the good salary, not the mouthpiece.

 

 

[Captain]

I have met the CEO 3 times. Each time he was drunk and mumbling rubbish. Real good look for the head of our organisation, not. Drop the bugger and get someone that at least projects a good image for the organisation.

And again, no CEO's report to the members in the latest magazine. What the stuff is going on?

 

With the Presidents report only being about 1/2 a page.

 

Based on that you might assume that all within the organisation is Hunky Dory.

 

If something isn't done soon to upgrade the operation and the routine feedback to members, the rest of the Board must be assumed to be complicit.

 

I spent time a couple of years ago as CEO of a major national sporting organisation and the CEO's (and President's) report in the monthly magazine was an essential way to communicate with the rank & file in near & far flung places ...... plus we had a much more interactive and usable website. To not provide regular & comprehensive reports to the membership is unacceptable in an organisation like RAAus.

 

 

[Sammy]

At the Temora Members Meeting a couple of years back, didn't the CEO forget what conversations he has had with people? He is very old. I can see how he may be compromising the safety of us members by being forgetful.

 

 

[robinsm]

Given the office manager just about runs the organisation day to day without help, I reckon thats real value for money.

 

 

[winsor68]

interested to see the office manager gets nearly $80000 per annum....can't imagine what the CEO gets.....

Rubbish.

I may be crazy here but perhaps wages in Canberra are a bit unrealistic because office managers in my experience in regional Qld are underpaid... I hope the office Manager at Ra-Aus is getting $80k P.A. because this is what they are worth...

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

If the man is such a problem cant we just cast a vote of no confidence and get someone else in to do the job.Why is it so hard to remove him?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Because so many of you didn't bother to do anything 18 months ago, and this time around didn't bother to ensure a legal vote so that a meeting could be called with an agenda controlled by the members (as against board members) to enable what you suggest to proceed. And furthermore some are even now actively making statements to ensure the status quo remains.

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

How many signitures do we need to have to get the board to remove the offending persons?

 

 

[turboplanner]

To be sure, you need to get a legal opinion on the validity of the AGM vote, and if that doesn't hold up, start again campaigning to change the Constitution. Once it is confirmed valid, you can start gathering numbers. The numbers process and reasons are covered in the hundreds of posts made by those who cared enough to take the trouble to try to help their fellow aviators.

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

After reading so many posts on whats been happening I still cant understand why a new president wasnt voted in at the AGM. Why is he still here?

 

 

[pudestcon]

How goes it in WA Pud? All emotion aside what are your impressions gathered from mixing with membership over there? Any issues?How healthy is Ra-Aus in WA in your opinion?

Good questions win.

 

I must confess I did not mention RAAus once to anybody whilst I was there on Saturday of the event. And no one mentioned any issues of a RAAus nature to me. All comments were positive about the event, and with the attendance at the event (although I haven't seen any figures) I would say recreational flying in WA is in good shape.

 

I had conversations (albeit some were brief) with our rep Gavin Thobaven, Jill Bailey (Assistant Ops Manager), Deam Tompkins (Assistant Tech Manager) Steve Vette, Riley, Friarpuk, Brett Campany from Rotovation, Bevin from Avplan, and countless others who, I imagine, are members of RAAus. The conversations all centred on flying, aircraft and what a great event this was. To be fair, people were not thinking about the governing body too much.

 

I believe a Q&A session was programmed with the RAAus representatives there, but I did not hear when it was on, so did not attend. Hopefully someone who did attend can provide an account of what happened.

 

Pud

 

 

[turboplanner]

After reading so many posts on whats been happening I still cant understand why a new president wasnt voted in at the AGM. Why is he still here?

Because General Business cannot be debated at the AGM.

 

You can ask a question, but cannot debate or try to rebut the answer given.

 

The Constitution and Bylaws are both on the RAA Site, and you can see what can and can't be done at an AGM.

 

So an AGM is not the place to do what you are suggesting. This needs to be done at a General Meeting.

 

Prior to the AGM the Constitution required 15% of the 13,000 members to request a General Meeting in writing and sign the request, and provide the Agenda, and only the Agenda can be discussed.

 

At a General Meeting, you control the Agenda and the Agenda Items must be addressed and voted on. There is no opportunity for example to drag out the meeting with minutae until a substantial number of people have gone home.

 

Since it's an impossibility to get such a large number to request a meeting, a motion was put at the AGM for the number to be reduced to 100, as part of several Constitutional changes.

 

This was passed by a show of hands in the meeting, however the meeting contained both members and non members, and there was no way to ensure he vote wasn't stacked.

 

So in my opinion the ballot was invalid, and although some Constitution items may have got up on the proxies alone, in my experience if the ballot method is invalid then the vote is invalid.

 

I would dearly like to be provide wrong by a legal opinion (a paid Opinion, not the next six excited posters)

 

All that had to be done at the AGM was ensure a legal vote on one item of the Constitution to get the numbers required to call a General Meeting down to a doable level, and what you are suggesting would follow for that.

 

To fix the situation would require a re-vote at the next AGM, ensuring only Members voted.

 

Also confusing the issue was the President's action against Ian which led to three major emotional debates with legal threats, and questions at the AGM.

 

The President answered those questions and as I said above, the AGM provided to avenue to debate the President's answers, or move any motions, so the legal discussions from those three sources need to drop away and be decided in the appropriate legal channels.

 

As an employee, the CEO, or any other employee enjoys the protection of due process, the same as you do in your employment. You can't chuck an employee out in the street. There has to be a process of assessing, discussing, investigating, warnings etc.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

Some points:-

 

1) The 4 special Resolutions voted onat the AGM were in the main already passed before the actual meeting by virtue that the members present at the AGM were pressumably less than 1/3 of the total of the proxy votes which is why the chairman said there was no point in voting for SR's 3 and 4 they had already been passed. Therefore the concern that the voters present at the AGM might have been non members, or have already voted by proxy is to me a mute point. Could it be challenged at law...of course cant anything if you have sufficient $$ to throw at it!!!

 

2) Wether you like or dislike the CEO the position is not an elected position and as such the technically correct answer to "How many Signatures do we need....." is none. As an employee he has employee rights and removal or dismissal must be done IAW the relevant National/ACT legislation that controls such things and cannot be instigated directly from the membership but by his employer who is the elected committee of management (or Board as RAA have over time come to call the Committee). So if that outcome is what is needed then it must be done through the board, and probably instigated as a result of a General meeting.

 

3) Should the membership wish to have a general meeting to discuss anything in particular, then we need 100 like minded members to collect their signatures and then follow the instructions laid out in the constitution (well actually not yet updated in the constitution online, follow the rules in there but substitute 100 members for 5% of the membership) . I would be astounded if having done this the suggestion in 1) was then brought into play.....but perhaps TP is more a glass half empty sort of guy than I am:amazon: and in any event we will never never know if we never never go......

 

Andy