Robert Hart wrote:
The reason given to me by a variety of people in the GFA management team for
the current system is to preserve knowledge. Their point is that the
relationship with CASA and the regulatory requirements involved in that
relationship require continuity. My response is always that there are a number
of ways to overcome this and that should not be a barrier to open elections. I
believe that direct elections would not result in the sky falling - a feeling
that GQ has in the past supported at an AGM (2005).
I believe that the GFA's "reason" is demonstrably not so
........................... and even false.
As a member of both the GFA and the RAA, I am aware that the latter operates
where the Board is elected under a direct election process which, I believe,
keeps board members on their tows and keeps a good flow of ideas coming to the
fore at Board level, while also tempering those ideas and initiatives through a
progressive & rotating board re-election system.
Nominations are being processed at the moment for the RAA Board, however from
recollection, their last election saw more standing than were positions and a
healthy competitive ballot was the result, with considerable competition and
policy discussion being the result.
I invite comparison of that with what I believe to be a system at the GFA
that is stacked towards the incumbents and is certainly stacked towards the
creation or evolution of an inner sanctum clique. This sees comparatively
little official discussion of open policy initiatives or membership feedback
..... nor any desire to obtain membership feedback. My recollection is that it
has only been Robert Hart and maybe 1 or 2 others that have invited input to
issues from the membership.
And to have a substantial number of "Management" on the board may be the way
that the public service keeps itself sharp, but not too many of the better
companies operate that way. A "Board" should be a "Board" and set policy and
direction. Management has no place in that other then to provide input when
asked.
Also as a member of both, I see the RAA making far more progress with CASA
and Airservices in achieving progress and change to the benefit of most of its
members. E.g. the recent increase in MTOW for some classes, the negotiation of
a Controlled Airspace Endorsements for RAA pilots that want it, and strong
lobbying for further reasonable weight increases. There are many more key
initiatives that have been or are being progressed.
The resultant impression that I have as a flying member of both organisations
is that the RAA is making a better fist of addressing and progressing issues at
their end of the sport, than is the GFA.
And all of this is being done without the GFA's so-called "continuity" (which
may possibly be defined as the same people doing the same job for a long time
without full accountability), without the sky falling in, with fresh and free
elections on a regular basis, with most of their membership satisfied with the
results, with their membership growing strongly and with numerous new owner &
factory built aircraft coming onto their register.
So to answer Mark Newton's recent question, I believe that such a system
makes Board members and Federation/Association management more accountable and
more keen or willing to progress all issues to improve or progress the sport.
Perhaps with a more open and accountable system we also wouldn't be debating
the comp start rule changes here, but at an open seminar somewhere.
If the membership thinks that the GFA is at the cutting edge of good practice
and governance, then so be it. For the above reasons, I do not and I contend
that all levels of the GFA could be much sharper and responsive in progressing
the sport.
We have 2700 members or so as the sport as a whole. Recreation Flying, a
private forum now has over 2000 members that discuss RAA & related matters on a
regular basis.
I will never accept that the GFA should accept that it should never grow and
blossom. It is a FANTASTIC sport. And to say, as some have, that we must accept
that it might wither due to the cost of driving to the airport or the cost of
aircraft, or the cost of a tow to 4000 ft or the cost of a winch tow is
poppycock when an organisation like the RAA with a similar cost structure is
booming with almost 300% of the GFA's membership.
The reason might, just might, be that the GFA is stodgy, is insular, has
generally run out of ideas and the last thing it wants is to REALLY engage it's
membership.
Hope this helps.
Geoff Kidd
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
