Bob Hayes <<rohayes>> President, Nth Queensland Hang-Gliding Association, President, Cairns Hang Gliding Club writes:

I would like to present a counter argument to the SGM requisition that we have heard so much about. It is my feeling that we have heard too many arguments from the proponents of this and some balance is called for. I feel the innuendo, false accusations and general misinformation that has gathered around this proposal and the aims it seeks needs to be clarified.

The board and the members cannot be separated. We are one and the same. The board does not exist above members, it merely represents us when we do not have the ability to do so ourselves. When an individual accepts a board position, not only do they take on responsibility of the running of the organisation, they also find themselves subject to many pieces of legislation that holds them accountable financially, legally and ethically. Unlike other members, board members willingly acknowledge the decisions that they have made will be held accountable under threat of criminal sanction should they not comply with all legislation.

The SGM group requisition asks that we remove some board members. It asks members to vote to remove certain members of the board and replace them with the SGM group preferred person. No reason or explanation as to why is given in that document. Now that the 'action plan' has finally been made public, we can examine it closely. The 'action plan' also does not give reasons as to why members should vote in this way. The 'action plan' simply outlines what the SGM group proposes to do.

The preamble to the 'action plan' makes comment of a 'culture change' and two decisions the board made two years ago. What none of us has seen is a reasonable explanation as to why the board is to be dismissed just three months before new elections are called. Nor have we been told why the extreme actions we are being asked to approve will fix the issues that the SGM group allege are apparent.

If the extent of the problems the SGM group perceives are not valid, then the case for the requisition falls down.

The HGFA has been financially audited and found to be compliant with Association legislation. The SARSIG/ Model 3 project was voted on by members via their State Associations and approved by the majority. The board is bound by the constitution to charge fees necessary to keep the organisation fully funded and able to meet all expenses. Member numbers have declined steadily again this year. There has not been a sharp fall in member numbers, thus indicating that the fee raises have not been a major issue for the majority of pilots.

So, we can see that the perceived problems are relatively small when compared to the actions the SGM wish to take. A sledgehammer being used to crack a walnut is a reasonable analogy.

Therefore there must be another reason for the SGM group calling for such extreme action.

A look at the 'action plan' by the SGM group might give us an insight into their motivations. Some points: The General Manager will have all expenses for the last two years reviewed. The General Manager will have all operational decisions made in the last two years reviewed. They will also ask members to decide if decisions made by board members two years ago are justified. The SGM group has stated that they will 'performance manage' the General Manager. The SGM group will 'roll back' fees. The SGM group will stop the SARSIG/Model 3 funding project.

The major theme of the SGM documents I detect is a desire for revenge.

Why else would all decisions made in the last two years to be reviewed? Logic suggests for perceived wrongs against some of the SGM group members.

Why else would the General Manager have two year old decisions reviewed? The only logical reason is some of those decisions have upset the SGM group.

Why is the SARSIG project, a project I have been involved in, and has the ability to deliver exceptional results to all pilots, to be stopped after two years work? This project will deliver better sites, better training and better everything than we can currently do with the little money we used to receive from the old state fee system. We in return must provide better accountability. We will have a bigger pool of money to use by clubs and pilots giving us the ability to build a better future for all of us. We will be able to incorporate other members from places such as the PICO group as they emerge, increasing income and reducing fees paid by everyone.

One explanation may be that the some of the SGM members are upset about losing control of the small amount of funding they received every year. It seems they would rather members get less money and fewer results.

The previous relationship that existed between the states and the federal association has been shown to be illegal. The old system was developed over 20 years ago and has never been critically looked at. Pilots have been poorly served by the old system. It did not work as it should have and we can do a lot better with the SARSIG model 3.

Why are fees being rolled back? It was a decision made by board members that is unpopular with some in the SGM group. The 'rollback of fees' has appeal in the short term. I believe that the fees will need to rise again, even further than before to catch up with the time lost because funds will be depleted.

The SGM 'action plan' pre-amble states that never in the thirty year history of the HGFA has the requisition clause been invoked. The implication is that never before have we faced such drastic times. The HGFA has had many more serious threats during its history; the issues stated above are not a major threat to us and no reason to take the extreme actions suggested. Reasonable people can negotiate these issues. Loss of income over the long term is a far more serious problem, as is the loss of instructors. I believe that the SGM group has overstated the case for dismissing the board members listed.

The arguments being used to justify the requisition do not justify the extreme actions the members are being asked to approve.

A desire for payback never leads to the best decisions being made. A strategy to divide pilots with Chinese whispers and rumour, and then conquer through our traditional apathy appears to be the SGM groups' approach. As few as 120 members can possibly decide the fate of our governing body. This is not fair to the other 2,100 members who also have a stake in control of our future.

If the SGM requisition group had the best interests of all of us at heart, as they claim, they would wait until the election in a few months. The candidates would stand as individuals. They would state the reasons they believe they are better suited to the role than other candidates, and state what they bring to the table. Currently we are being asked to let 5 members represent us through this requisition without going through scrutiny by all pilots. We are being asked to vote only on approving their installation to the board, without knowing anything about the people who will control the organisation until the next election. The result of this requisition being approved is a board that will for the first time in our history, be controlled by a majority of the executive. I believe this is not in the best interests of all pilots.

Please think very carefully about this Requisition and how you vote.