What exactly ARE you talking about?
If RAAus or any organistation (sic) have funds invested for the future security of the organisation, they are being financially responsible.
Jaba,
In my view (and many others that have thought about it) running a member organisation is not the same thing as running a household budget, or running a commercial business enterprise.
Members pay money for member services, the need for large "reserves", at the expense of providing member services "now" is all too often justified by resort to expressions along the line of "prudent housekeeping" , but what a member organisation is doing for its members has nothing to do with housekeeping.
Too often I have seen "conservative" board /committee members vote down expenditure, desperately needed "now", to preserve funds for some unknown future "rainy day" ---- to the very great dis-benefit of current members.
An important and unpredictable event is a Coroner's Inquest, if there is not balanced representation at an inquest, there is (as history show) a very strong possibility of a Coroner coming down with findings that are very adverse ---- simply because an alternative view was not put to the Coroner.
Unlike a household or a commercial business, a member organisation always has the ability, if things get dire, to call for a voluntary or compulsory levy on members, or, if it is more than a one off, raise the annual membership.
Provided members perceive that the end justifies the means, and that means good communications with members, (and in my experience) voluntary levies will be successful, also in my experience there will be a gratifying percentage of members who will donate more than the requested contribution ---- always a vote of confidence in the board/committee, and the continuation of the organisation.
If it's a matter of board/committee incompetence, and they have blown the budget, a new board/committee has to be the starting point.
If RA or any org act responsibly, they should be applauded, not slagged.
I most certainly was not slagging off AUF/RAOz, my public views are well enough known, I have been a strong supporter of AUF/RAAus for close to twenty years. I do NOT criticize the previous or present RAOz board for running down reserves, they are doing what they have to do in the interested, as they see it, of the organisation. ie: They are doing what they were elected to do.
They are THE group based on the set of exemptions they administer,
Not all of the self admin groups administer, or only administer, exemptions from regulations, think about it.
none of these groups are blatently (sic) ripping off the members.
Since you should mention ripping off members, one organisation that no longer has a monopoly, as it used to have, and which in my opinion did rip off its members, has been considerably improved, if not entirely divested of its "old think", by facing multiple competitors for its services.
However, in my previous post, that is not really what I was alluding to. In fact, I have seen (too often, once is too often and not AUF/RAOz) internal politics of warring factions seriously impact the commercial businesses of the "losing side" , to the commercial advantage of the "winning side" ---- do you really want the license on which you business depends being subject to the discretion of your fierce commercial and organizational politically successful competitor.
Matters such as various ratings, approvals and licenses should always be arms length and politically/commercially neutral administrative decisions ---- and it is not always so.
Tootle pip!!