Now I know why CASA is a mess. Their Board selection and appointment process is bizarre and may not satisfy Australia 's needs.
1. The employees of CASA, including Spence, have no business making any recommendations whatsoever regarding Board membership. That is the absolute prerogative of the Minister advised by the CASA Chair and the Department. Failure to abide by this rule indicates that the Government either doesn’t understand the role of a Board or doesn’t care. Alternatively they do understand and Spence’s description of the process is inadequate.
The role of the Board, apart from its statutory duties like obedience to laws, Audit and preservation of assets is risk management not strategy formulation and especially not involvement in day to day management matters. It achieves this by assessing the performance of the CEO/DAS who is responsible for formulation and implementation of strategy.
- again, by asking how the CEO identifies and manages risks.
Secondly, the CEO/DAS should not be a member of the Board as this precludes discussion of his performance at Board level. The CEO/DAS is a CASA employee who should not have automatic right of attendance at Board meetings but when called, should be recorded as “in attendance “ to underline that fact.
The ideal Board member may indeed have aviation or professional qualifications as well as meet political criteria, but their most vital, critical and valuable skill is their ability to ask of CASA and the CEO/DAS the really thorny questions that they don’t want to or can’t answer - which relate to the question of risk.
Off the top of my head these risk related matters although I am not even remotely informed are:
- Given the discontinuities between ICAO, FAA and Australian regulations, are we sure that we can maintain our tier one status (or whatever it’s called?) and avoid the possibility of unfavourable audit and downgrade? What is the plan to harmonise our regulatory environment with international norms going forward?
- Given the findings of the Forsyth review, are we monitoring trust levels and if so, what are the trends? I note that this might vary by industry segment. What is our plan to increase trust and build better working relationships? I am particularly concerned with Avmed and GA Business relationships (eg: Buckley, SOAR)?
What are the consequences if our regulatory reform process fails?
- For the industry for Government? How does our regulatory environment compare with international competitors?
- What is our succession planning to ensure we maintain required competencies?
You need Board members from hell who know how to ask the very question that you as CEO/DAS don’t want to answer if they want to maximise the value of CASA to Australia.
Selecting Board members is not a beauty contest. Furthermore, really good Directors are busy people who don’t want to be seen as a rubber stamp.
1. The employees of CASA, including Spence, have no business making any recommendations whatsoever regarding Board membership. That is the absolute prerogative of the Minister advised by the CASA Chair and the Department. Failure to abide by this rule indicates that the Government either doesn’t understand the role of a Board or doesn’t care. Alternatively they do understand and Spence’s description of the process is inadequate.
The role of the Board, apart from its statutory duties like obedience to laws, Audit and preservation of assets is risk management not strategy formulation and especially not involvement in day to day management matters. It achieves this by assessing the performance of the CEO/DAS who is responsible for formulation and implementation of strategy.
- again, by asking how the CEO identifies and manages risks.
Secondly, the CEO/DAS should not be a member of the Board as this precludes discussion of his performance at Board level. The CEO/DAS is a CASA employee who should not have automatic right of attendance at Board meetings but when called, should be recorded as “in attendance “ to underline that fact.
The ideal Board member may indeed have aviation or professional qualifications as well as meet political criteria, but their most vital, critical and valuable skill is their ability to ask of CASA and the CEO/DAS the really thorny questions that they don’t want to or can’t answer - which relate to the question of risk.
Off the top of my head these risk related matters although I am not even remotely informed are:
- Given the discontinuities between ICAO, FAA and Australian regulations, are we sure that we can maintain our tier one status (or whatever it’s called?) and avoid the possibility of unfavourable audit and downgrade? What is the plan to harmonise our regulatory environment with international norms going forward?
- Given the findings of the Forsyth review, are we monitoring trust levels and if so, what are the trends? I note that this might vary by industry segment. What is our plan to increase trust and build better working relationships? I am particularly concerned with Avmed and GA Business relationships (eg: Buckley, SOAR)?
What are the consequences if our regulatory reform process fails?
- For the industry for Government? How does our regulatory environment compare with international competitors?
- What is our succession planning to ensure we maintain required competencies?
You need Board members from hell who know how to ask the very question that you as CEO/DAS don’t want to answer if they want to maximise the value of CASA to Australia.
Selecting Board members is not a beauty contest. Furthermore, really good Directors are busy people who don’t want to be seen as a rubber stamp.