Guest Andys@coffs Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 People Steve is a serving member of the ADF. The ADF in general has a very simple rule to apply to serving members and it is this:- Rule 1) The Government owns you and your soul 24 x 7 x 365. Rule 2) In the event of concern or issue (or RAA GM) see rule 1) Rule 3) In the event that someone else wants a piece of you all availability beyond 24 x 7 x365 can be made available. Perhaps I have rose coloured glasses as an ex defence member but I do not see a problem here, and can recount times when with no prior notice I was plucked from home and sent away to do specific tasks. In this case Steve has had forewarning which he would see as a bonus! If Steve R was an operational manager with RAA (as opposed to a committe of maanagement member) then there would be a conflict of timing. So, all that said who among you could replace Steve R and guarentee 100% of your time to RAA? <sounds of silence> I agree its most unfortunate that Steve cant make the AGM but if its true that its because the Army needs him more than we do then so be it. He has provided an alternative approach and I dont believe that any outcome of the AGM will be different because he isnt there. A GM isnt about asking the Pres why he did X its about asking the board in total why they did X. If the Pres isnt there then pressumably the rest of teh board and subset exec will be able to answer any "Please explain"'s that we might have Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Also to suggest that Steve or others arent available to discuss this until Natfly next year is plain wrong. I rang Steve today to discuss issues in general and Steve took my call immediately. I dont believe that he has "Andy Saywell" in his list of contacts so pressume that his approach to my call will be no different to teh approach he will take if you can be bothered to ring and discuss issues rationally with his as well. Natural Justice goes both ways and all parties deserve it equally! Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Many peoples future is tied up with the functioning of this organisation . Just tell them to get on with the job or move away and let someone else get on with it, if they are going into a huddle and thinking small. They must keep their eye on the big picture. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. EDMUND BURKE Too right! . If Ian bothers them who else is next? Is there a file being formed of "undesireables". There had better not be, or they should be prepared to have it made public on FOI grounds .Grown men should behave like they are. The precedent bothers me here. The RAAus is not somebody's Tree House they have in their backyard and can exclude who they wish. These people don't own the show and are there to RUN it for all of us. Not for some of us they want to decide on these sorts of issues. Nev Unfortunately, Freedom Of Information requests are specifically available from government departments. RA-Aus doesn't fall under the FOI umbrella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Nevertheless IF they exist we should know that they exist. No-one should be on a file without having the right of access and a right to have it reviewed. This is an incorporated body and is bound by rules, that must conform to a standard. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Also to suggest that Steve or others arent available to discuss this until Natfly next year is plain wrong. I rang Steve today to discuss issues in general and Steve took my call immediately. I dont believe that he has "Andy Saywell" in his list of contacts so pressume that his approach to my call will be no different to teh approach he will take if you can be bothered to ring and discuss issues rationally with his as well.Natural Justice goes both ways and all parties deserve it equally! Andy Andy...the post says "face to face contact" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Well, If steve is required elsewhere in his duty with the Army so be it. This isnt CASA, the board presumedly have jobs outside of the RAA, and as a big "club" we have to deal with these things. So, all that said who among you could replace Steve R and guarentee 100% of your time to RAA? <sounds of silence> Andy, I agree with your sentiments re due process. However, if I hear the above as a defence again, I will scream. People get eleected into ANY office generally apposed by other candidates, Im sure none of us want to be Prime minister, but I bet when we see julia stumbling around we all shake our heads. The "well you do better" argument is not a valid defense at all in my books. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 If there was a breach of flying rules or dangerous practices , that would be a proper use of the rules that are being used.In this case Ian has," Annoyed" a person who spends quite a bit of paid time and our money trying to "Get" Ian.. This site is a problem to them obviously. Too bad !!They should just wear it if everything is legal. If Ian bothers them who else is next? Is there a file being formed of "undesireables". There had better not be, or they should be prepared to have it made public on FOI grounds .Grown men should behave like they are. The precedent bothers me here. The RAAus is not somebody's Tree House they have in their backyard and can exclude who they wish. These people don't own the show and are there to RUN it for all of us. Not for some of us they want to decide on these sorts of issues. Nev That's an interesting idea, Nev. Does The FOI Act (Cth) apply to RAAus? I raised this with someone cleverer than I the other day and he will do some thinking on it. It is an incorporated association but it is acting in the matters of registration and licensing as an agent of the Commonwealth. If it was Victoria, I would argue that it does apply, but not sure about the federal stuff at this point in time. I only have one more week with my current employer and then make the move to Shepparton so have been busy packing the last few nights. There seem to be two very big issues to be resolved here: 1. The composition and allegiances of the current board and it's ability to act always in the best lawful interests of the Association (no man can serve two masters = the fiduciary duty); and 2. The relationship between the two military gentlemen... President and CEO... and the manner in which this seems to have resulted in the CEO taking decisions that might be considered far outside his remit as an employee. All very interesting. But the immediate issue is the denial of natural justice and blurring of the lines between the Association as an air sports club on the one hand and as a licensing authority under delegation on the other. I think that the President and the CEO may have now placed themselves in an impossible situation. Time will tell... Kaz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Ok, so as concerned members. What should we do? Should we: a) Contact our representatives for answers (re: the letters at the start of this post) b) Raise our concerns by email to the President and hope they are answered at the AGM c) Something else... d) all of the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Too right! Unfortunately, Freedom Of Information requests are specifically available from government departments. RA-Aus doesn't fall under the FOI umbrella. Maybe...maybe not. In matters relating to registration and licensing it is acting under a Commonwealth delegation somewhat like a contractor. Contractors to governments are generally amenable to the FOI regime. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Hey Ian try snapping off a quick salute, those military types just love that sort of stuff :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I would guess this is the rule they are using....note that it says "board" so my interpretation would be it needs a board vote to refuse membership. No membership - no fly.That's a pretty powerful by-law. Once you are actually a member the constitution provides for an appeals process before you can be kicked out. Might be interesting to question the legal basis for the by-law? Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The board seems in most part to fully support the CEO and the President in their various endeavours. I think we need to take a step back and accept that reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damkia Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Maybe...maybe not. In matters relating to registration and licensing it is acting under a Commonwealth delegation somewhat like a contractor. Contractors to governments are generally amenable to the FOI regime.Kaz I would have thought RA-Aus would have subordinated delegation from it's general operation under the wings of CASA, a Commonwealth Department, therefore subject to both FOI and my previously mentioned whistleblower protections. I think CASA would be able to pull the rug out from under RA-Aus by deregistering its authority to function as a governing body, in the same way as they created it if needed. The RA-Aus is a bit of an oddball from where I sit, and I'm not sure that the standard set of "club incorporation rules" would apply as it was set up by the Govt through CASA. I have been involved with other clubs (committee member) that have gone through "incorporation" to cover field trips and public liability insurance, etc, and for the financial reporting auditing that occurs, but none of them seem to have the direct strings to a Govt department that RA-Aus has. Most other clubs do not have relevant exceptions to federal laws (allowing LSA's to fly without FAR 23, etc), mandated compliance with other international laws (airspace regs) and so on tied up in their constitution or operations manual. In fact no other club I have been in HAS an operations manual mandated in their constitution, nor has there ever been a requirement legally for one. As far as I know, RA-Aus exists because of CASA, not the members. By that I mean the members did not have a "club" and then take the idea to CASA. It was due to a review of trends overseas and pressure from within Australia that it was created, which then gave "wings" to the idea of a RA-Aus type organisation under the initial guidance of CASA, and subsequently cut free to a degree to run itself. My point to all of this is that RA-Aus is in fact more like a Govt department in structure and operation and position, taking money for registration and insurance, while looking after the legals of allowing people to fly (licensing) under the rules and regulations given to it by CASA. The best analogy I could give is that it is exactly like the transport/roads department in your state (taking car rego, and in old days 3rd party insurance, drivers licensing, and roads maintenance), whilst at the same time operating under state and federal legal jurisdictions of Government (ADR legislation's for vehicles etc). Note that I am no legal expert, but have had previous dealings at committee level with clubs. It just seems odd to me......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 One of the byproducts of this incident is that the board solidarity on silence - keeping the members in the dark is still very much alive. You are paying membership fees, you are electing representatives, but they are not talking. That is unacceptable behaviour in any organization, particularly after members have been told that secrecy was finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The stakes for the board aren't really that high... Ian gets memebership. The stakes for Ian are high... Continue flying. Given that the stakes for the board are so low (unless there is a reason they are not telling us for them being higher) then what reason do they really have not to say anything. In this case using legal advice that you aren't allowed to say anything is a cop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit12 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 And if Ian was managing to bring RA-Aus into disrepute with this site, then surely if RA-Aus was serious they would be taking steps to have the site closed down....or maybe there really isn't enough substance to support the "disrepute"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 This is now a matter for lawyers as has been written in this thread, I too am not a legal anything but as I understand it once it goes" legal" both parties are instructed to say nothing either in private conversations or public ( like this), like I say I'm not a lawyer so I well could be wrong ,but it may explain the lack of public response from the board!Met You're right, but as I understand it, at this time the board has not made a decision, so at this stage they would be separated from what Runciman has done. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 When people adopt a "siege" mentality they behave like 3rd world governments. Distorted sense of loyalty,stubborneness , shooting from the hip, he who is not with us is against us etc. Military people are taught not to procrastinate. " Make a decision MAN". Cannot live with a non-solution. Sometimes there is NO simple amswer. Is this happening here? I'll leave that to your judgement. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Well of course, adults expect differences of opinion, where as military people only see us and the enemy, its taking us straight back to the playground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 When people adopt a "siege" mentality they behave like 3rd world governments. Distorted sense of loyalty,stubborneness , shooting from the hip, he who is not with us is against us etc. Military people are taught not to procrastinate. " Make a decision MAN". Cannot live with a non-solution. Sometimes there is NO simple amswer. Is this happening here? I'll leave that to your judgement. Nev Looks like the ADF could do with some scutiny in that case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Yesterday I wasn`t aware of the original thread on this issue (simply missed it) and responded to the maddog, "I received this Email today Very disturbing if true"!, thread. Today I`ve just spent the better part of my lunch hour and a bit more, reading all the posts from the begining and I don`t think that I`m much wiser to what the problem realy is here. One thing I know for sure! If this has to be seteled in court and RAA looses, at very best, it will be a fair slice of our membership money that will be needed to pay costs. Worst case scenario??????? Should RAA loose,I`m going to be pretty angry that my membership fees have been spent in this way. Should RAA win and this forum be directed to cease,I`m going to be pretty angry as well! So who gets to win? Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Frank, there is no precedent for shutting this website down. I can't see how the RAA could successfully execute that process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 This website will always continue so you will always be able to have your say no matter what, steps were taken some time ago to ensure that it does, so you all still keep on winning with this site being made available for you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 RAA's lawyers must have informed the CEO and the President of the potential risks and costs associated with failure to successfully prosecute a website. Its hard to believe the board is supporting this action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now