Powerin Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Oh Andy. - This is not correct. - "And yet that is exactly what your board is trying to do. Have a read of the following exchange between myself and the board (bottom up):-" Andy, a better choice of words could perhaps be - "Some Board Members ..........."Guys, (and Carol) the last reply was not acceptable from a Board Representative to a general Member. Full stop. Perhaps the hour of the post clouded the judgement. It is normal that there will be many different opinions on the one subject, and it is so vitally important that there is civil discussion, and civil argument, about those opinions. After all we all belong to the one Association, unlike Parliament, where the antagonist belong to different political parties. Regards, John McK Another fair and balanced comment from you. Thanks John. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Very generous of you John. Unfortunately, the hour was not the reason for the incivility. This Board member is capable of that level of incivility at any hour based on personal experience. One could be forgiven for thinking Gavin is feeling the pressure and lashing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 ... One could be forgiven for thinking Gavin is feeling the pressure and lashing out. Perhaps ... but one should engage the brain before hitting 'send' when you were put in a 'public' governance position by the members in good faith.Draw your own conclusions from that behaviour ... I certainly have drawn mine. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdarby Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 My proxy is now sent in. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I hope you were careful whom you gave your proxy to rdarby. Has anyone read the RAAus website tonight? I just did and was shocked at what I read. !!!!! The Board, signed by our secretary, has released a three page document saying how good the Board is, how they are fixing the rego debarcle, blaming prior board members for the problems and said a lot of political talk without addressing any real issues (to the older Qld people it was called Jo speak where a lot is said that means or says absolutely nothing) The document purports a number of items but instructs members to give their proxy only to a board member. This is in direct contravention to legislation, and is breach of our Constitutional rights in that it is instructing members to ONLY give proxy votes to members of the board and to NO other party. Then they had the audacity to ask us to give them our proxy. They have made out that they are a group of "Angels" and have done nothing wrong. Why ??? Why should I give someone my proxy when he (the individual board members) are the ones who caused the problems over the past twelve months. That would be giving my opposition all my ammunition and then wanting me to fight them with no ammunition in my camp. Members out there , think seriously who you give your proxy vote to if you cannot attend the meeting. If you do not know someone who you can trust to carry your vote, then think seriously why you should give it to any member who you don't or trust explicitely. Remember you can always abstain. I have seen some very serious emails from the membership over the past few days and I have continued with my idea of going to Canberra. Come on 9th February, so we can get this sorted and get RAA back onto a good footing under better management than we have at present. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Error404 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Ian I hope u intend on sharing the driving to Canberra. That will be a long drive and an even longer day Especially after the emotion of the meeting thrown in. ps auto corect on the iPhone on this site drives me crazy. I just typed should correctly and it changed it to sharon and when i just typed Sharon it recommended Bahrain. Hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 Ian I hope u intend on sharing the driving to Canberra. That will be a long drive and an even longer day Especially after the emotion of the meeting thrown in.ps auto corect on the iPhone on this site drives me crazy. I just typed should correctly and it changed it to sharon and when i just typed Sharon it recommended Bahrain. Hmmm Time to pass on the "i" in your phone maybe less characters to type when saying "Phone" thus making Android phones more efficient ...This thread was suppose to have been for everyone to help each other out and perhaps organise the pooling of transport and for those unable to attend, to know who is, so they can approach them for their proxies...alas, as usual with all good things intended. I have several proxies which is nice to know that some members have faith in me to do the right thing for the Association because when all is said and done, I love this Association, and want to see it as the greatest thing since sliced bread for ALL recreational aviators. Fear not Error404, as no one has asked to car pool with me, BUT I USE A DEODORANT, I will be driving up in the Ford Fairmont Station Wagon on the Friday and sleeping in the back, gotta love those Ford Wagons, and drive back when appropriate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 More interesting is the question - how many won't renew, or will think about not renewing membership ? That's potentially real scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 More interesting is the question - how many won't renew, or will think about not renewing membership ? That's potentially real scary. I am not renewing at this point in time... Not as things are.... Not when I have a family... Not when I don't own an aircraft. I just hope that in future there is an organization to re-join and they allow me to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Can anyone inform me if placing board members addresses on a public forum without informing them or obtaining their approval be a direct breach of privacy and confidentiality. I feel that the person who posted this, Middleton, is now open to a charge against the privacy ACT and I feel would be also in breach of the Corporations Act. How do we advise a government department of this breach? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 A series of alleged breaches which have come to light over the past couple of years, and perhaps before that needs to be itemised, documented, and decisions made on whether to request prosecution of a number of people. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I know how you feel, mines due on the 7th, caught between a rock & a hard place. So, I won't be able to give a Proxy to anyone too as I was going to make a trip to CB just to attend the meeting & possibly combine it with a visit to a CASA person (re upcoming reg changes) but this is not happening now. My apologies to those who are & have supported RA Aus however, rightly or wrongly, I'll consider rejoining when I'm fairly sure the mess that is RA Aus is sorted. We can't afford the political garbage that is going on now, there's only one place that that happens (shouldn't) & that's in Parliament. We don't want or need secrecy & self interest in our boards management. Another thing - I haven't been in command of a RA Aus registered aircraft for at least 2 years but I thought my membership fees were doing something good in the meantime, it appears some on the board have wasted it. One thing that has always bothered me is the requirement to get endorsed to carry passengers & to do the Human Factors thing - PPL, NVFR, PIFR, Aeros, Formation & 3000 hrs obviously don't count. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webbm Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Just be careful with formal accusations. We don't want the office diverted from getting those registrations done to dealing with legal eagles, at our expense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Error404 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Settle please, those email addresses are well and truly pulic knowledge. As are their phone numbers. We should all take a step back and look at what these accusations are actually doing other than causing everyone angst. There is absolutely no privacy breach whatsoever in using or publicizing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Are you sure about that? Privacy obligation training the large global organisation I work for had in its training that before you collect and use personal information about others you must disclose what you are using it for and gain approval for that specific use. At the time the info was collected if you said I will use that info in letters we write to members then as you say no issues. We have had at least 2 board members publically state that no such approval was sought or given. As I understand it the 2 board members that were not contacted have state based privacy commissioners that can form a aview as to the appropriateness of others actions if they feel agrieved enough. If as you say, email addresses and phone numbers are the only info in the letter (Ive yet to get my copy, perhaps today) then the breach is likely of little consequence, but technically still a breach! Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 It is the residential/postal addresses that were used...PO boxes are not a worry but their residential address sent to nearly 10,000 people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Then that is a significant breach of privacy legislation, and just in case people arent aware the penalties that can be applied are enormous!, more than enough to bakrupt most middleclass folk! It seems that when the privacy legislation framework was introduced the Governments of the day were very serious about having them complied with! Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingVizsla Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The full names and addresses of Board Members are in the Annual Reports lodged with the ACT Office of Regulatory Services, which are public documents. The reason I did not put the documents on the forum was because of this information. I did offer them to anyone who requested them privately. You would have to ask a Board member if they agreed to having their home address disclosed. Personally I would have had them as Care of RAAus. A copy of a proxy has to go to the office anyway. Sue 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Sue True, but as I understood it in the training I did, the fact that something is public is not reason enough to allow you to avoid meeting your privacy legislation obligations. If it were, then the fact that everyone in the Telstra whitepages has their address disclosed would mean that nobody would need worry about addresses...... and that is not the case. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Error404 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 We need to put it into perspective. What are we worried about here, someone taking revenge by egging some board members house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 No, the severe penalties of the Privacy Act. FV, I'm not sure that because Dept Justice provided documents for a fee they became public documents. If that was the case they could just make them searchable on the web, but they don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 We need to put it into perspective. What are we worried about here, someone taking revenge by egging some board members house? No. Just the minor issue of Board Member's permission and privacy. It is a fact that some Board Members did not see that letter before it was issued and were not asked for permission to disclose their personal details in this way. Surely it would have been reasonable and appropriate for the Secretary to ask them all. Sue's suggestion is spot on. It should all have been c/- of the RAA Office as that would have achieved the same thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Ummm think you might have skipped over the point, dont think about having failed to meet the law what someone might do with that info, rather just step back to the "Failed to meet the obligations of the law!" lets talk about that one!! So, what do people think, is it Ok for our board to not meet legislative requirements when ever they feel they dont need to, or cant be bothered etc.....There are many examples of just that in the last 6 months.... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The Board must be above reproach and meet and comply with all CAR's & CAO's, any Legislation, Acts and Constitutional requirements at all times, not just when they feel like it. With regards to changes of the Constitution, it is not up to the Board to change the constitution as they think fit, it is up to the membership to legally change it by a 75% margin vote to a Notice of Motion. The Board is just changing the goalpost as they feel like it to frustrate the membership. What did the board say about CASA and changing the goal posts.? They complained , bucked and still failed to meet the requirements of the legislator. Fo OUR Constitution the Board is not the Legislator, only the members can change it. Most of the Board need to resign now before they fully financially break RAAus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 The Board must be above reproach and meet and comply with all CAR's & CAO's, any Legislation, Acts and Constitutional requirements at all times, not just when they feel like it.With regards to changes of the Constitution, it is not up to the Board to change the constitution as they think fit, it is up to the membership to legally change it by a 75% margin vote to a Notice of Motion. The Board is just changing the goalpost as they feel like it to frustrate the membership. What did the board say about CASA and changing the goal posts.? They complained , bucked and still failed to meet the requirements of the legislator. Fo OUR Constitution the Board is not the Legislator, only the members can change it. Most of the Board need to resign now before they fully financially break RAAus You also forgot that as a 'delegated aurthority' RaAus has to meet the exact same requirements as any government agency. BIG STUFFUP. Just ask the accident compensation commision here in Victoria about what happened when I found my medical records dumped on top of a rubbish bin after my case was closed (in my favour)... (long story about how all the dots joined together for it to happen and for myself via a employee to find out about it, but a snr mediator was sacked on the spot) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts