Spriteah Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Hi there Jim, Nobody can blame you directly for the current fiasco, however please refer to the last paragraph in my above post?..The current member apathy has to be put on the list for action and addressed....soon.Every time the board and exec allows situations to occur where we loose another good person , members and potential members dive for cover. We are now, and will loose members in the nearfuture, due our current ongoing problems , particulary the registrations problems. Look at the number of new aircraft classifieds in the last two mags. Loss of current members, potential new members, and aircraft annual registration fees = serious loss of income for the RAAus now, and in the future, and you as current treasurer should be seriously concerned . Prior to loosing Wayne we were in a relative period of stability, which is what is needed desperately right now to build confidence within the membership. Combined Teamwork must be exercised now within the exec and board when a situation like this arises again. Sorry, but from the imput I received on the Wayne affair it didn't look like teamwork was well exercised in this case........................Maj.... Maj, The full board was party to a meeting in regards to the Technical Manager which lead to the current situation. From what viewpoint do you suggest "Sorry, but from the imput I received on the Wayne affair it didn't look like teamwork was well exercised in this case........................"? If any current board member has indicated they were not informed or not consulted they are not being forcoming with facts. Obviously the decsion that was made was done with the RAAus interest first (above the person). Not at all taken lightly. Regards, Jim Tatlock RAAus Victroian Representative. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Yeah technically that is so, but it is always effort vs return......having spent bucket loads of effort I can now.......read some internal news........As the material changes in the portal, and we get to upgrade it to something that might even go close to getting someone interested in spending the time....(something requiring a financial transaction as an example) then the protections required will need to be lifted. Im pretty happy with what we have now....for where we are now......which is vastly better than where we were 12 months ago......which was all talk and no appreciable action. Andy Can not believe it Andy, you are happy with all this turmoil? You are happy regarding the withheld information about the third tech man gone?Must be good governance because you are happy. I am not. Regards Keith Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Can not believe it Andy, you are happy with all this turmoil?You are happy regarding the withheld information about the third tech man gone?Must be good governance because you are happy. I am not. Regards Keith Page Sorry Keith when I posted I was directly under FT's post about security for the members portal....by the time I hit save, another 3 or 4 posters had already posted. To be clear my original post you quoted related only to the members portal, nothing else. My personal view regarding Wayne is great sadness that it didn't work out for all concerned. I suspect that we will have difficulty getting quality candidates to apply. CASA pays more than we do and has trouble finding them so........ Seems to me, that if CASA has problems and we have problems and presumably other RAAO's have problems then instead of each of us fighting to find just the right one, we might get together and see if we can develop joint training and employ a whole series of someone(s) across the entire needs organisations including backups..., employing for aptitude and personal characteristics and then training to an agreed standard that meets our group needs.....Perhaps that is a way to better the relationship with the regulator and to end up with the regulators buyin to choices and training such that we all know what we have when its done and we can set remuneration such that we aren't each being a parasite off each other.... Anyway sorry if the original post wasn't clear Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooda Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Self regulation doesn't work, never has, never will. Can't agree with you f_t. I've been running a successful industry self-regulator for the past 15 years; albeit in a different industry. The scheme itself is in its 19th year and is recognised by governments at all levels. If you can establish and maintain straightforward policies and rules, harness industry expertise and apply good governance, it ain't rocket science. Government attempts to regulate smaller sectors have been an incompetent joke, at best. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Maj, The full board was party to a meeting in regards to the Technical Manager which lead to the current situation. From what viewpoint do you suggest "Sorry, but from the imput I received on the Wayne affair it didn't look like teamwork was well exercised in this case........................"? If any current board member has indicated they were not informed or not consulted they are not being forcoming with facts.Obviously the decsion that was made was done with the RAAus interest first (above the person). Not at all taken lightly. Regards, Jim Tatlock RAAus Victroian Representative. Over a number of threads on this forum - mostly, in the 'Governing Bodies' section - we have seem many impassioned posts declaring that the answer to the maiden's prayer is, variously, 'Good Governance', 'Democracy', or now a new motherhood statement: 'Teamwork'. The role of the Tech.Manager is to ensure compliance with the regulations that bind us. Those regulations do not refer to any of these wonderful philosophical concepts. Allowable MTOW (for instance) is not a democratic decision, is not founded on the application of good governance and is certainly not a product of teamwork. Introducing these concepts to the argument as to whether the Tech. Manager(s) have done a good or bad job, or have had their employment terminated, is completely and utterly irrelevant. I would like to believe that the Board made the correct decision in this case - but the term 'RAAus interest first' does not provide any guidance here. In fact, and being aware that a Tech. Manager (some time ago) had his employment terminated because he was unwilling to bend the compliance rules - which resulted in a very expensive court case for RAA and incidentally (though that is a horribly mean term to use in the circumstances) the death of at least one member of RAA - I am not at all happy to hear the phrase 'with the RAAus interest first' used, without at least explanation of just WHAT part of the 'RAAus interest' was the determining factor in the 'full Board' decision. If the performance of Wayne Matthews in regard to remediation of compliance issues - and let us all remember, it is the failure of RAA to maintain compliance that resulted in a series of adverse CASA audits - was the determinant, then I would absolutely support the Board decision in this case. I think that should be clarified, not simply obfuscated behind a statement that 'it was done with the RAAus interest first'. HOWEVER: if the phrase ''with the RAAus interest first' is code for 'furthering our political objectives in defiance of adhering to the compliance requirements' - then I would not be a happy camper. The Runciman/Tizzard/Middleton triumvirate period plunged us into the mire of inadequate compliance that now sees 500 or so aircraft unregistered and more than a hundred - apparently - in a desperately uncertain situation as to whether they are basically several hundred kilos of hi-tech. material illegal to be used for the purpose for which they were purchased, by persons who trusted the RAA's procedures to be kosher. That they were not, is palpably obvious. Jim, I appreciate that you appear on this forum and attempt to provide far more useful information than we get from RAA itself - which frankly, if one has any experience of 'official-speak', has been for the past several years at least a paradigm example of the application of the mushroom principle. RAA cannot be just a 'Jolly Aeronautical Pals' club, where inconvenient facts are ignored. RAA members not only have significant financial investment in their activity - they rely on RAA doing its job properly for their safety up to and including their life. If RAA fails do do its job of compliance properly - people can die. This is not fantasy - it is fact, and (tragically) demonstrable fact. I would like to hear an explanation of the Board decision to terminate Wayne Matthew's employment in terms of a failure to adequately ensure compliance - that, I would accept as an entirely reasonable and indeed necessary decision. I regret that (and this is based on the performance of the Executive in particular in the past several years) the phrase 'with the RAAus interest first' has exceedingly negative resonance.: the performance of the Board in recent history has demonstrated a priority for self-interest above member benefit. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Maj, The full board was party to a meeting in regards to the Technical Manager which lead to the current situation. From what viewpoint do you suggest "Sorry, but from the imput I received on the Wayne affair it didn't look like teamwork was well exercised in this case........................"? If any current board member has indicated they were not informed or not consulted they are not being forcoming with facts.Obviously the decsion that was made was done with the RAAus interest first (above the person). Not at all taken lightly. Regards, Jim Tatlock RAAus Victroian Representative. Jim, I'm talking about the the lack of teamwork between the GM and Wayne when he requested ( a couple of times) further assistance to tackle the huge job that is the registration backlog. I have read through the written criticisim one by one that the GM presented Wayne with, which was way over the top in my opinion, and I have read all the items that Wayne responded with. By all means correct me if I am wrong, as I am viewing this from a distance like most of the rest of us, however it appears to me that the GM pulled his support from Wayne as Tech man , at a critical time, when Wayne was doing his best in the job, in favour of supporting the assistant Tech man, who now by the way has the job......Sorry, but that is not that way a good manager manages.......................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 An email has been sent to Mark Clayton today requesting the following details:1. Who is the current Technical Manager for RAA? 2. Is Wayne Matthews still a current employee of RAA & if not why not? As soon as a response is received from Mark Clayton, the information will be posted on this site. The following response was received today from Mark Clayton: "1. Mr. Darren Barnfield ( [email protected]/ 0408351309)is currently Acting Technical Manager. 2. Mr. Matthews tenure with the Association ended on 27 August 2013. The Association Board & management felt it was not in the Associations best interest to extend his contract beyond the probationary period. I am currently unable to divulge the reason for the decision, as some aspects of the matter are subject to ongoing discussions between the Board & Mr. Matthews." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Over a number of threads on this forum - mostly, in the 'Governing Bodies' section - we have seem many impassioned posts declaring that the answer to the maiden's prayer is, variously, 'Good Governance', 'Democracy', or now a new motherhood statement: 'Teamwork'......... Oscar...If Good Governance was merely a buzz word of the year then its replacement buzz word would be getting an airing. It is no buzzword. Show me just one business in the top 500 of Australia that doesn't pay attention to governance and control and naked maypole dancing might well be in my near term future. How can I claim that....well to me one of the most obvious example of governance at work in the large company's is the existence of an independent internal audit capability and a forward published plan for internal audit over the 12 month budget cycle. Again can anyone show me a top 500 company in Australia that doesn't have an independent internal audit capability that reports directly to the CEO? Controls? Almost without fail the internal audit team in their 12 monthly cycle will without doubt have as an activity an audit of financial controls and segregation of duties. We in RAAus are conspicuously absent in any form of internal audit....its why CASA is the first to know of failures and we don't even act on them then! We have passing review of financial controls with our external auditor, but to me that doesn't equate to an internal audit capability reviewing these things. Middo choosing to spend whatever it takes to send out a political announcement in advance of the Feb9th meeting will never be taken to task even though it is clearly listed in the last review of the 12-13 FY actuals, that he acted well in excess of his delegation. A focus on Governance and controls would ensure that the expenditure wasn't allowed to be incurred at the time, let alone questioned after the fact. I know we aren't top 500 in size and certainly cant afford the overheads that such organisations have but not having an internal audit capability where, as we have already seen, failure is a direct threat to continued viability, is appalling in my opinion. try this one, it expands on my post http://www.kpmg.com.au/aci/docs/int-audit-role-in-corp-gov.pdf Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWF Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 If you want an example of poor governance you only have to look at what has transpired at the Essendon Football Club to see its consequences on key officials and the club. The AFL imposed the fines and sanctions for poor governance, not the questionable behaviour of players or their advisers. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Andy - of what relevance to compliance does Middleton's usurpation of funding to promote his case before the February meeting have? I made no case for or against 'Good Governance' in relation to the general carriage of RAA affairs - I made a comment to the effect that 'Good Governance' as a panacea to the failure to achieve compliance was ineffectual. A Tech. Manager performing at better than World's Best Standard would have had ZERO influence on Middleton's use of RAA funds. A company can meet every standard for the audit of its finances and completely fail to meet its performance targets due to inept management decisions. This thread is about the Tech. Manager's dismissal. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Andy - of what relevance to compliance does Middleton's usurpation of funding to promote his case before the February meeting have? I made no case for or against 'Good Governance' in relation to the general carriage of RAA affairs - I made a comment to the effect that 'Good Governance' as a panacea to the failure to achieve compliance was ineffectual. A Tech. Manager performing at better than World's Best Standard would have had ZERO influence on Middleton's use of RAA funds.A company can meet every standard for the audit of its finances and completely fail to meet its performance targets due to inept management decisions. This thread is about the Tech. Manager's dismissal. I agree with that, however your opening paragraph on the post I originally quoted to me suggested that those who speak of governance and controls are a bunch of idiots who may well believe that Lotto is a way to fortunes for all...(my words not yours). I'm still in the corner that says if previous boards had paid it some mind then the issue of ongoing rolling groundings that we have at present wouldn't probably exist. I don't necessarily agree that "'Good Governance' as a panacea to the failure to achieve compliance was ineffectual." it is my view that had we an internal audit and an effective risk management methodology then the circumstances where compliance was missed/ignored then it might well have been found by internal audit well in advance of CASA finding that and the risk management methodology might well have identified, as you have correctly alluded, that while there are many aspects to RAAus, the technical compliance demanded by CASA is one that has the fastest and most severe consequences for failure. That to me would mean that having identified that set of facts around consequences then audit of controls will focus often and deeply on how we fulfill that obligation. Why have I got it wrong? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 (a) Kaz, you aren't doing any of us any favours(b) Knowing what I know now, and particularly in the light of the Tatlock statement 2 above, agreeing that he should be left alone, I'd recommend that all members make sure they find out what went on, and not from the board members. It's not about doing anyone any favours, Turbs. It's about spelling out what the legal possibilities are. I don't have any more facts than have been revealed to the broader membership and I wouldn't draw a conclusion unless I had heard both sides of the story. But procedural fairness and the right to have grievances reviewed by Fair Work need to be respected. The Act imposes a 21 day window (limitation period) for complaints about unfair or unlawful dismissals to be filed. Breaches of contract have a six year limitation period. Discrimination is generally 12 months. You keep on intimating that you have inside knowledge on all this stuff. I say you are very likely being proffered a view from one vantage point only and your amateur legal analyses are just that. Kaz 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWF Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 This thread is about the high turnover in Tech Managers. Participants in this forum are rightly (I believe) concerned about this situation. Reasons for this high turnover canvassed here have been: 1. The occupants of the position have not been up to the task. [All three???] 2. 'Political' interference from (some) Board members. 3. Unrealistic expectations of the Board and/or GM. 4. Moving goal posts. 5. The TM being under resourced and/or not given appropriate support. Have I missed anything? What is the real story? Perhaps a good first step might be to have a look at the Job Description and Selection Criteria for the position to see what we are expecting the TM to do. These documents are, or should be, in the public domain. They could/should be available for perusal on the Member section of the RAAus web site. I presume the job will be advertised again shortly. DWF 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 One simple aspect of good governance is insisting if you make a decision that you ensure that the decision is carried out. Another aspect is to have a system in place to ensure that activities delegated are reviewed. Another is to ensure that all expenditure incurred is properly authorised. Good governance is what should happen every day, every step of the way. It doesn't mean the board micro managing but each person in the chain being responsible and accountable. I might not have been happy about the "letting go" of Wayne but it is an indication that the executive, board and GMby conducting a pre-permanency review of Wayne are taking their responsibilities seriously, with the interests of RAA at heart. I don't know about Robbie Costmeyer but it appears there was a failure of corporate governance and potential for personal ambition and politics to have had an influence. I think the board is getting it. But the board changes in NSW/ACT, WA and Qld needed to happen. And should continue in the next election cycle as well. By having elections we delegated those jobs to the Board and through them to the executive and management of RAA. The failure in our governance oversight as members is we don't have a clue about the efforts made on our behalf by individual board members or the capability of those seeking election. Are their election statements worth a pinch of s**t? I think that Jim is doing a great job as President, Secretary and Treasurer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I agree with that, however your opening paragraph on the post I originally quoted to me suggested that those who speak of governance and controls are a bunch of idiots who may well believe that Lotto is a way to fortunes for all...(my words not yours). I'm still in the corner that says if previous boards had paid it some mind then the issue of ongoing rolling groundings that we have at present wouldn't probably exist.I don't necessarily agree that "'Good Governance' as a panacea to the failure to achieve compliance was ineffectual." it is my view that had we an internal audit and an effective risk management methodology then the circumstances where compliance was missed/ignored then it might well have been found by internal audit well in advance of CASA finding that and the risk management methodology might well have identified, as you have correctly alluded, that while there are many aspects to RAAus, the technical compliance demanded by CASA is one that has the fastest and most severe consequences for failure. That to me would mean that having identified that set of facts around consequences then audit of controls will focus often and deeply on how we fulfill that obligation. Why have I got it wrong? Andy Andy - Obviously, I missed clarifying my point sufficiently clearly. I certainly support all of the general principles (which, yes, I labelled somewhat dismissively as 'motherhood statements') of Good Governance, Democracy, Teamwork etc. as important for the general conduct of RAA business. No, I do not think that those who continue to strive to see them achieved by the RAA are a bunch of idiots. However, these are not principles that directly affect the matter of RAA operating to meet its compliance requirements: that is fundamentally a technical matter that requires specific expertise (the management of the exemptions) and strict adherence to process and procedure that is fundamentally no product of any of the fine principles espoused. However, the laws of physics are not modified by the philosophical environment in which they operate: your stall speed does not depend on whether it was determined in a caring, sharing way. Metallurgy is unaffected by good intentions: an under-spec. bolt will still break whether it has been blessed by seven virgins and a clutch of Popes or shouted at by Rasputin incarnate. One could, at a stretch, liken the division of 'compliance' from 'general RAA operation' to the infamous example of Mussolini getting the trains to run on time in Italy: I don't think anybody would suggest that was a product of 'Good Governance', 'Democracy', 'Teamwork' etc. - but (presumably) at least one could go to work on the train and arrive on time! DWF has summarised the matters of primary concern for the subject of this thread extremely concisely and I believe completely accurately in the post above. I also happen to agree with your contention that an effective internal audit of adherence to compliance issues would most likely have had great effect. What I am saying is that simply banging the drum that adherence to these overarching principles would have made everything right, is unrealistic and very possibly counter-productive because there are specific matters that need investigation, analysis and rectification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter008 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 This thread is about the high turnover in Tech Managers. Participants in this forum are rightly (I believe) concerned about this situation. Reasons for this high turnover canvassed here have been: 1. The occupants of the position have not been up to the task. [All three???] 2. 'Political' interference from (some) Board members. 3. Unrealistic expectations of the Board and/or GM. 4. Moving goal posts. 5. The TM being under resourced and/or not given appropriate support. Have I missed anything? Well said DWF Far too often emotion and statements not quite thought through get posted which inflames the situation. Frankly, if I was a board member, I would not read any of the forum as it would just raise the blood pressure reading some of the statements derived from half baked information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 .......DWF has summarised the matters of primary concern for the subject of this thread extremely concisely and I believe completely accurately in the post above. I also happen to agree with your contention that an effective internal audit of adherence to compliance issues would most likely have had great effect. What I am saying is that simply banging the drum that adherence to these overarching principles would have made everything right, is unrealistic and very possibly counter-productive because there are specific matters that need investigation, analysis and rectification. In thinking on this last night there is one fatal flaw in my argument.......If RAAus cant find a TM that is as technically competent as we would want, then it would be unlikely, unless we manage to get access to CASA's resources and in a way such that findings aren't necessarily shared with CASA, that we can find someone with the skills needed to be that TM related internal auditor..... I know in general Auditors don't have to be as skilled as the people they are auditing but in the technical space a technical background is much more likely to allow the auditor to identify discrepancies than someone who has no technical skills.....that being true my house of cards crumbles somewhat...... As you say auditing to processes is something an auditor can do, reviewing decisions made on that bolt you mentioned, or that stall speed is not within the realms of a non technical auditor. If we are brutally honest, the imposition of CASA checks at the very end of the registration process is the imposition of an external auditor because we have no internal one.....but how we will fill the internal role is likely as difficult as the TM role in reality. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spriteah Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 In thinking on this last night there is one fatal flaw in my argument.......If RAAus cant find a TM that is as technically competent as we would want, then it would be unlikely, unless we manage to get access to CASA's resources and in a way such that findings aren't necessarily shared with CASA, that we can find someone with the skills needed to be that TM related internal auditor..... I know in general Auditors don't have to be as skilled as the people they are auditing but in the technical space a technical background is much more likely to allow the auditor to identify discrepancies than someone who has no technical skills.....that being true my house of cards crumbles somewhat...... As you say auditing to processes is something an auditor can do, reviewing decisions made on that bolt you mentioned, or that stall speed is not within the realms of a non technical auditor.If we are brutally honest, the imposition of CASA checks at the very end of the registration process is the imposition of an external auditor because we have no internal one.....but how we will fill the internal role is likely as difficult as the TM role in reality. Andy Andy, The concept of regular audits in high on my to do list. Although having a technically competent person conduct the audits is ideal, as you suggested I do not think impeative. If during an audit you discover so abnormal data this can always be looked into by a competent person in the specific field. Worksafe audit in this fashion regularly. Look, ask questions, not convinced, further research, discuss with regulator and eventually the truth and discovery. I think your suggestion could easliy work. As to RAAus implementing a system. I would hope we capture it with the upgrading of the SMS. Regards, Jim Tatlock. Vic Rep RAAus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 It is a real shame that Wayne has been moved on from being the TM. I have no idea what has transpired for the decision to have been made and it is none of my business, really. Moving forward, I hope that after Wayne has settled down in his next venture. I and others will really appreciate it when he regularly posts here again as I feel that his experience and wisdom is as benefit for all of us. 2 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I think we probably should accept what board via people like Jim is telling us as we have no other way of knowing what happened. We have some good board members and even though people have little confidence in some others they most likely are trying pretty hard to get it right at the moment. I can't imagine that this would have happened if there was any other better alternative. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Andy, The concept of regular audits in high on my to do list. Although having a technically competent person conduct the audits is ideal, as you suggested I do not think impeative. If during an audit you discover so abnormal data this can always be looked into by a competent person in the specific field. Worksafe audit in this fashion regularly. Look, ask questions, not convinced, further research, discuss with regulator and eventually the truth and discovery. I think your suggestion could easliy work.As to RAAus implementing a system. I would hope we capture it with the upgrading of the SMS. Regards, Jim Tatlock. Vic Rep RAAus. Jim, someone without a sufficient technical background could really only audit to see the due process has been faithfully carried out, so the efficacy of that level of audit can really only be as good as the specificity of the process definition. That is not to denigrate the benefit of any audit - anything is likely to be better than nothing - but to point out that the technical complexity requires a level of knowledge that a generalist will not have. Can I point out an example? - a recent report of an amphibian mentioning that a certain propeller - a non-approved one - was fitted. Wayne took entirely the correct action in response - which was not something that would have been picked up in the standard re-registration process because that process does not go to the level of specificity. Whether or not the actual propellor in question was in any way dangerous or alternatively the absolute duck's pajamas - is not the point here: the point is that the aircraft in question no longer met the 'standard', and by so not doing, was operating outside the security blanket that the standard provides. That, in turn, has potentially serious legal implications for the operator if there is an accident and the functioning of the propellor is even just a suspect component. Had RAA re-registered that aircraft with that propellor on it (in all innocence of that fact), it may well have ticked all the necessary boxes and been given a clean bill of health by an internal audit - and still been in the firing line in a court case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 [quote="coljones, post: 309048, member: 4340" I might not have been happy about the "letting go" of Wayne but it is an indication that the executive, board and GMby conducting a pre-permanency review of Wayne are taking their responsibilities seriously, with the interests of RAA at heart. OR... I think....Is this a good case of egoes and power struggles at the best? Bit like Julia and Kevin. There is an elevated odor of a rat here. Regard Keith Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I am going with your first suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 The RAAus has always appeared to be ego and power play based. The 001 rego numbers proved that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 The RAAus has always appeared to be ego and power play based. The 001 rego numbers proved that. True but you would hope that after what has happened people would now have adjusted their priorities. 1 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