RAAus stopping membership

[Admin]

I will openly say that I have no idea what untoward behaviour I am suppose to have undertaken at NatFly 2010, hence why the RAAus was asked for evidence to substantiate Steve Runciman's claims in his letter and 2011 however I will say that if as an example, the CEO a day before Xmas cancels ALL junior Members and stops them from flying, without the Board knowing, then 2 weeks later lets them start flying again, retracting what was previously said, only then to later stop them from flying again...I am sure you, as a member, would like to say to the CEO of any institution that when accosted by him that he is an F'n idiot to his face...my personal opinion only!

 

 

[damkia]

I like the solicitors definitions of freedom of speech,,,, pity it isn't actually true in most countries,,,along with being innocent until proven guilty,

Met

"Guilty until paid off" still happens in Australia...........

 

Congrats on the win, Ian. Pity it took what it did to get there.

 

 

[turboplanner]

He's now on the right track, but he hasn't completed the saga yet, he's got another letter to write, this time apologising to all members and tendering his resignation as President and board member.

 

 

[damkia]

He's now on the right track, but he hasn't completed the saga yet, he's got another letter to write, this time apologising to all members and tendering his resignation as President and board member.

..which happens automatically in about 2 weeks.

My guess is he will not be voted back in.

 

 

[turboplanner]

ummmm I was editing my post as you posted...I think I ve addressed your points inthe PS. As to business of others....I think it became the business of others as soon as the action that occured was undertaken...... Perhaps in just an idealist but people can only make up ther mind about a set of actions taken if they have the full information on which to make a decision. In this case we didnt hear anything from RAA (but Im sure we will at the AGM) and only Ian knows how full and accurate his reporting has been because there isnt the otherside to compare it to. (and please dont infer that Im saying Ian isnt being open and honest, I have nothing to base such a position on)Andy

In this case there is the hard, and now public evidence to make a judgement on - the letters.

 

 

[winsor68]

..which happens automatically in about 2 weeks.My guess is he will not be voted back in.

Is anyone running for the Position of North Qld Rep?

 

 

[Admin]

Is anyone running for the Position of North Qld Rep?

You guys elected Steve Runciman in for another 2 years (by default) a couple of months ago

 

 

[eightyknots]

Well that was an interesting response.I am some what bewildered; firstly the President references alleged complaints received by the board, alleges further complaints about Rec Flying posts bringing RA Aus into disrepute (apparently completely unaware that he and the board are not beyond reproach) and then appears to personally introduce By-Law 12 provisions alleging the provisions of By-Law 12 could be applied against you and refers to the matter being deferred to an ultimate Board decision. On top of all the allegations, the President provides NO basis or evidence off fact that any of the allegations exist and then invites you to respond to implied allegations ... are you kidding me!!!!

Very well put, D-I. I'm still really concerned about the unilateral-ness of the decision without discussing the 'untoward' behaviour with Ian first. I think a very big apology should have accompanied that letter: .....it didn't and that is a tragedy that needs a remedy.

 

 

[flyerme]

,along with being innocent until proven guilty,

 

Met

 

good on ya Ian so where you doing your BFR?

 

 

[Admin]

good on ya Ian so where you doing your BFR?

Just before all this started, a board member in a different State offered to take me for it and I was going to that State for a meeting anyway so it was going to work out really well and financially viable...but now it would mean making a special trip so everything is thrown open again...it is also delayed further as well because my son Lachlan has really been looking forward to Ausfly so I can't start anything till after that now as well, I wanted to do a couple of days to really make sure I covered everything after a lengthy duration away from it and not just a stock standard BFR (have to do Human Factors as well)...this means if I were to travel somewhere it would have to be after AusFly

 

 

[kaz3g]

I'm very glad for you, Ian, that you have had your membership accepted and you are now free to renew your certificate and fly again. Must be a pretty effective legal team you have there! But I am particularly glad that common sense has at last prevailed because the issue was much bigger than one member...it revolved around the rights of us all to receive a fair go when we seek the necessary approvals to fly.

 

I think the first concern that this unfortunate issue raises is the apparent lack of understanding by the Executive of procedural matters and the way in which authority is properly exercised in the context of a Board of Management. The ACT Act makes it clear that authority is not an individual matter; that it comes through the collective decisions of the Board.

 

The next concern is that the President apparently saw fit to take a unilateral decision to deny membership (albeit only until the next Board meeting) for things that were said to have happened in the past but for which no complaints were filed at the time and when Ian was a member. I very seriously doubt the lawfulness of the amendment to the disciplinary rule dealing with applicants for membership because there is no associated process of appeal.

 

The next concern is that no details of the complaints referred to in the President's letter were provided to Ian, so he had no opportunity to refute them. That they were made as statements of fact instead of allegations only adds to that concern because they immediately appear to rule the President and some others out of any further consideration of them immediately as a matter of procedural fairness ( natural justice... No man can be both accuser and judge).

 

The next concern is that the President (again) wrote the response and did so directly to Ian rather than replying as a matter of courtesy to Ian's solicitors. That letter should have been sent by the Secretary if it was, in fact, responding to a decision of RAAus...perhaps the President is abandoning the legal protection of his position and taking personal liability for any further action to obtain proper redress on Ian's part? Might save the members a lot of RAAus money if he does.

 

The next concern is that there is no apology or offer of redress for Ian other than they have cleared his cheque and made him a member again. It takes a big man to acknowledge his mistakes.

 

And the final concern is that there is no guarantee that such misapplications of power by those concerned will not occur again.

 

Quite sad, really but I hope the lessons are learned.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks Kaz, you're a Champion!

 

 

[Admin]

Must be a pretty effective legal team you have there!Kaz

They are a brilliant legal team Kaz, they are a team and not just 1 person but they are led by someone to whom not only myself but EVERY RAAus member owes a great deal of gratitude to

 

 

[Admin]

Oh, and Kaz...you are so right about the concerns that you have raised

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yes Kaz, it is far from over and this whole rediculous incident is tacid proof of the need for constitutional overhaul and a bloody good lecture to the board, the executive and senior management in proper process. Otherwise may God help us all

 

 

[Captain]

A bit of info has been published in this newsletter:http://www.wattsbridge.com.au/files/news_bvsac/bvsac1209_september2012.pdf

Well worth a read.

I have read and re-read the points from the letter that the CEO/OPS Mgr were purported to have sent and IF this was indeed done without the approval of the Board, the CEO and/or Ops Manager need to be sanctioned in the strongest possible terms.

 

I have been in companies and on Boards where such an action would have brought instant dismissal.

 

I have also read and re-read John Mckeown's response ... and full marks for him for responding (so based on past behaviour I wonder whether someone from the Exec or another Board Member has tried to have a go at him for doing that).

 

Further, IF this letter has been sent with the approval of some members of the Executive, but not of the full Board, those members of the Exec should be sanctioned or sacked too.

 

Given the way that the top of the RAA is populated by ex CASA and past/current public servants, I expect that they might propose Councilling, & hand-holding in a Fairy-Circle under a crystal etc to put this right, and perhaps they may also try to hide behind the fact that it may have been only a DRAFT, but IF this is all true it is time for the Board and Members to stand up to what is going on, and IF so it is time for the RAA to get a CEO who sees his or her prime role as looking after the interests of the members.

 

As it is not in the Coroner's recommendation, was it REALLY the RAA that suggested that it's members be subject to "Strict Liability" (something much worse than "guilty until proven innocent"). If so, for that alone they should be terminated immediately. HOW CAN THE MEMBERS GO FORWARD WITH A CEO AND/OR OPERATIONS MANAGER THAT WOULD RECOMMEND SUCH A THING?.

 

And while we are at it, let's have a formal sanction for the President, the CEO and whoever else has their grubby fingers over this latest attempt to shaft Ian Baker & this forum.

 

These 2 actions (the letter to the Coroner & the move against IB) alone show a lack of ethics, a lack of the correct culture, a lack of leadership and the use of the organisation to further personal agendas and careers and IT JUST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

 

I can picture the AGM being a rerun of the responses at the Temora Meeting. Tizzard to respond that he "doesn't remember" and Runciman to say something like "We got it wrong, we are very sorry, leave it with us, I will put it right." That was crap then and it is crap now.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[cazza]

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I urge everyone on this forum who is a member of ra-aus to email the board members and let them know your thoughts. One of the bm from nsw is often heard saying, "no one has complained to me". I wrote to Michael apps, but I will now write to them all. So should you all.

 

Cazza

 

 

[Admin]

I will let everyone know that this matter is not closed and is proceeding further. The initial letter from Steve Runciman full of unsubstantiated accusations, stating that my membership application has been stopped due to the potential of bringing the RAAus into disrepute and then to receive a letter from him saying something completely and utterly different is just beyond understanding...There is something truly wrong with what happened here and things like this must not happen in Aviation in Australia, in Aviation anywhere in the world for that matter. Aviation needs integrity, it needs professionalism and above all it needs honesty and I personally believe we have not seen this from a CASA Approved Governing Body that is suppose to be there to protect and enhance the safety of nearly 11,000 people in Australia.

 

The matter is continuing and has already gone further and I am calling for a public apology, personally from Steve Runciman, and also from the entire RAAus Board Executive.

 

I also personally call for the immediate resignations of Steve Runciman, Paul Middleton, Eugene Reid and Steve Tizzard...do the right thing and let RAAus start rebuilding itself into that professional, honest governing body that has integrity and can then be seen and believed to be protecting and enhancing the safety of ALL recreational aviators, not only in the eyes of CASA, but also in the eyes of the RAAus members, as these activities that we have just witnessed will hopefully be performed professionally and not end up occurring in this manner at all.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good for you. It's high time members sat up and took notice, and did something.

 

There's another issue which surfaced during this saga.

 

A person on another site made a positive statement that Ian's membership didn't lapse, he resigned.

 

To say this would indicate he had inside information.

 

I suggested this could be a breach of the Privacy Act

 

He reacted by claiming Ian had told him

 

Ian has confirmed in writing that he did not

 

So on this occasion we have no innuendeno, no rumour, a written claim and a written response

 

This is not the first time authorative boasts have been made on other sites which infer leaks of information which should be confidential.

 

Now I'm not saying leaks are occurring at all, but an investigation into these claims should be made, because I'm sure no member would want his membership status being trawled through and made public by someone who only wants to do him harm.

 

We are all protected by the Privacy Act and the penalties are severe.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I have read and re-read the points from the letter that the CEO/OPS Mgr were perported to have sent and IF this was indeed done without the approval of the Board, the CEO and/or Ops Manager need to be sanctioned in the strongest possible terms.I have been in companies and on Boards where such an action would have brought instant dismissal.

 

I have also read and re-read John Mckeown's response ... and full marks for him for responding (so based on past behaviour I wonder whether someone from the Exec or another Board Member has tried to have a go at him for doing that).

 

Further, IF this letter has been sent with the approval of some members of the Executive, but not of the full Board, those members of the Exec should be sanctioned or sacked too.

 

Given the way that the top of the RAA is populated by ex CASA and past/current public servants, I expect that they might propose Councilling, & hand-holding in a Fairy-Circle under a crystal etc to put this right, and perhaps they may also try to hide behind the fact that it may have been only a DRAFT, but IF this is all true it is time for the Board and Members to stand up to what is going on, and IF so it is time for the RAA to get a CEO who sees his or her prime role as looking after the interests of the members.

 

As it is not in the Coroner's recommendation, was it REALLY the RAA that suggested that it's members be subject to "Strict Liability" (something much worse than "guilty until proven innocent"). If so, for that alone they should be terminated immediately. HOW CAN THE MEMBERS GO FORWARD WITH A CEO AND/OR OPERATIONS MANAGER THAT WOULD RECOMMEND SUCH A THING?.

 

And while we are at it, let's have a formal sanction for the President, the CEO and whoever else has their grubby fingers over this latest attempt to shaft Ian Baker & this forum.

 

These 2 actions (the letter to the Coroner & the move against IB) alone show a lack of ethics, a lack of the correct culture, a lack of leadership and the use of the organisation to further personal agendas and careers and IT JUST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

 

I can picture the AGM being a rerun of the responses at the Temora Meeting. Tizzard to respond that he "doesn't remember" and Runciman to say something like "We got it wrong, we are very sorry, leave it with us, I will put it right." That was crap then and it is crap now.

 

Regards Geoff

Geoff

 

I absolutely agree with you regarding the letter to the coroner. To me, if that occured as has been widely circulated, and the board in entirety did not endorse the letter before it was sent then it is clear that the operations team has clearly:-

 

1) Forgotten who makes the strategic decisions and no-one could ever argue that letter was anything but strategic (in fact critically so!)

 

2) Forgotten why there is an RAA board and what the separation of duties is between the board and the Opps team

 

3) Forgotten what their roles and job descriptions are

 

4) and lastly forgotten just who it is that pays them

 

It is my own personal opinion that a mistake of any 1 or 2 of the above can be fixed through formal disciplinary process and counselling but to forget all 4) to me is a an unrecoverable position and we should immediately start looking to replace staff that make all of these mistakes in a single instance.

 

Now, that all said the big issue at the moment is the "IF" and we need clarity on that point alone at the AGM.

 

I wish the AGM could be broadcast to members using a video streaming solution, but Im not sure of the legality of doing so. Technically not very difficult to do with a laptop, a webcam and a Telstra 3G or 4G modem. Has anyone seen this done within an incorporated associations AGM?

 

Andy

 

P.S I didnt comment on the By-Law 12 issue, it is also a mess but to me less strategic in nature than the letter to the coroner and has been widely covered here already.

 

Do people know what Geoff and myself are talking about? If not you really need to be across the issue it will stun you when you first read it. The newsletter can be found here http://www.wattsbridge.com.au/files/news_bvsac/bvsac1209_september2012.pdf please read page 4 and be prepared to be stunned!

 

 

[eightyknots]

Andys@coffs' date=' post: 239114, member: 94[/email']]I wish the AGM could be broadcast to members using a video streaming solution, but Im not sure of the legality of doing so. Technically not very difficult to do with a laptop, a webcam and a Telstra 3G or 4G modem. Has anyone seen this done within an incorporated associations AGM?

Andy

It's a meeting for members: perhaps it's possible to have a "log-in" system for RA-Aus members wanting to access a video feed via the net?

 

 

[Admin]

The problem is how do you confirm that the person logging in is who they say they are...if you use membership number well anyone can get someone else's number that has been printed in the mag etc...and even if you devised some method of a password etc, how do you know that without physically seeing a membership card that the password used has not been ascertained in some unknown manner.

 

I thought of trying to figure out a way of doing this some time ago but kept coming up with no specific way other then seeing the person and their membership card to be reliable

 

 

[eightyknots]

The problem is how do you confirm that the person logging in is who they say they are...if you use membership number well anyone can get someone else's number that has been printed in the mag etc...and even if you devised some method of a password etc, how do you know that without physically seeing a membership card that the password used has not been ascertained in some unknown manner.I thought of trying to figure out a way of doing this some time ago but kept coming up with no specific way other then seeing the person and their membership card to be reliable

The ID matter is quite an issue: that is the same reason why parliamentary elections are still done on paper rather than on line. I suppose there is no easy answer so the meeting will probably not be videocast.

 

 

[Captain]

Please don't let the videocasting issue sidetrack this thread as IMHO the most important issue for the future of recreational aviation at the moment is that the members, and/or someone at the AGM, holds our rulers & senior employees to account.

 

One more comment on what was purported to be a submission to the Coroner (or sent to police assisting the Coroner) from Tizzard and Tully is their suggestion that the Board is unworkable and should be re-numbered and reconstituted.

 

IF they did that they not only acted outside their brief, but they have disrespected & undermined the existing Board.

 

IF repeat IF they did that they are not fit to be part of this organisation, & through their "Strict Liability" submission they are selling the members down the river. If the "IF" is proven, I call for, and demand, the immediate resignation or sacking of whoever authored and/or approved that correspondance, & if that doesn't occur it proves that the elected leadership of the RAA are either toothless or complicit , or pathetically weak.

 

Geez I hope Tizzard is at AusFly next weekend and makes himself available for a chat.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

I hadn't picked up the "strict liability" - that would be a very interesting thought for the thousands of lazy members - maybe they should look it up and see what it means to them!!!!!!!!