David Isaac Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I don't believe for a minute the Board ever supported the threatening legal letter against Ian and this site from Slater and Gordon (no doubt at RA Aus expense) at the instruction of the CEO. And ... I don't believe the Board ever approved or knew about the letter sent to Ian from the President about not accepting his application for membership at this time. It certainly would appear there are a lot of egos at the top end of town that should just be put down so that business can continue. Maybe the CEO and President should develop thicker skin and get on with life ... after all if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. This has the potential to end up petty squabbling at the expense of the members. Are we going to hold the Board and executive accountable at the AGM for this out of control behaviour, or are we all going to stick our heads in the sand and say as long as I can go on flying, I can ignore all this political BS ????? 1
fly_tornado Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I vote that we do as little as possible for as long as possible and see how that works out.
shags_j Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I don't want to wait for AGM while we continue to pay for solicitors...
David Isaac Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I vote that we do as little as possible for as long as possible and see how that works out. Do you reckon you can hold your breath that long ... LOL 3
turboplanner Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I don't think it came out the way he meant it to. I couldn't see a member wanting to prolong the legal process at hundreds of dollars per hour, hour after hour after hour at his own subscription expense.
facthunter Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 As little as possible for as long as possible? There were people who said that sort of thing in england before 1939. Act on information and make sure it is accurate, but we appear to have a complex situation. As time passes does it get better or is it getting worse? Farri says how he sees it. ( essentially nobody wins this fight.) I have said that from the beginning. Ian is RESPONDING in this situation. He has the right to do that, and he wouldn't be getting the support of the legals he is using, if he didn't have a good case, however it is not just about Ian. There are real questions about how your organisation is functioning and what powers the RAAus have to deal with it's members, how they will be applied and how open and fair that process is. We have had too many capable elected reps get off the board . Is there a common cause?. I believe there is. The way this show operates we must know what is going on here. Most of your reps are doing a job for which they are NOT paid. They are nor crooks or anything like that . Are they being put in a situation where something has already occurred and being asked to go along with it for whatever reason.?. Is a secret ballott ever being used at that level? It should be available for the asking, to avoid any sense of coercion, at any meeting.. Nev 2
David Isaac Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Well Nev, I have seen first hand copies of emails from the top that at the very least are rude, arrogant and bullying, they would shock the average member. Couple that with what appears to be unaccountability by the Executive and the CEO and maybe that explains the exodus of good people from the Board, four members to date that I can immediately think of; we have lost the NT rep, a Vic rep and two NSW reps ... all resigned.
shags_j Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I really wish I had the time to put into trying to be elected. If I wasn't doing the ATC course I wouldn't hesitate to put my hand up.
Wayne T Mathews Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I really wish I had the time to put into trying to be elected. If I wasn't doing the ATC course I wouldn't hesitate to put my hand up. Your turn'll come Shags. Get the job nailed down first, Mate. 1
damkia Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Is it time for a no confidence motion and spill of positions in the board at the AGM? It seems to me this is the only practical way of clearing the air in a general sense, not just with Ian, but also a well known manufacturer who has incurred the wrath of the RA-Aus decision making process. Could this be organised at short notice? Those board members that have done nothing wrong and have fairly and properly represented their members have nothing to fear. How about a new bylaw that all Executive members must be otherwise employed within Australia? In other words if you have an occupation that entails regular or extended period away from the Australian mainland you are not permitted to hold an EXECUTIVE position. This would seem to be logical, reasonable and legal, given the duties expected of the Executive. This would not apply to the various area management representitives as one could cover others who were indisposed for any period.
fly_tornado Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 damkia, that will really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Banning CFIs from holding office is a good start as that removes one conflict of interest from the RAA management process. 1
turboplanner Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 You two should scroll through the Constitution (it's on the RAA website), and you'll see there are some impediments like the number of members required, and the long delay which allow apathy to work in the favour of the status quo. That's why the proposed changes which Andy was talking about are so crucial for you to get any satisfaction. 2
Wayne T Mathews Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 You two should scroll through the Constitution (it's on the RAA website), and you'll see there are some impediments like the number of members required, and the long delay which allow apathy to work in the favour of the status quo.That's why the proposed changes which Andy was talking about are so crucial for you to get any satisfaction. Hear hear... Well said Turbz, well said...
damkia Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 damkia, that will really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Banning CFIs from holding office is a good start as that removes one conflict of interest from the RAA management process. If you did that then you would also need to extend that principle to those members that leave their S-LSA's on line for flying instruction at the various schools - conflict of interest.... It is reasonable that every aspect of the industry has some representation on the board, as long as there is no overwhelming power of veto given to any particular group or individual, ie, a democracy. Personally I would not be against CFI's, owners of S-LSA's, owners of E-LSA's, flyers, airstrip operators and any other relevant parties being appropriately represented on the board or as area reps.
David Isaac Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Why do you guys think it is critical we get the proposed Constitutional changes through at the next AGM? Is everyone supporting these changes? Have you got your proxies in in support of the changes? The changes are not complicated, they are simple and they give power back to the members, force the Board to have a general Meeting at Natfly and make it practical for ordinary members to call a general meeting on notice to deal with such things as a no confidence motion in an Executive, Board or management where things get out of hand as they currently appear to be. There is an undercurrent being promoted that these special resolutions are wrong and that we should not support them, that undercurrent if promoting such a story could only have a motive based in denying the members more power. If you don't understand the special resolutions, read the article in the last magazine by Don Ramsay, download a copy of the constitution and have a read ... you will be amazed how simple the proposed amendments are. 1
kaz3g Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 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 The soldiers call it "keeping your powder dry" when they are up to their necks in water. Kaz
kaz3g Posted August 30, 2012 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. Neither can I. Kaz
Deskpilot Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 FWIW, Slater and Gordon usually work on the No win/No pay principle. If this is the present case, they must think they're (RAA) case is pretty strong. Years ago they represented my wife, and thousands of others in a case against the IUD manufacturer of the Dalcon Shield. They won, quite substantially.
Admin Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 DP, that was for the RAAus threatening to indirectly sue you people, RAAus members, for defaming Tizzard but nothing went any further then their threatening letter after I responded to them...again it is noted that the rest of the board had no idea that it was started and were surprised when I sent my reply letter to the entire board. I don't know what they did but it could have well been that S&G advised them that they had no chance so that is why it didn't go any further after my reply letter. Note that this type of thing has been going on for years...a letter from Tizzard demanding to know who a particular site member was and again I replied with a letter saying that I wouldn't disclose such information unless I was ordered to by a court of law...Tizzard's reply was that he was then going to send my refusal to CASA 2
fly_tornado Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 How does he keep his job acting in such an unprofessional way? Again, I can't believe the board fully supports such actions. I wonder other projects he has been working on that no one knows about. 1
shags_j Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 How does he keep his job acting in such an unprofessional way? Again, I can't believe the board fully supports such actions. I wonder other projects he has been working on that no one knows about. Its been said before. Apathy!
Guernsey Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Received my September edition of Sport Pilot one hour ago, sorry for the delay but I had to read it first. For your info this is an extract from the President's Report:- "You may or may not know it is at the September board meeting that the current executive positions ( President, Secretary and Treasurer ) will be disbanded and a new executive elected." end of quote. If it is ok with Ian, I can copy the whole report and hopefully be able to add it to a post as an attachment. Alan. PS On second thoughts I would probably need the President's permission.
Guernsey Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Re the above post, his full report is quite good. Alan.
turboplanner Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Really? Then how do you rate his actions against your site host?
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