RAAus stopping membership

[robinsm]

A swift legal kick in the nether regions delivered with alacrity can sometimes have the desired effect. Correct ave8rr, it should have never involved the legal fraternity. The conversations at Raa HQ between the CEO and Pres would have been interesting. One can hope the board used its muscle and broke the boys conspiracy up. Useless waste of funds.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the less said about this the better, I am sure those that did what they did, did so for our benefit and our benefit alone

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Well it appears our 'benifit' must have been redefined if they have had a change of heart hey fly???

 

 

[robinsm]

All very well not saying anything but is that a licence for them to try power games again?

 

 

[Bandit12]

One would hope that no one would try the same tactic without a more careful consideration of being able to justify their position....

 

 

[Guernsey]

One would hope that no one would try the same tactic without a more careful consideration of being able to justify their position....

I agree, so it may have done a lot of good in the end for the above reason.

 

Alan.

 

 

[David Isaac]

All very well not saying anything but is that a licence for them to try power games again?

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one Robinsm; in this case if Ian had not come forward and described the inappropriate abuse of power and process, they would have got away with it and any of us could have become victim to the same behaviour down the track. That is always the problem with the 'stick your head in the sand' mode of behaviour ... "it isn't happening to me so why get involved...". Well I believe we have just seen the reason why we should get involved.

So what would have happened if this had been applied to any of you and there was no valid reason? Would you have come forward and published what happened to you? Would we all ever have come to know of it?

 

I sincerely hope that the President apologised to you Ian or was it just a simple acceptance of your application. The President wrote the original letter delaying your application till the board meeting following the AGM ... so did they suddenly have a meeting to discuss this or did the President retract his delay and grant membership?

 

Regards,

 

 

[Admin]

Hi All

 

I think you all should be aware of what happened.

 

1. Here is the first letter from Steve Runciman:

 

 

2. Here is my Solicitors reply...the letter and email (note: to the RAAus Secretary and NOT Steve Runciman personally as he requested):

 

Dear Secretary

 

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter mailed to the office last week on behalf of our client Mr Ian Baker.

 

Mr Baker allowed his pilot certificate to lapse some time ago because of health issues he was experiencing at the time. In our view, this was a sensible and highly responsible action taken by him and demonstrative of his careful and safety-conscious approach to his sport. He has now been cleared to fly again by his doctor and wishes to renew his certificate.

 

He has been somewhat alarmed by the communication he recently received from the President indicating that his “fitness” to be a member was under review and his membership placed on hold pending same. As you will see from the contents of our letter, we are now quite concerned that the President, and no doubt the CEO, have taken this unilateral action against Mr Baker for what appear to us to be personal reasons rather than being based in any real concern for the reputation of RAAus as a whole.

 

We strongly suggest that the Board consider the appropriateness of the subject action and the perception of bias it immediately raises. We expect that our client’s membership and pilot certificate will be granted without any undue delay and indicate that we are instructed to seek necessary legal recourse should this not occur.

 

Your Faithfully

 

Fitzroy Legal Service Inc

 

 

3. The letter that arrived from Steve Runciman today:

 

 

Please make up your own mind on what may be going on here

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Wow. I'm blown away. That's all I can say. We really are in trouble.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

what does untoward mean?

 

 

[David Isaac]

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!!!!

 

Then, following the letter from Fitzroy Chambers, suddenly all the allegations disappear and the irrelevant facts of your illness are quoted as the reason for (now the board) granting you membership. And most notably NO apology.

 

I am amazed.

 

But I will add, I am grateful you now have membership again.

 

 

[dazza 38]

what does untoward mean?

Unfavourable, improper etc.Things like that.

 

 

[Gentreau]

Two possibilities come to mind.

 

1. Board members to President "wind yer bloody neck in"

 

2. "Oh shit he had some nasty illness, don't offend the spastic" (Adam Hills)

 

In any case, you have your membership and the activities of the president are now a matter of public record.

 

Well done, score one for the good guys :)

 

 

[Gentreau]

what does untoward mean?

 

Unfavourable, improper etc.Things like that.

He probably forgot to genuflect and kiss the president's ring.......

 

 

[dazza 38]

Wow. I'm blown away. That's all I can say. We really are in trouble.

Only until september 22.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Talk about bringing the raa into disrepute.... Holy snappers. Hello pot, this is the kettle calling!!!!!

 

 

[motzartmerv]

what happened at the two events that seems to be the beginning of all this?[/size]

Must have been that nudie run he did. Ahlocks was egging him on..:)

 

 

[planedriver]

Hi AllI think you all should be aware of what happened.

1. Here is the first letter from Steve Runciman:

 

[ATTACH]18948[/ATTACH]

 

2. Here is my Solicitors reply...the letter and email (note: to the RAAus Secretary and NOT Steve Runciman personally as he requested):

 

Dear Secretary

 

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter mailed to the office last week on behalf of our client Mr Ian Baker.

 

Mr Baker allowed his pilot certificate to lapse some time ago because of health issues he was experiencing at the time. In our view, this was a sensible and highly responsible action taken by him and demonstrative of his careful and safety-conscious approach to his sport. He has now been cleared to fly again by his doctor and wishes to renew his certificate.

 

He has been somewhat alarmed by the communication he recently received from the President indicating that his “fitness” to be a member was under review and his membership placed on hold pending same. As you will see from the contents of our letter, we are now quite concerned that the President, and no doubt the CEO, have taken this unilateral action against Mr Baker for what appear to us to be personal reasons rather than being based in any real concern for the reputation of RAAus as a whole.

 

We strongly suggest that the Board consider the appropriateness of the subject action and the perception of bias it immediately raises. We expect that our client’s membership and pilot certificate will be granted without any undue delay and indicate that we are instructed to seek necessary legal recourse should this not occur.

 

Your Faithfully

 

Fitzroy Legal Service Inc

 

[ATTACH]18946[/ATTACH]

 

3. The letter that arrived from Steve Runciman today:

 

[ATTACH]18947[/ATTACH]

 

Please make up your own mind on what may be going on here

Amazing! what a w--ker (who removed that green smiley when it was needed the most)

 

Hopefully, the perveyor of all this nonsense, will now be personably responsible for all legal expenses incurred!

 

Yeeeeeer Right?

 

We wish!.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I had heard, but wasnt there so cant say if its true or not, that a certain CEO at Natfly2012 one morning walked past Ian and was polite in offering greetings of the day.....and Ian in response (and pressumably as a continuation of an ongoing debate) suggested it might be best if (paraphrased) he, his mate and his BBQ went and visited a far queue along with some other emotive words, and that the exchange of friendly greetings (in isolation of the ongoing debate) was overheard by other RAA members who had complained about Ian's behaviour to the RAA Office.........

 

As said, thats 3rd hand and might simply be a complete load of bollocks but its what I heard.

 

so....in a round about way I believe in this case that might be the definition of untoward ....if its true

 

Andy

 

P.S Just in case someone were to draw the wrong conclusion from this post......right or wrong to me its irrelevant because even if true the crime hardly fits the punishment and again if true loosing the ability to fly is somewhat unrelated to a personal spat between a member (or maybe not at that stage???) and the CEO. Im reasonably confident that the CEO and board members present at the AGM had best consider themselves on notice that a question in the questions from the floor part of the agenda is pretty likely I would have thought.

 

 

[Admin]

[David Isaac]

........ 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

That is why I am grateful I live in Australia ... the land of the free where freedom of speech is preserved ... unless of course you are a member of RA Aus ...

 

 

[David Isaac]

... so....in a round about way I believe in this case that might be the definition of untoward ....if its trueAndy

Andy ... Andy ... Andy ... there was absolutely no 'Un' about it is was absolutely 'towards' the CEO ...

And in any case ... that was a personal matter between Ian and the CEO what business is that of anyone elses?

 

 

[planedriver]

And in any case ... that was a personal matter between Ian and the CEO what business is that of anyone elses?

And everyone else on here who cares!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy ... Andy ... Andy ... there was absolutely no 'Un' about it is was absolutely 'towards' the CEO ... And in any case ... that was a personal matter between Ian and the CEO what business is that of anyone elses?

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

 

 

[planedriver]

And everyone else on here who cares!

The support Ian's had on here, surely indicates how the majority of us feel.