Here is the President's resignation and some flow on issues.

[Captain]

To all members of the RAA.

 

Yesterday I received the attached text which purports to be the full text of the President's resignation email.

 

If that is not the correct or full text, will a Board Members please advise me and I will remove it from this thread.

 

In anticipation of what might be the consequence of this post I wish to advise the following:

 

• I have never met or spoken with Board Member McKeown until I contacted him this morning.
   
   
  
• The attachment was not sent to me by John McKeown.
   
   
  

 

 

To those who might think that this post is destabilizing to the RAA, and if the attachment is correct, please bear in mind that it was not me who resigned & it was not me who reinstated the President in what looks to me to be incorrect, if not illegal, circumstances.

 

As John McKeown is mentioned in the attachment, I contacted John this morning to ask whether he had any problem with me publishing what I was informed was the genuine resignation letter when that letter makes some pretty serious accusations against John.

 

John has sent me an email this morning which I copy verbatim as follows:

 

Hi Geoff,

 

Thank you for having the courtesy of contacting me before you publish the resignation letter from Steve Runciman. I would like to make the following comments.

 

1. I do not know where you got your copy, or even if the copy you have is accurate. I myself have not released the resignation email itself to the Membership, as I consider it defamatory, and a resignation letter not becoming from a President of our Association.

 

2. I acknowledge that the Membership has every right to know of the President's resignation, and the subsequent withdrawal of his resignation a day later.

 

3. If your copy is indeed an unedited factual copy, I would like to state I deny Runciman's accusations against me. I am not the type of person to hurl abuse at anyone, and never to staff. There have been some robust email exchanges between Steve Runciman and myself but not to the rest of the Board, and never to staff.

 

4. If you do publish the letter then I feel it is important you also include my email that Steve Runciman refers to in his resignation email. This is enclosed below. Steve Runciman took real offence to the last paragraph, and there were separate emails following on from that matter before the Resignation email itself.

 

"Hi All,

 

I have been talking to many members and sending out a lot of emails about the timing and cost to the Association of a December meeting. I believe if we word things right, and act right we have a chance to get agreement to have this in February prior to the Board meeting.

 

A February meeting would save the Association a lot of money, and give time for the anger to cool, so the real issues are tackled and not just "Hot Blood " issues. We have many problems and the right way to start the healing is with cool heads and cool thinking, so decisions made are in the best interest of RAA's long term future.

 

Steve, re your comments below, you will get more flies with honey than with vinegar. Perhaps a slight manner change would produce more participation. I tried to warn you of this coming event in a private email, and had toxic waste dumped on me in return. You will never have my support again, but it is not too late to cement the support of the others.

 

John McKeown"

 

Regards

 

John McKeown

 

Ph 0438728311

 

Now, as I advised above, I have never met or spoken with John before this morning, but I have checked him out with a few members and Board Members who have, and based on their unanimous response and John's actions on this Forum which have always been fair, I suggest that the president's claims about John are extraordinary and follow a pattern that is entirely consistant with what other Board Members have reported or experienced.

 

As I have posted elsewhere, it is clear from the attachment that Runciman resigned from his position as the Nth Qld Rep.

 

Now please check out what the Constitution says about how such a resignation MUST be handled by RAA.

 

Unless the Constitution also provides discretionary power to the Board and Secretary to disregard the Constitution, I say that the advice given by the Secretary on the RAA website last week is incorrect, unconstitutional, possible illegal and extremely dodgy.

 

What do others think?

 

Regards Geoff

 

PS In reference to Runciman's email, if it is correct, I fully appreciate the need for Board solidarity, but that does not mean that there cannot be debate or disagreement within the Board, and I question the propriety of Runciman's requirement that the Board should "circle the wagons" against the membership on the problems that RAA has encountered. It therefore seems to me that John McK's request to the President in the last para of John's email above is entirely consistant with the best interests of the membership. Further, John's efforts to negotiate with those who have called for the EGM are also in the best interests of the membership & the RAA as a whole.

 

RAA - Runciman\'s Resignation Email.docx

 

RAA - Runciman\'s Resignation Email.docx

 

RAA - Runciman\'s Resignation Email.docx

[fly_tornado]

I want to know who talked him out of the resignation!

 

 

[dazza 38]

In regards to the alleged resignation of SR- I dont see why it is important for the president to have ALL the support from board members. Majority yes, but all, nope. That would hardly ever happen in the real world (if ever) if the board members stood up to what their members wanted.

 

To me that sounds like -If all of you are not agreeing with what I say as in unaminous . Im out of here. Im taking my bat & ball and going home.

 

 

[old man emu]

Steve thinks being president is about being popular not about being good at your job.

Perhaps Steve should study Barack Obama.

 

On a serious note ... I wonder what shareholders in a Public Company would do if its Board of Directors and Chairman acted in this way.

 

OME

 

 

[dazza 38]

It could be because being a senior Officer in the Army (I was only a lowly Corporal in the RAAF). Steve would be used to giving orders & not taking no for a answer to people under his rank. In this case he being president the others on the board are below him (in his eyes). Having said that and me being ex military, I think that he would take orders from people above him with not a problem in the world. That is how the military works.It has to work that way.

 

RAA is civilian and a different kettle of fish.

 

This is just speculation- but when I went from being military to being a civilian, there was a transition period. A bit different for me as I was a Corporal with only a little bit of authority. I can see how a military officer could find it very different trying to assimilate with civilians in a board room enviroment.

 

I am just throwing the ball around.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Dazz, this does not reflect well on the Officer standard we have in the ADF

 

 

[dazza 38]

Dazz, this does not reflect well on the Officer standard we have in the ADF

I wouldnt know I was a NCO I worked for a living.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Seriously though, I am just trying to convey that there is a difference betweem miltary life & civilian life.Some make the transition easier than others. It may be a problem to a person still in the military that is associated to a civilian association. Just saying, either way I think it is time for that person to move on & take the other old boys club guys with him.

 

 

[Teckair]

It looks like a new area rep should have been voted in and a new president selected, how does that happen again? are the office bearers voted in by the members? I don't remember that happening. Maybe as has been mentioned in another post people are concerned about the number of resignations that are happening but this looks like the rules have not been followed. You have to wonder about how the legal advice worked on this.

 

 

[kgwilson]

To me it is patently clear.

 

1. He did not offer his resignation, he resigned as North Qld Rep and National President.

 

2. He has not been re-instated as North Qld Rep so holds no office within RAA.

 

3. The RAA board can not vote him in or appoint him as President if he holds no office within RAA.

 

Therefore RAA currently does not have a President that has been legally voted or appointed to that role.

 

End of Story.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Seriously though, I am just trying to convey that there is a difference betweem miltary life & civilian life.

Yup... they're usually not real impressed about being told to 'bash it' when they try the military way of doing things on with the great unwashed. Career bureaucrats don't like it much either....

 

 

[Guernsey]

I have never met, spoken to or had any correspondence with Steve Runciman so I cannot form any judgement regarding his abilities or character from first hand information however the facts as stated by kgwilson are irrefutable according to the constitution, so as he has stated he is no longer President.

 

Alan.

 

 

[facthunter]

Military training does seem to confer some peculiar attitudes upon its practitioners. We are all a product of our experiences. To resign because of the "lack of loyalty of ONE member " is somewhat weird in the "real" world. A majority of one passes most resolutions. Unanimous looks good in some situations. You hear things like " who is not FOR me, is against me." I think that is in the bible. That seems like a presumption, and seems to occur in coercive situations. If you were going on a complex commando raid it would apply, because the team rely one each other absolutely for survival, explicitly, but surely we are not in this "mode" here. Perhaps we are. Sometimes I think there is severe mental factors operating out there where results appear to be almost disfunctional. I have alluded to the "seige" mentality a few times. I'm nearly 100% sure it's there. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

I would like to know is the president selected by the board? is there a vice president?

 

 

[dazza 38]

Yup... they're usually not real impressed about being told to 'bash it' when they try the military way of doing things on with the great unwashed. Career bureaucrats don't like it much either....

True & that is half the problem.There is no democracy in the military. It has to be that way. For reasons that have nothing to do with this.

The RAA has to be ran as a democracy & every regional board member has to have their say AND not be ridculed and ganged up on.

 

 

[facthunter]

The president is amongs other things, normally the chairman of the meetings. There are collegiate systems and the other I forget it's term. You could have the president elected by the entire membership, in some situations that is the way it is done.The USA , France etc. The other way is like Australia where the "committee" or party, elect it's leader after the committee is formed. I consider that latter the most workable and as any group has the inherent authority to elect a chairman, I feel that fact is recognised. It is also a possibility to (1) remove the chairman, or(2) to disagree with his ruling. I wonder how S Runciman would deal with such a resolution (2) if it were passed. In reality it is a non event. The chairmans statement is disagreed with and the committee's view replaces it. It is in NO way a motion of NO confidence. These sort of things should be well known. This board now has years of dysfunction, to it's credit, in a lot of cases due to over-reaction to someone elses actions. It doesn't have to be a love -in. You have to be able to work with people who you don't always agree with. That's life isn't it.. Nev

 

 

[Admin]

I have loads of emails of attacks that Runciman made on me, attacks he made on the NT Rep and there is off course what he did to Carol...So with the evidence of what he is like I can also believe what Don Ramsay and others have said about attacks by Runciman. The NT Rep refused to accept any emails from him, I ended up doing the same because of the language and innuendo...I even have an email he sent to another board member of him attacking me for not accepting emails from him.

 

There is also that letter from him preventing me from being a member because of bringing the RAAus into disrepute and then later a letter of something completely different saying I am now a member...all actions done without Board Approval and then lied about it to all RAAus members at the AGM, which was read out by Middleton (Secretary) who has just come out saying that Runciman is back as a board member and President.

 

I personally do not accept that Steve Runciman is now a board member for RAAus at all and has no legal position on the board and as such, I believe the board is acting illegally in anything they do with Runciman

 

 

[kaz3g]

To me it is patently clear.RAA currently does not have a President that has been legally voted or appointed to that role.

 

End of Story.

That's how I see it, too.

 

I also think the alleged spray at John McK was unprofessional and in the poorest of taste if not defamatory. I hope the NQ members are prepared to do something about it now by demanding a by-election.

 

kaz

 

 

[Teckair]

Would it be correct to say the board could have accepted the president's resignations and selected another president and held an election for a new Nth Qld Rep?

 

 

[turboplanner]

To me it is patently clear.1. He did not offer his resignation, he resigned as North Qld Rep and National President.

 

2. He has not been re-instated as North Qld Rep so holds no office within RAA.

 

3. The RAA board can not vote him in or appoint him as President if he holds no office within RAA.

 

Therefore RAA currently does not have a President that has been legally voted or appointed to that role.

 

End of Story.

Spot on KG, Middleton needs to be held accountable and Runciman needs to be advised to cease acting as President immedately and apologise to the members for treating the Constitution with contempt.

 

 

[facthunter]

I wouldn't put that load onto the NT branch. This is a pretty sad state of affairs; I really thought Steve would be the man for the Job, and his electorate /region did too. His military background probably explains why he supported Steve Tizzard when he did.. The board perceive active or concerned? sections of the membership as the enemy. Military strategy is to ignore and defeat such groups. I see evidence of this over the whole period. Even new board members think they should be left to get on with the work. That is a natural thing for them to do but now they are part of the machine that doesn't seem to be getting the message.

 

They , the board, are not bad people with evil in tent, but their actions have not been appropriate. Builders like Jabiru, who I don't think have had any issue here, should't be affected. Any one wanting to sell a plane has a market clouded with uncertainty, at the moment. Clearly the section that had the problems should be the only areas affected otherwise this is some sort of punishment on the members , 99% of whom would not know what is wrong and have no part whatsoever they can play to assist . It seems completely arbitrary. Should not be happening Alice. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're right FH, he hasn't read the mood of the members and now he's heading for an ignominious removal

 

 

[cherk]

Spot on KG, Middleton needs to be held accountable and Runciman needs to be advised to cease acting as President immedately and apologise to the members for treating the Constitution with content.

eerr TB, I think you mean contempt.....but you may be right ....:augie:in content!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry, big fingers, small eyes, iphone

 

 

[Captain]

You're right FH, he hasn't read the mood of the members and now he's heading for an ignominious removal

Tubb,

 

I don't consider that this even relates to the mood of the members.

 

I would argue that once Runciman pushed the send button & resigned as Nth Qld Rep it was done, kaput, he had resigned, and he was then locked into due-process as required by the Constitution.

 

There simply cannot be any discretion on what the RAA Constitution now demands be done. The wording in the Constitution is clear. Discretion is therefore out of Runciman's hands. It is out of Paul M's hands. It is out of the Board's hands and it is out of the member's hands.

 

Runciman's replacement or re-endorsement is up to the members of the Nth Qld Region ........... but it is also essential that the Board requires all parties, including the Secretary, to act in accordance with the Constitution and facilitate the actions for Nth Qld that are required by the Constitution.

 

Regards Geoff

 

PS - I hasten to add that if the Nth Qld region's members choose to reselect Member Runciman, I will be the first to accept the decision by those members ........... but I will still have an ongoing issue with Runciman's behaviour on this matter and the manner in which many have reported that he has treated some Board Members who have not licked his boots.