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

[turboplanner]

And 12,500 people still appear to be without a problem in the world..........doesn't seem to match up does it.

 

 

[winsor68]

I have got a whole folder full of similar BS from my Rep going back since he joined the Board...JUST THINK IF HE HAD OF TAKEN THE TIME TO GET OFF HIS AXXE AND GO AND CHECK RATHER THAN TELL US WE ARE ALL RUMOUR MONGERS AND TO "RESPECT MY AUTHORITY"....

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't be too hard on Gavin, Captain, he at least provoked the research that showed the current status of Steve Runciman after his resignation, and the action of the people responsible for the "re-instatement".

 

That issue, having apparently been settled by some skilled member research, may now provide substantial redress from this group rather than the Association in matters arising after the resignation.

 

 

[Guest Lofty1]

His emails seem quite reasonable to me given the contempt he is being treated by from his fellow members. Simply blaming the President (who is a volunteer) simply doesn't seem right. So the paid employees that are somewhat responsible were sacked, bravo.

 

 

[Captain]

His emails seem quite reasonable to me given the contempt he is being treated by from his fellow members. Simply blaming the President (who is a volunteer) simply doesn't seem right. So the paid employees that are somewhat responsible were sacked, bravo.

G'day Lofty,

 

But do you really feel that the original email of 17:09:55 on Nov 30th was showing contempt?

 

And I have to say that if a volunteer can't get the job done to effectively run a 13000 member aviation association (with delegated authority) well, then get off the Board.

 

If this all generates more court cases, it won't be a defense to say "I'm just a volunteer, your honor".

 

I do agree with you, however that the top staff are directly & more responsible, but they are controlled by the Executive, who until now, just LOVED the power and cudos that it brought.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[facthunter]

In normal circumstances Part-time might work. The job would now be in overload but is so serious that extra-ordinary action is required. That probably costs money. OUR money too, but a lot is at stake.

 

Sacking the Techie's .......... Might make it look as though you are doing something, but what a disconnect. The next guy goes in cold. (WHO would want the job atthis point?CASA seem to be unhappy so (as I have always said) their "EXPERTS" should not just be "auditing", although that word may not convey the real situation as it evolved. They should be pro-active. That pre-supposes that "THEY" genuinely want a fix to the problem, and that they have the skilled staff required, available.

 

Steve would probably love to walk away from this mess, but maybe he feels that he should stick it out. Clearly the board wanted him to stay. That's an obvious fact. One board member clearly did not agree with that for genuine reasons too, but the numbers are there easily. The LEGALITY>>> I don't know. I don't figure that pursuing that line is a priority for now, certainly along legal avenues. Good question for an EGM though. Funny reading the latest magazine , nothing much is wrong!!. Nev

 

 

[Methusala]

I find it stunning that the executive officers of the association, who in past editions of the magazine, reveled in hectoring members about the dire consequences of improper observance of statutory requirements vis a vi aircrew and aircraft cannot adhere to their own standards. It sounds now as though those in power believed that "some pigs are more equal...etc"! Just amazing!!! Regards, Don

 

 

[Air Escape]

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.

What a bunch of primadonnas!! Get it together ladies.

 

 

[cazza]

Air escape,

 

I don't understand your comment? What is your point?

 

 

[turboplanner]

It is confusing, who are you referring to as Primadonnas Air Escape?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Gender confused, no doubt!

 

 

[facthunter]

The term is a little concerning, ( as it was used). I don't know who the primma donna's are either. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

I always thought the primas were where you went after kindergarten as in Prima 1, Prima 2 etc. Aw showing my age again. When I was in the Primas there was a Donna there. Quite a cutie from memory.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Prima Donna = First Lady.

 

Are you calling us Michelle Obamas?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Or Alfa, he's callng Steve Runciman & co that - he doesn't make it clear.

 

 

[metalman]

Prima Donna = First Lady. Are you calling us Michelle Obamas?

It be Tim Mathieson actually,,,,,,,,