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

[cazza]

Yes, but Mr Runciman has agreed that he did indeed resign.

 

 

[Powerin]

Can anyone re-insert the resignation letter in the older .doc format? my old machine wont recognise the newer .docx format.Thanks

Better yet how about a pdf

Attached below....

 

RAA - Runciman\'s Resignation Email-1.pdf

 

RAA - Runciman\'s Resignation Email-1.pdf

 

RAA - Runciman\'s Resignation Email-1.pdf

[Aerochute Kev]

Thanks Powerin

 

 

[dodo]

I find this hard to explain, but it seems to me that Gavin's explanation relies on the following:

 

- that the definition of resignation relies on a written resignation, where email is not accepted. This opens questions as to when email is accepted for any purposes, and also questions as to what resignations in the past have been acted on by email?

 

- that the Corporations Act (a Commonwealth Act) governs a territory Incorporated Association, where this is governed by it's own Act)..

 

- that the board held a vote that was unnecessary & meant nothing, because it seemed like a good idea?

 

I don't have a strong knowledge of any of the relevant legislation, but frankly, I find this hard to take seriously. It just doesn't smell right. We may split hairs over what can be accepted by email or not, and we could forever, but if we wouldn't accept written as being email, would we accept a cheque written in the side of a cow? That example does have a genuine (if USA- based) precedent. So your aircraft registration photos are accepted by email but the registration form isn't? Or only resignations of persons who are seen as Directors under the Corporations Act?

 

And then the board seems to have therefore performed a some weird rite where they anointed the decision (which Gavin claims was already made by legislation)?

 

This is either total confusion, or the deliberate creation of legal confusion to delay and cost money. I suspect the first - total confusion.

 

Frankly, I believe this is rubbish, of no legal validity.

 

dodo

 

 

[dodo]

Sorry, I thought I would post again in slightly different terms:

 

Does Gavin realise that the RA-Aus is governed by the Associations Incorporation Act 1991?

 

If so, does he still think the advice he provided to us was correct?

 

dodo

 

PS And why is RA-Aus in breach of section 73 of that Act? And is RA-Aus in breach of section 71 of that Act? And what will that mean for the members he represents?

 

 

[coljones]

Lots of things happen in RA Aus by email. I strongly suspect that Gavin's nomination was sent by email, accepted and Gavin then, after an election, got elected. I would suspect also that the majority of the board also nominated electronically.

 

The consequences?

 

Gavin?

 

Cheers

 

Col

 

 

[Powerin]

I find this hard to explain, but it seems to me that Gavin's explanation relies on the following:- that the definition of resignation relies on a written resignation, where email is not accepted. This opens questions as to when email is accepted for any purposes, and also questions as to what resignations in the past have been acted on by email?

- that the Corporations Act (a Commonwealth Act) governs a territory Incorporated Association, where this is governed by it's own Act)..

It seems to me that Gavin's advice relies on the resignation not being presented to the registered office of the RAAus from the Corporations Act (2001). In this day and age it is my understanding that electronic communication is considered written proof. I personally have electronically signed and emailed (or faxed) numerous legal contracts which are accepted as legal documents. So the fact that it was emailed is not at issue in my opinion.

My quick reading of the Corporations Act indicates that it does apply in some aspects to an incorporated association in the ACT...but what aspects they are I don't know (see Kaz's post above). As a farmer I'm as close as you'll get to a bush lawyer in a kangaroo court

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

Hi Gavin, thanks for that information.Can you please confirm that:

 

1. All previous resignations submitted by email have been refused by the board as not constituting a valid resignation ?

 

2. All previous resignations have subsequently been made by a submission in writing before being accepted by the board ?

 

If not, then there are double standards in play.

 

Dura lex, sed lex.

Yes I can confirm that since I have been ont he board there was only one other resignation submitted by email that was later withdrawn. That withdrawal was accepted and the member remained. The same standards were applied in both cases.

 

Regards

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

It seems to me that Gavin's advice relies on the resignation not being presented to the registered office of the RAAus from the Corporations Act (2001). In this day and age it is my understanding that electronic communication is considered written proof. I personally have electronically signed and emailed (or faxed) numerous legal contracts which are accepted as legal documents. So the fact that it was emailed is not at issue in my opinion.My quick reading of the Corporations Act indicates that it does apply in some aspects to an incorporated association in the ACT...but what aspects they are I don't know (see Kaz's post above). As a farmer I'm as close as you'll get to a bush lawyer in a kangaroo court

You are quite right that emails are legally accepted when posted to the appropriate place. The email from the president was not addressed to the offices of RA-Aus or any person based at those offices. Until it is posted to that place it is not a resignation by definition. I don't write the laws but that's what they say in this case.

 

Regards

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

Lots of things happen in RA Aus by email. I strongly suspect that Gavin's nomination was sent by email, accepted and Gavin then, after an election, got elected. I would suspect also that the majority of the board also nominated electronically.The consequences?

 

Gavin?

 

Cheers

 

Col

Colin, emails posted to the correct place can be used in most cases. From memory my nomination was posted by snail mail but even if it had been emailed it would have been to the appropriate place for the nomination to go. If it had been sent somewhere else it would not have been legal. We cant go around laws because it suits us or our purposes.

 

There are no consequences if things are done legally

 

Regards

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

The cases are not the same. The other resignation was Nick Sigley and his resignation was only offered. He tendered his resignation (by email) and the Board declined to accept the resignation as was their right. Runciman emailed the Secretary that he had resigned. Almost all Board business is done electronically.

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

Sorry, I thought I would post again in slightly different terms:Does Gavin realise that the RA-Aus is governed by the Associations Incorporation Act 1991?

 

If so, does he still think the advice he provided to us was correct?

 

dodo

 

PS And why is RA-Aus in breach of section 73 of that Act? And is RA-Aus in breach of section 71 of that Act? And what will that mean for the members he represents?

I am happy to hear your queries and as you can see I will respond where I can. I am not familiar with Section 73 of that act. As it is ACT legislation and not Federal I would have to do some checking into where RA-Aus. was registered initially. As I do not know this information off hand I couldn't respond to your query. I wouldn't be surprised if RA-Aus. was a federally registered association to enable it to act as a regulator. If that was the case then the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 would not have any effect on the association. Legislation obviously only has effect int he place it was enacted. Even though RA-Aus. is currently based in ACT it doesn't mean it was registered there.

 

If anyone can advise me on the place of registration I might be able to respond to that. Otherwise I will endeavour to find out.

 

regards

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

I find this hard to explain, but it seems to me that Gavin's explanation relies on the following:- that the definition of resignation relies on a written resignation, where email is not accepted. This opens questions as to when email is accepted for any purposes, and also questions as to what resignations in the past have been acted on by email?

- that the Corporations Act (a Commonwealth Act) governs a territory Incorporated Association, where this is governed by it's own Act)..

 

- that the board held a vote that was unnecessary & meant nothing, because it seemed like a good idea?

 

I don't have a strong knowledge of any of the relevant legislation, but frankly, I find this hard to take seriously. It just doesn't smell right. We may split hairs over what can be accepted by email or not, and we could forever, but if we wouldn't accept written as being email, would we accept a cheque written in the side of a cow? That example does have a genuine (if USA- based) precedent. So your aircraft registration photos are accepted by email but the registration form isn't? Or only resignations of persons who are seen as Directors under the Corporations Act?

 

And then the board seems to have therefore performed a some weird rite where they anointed the decision (which Gavin claims was already made by legislation)?

 

This is either total confusion, or the deliberate creation of legal confusion to delay and cost money. I suspect the first - total confusion.

 

Frankly, I believe this is rubbish, of no legal validity.

 

dodo

The response is my own based on my reading of the valid legislation. I do have over 30 years of experience in reading legislation so I generally hit pretty close to the mark. If you read my other responses you might note that emails are valid if posted to the correct place. In this situation the email was not sent to the correct place and therefore was not valid.

 

I wont comment on the remainder of your post as you appear to have already made up your mind regardless of facts.

 

regards

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

Gavin,Please read all the documentation at www.gardon.com.au and all the info on the Board Forum regarding my resignation and withdrawal and tell me how it differs from this situation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander! By the way the Board spent lot's of Money to prove that a resignation could not be withdrawn. How is this situation different. Steve should at least re-stand, like I did, and face the verdict of his constituents. In my case like Whitlam, you fade into history knowing you were right; and those that did not learn from it have to re-live it!

JG

John

 

All I can say is that there were two occasions in the time I have been on the board where a member of the board stated by email that they had resigned. Neither had sent the email to the offices. They have both retracted their resignation and both were treated in the same manner.

 

It would not be either fair or ethical for me to comment on a matter that I was not involved in. I therefore couldn't comment on your circumstance. Sorry.

 

The posts I am placing on this forum are my own comments only. They are not official communications of the board or executive. I am just trying to put some perspective into the reasoning I have used in any determinations I have been involved in.

 

Regards

 

 

[coljones]

The cases are not the same. The other resignation was Nick Sigley and his resignation was only offered. He tendered his resignation (by email) and the Board declined to accept the resignation as was their right. Runciman emailed the Secretary that he had resigned. Almost all Board business is done electronically.

Part of the issue is whether the Board has the right to refuse a resignation once made (made rather than offered).

Are you saying that Nick offered to resign and that was knocked back? Or are you saying that he offered his resignation and then tendered his resignation ("I resign!!") which was then rejected by the board?

 

Gavin

 

We can then agree, an email is OK. In the case of the nominations there is a formal Returning Officer, a person, who the nominations should have been sent to.

 

You said that the resignation had to go to a place. In the case of the board the proper "place" for a resignation to go to is "the Secretary". I understand that "The Secretary" is a member of the group that SR's resignation was emailed to.

 

Cheers

 

Col

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

That part of the Corporations Act does not apply to RA-Aus. Perhaps you need to brush up on your knowledge of your obligations, duties, etc. Gavin...Oh, and you might also want to read up on the Electronic Transactions Act. I think you'll find it quite clearly defines that the email WAS received at the head office.

 

Makes me wonder if the rest of the board understands the law as it applies to them?!?

I came on here to interact, because what I was hearing was that people wanted to talk to the board.

 

I am trying to answer where I can but if the intent here is just to be difficult then maybe you might pick up on why people on the board withdraw away from this style of communication. I am happy to continue to interact while we are having an intelligent exchange of ideas but if you plan of just attacking all the time then we will have achieved nothing.

 

Regards

 

 

[Gentreau]

You are quite right that emails are legally accepted when posted to the appropriate place. The email from the president was not addressed to the offices of RA-Aus or any person based at those offices. Until it is posted to that place it is not a resignation by definition. I don't write the laws but that's what they say in this case.Regards

Gavin, thanks very much for responding so openly.

 

I'm sure the vast majority posters on here understand that you are not personally responsible for everything that happens, and I would suggest that everyone remembers that when replying to the board members who have the guts and good manners to reply on this forum.

 

That said I have to say that I find the logic of two of your posts to be somewhat inconsistent.

 

As you will know from your experience of reading legal texts, the devil is in the detail.

 

You say in one post that an email resignation is not valid unless sent to the right person, but you also say in another post that the board felt the necessity to vote on accepting the withdrawal of that resignation. So that raises the question, was the resignation valid or not ?

 

If it was not, then the board had no reason to vote.

 

The fact that the board voted indicates that they thought it was valid.

 

So which was it ?

 

 

[Gentreau]

.....I am trying to answer where I can but if the intent here is just to be difficult then maybe you might pick up on why people on the board withdraw away from this style of communication.

Don't you think Gavin, that if the communication between the board and the membership had previously been considerabley more open and transparent, that people would not vent so much frustration when they do get a chance to speak to a board member ?

 

Unfortunately the argument is self fulfulling.

 

1. Don't communicate.

 

2. Start to communicate a little.

 

3. Come under attack for not communicating.

 

4. Stop communicating all together.

 

5. Repeat ad infinitum.

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

Gavin, thanks very much for responding so openly.I'm sure the vast majority posters on here understand that you are not personally responsible for everything that happens, and I would suggest that everyone remembers that when replying to the board members who have the guts and good manners to reply on this forum.

That said I have to say that I find the logic of two of your posts to be somewhat inconsistent.

 

As you will know from your experience of reading legal texts, the devil is in the detail.

 

You say in one post that an email resignation is not valid unless sent to the right person, but you also say in another post that the board felt the necessity to vote on accepting the withdrawal of that resignation. So that raises the question, was the resignation valid or not ?

 

If it was not, then the board had no reason to vote.

 

The fact that the board voted indicates that they thought it was valid.

 

So which was it ?

I actually dont believe that there was a necessity to vote on the withdrawal for the reasons I stated. I can only guess the reason for the vote but I could only guess it was that they wanted to validate the consensus.

 

I know that this forum has some issues with Mr Runciman as president. I can only say that he is one of the hardest working people I know for the organisation. He admits himself that he makes errors, as do I for that matter, but his intentions are good.

 

I could honestly say that there is no member of the board who does not have the interests of RA-Aus at the forefront of our thoughts. We are not perfect, we do make mistakes but we also inherited a pretty messed up situation that we have been trying to resolve. Issues affecting members right now were not caused in the past two years, they date back a lot further than that. Having said this the board has not backed away from tackling problems and we continue to do so.

 

I will continue to interact on this forum far as long as it is clear that my contributions are welcome. You will find that I will not become involved in arguments or blame games. I also don't agree with character assassination or defamatory conduct. If that is the intent then I will consider that I my contributions are not needed.

 

Regards

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

Don't you think Gavin, that if the communication between the board and the membership had previously been considerabley more open and transparent, that people would not vent so much frustration when they do get a chance to speak to a board member ?Unfortunately the argument is self fulfulling.

 

1. Don't communicate.

 

2. Start to communicate a little.

 

3. Come under attack for not communicating.

 

4. Stop communicating all together.

 

5. Repeat ad infinitum.

I agree that we, as a board, could communicate better with the members. This is not an uncommon trait with boards, but it is not an excuse.

 

I have tried to provide feedback to WA members via emails. I have managed to obtain some email addresses and try to drop a line to them when I can. I have sent out a few bulletins and will continue to do so. I also invite both emails and telephone calls from members. I don't think I have ever failed to respond to a member query and have had some long chats by phone. I would like to think that WA members know that I am available if needed.

 

The email list I have is very much incomplete and privacy laws prevent me being supplied with a full list of WA members. I am pushing for a link for use of board members to select that allows us to email all our regional members, without knowing who we are sending to, to get around the necessity to provide us with lists of email addresses. I am hoping that this happens soon as the website develops.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I am happy to hear your queries and as you can see I will respond where I can. I am not familiar with Section 73 of that act. As it is ACT legislation and not Federal I would have to do some checking into where RA-Aus. was registered initially. As I do not know this information off hand I couldn't respond to your query. I wouldn't be surprised if RA-Aus. was a federally registered association to enable it to act as a regulator. If that was the case then the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 would not have any effect on the association. Legislation obviously only has effect int he place it was enacted. Even though RA-Aus. is currently based in ACT it doesn't mean it was registered there.If anyone can advise me on the place of registration I might be able to respond to that. Otherwise I will endeavour to find out.

 

regards

Gavin,

 

Recreational Aviation Australia, Inc. is registered under the Associations Incorporation Act 1991, administered by the Australian Capital Territory Department of justice and Community Safety.

 

There are no Federal Incorporated Associations

 

It is subject to the laws of the ACT

 

It is required to submit, and has submitted in the past, an Annual Return to the relevant section of Department of Justice, in which you as a board member would be named and would be responsible for the contents. Past records of Recreation Aviation Australia Inc are there, and are public records

 

So there's no doubt about where RAA resides.

 

Here's a link to the ACT's Associations Incorporation Act 1991

 

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1991-46/current/pdf/1991-46.pdf

 

RAA is required to comply with it, the Association's Constitution, and the Associations Rules.

 

 

[Captain]

Turps,

 

I just searched that Act for 2 words, "resignation" and "email", and there is no mention of either, so that might lead to a conclusion that it is not prescriptive on either.

 

Will read it while flying with the Big Q this morning.

 

But as per your post, it says a lot about the application of the Rules & Constitution of the Association

 

Regards Ratty

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

Let me tell you why I believe that you are practically wrong.....

 

I dont care if on the basis of claiming that Legislation X is SR's lifeline and protects SR but sinks JG..... Let me tell you the practical reality.

 

Following SR sending his email to what he would have percieved was the right set of addressees, in his mind after pushing send, was he a board member or was he the president? The answer to both those questions must initially be No unless he can identify an alternate explaination for penning the resignation in the first place that had nothing to do with resigning!! Dont forget that this isnt a criminal case we dont have to prove to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" just meet the "on balance of probabilities" test. What would the legal concept "a reaonable man" conclude from the resignation?

 

Furthermore, lets look at what the board has done with the resignation. Using the "On balance of probabilities" test I think the board has failed. So, what options are available to me to right this wrong.

 

According to the A.C.T Office of Regulatory Services (which regulates A.C.T Incorporated Associations) the options available to us are to call a General Meeting or commence civil legal actions. ORS may then issue fines (pressumably at the end of the legal process).

 

For those that would like links provided by ORS they are here

 

So, it would seem to me that the last thing RAAus needs is more legal action where those bringing the claim will have to fund it themselves and those defending will be defending with RAAus cash reserves!!! In any event an action brought by concerned members will deliver a result when?

 

We have a request in for a GM that should be called shortly, it would seem to me that the rules that SR has to then meet is what the members believe is for the best of the organisation on the day. Bring it on!

 

Gavin, some comments on your posts:-

 

1) Im personally happy that you are contributing, it must feel as though you are 1 vs many......But then that should tell you something shouldnt it? Is it the case that you are right and the multitude that called for the GM to occur are wrong? I'd like top hear your thoughts on that. Please dont tell us we are few among the many....we are a greater number than many on the board used to be elected, which I dont attribute at the time to committe members failing but rather the greater body of members!

 

2) No one that I know of has ever argued that SR doesnt have a fantastic work ethic, the problems we have, is that effort expended at 90degrees to the required dirction of travel may look impressive but does NOTHING towards achieving the direction you want to go. Now that example is a Black and white example and Im not arguing that all SR's effort is 90 degrees away from the required direction of travel, but im equally not arguing that its directly aligned with where we want to go. Im nolt even sure if where we want to go is clear, and that is itself telling!

 

3) Continuing to argue it "wasn't us it was those that came before us" is to me bordering on a blatent attempt to misslead the members! Our representation methods dont see whole Committee of management change, rather we change out (or more often not) a few reps each year. The current board I believe have on average been around for many years, and the exec even longer! and I would love to understand if the "wasn't us" approach is to believed how many years back before it did matter? and if its heaps of years back where was the governance and controls in recent years to identify and put it right? Furthermore if you argue it isn't you guys and we need to apportion failure somewhere so that we can fix what happened (The grounding didnt happen years ago that was only last week!!) then where would you suggest we apportion it? Im not talking about those long gone, Im talking within the sphere of control now?

 

4) The fact that as a board member you dont know the legislation that you are required to abide by is very telling. In case you arent sure, if you look at our own organisations website its all spelt out in great detail here. Id ask How is it possible that a member of the committee doesnt understand this? The act we exist under provides the foundations for our organisation and if members of the committee dont know what the are and where they are then how can you know if those things you vote on are compliant and aligned to those foundations?

 

5) I wonder if the exec understand ther obligations that they must abide with? Id say that the failures of recent times would suggest not, on the other hand some of the current exec were directly involved with moving us from "Corporation limited by guarentee" to an "incorporated association" pressumably to lower the standards of reporting required from little to virtually none! or in our case absolutely none!

 

Id love to hear your thoughts

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I came on here to interact, because what I was hearing was that people wanted to talk to the board.I am trying to answer where I can but if the intent here is just to be difficult then maybe you might pick up on why people on the board withdraw away from this style of communication. I am happy to continue to interact while we are having an intelligent exchange of ideas but if you plan of just attacking all the time then we will have achieved nothing.

 

Regards

I joined RA-Aus to fly but all of a sudden the aircraft are grounded, I find the board was lacking in management skills, find out from your post that board members may not be up to speed with the laws and obligations that apply to them and am now informed that I can't express my disgust for fear of returning to the state of no communication that I have been subjected to for the entire time I have been a member.

 

While I appreciate your efforts to communicate here Gavin, you may want to stop reading Steve Runciman's book of management.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I would have thought that the public officer was at the level of secretary or similar. If some permanent staff member is allocated that position, I would see that as being an unfair imposition upon that person. The job is pretty innocuous but it the connect between the organisation as an entity and anyone we deal with. If someone knows more please correct me. Nev

Clause v applies and requires an ACT address, futher down the Constitution requires the Public officer to Chair a Meeting

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/RA-Aus-Constitution-V12-September-2012.pdf

 

Those two requirements appear to be the reason for a member of staff to be stuck with the job.

 

As you say it is grossly unfair that an employee may have to face responsibility for any criminal or civil misbehaviour of an elected official without having any control.

 

So that needs to be changed immediately.

 

There is nothing wrong with the ACT board member acting as Public Officer and Chairing the applicable meeting