RAAus General Meeting Called

[drifterdriver]

I wonder how much its going to cost to send the proxy forms out to each member due to them being inadvertently left out of the magazine? I'd also like to know if any other text will be attached by the secretary. How the hell did we get to this point?!

 

 

[kaz3g]

The excuse given for delaying the GM until February was that it would cost a lot to do a specific mail out and this would be saved by putting the notice in the magazine.

 

seems it was more about frustrating and delaying...

 

kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

The key will be whether any propaganda is included with the mail out, which could infer that the action was deliberate, which in turn would be a very serious matter.

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Huh.

 

Call me cynical, but I bet the proxy forms get "delayed" by "unforseen circumstances" till it's too late to use them.

 

 

[David Isaac]

... which in turn would be a very serious matter.

Very serious indeed ... not sure they are smart enough to understand how serious.

[rankamateur]

13,00 ppl joined the RAA since it started12,000 get the magazine

11,000 pay for their licence

 

9,200 have documentation

 

My membership is number 31XXX so your first statement may be misleading, be careful, you might find yourself recruited to the board.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The membership number could be based on the cash receipt number....

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi Guys,

 

Trying hard to do some catch up reading here. A couple of points

 

1. " Heard today that a QC is to be involved by the board. Just what are they scared about????????" - post 178. Guys don't do this. If you are not sure, please ask before posting things like this. The Executive have often used the word "misinformation" This is exactly what they are talking about. There will be no QC employed to be at the GM in February. In all likelihood Jason Parkingson, the RAA solicitor will be there at some point. (This is not uncommon) But there will be no QC or any other high paid barrister employed. Nothing about this has been discussed at Board level.

 

Having said all that. If the rumour is true, which I totally doubt, then we would have a most serious matter before us. It would mean both Jim and I have been left out of official Board policy discussions. An extremely serious matter, and one the Ex would be fully aware of the consequences of such an action. - Therefore this is a bad rumour Guys.

 

2. The Resignation of the President. - Yes the President did resign as President and as Nth Queensland Rep. Mr Rat was given a copy (not from me) If the resignation letter posted by Mr Rat on this forum elsewhere was not factual, I definitely would say so in writing in that thread. (I have not disputed the letter) What the issue here is, if after resigning can the Board accept a withdrawal of resignation. The Board had written legal advice from Slater & Gordon in the JG resignation. It confirmed what many say here. When you resign, you have resigned. Full stop. The difference is JG was not President when he resigned, and he post dated his resignation by some days. The written advice to the Board was the Board did not have to accept a retraction inside the post dated period. Once that date arrived, the resignation was complete.

 

With the SR resignation, it became effective the moment he pressed the send button. Now, can the Board accept the withdrawal of the resignation? That is the legal issue. The Executive claim that they received verbal legal advice from Jason Parkingson (RAA solicitor) that the Board could vote to accept a withdrawal. Here again the issue is not the President bit, as the Board clearly has that power, but does it have the power to accept the withdrawal of the Nth Qld Rep? - That is the disputed bit.

 

As most of us know, who have more than a 3 at the start of our age, verbal legal advise, when it comes to the crunch, is worth as much as the paper it is not written on. The Secretary informed the Board before Christmas that Jason would be asked to put in writing his verbal advice when he returned to work on Jan 15 (yesterday) I would expect something in the next couple of days. But Guys, as I mentioned before, Jason will be at the GM at some stage, so put your questions to him directly. After all he is your solicitor also (Assuming you are a member of RAA.) He is employed as the RAA solicitor, not the Ex solicitor, or any individual member solicitor.

 

A formal vote was taken to accept a withdrawal. The vote was carried. The housekeeping was perhaps sloppy. Once accepted back on the Board, there perhaps should have been a vote to make him President again. But perhaps the vote to accept a retraction of the resignation letter, covered both matters.

 

Edit addition. For the record (again) I voted no. I believe all voting of your Representatives must be transparent to all members. I believe it is my duty to inform the members in SEQ of how I vote on all matters. I am then prepared to be criticised, praised, or ridiculed for my decisions. I am also prepared to learn. Sometimes there is an opposite valid view that I did not see. I can learn from this being pointed out to me.

 

3. Email lists. - In years past, Board Members did have personal access to the Membership list for their area. However some years ago this right was removed after some incumbent members used the list for electioneering purposes, hence giving them an unfair advantage. Board members can still access the list for special RAA related purposes. An example may be to get support for a political campaign against some proposed atrocious legislation. Some long term members would have an old list, but I would doubt if they would use it for internal political purposes.

 

I have a copy of an email sent out to members from Myles that is exactly the same as that from Gavin. In fact Myles states they are working together to collect Proxies. Myles did not use "to undisclosed recipients" so I could see the email list of recipients. It was small, and it was not the RAA list. There has been no wrong doing here.

 

Guys, I have no issue with other Board members soliciting Proxies for themselves. I have been given a few unsolicited proxies, but I am not seeking proxies for this GM. If people talk to me first, I direct them to give their proxy to a local club, or other member who has told me of definite attendance at the GM. The reason I am not soliciting proxies for this GM, is because this GM is about member anger and disappointment with the workings of the Executive, and the Board. Although I have done my best to question the actions of the current Executive, and vote against actions and motions that I believe, are wrong or not in the best interest of RAA, I am still a member of the Board, and as such, I am part of the problem. I do not think it ethical to collect votes to use to protect myself from genuine member anger. On the flip side I also do not consider it ethical to use those votes against fellow Board members, even if I disagree with their past and current actions. I believe it is for the General Membership to take action on these matters. The hope is, those giving proxies, give them to the person with similar views to themselves.

 

4. Left out. - Yes Jim and I have been left out of some internal communication, but to the best of my knowledge it was not official Board communication. Those with similar policy or beliefs, will always talk amongst themselves. That is normal and acceptable, provided it does not include formal Board business. Normally when there is new information or a vote on the Board forum, members are sent an email directing them to the site. When it came to a vote for Runciman's resignation withdrawal, I was left off the notification list. Petty? - perhaps. But it is the duty and responsibility of every Board Member to regularly access the Board Forum so you remain current. It is only a courtesy to be informed of new postings, not a right.

 

More concerning to me was being left out of the election for the Office Bearers at the September 2012 Board meeting. But my vote or discussion would not have made a difference, so I took the issue no further than expressing dissatisfaction. What happened was the Secretary told me and others that due to the late finishing of the AGM at Heck Field, there would be no Board Business that night and we would all meet later for dinner. I stayed back at Heck Field talking to members and personally thanking the club President (through an oversight there was no formal vote of thanks at the meeting). Halfway down the road to Tweed Heads in the car I received an urgent phone call from Rod asking where I was as they were about to vote for the Executive positions. I discussed it with Rod on the phone, but there was nothing I could do and my vote would make no difference. (Yes I was using hands free guys)

 

John McK

 

 

[Captain]

John,

 

Thanks a lot for your post. A great example of communication without putting Board "In-camera" issues at risk.

 

Re your final paragraph, it sounds like the "Puppet-Master" was pulling the strings again and "managing" the outcomes.

 

And the more examples I see of what has been going on over recent years, the more I am convinced that the "Puppet-Master" has been plying his trade & manipilating issues within RAA for years.

 

When you look at it that way you can see how all or many of these problems have arisen and are now coming to a head through late 2011 and onward into 2013 ..... and they aren't over, or all out in the open, yet.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Guest airsick]

With the SR resignation, it became effective the moment he pressed the send button. Now, can the Board accept the withdrawal of the resignation? That is the legal issue. The Executive claim that they received verbal legal advice from Jason Parkingson (RAA solicitor) that the Board could vote to accept a withdrawal. Here again the issue is not the President bit, as the Board clearly has that power, but does it have the power to accept the withdrawal of the Nth Qld Rep? - That is the disputed bit.As most of us know, who have more than a 3 at the start of our age, verbal legal advise, when it comes to the crunch, is worth as much as the paper it is not written on. The Secretary informed the Board before Christmas that Jason would be asked to put in writing his verbal advice when he returned to work on Jan 15 (yesterday) I would expect something in the next couple of days. But Guys, as I mentioned before, Jason will be at the GM at some stage, so put your questions to him directly. After all he is your solicitor also (Assuming you are a member of RAA.) He is employed as the RAA solicitor, not the Ex solicitor, or any individual member solicitor.

 

A formal vote was taken to accept a withdrawal. The vote was carried. The housekeeping was perhaps sloppy. Once accepted back on the Board, there perhaps should have been a vote to make him President again. But perhaps the vote to accept a retraction of the resignation letter, covered both matters.

John,

 

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to pass this information on. Once again you are one of the few who seem to recognise that the membership is the reason you hold the position that you do and your obligations extend to more than just puffing out your own chest. Thanks.

 

I'm sure it does not need to pointed out but for the benefit of those who don't realise it I'd like to make a comment about acting on advice given verbally and furthermore, received second hand. Before that though, a little background.

 

RA-Aus is a registrable body under Part 5B.2 of the Corporations Act. What this means is that some parts of the Act (not all of it as Gavin has alluded to in the past) apply to the operations of the association. The part that covers general duties of officers and employees is one such part that applies to RA-Aus. (There are exemptions to the application of this division but suffice to say, RA-Aus does not qualify for these exemptions.)

 

Now, back on topic. With respect to relying on the legal advice and taking a poll of directors on the subject two problems arise. The first one has to do with the nature of how the advice was given, interpreted by those it was given to and then passed on to the remaining committee members. If you think Chinese whispers you'll see what I am getting at here. What, exactly, was the advice? Was this passed on without prejudice and bias? I wouldn't take it on good faith that it was. The person seeking the advice has a vested interest in the outcome.

 

The second problem is that the advice was never written (as mentioned by John in his original post). Legal advice will always come with a brief overview of the lawyers understanding of the question and relevant background information. This way, the person reading the advice can clearly see what the advice relates to and how the questions were framed. Given the lack of written advice here it is hardly acceptable that the other board members could confidently know the basis of said advice.

 

And now back to the Corporations Act. The Act states that (I'm paraphrasing to avoid the wordiness of the Act) an officer or employee of the association can reasonably rely on advice from another committee member but puts some clear conditions around this. Firstly, it must be that the reliance is made in good faith. Given the strong interest of one of the parties seeking the original legal opinion it is a bit of a stretch to think the advice passed on could be taken in good faith. The second test is a little more onerous, however, in that it requires a committee member to make an "an independent assessment of the information or advice". Given that no one has been made privvy to the advice this test can hardly be met in a positive way.

 

This all amounts to a potential breach, by all board members, of the Act.

 

I might also add that there are some serious questions about the behaviour of Gavin and Myles. Gavin should be familiar with this as he has stated on several occasions that he understands his obligations. The Act clearly states that it is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE (I placed emphasis on that to distinguish it from being a civil offence) to act dishonestly in a manner that results in them "directly or indirectly gaining an advantage for themselves". There is no question that Gavin and Myles have been acting this way and thus expose themselves not only to civil action but also open up the opportunity to share a cell with a big black guy called Bubba.

 

Furthermore, the words used in the calling of a general meeting are easily interpretable as being prejudicial by suggesting that those calling the meeting were acting in a way that is detrimental to the association. In this sense the deliberate use of this wording could be construed as a reckless use of power that again results in "themselves or someone else directly or indirectly gaining an advantage". In this case the person that is acting recklessly would be Middo and anyone else who helped him draft the wording of the notice.

 

The board is walking some very dangerous ground here and the penalties are beginning to be non trivial...

 

 

[David Isaac]

Thank you airsick for finally putting forward the reality and potential consequences of what I have considered in my opinion potentially a callous disregard by the Board of the Act and their obligations to the members of RA Aus.

 

I hope there is an explanation for this behaviour at the February 9 meeting.

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Thanks for your comments Airsick

 

John McK

 

 

[Teckair]

This all amounts to a potential breach, by all board members, of the Act.

 

 

Probably not all the board members just the ones that supported the action. We have to remember there are some good board members.

 

 

[Admin]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I did hear somewhere some time ago that voting against something doesn't clear you of any repercussions and is not a defence, only resignation from the entity straight after the vote, in protest, does. You are a part of the management that enacted that decision...but as I said, I could be wrong as it could have referred to something of different conditions

 

 

[Teckair]

I think I may have read somewhere that not all the board got to vote on that issue. If you could be held responsible for something like that when you did not support it, it would be too risky to be on that board.

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I did hear somewhere some time ago that voting against something doesn't clear you of any repercussions and is not a defence, only resignation from the entity straight after the vote, in protest, does. You are a part of the management that enacted that decision...but as I said, I could be wrong as it could have referred to something of different conditions

Gee Ian, follow that policy and the other side will always win. No my policy is to do your best for your members, and to stick it out through good and bad for your term. But the bright side is, that on many issues all the Board are generally on the same page.

 

John McK

 

 

[Gentreau]

Normally the only possibilities for a board member would be to vote for, against, or abstain, in which case they could be seen to have some responsibility for the outcome. However, it seems there is a fourth possibility on the RAA board, that of being excluded from the vote by not being informed by the Secretary. Difficult to see how anyone could be held responsible for a decision they did not get to voice an opinion on or vote on.

 

 

[DWF]

I believe that there are some misconceptions out there regarding access to the Association's membership list.

 

[i take no sides here but merely point out that the ability of a member to access the membership list and use it to contact members is REQUIRED under the Acts.]

 

The ACT [clause 67] and WA [clause 27] Association Incorporation Acts (and probably those of other states) state that the Association must maintain an up to date register of the name and address of each member and that each member must have access to inspect and copy them.

 

A good explanation of the reason for this is at:

 

http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/associationsguide/Content/05_Records/5.2_Members_access_to_the_rec.htm

 

The ACT Act is at http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1991-46/current/pdf/1991-46.pdf

 

The WA Act is at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012Q00007

 

 

[Admin]

Gee Ian, follow that policy and the other side will always win. No my policy is to do your best for your members, and to stick it out through good and bad for your term. But the bright side is, that on many issues all the Board are generally on the same page.John McK

John, I was not referring to anything specifically as in RAAus or corporate management, just that I recall being advised long before even being in RAAus that when a board or committee or etc makes a decision by way of a vote and if that decision is found to be unconstitutional or illegal or etc, standing in the dock of a courtroom and saying "but your honour I voted against it", is no defence if you continue on being a part of the body that enacts the result of the vote...or something like that but as I said, I could be wrong as it was a long time ago that I was advised of it

 

 

[kaz3g]

I believe that there are some misconceptions out there regarding access to the Association's membership list.[i take no sides here but merely point out that the ability of a member to access the membership list and use it to contact members is REQUIRED under the Acts...

That's fine when the responsible persons comply with the legislation and rules. Note, it is an "access" right, not a copy and take away one.

 

kaz

 

 

[DWF]

That's fine when the responsible persons comply with the legislation and rules. Note, it is an "access" right, not a copy and take away one.kaz

Actually, in WA at least, it is a right to copy and take away the names and addresses - so that concerned members can contact other members to share their concerns. It is supposed to work for ALL members no matter what their concer is.

 

 

[winsor68]

This is on your membership renewal under the heading of

 

USE OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION, RESPECTING YOUR PRIVACY

 

Recreational Aviation Australia is aware of the importance of your privacy. As such we treat your personal information (eg your name and address, etc) in accordance with the laws relating to privacy. Information provided by you on any application form and/or any other information we have about you during your membership is collected for the following reasons.

 

• To generally administer your membership account
   
   
  
• To help with the many tasks such as licensing and other administration relating to your account
   
   
  
• It enable us to contact you in the case of matters relating to safety issues, updates on membership services, and products and any other details we consider that you may be interested in.
   
   
  

 

 

All information provided by you on these forms go direct to our office and isn't passed on to any other party. The information is entered on our computer database, then placed within your hard-copy file and locked in our office, with only staff having access to all information you have provided.

 

On occasion the office, for safety reason may need to provide some of your personal information to AUSSAR for search and rescue purposes. We may also be required to provide information by law under the Order to provide information to Family Law Courts and drug enforcement agencies as well as other government bodies, for the purposes of assisting them in inquiries should they arise.

 

If you require more details regding our privacy policy please call Recreational Aviation Australia on 02 6280 4700 or log into our website at : www.raa.asn.au.

 

Always remember you can gain access to your file in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1988 (Commonwealth) and you can have it corrected or amended as required. You must appreciate that all information provided on your file came directly from you and will have your signature on it. It is possible that the office will contact you in order to verify any information supplied.

 

Please indicate below if you are happy for your details to be issued to other members who request details of members with similar interests. If we receive no response, it is presumed that you DO NOT wish your details be made available to other members. No personal/contact information will be printed/provided to external bodies other than those outlined above.

 

o Yes, make my contact details available to other members of Recreational Aviation Australia

 

o No, my details may not be made available to members of Recreational Aviation Australia

 

Name............................................................................................................................................................................................

 

Membership Number.....................................................................................................................................................................

 

 

[Stearman]

I'll post what I saw, but suggest it holds more weight coming from someone who got it first hand than through me:-I cant vouch for its veracity and make no claims above what anyone can claim for a a puported 3rd hand email........before you believe it do your own checking. If it is true howver then I just scratch my head!

 

The bold underline bit was my bold underline...the bold only bit was the original authors bolding

 

From: Gavin Thobaven (Andys@coffs removed the email address to protect Gavin from spam PM me if you want the full unedited Text)

 

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:36 PM

 

To: Gavin Thobaven

 

Subject: From Gavin Thobaven WA RAA rep

 

Importance: High

 

Dear member

 

I have attempted to send out a message to all WA members but I fear that my email server has let me down somewhat. As a result I am asking if you could forward this request to any RAA members with whom you have contact.

 

I need to get a message out as far and wide among our members in WA as possible to make sure that WA is well represented at the upcoming General Meeting of the association.

 

I will be very direct with this when I tell you that if you are not previously aware a certain small group of members have undertaken a campaign of misinformation and tactics to undermine the board of the association. The association is currently going through a bit of pain partly because of unprecedented audits from CASA and partly because of serious deficiencies that have been detected, both by the audits and by separate inquiry by the board. Many of the deficiencies resulted from mismanagement by earlier board members many of whom are in the current group of detractors.

 

The situation is that the detractors are collecting proxy votes from members without providing those members with the motions that their proxy will be used to pass. This potentially gives this small group absolute power to do as they wish with your association.

 

As a result of a request from a number of members here in WA I submitted that all motions to be presented to the meeting should be presented to the full membership to allow them to be involved in the process. This request was supported by members in remote Queensland. Unfortunately a certain member of the board took that request and misrepresented it on a flying forum as an attempt to gag the meeting, which it clearly was not. The result of that is that the request looks like failing.

 

I would not presume to ask for a blank cheque proxy from members as I believe that you have a right to be aware of what you are voting for. I know that the detractors will have a large number of blank cheque proxies but my conscience prevents me from requesting such a thing from members.

 

I am asking for your assistance to get a request out to all members that we can. I am trying to compile proxy votes to support a motion: “That only motions that have been presented to the full membership can be voted on at the meeting of 9th February 2013”.

 

This is absolutely not an attempt to stop debate but it is an attempt to provide all members with a right to full and proper representation in the governance of their association.

 

I have attempted to represent members of this state and have worked to achieving recognition and support for our activities from the national body. The role of board member is actually the role of representative for the state. I can only represent if the membership is able to provide the direction for me to work.

 

I hope I can count on your assistance in this.

 

Gavin Thobaven

Thought all should know this same e-mail has been distributed to some in Queensland by Myles Breitkreutz.

 

Below is a copy of Myles e-mail. I have removed the recipients addresses, but some were parts of flying groups / clubs with large lists of e-mail contacts at their disposal. The word files mentioned were a copy of Gavin's e-mail / letter above with WA changed to Qld and a proxy form.

 

From: Myles Breitkreutz [mailto:[email protected]]

 

Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2013 9:27 AM

 

To:

 

Subject: Need your help for you

 

 

Hello All,

 

Attached are two word files, could you please down load them and forward them to all your RA-Aus Queensland members you can. This is so you have a balanced say in your organization, as you will see when you open the proxy form.

 

I am working in conjunction with Gavin Tobaven and the WA members and they are getting the same word files as you are. So, if you value your organization, please take the time and help me help you.

 

Cheers Myles

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well that propaganda could have serious repercussions for those two characters depending on how this all plays out.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Bring it on. These two have to be clowns beyond belief to put up absurd notions like that.

 

Such a proposed motion is a veiled attempt to change the constitution and won't even get to a vote.