Ra-Aus Board Insurance- The Truth.

[David Isaac]

Read the minutes quoted in Wins first post Tubz.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No, that was his email to the board members.

 

In this hopeless tangle of threads, now in the teens, I was hoping someone would post what he said at the AGM - told the Members.

 

From my memory the two statements may not be the same.

 

Then people can make their own minds up with, for once, the hard facts in front of them.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Tubz,

 

Read the whole of Wins email, the minutes are quoted below the email ...

 

I am going to post this... This is not an accusation... Just some information I was forwarded anonymously. I post it here to make up your own minds...

The E-mail claims to be from the Ex-President Mr Runcimann...

 

This was in response to th“On 03/05/2012, at 2:30 PM, steve runciman <[email protected]> wrote:

 

URGENT

 

Hi Gents,

 

Bad news I am afraid. The insurance became due on 30 Apr 12. The paperwork was completed and sent to the brokers which was then sent on to the insurance company. We have temporary cover from the expiry of the of the old insurance up until the acceptance of our insurers subject to certain terms and conditions. Basically, on the renewal proposal it asks if there is anything pending that may have an effect on us being re-insured. Obviously at the time the paperwork was signed and sent in we declared that there was nothing pending. However, on renewal date (30 Apr 12) they were informed that we had discovered something. Rob Viney is certain that because this was declared before the renewal time (4pm on 30 Apr 12) we have insurance cover for this incident but he cannot guarantee it.

 

The really bad news is that as at today he cannot guarantee that we have insurance cover. The reason for this is that when the insurance company are fully briefed on the current circumstance they may refuse to cover us which means that the insurance lapsed at 4pm on 30 Apr 12 and from that time and date we are not covered. However, they may decide to renew in which case we are covered. It is up to you to decide the possibility of them agreeing to cover us.

 

Bottom line is that, as at today, it cannot be guaranteed that we have Directors liability insurance cover.

 

No doubt I will be hearing from a number of you very shortly.

 

Regards,

 

Steve”

 

And here now is the Minutes of the AGM... Is this an outright lie or are they just confused???

 

2. RA-Aus have previously faced difficulties in obtaining liability insurance cover for the Board

 

and the Staff. With the full knowledge of the previous difficulties, it is alleged the CEO

 

allowed the insurance cover to get within a few working days of expiry before submitting

 

the paperwork to the Broker for the renewal process. As might be expected it took around

 

a month for the insurance cover to be obtained. During that month, there were periods

 

when the cover was provided only by the good grace of the insurer and there were periods

 

when there was zero cover. It is further alleged that the lack of insurance and the potential

 

liability to Board members individually was a significant factor in the resignation of at least

 

one of the competent Board members and potentially a factor in the resignation of another.

 

Comment: I am not sure where Mr Isaac got his information from but it will be shown that much of

 

the information provided by Mr Isaac is wrong. Mr Isaac is correct that RA-Aus has and will

 

continue to face difficulties in obtaining insurance, it is the nature of our business. As I have

 

previously explained to the board, the CEO answered the renewal paperwork when it was received

 

from the insurance broker. There was a period of, from memory, 5 days lapse between receiving it

 

and answering it but this includes a weekend and the fact that the CEO was not in office for a

 

number of days. The CEO and Administration Manager have a meeting at least once a year with

 

our insurance broker to go through the insurance in detail. It was not the fact that the CEO had

 

made a mistake and had left it too late that the insurance company saw fit to provide a cover note.

 

The insurance company were considering our insurance in fine detail and while these

 

considerations were ongoing they provided cover for that period.

 

There was never a period when cover was not in place.

 

So... At the AGM the Board tells us "THERE WAS NEVER A PERIOD WHEN COVER WAS NOT IN PLACE"

 

Yet his own e-mail allegedly tells us that " the insurance lapsed at 4pm on 30 Apr 12 and from that time and date we are not covered...Bottom line is that, as at today, it cannot be guaranteed that we have Directors liability insurance cover."

[David Isaac]

So my question to SAJAbiru flyer is ...What say you now?

 

 

[Captain]

Provide undeniable proof that the email came from Steve Runciman. Otherwises it's just a rumor and quite possibly defamatory.

Do, or did, you seriously believe that we have been making all of this crap up in this and the other threads?

 

If you now accept this bit as fact, I suggest that you now investigate the facts behind many of the key points in the other related threads in the "Governing Bodies" section of this forum.

 

The sad fact is that we couldn't fabricate the sequence of events that has led to this collective mess that RAA is in, as nobody would believe us ..... and I don't think that everything is on the table yet.

 

Truth is certainly stranger, and more serious, than fiction in the case of the RAA.

 

We have been called "just a few whingers" by some Board & Executive members, but what we have turned out to be is a group who are exposing serious problems in the running of the association.

 

Now I'm not an Ian Baker lacky, but just consider where the members would be without this forum. Many would still be grounded and most wouldn't have a clue, or wouldn't have anywhere to go to research the background to the issues.

 

As has been reported elsewhere here, the Runciman "contact your Board Member" line doesn't go any way to informing members and gives varying results to member's questions, from great replies and pro-active and progressive communication in John McKeown's case, to worse than none in the case of others. Those members and clubs that have John McK as their rep are truly lucky.

 

It is interesting that Runciman, Herring and others were active on this Forum until they got themselves elected, and then appear to have slunk away into the closet of "Board in Confidence" or voluntary non-communication with the members.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Those members and clubs that have John McK as their rep are truly lucky.

 

Without a shadow of doubt in my mind I couldn't agree more!!

 

Nick

 

 

[facthunter]

True.. Have a good xmas Nick. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

The problem is the ex President Mr. Runciman has alleged that McKeown doesn't co operate with the Board ... I wonder what Mr. Runcimen means by that allegation.

 

 

[facthunter]

Probably that John doesn't AGREE with everything they do. ( I've actually SEEN him NOT agreeing). Funny thing about all this discontent. Mature people have robust discourse and divergent views occasionally and it can get a bit heated. In my day we all had drinks after and stayed friendly and civil. If everyone agreed about everything there would be no point in going to the expense of a face to face meeting Nev

 

 

[Captain]

The problem is the ex President Mr. Runciman has alleged that McKeown doesn't co operate with the Board ... I wonder what Mr. Runcimen means by that allegation.

I'll wager that it means that John McKeown truly does represent the members in his region, and he informs them about issues and he canvasses their views.

 

Then he takes those views, and his own, into Board Meetings and he argues for those views ........... and he sometimes has the temerity to sometimes disagree with our (Ex?) President and/or the Executive.

 

But from my contact with John, I believe that he would always do this in a professional and non-personal way.

 

Just the type of Board Member the RAA wants and needs, I reckon.

 

This support for John McK will probably get him black-listed further, but the facts are the facts.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

True.. Have a good xmas Nick. Nev

Thanks Nev. My aircraft rego isn't due until the middle of the year so at least I will be having my fly after Christmas lunch.

Cheers

 

Nick

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

Nope, Emails can be spoofed very easily. So can SMS messages. My point is that nothing posted on a Forum like this can be guaranteed as the truth. You also need to take into account that some people are trying to start a 2nd organisation. [removed by moderator - provocation]

 

I'm not saying the email is fake - i'm saying nobody can prove it's true apart from Steve Runciman himself. I take everything I read here with a grain of salt. Of course, that's not to take anything away from the great positive contributions of many - like Turboplanner - who has helped me personally in the past with an issue I had - and his posts on here continue to be well thought out and constructive. There are so many other great contributors here, too many to mention.

 

Happy Flying :)

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

Do, or did, you seriously believe that we have been making all of this crap up in this and the other threads?If you now accept this bit as fact, I suggest that you now investigate the facts behind many of the key points in the other related threads in the "Governing Bodies" section of this forum.

 

The sad fact is that we couldn't fabricate the sequence of events that has led to this collective mess that RAA is in, as nobody would believe us ..... and I don't think that everything is on the table yet.

 

Truth is certainly stranger, and more serious, than fiction in the case of the RAA.

 

We have been called "just a few whingers" by some Board & Executive members, but what we have turned out to be is a group who are exposing serious problems in the running of the association.

 

Now I'm not an Ian Baker lacky, but just consider where the members would be without this forum. Many would still be grounded and most wouldn't have a clue, or wouldn't have anywhere to go to research the background to the issues.

 

As has been reported elsewhere here, the Runciman "contact your Board Member" line doesn't go any way to informing members and gives varying results to member's questions, from great replies and pro-active and progressive communication in John McKeown's case, to worse than none in the case of others. Those members and clubs that have John McK as their rep are truly lucky.

 

It is interesting that Runciman, Herring and others were active on this Forum until they got themselves elected, and then appear to have slunk away into the closet of "Board in Confidence" or voluntary non-communication with the members.

 

Regards Geoff

I would think that RA-Aus would continue to fix problems with or without this Forum. I know the Board Members and Staff are working their butts off for the betterment of our organisation. Only a very small percentage of RA-Aus Members frequent this Forum - the vast majority I talk to in my travels say "What's a Forum?".

 

With regards to STEVE Runciman and ED Herring being active before election, and not after - I take exception to that. I dont think anyone really appreciates the sheer amount of time that being a Board Member involves. Bear in mind they also have jobs, personal lives etc. I think you'll find that STEVE Runciman and ED Herring are simply too busy to post on this site, and are concentrating more on helping RA-Aus. I offer them and other RA-Aus Board Members and Staff, my full support.

 

Safe flying :)

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

So my question to SAJAbiru flyer is ...What say you now?

I still say "Prove the email came from Steve Runciman" And i mean REALLY prove it. No? You cant - unless Steve Runciman himself says "Yes I sent that Email"

 

 

 

[fly_tornado]

email him and get a written denial

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I still say "Prove the email came from Steve Runciman" And i mean REALLY prove it. No? You cant - unless Steve Runciman himself says "Yes I sent that Email"

What you say is correct technically but it infers that we could say anything we like make up anything we like and post here in public without issue. That simply is not the case, we have already seen that legal action against purported "false" statements can and will be taken by RAAus. As such anyone who posts here needs to be continuously aware of that and always ask can what I'm saying be proven, or is it clear that Im not misrepresenting a statement as a fact when its just an opinion.

 

So, using that rationale, you are correct there is no way to technically prove it is, unless those who sent or those who recieved stand up and say its true, but equally those "banging on" knowing its a falsehood have much more at risk than access to an organisation they belong to.

 

So consider that and then let me know if you think it likely that the main posters here, me included, are prepared to risk everything I have, to falsely discredit an encumbant president and the board? Does the risk really match the return? and if not, is it likely/logical?

 

From my perspective alone absolutely not! and as such I'll only post what I know to be true and can show to be true and at the same time have stated time and time again that if I post something wrong let me know and I'll correct it.

 

Bottom line..... falsely accusing a group of people of doing something in the context of an incorporated association isnt something you would do lightly unless you owned virtually nothing.

 

Lastly no one has ever argued that there aren't some on the board who put in serious amounts of effort, but what we are saying is that serious amounts of effort, if inappropriately focussed, still wont achieve the required outcome. Its my opinion that while some within the board do much others do F%^K all

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

Nope, Emails can be spoofed very easily. So can SMS messages. My point is that nothing posted on a Forum like this can be guaranteed as the truth. You also need to take into account that some people are trying to start a 2nd organisation. [removed by moderator - Provocation] I'm not saying the email is fake - i'm saying nobody can prove it's true apart from Steve Runciman himself. I take everything I read here with a grain of salt. Of course, that's not to take anything away from the great positive contributions of many - like Turboplanner - who has helped me personally in the past with an issue I had - and his posts on here continue to be well thought out and constructive. There are so many other great contributors here, too many to mention.

Interesting response to a simple question regarding the probability of the email really being sent by the ex president. The copy was taken directly from the Board forum. Why not ask Ed herring if the email is legitimate instead of "banging on" attempting to defend increasing evidence of inappropriate Board and executive behaviour. Not to mention the constructive actions of the Board denying the members accurate and credible information. Go ahead and play a game of technical semantics ... I say again ... go ask Ed!Not really sure how "some people attempting to form a second organisation" has anything to do with the question requiring qualification. Sounds like a red herring to me. But for the record, a second organisation is not the answer ... we need to fix this organisation, it is a great organisation with a great future if we can get proper governance.

 

The fact as you say that the Board are working their corporate asses off and we are still in this mess should tell us we have a real problem at the top. My personal opinion is that the voluntary positions are a significant part of the problem. They should be paid to give up their time to represent us and there is plenty of liquidity to do that. "Pay peanuts get monkeys" in my view. At least qualify their capabilities, lay out the expectations and pay them if even a token amount to look after our interests and keep good governance.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

or you could always ring him, the offer was there.........but lets not bother arguing any further, we all know there are none so blind as those who dont want to see.....And I understand the point 18months ago that was where I was.......