Victorian members and others interested

[Guest ozzie]

Amazing they are up to their necks in trouble and they are still trying to intimidate and threaten people. Has it sunk in yet people, they have to go.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Jim,

 

Congratulations again for your principled stand. While it is exactly the duty you took on when you were elected it can become quite arduous to achieve when those around you don't seem to realise that they owe the same duty to the members.

 

It is hard to fathom how little is understood, by some on the Board and the Exec in particular, about what a Board Member's duties are. Perhaps this comes about from spending so much time in command & control environments or at low level positions in the Public Service? Who knows? In their professional life they appear to have been excused duty when it came to management training.

 

What they really need to know is ignorance is no defence - especially when they have been told and yet continue to feign ignorance of their fiduciary duties.

 

Attempting to overtly create two classes of Board Members:

 

- those trusted sycophants in the know and

 

- those independent minded to be kept in the dark

 

is a very perilous path to tread and will invite the attention of the ORS and possibly ASIC. Firstly, by doing this, they remove any liability from the Board Members so victimised and kept in the dark and, secondly, they double their own culpability for all the ills of the organisation.

 

Anyone know how to spell insane?

 

But, rest assured it is not bullying because our Führer has done the course and he cannot possibly be a bully - because he said he isn't. And he would know.

 

 

[Thirsty]

Well he is a major in the army so there is a very good chance he definitely is a bully!

 

 

[Spriteah]

Gents and Ladies. Just to give you an idea what you as members are dealing with I have attached a post to a request I made. The request was that I would like to view insurance documents. The original reply I will not post but it was not flattering to me. The "state representative" then realised the gravity of his writtings and altered the reply. He reads these forums and stopped contributing after a few "members" said what they think of his posts. I would encourage him to reply to the membership on this matter.

 

State Rep said

 

"My apologies.

 

I did write a post for this matter but as I know it would appear on a public forum as soon as he read it I chose to remove it.

 

Disclosure of material that could be used to harm RA-Aus is never advisable. Especially to those who have made it clear that they wish to act contrary to the interests of members."

 

JT:- Just for your knowledge this member is not on the Exec but well alligned. If you hear some board members say there are no secrets well you can judge that for yourself.

 

My request was as follows:

 

Attention: The Executive of Recreation Aviation Australia

 

I formally request a copy of all documents relating to the general members insurance policy and my (the boards) professional indemnity insurance including the following:

 

1. Tender documents including all companies that responded to any tenders

 

2. Details and any disclosure statements of individual policies

 

3. Materials that show how the prices are calculated for the policies issued

 

4. A copy of all invoices received

 

I have reproduced below a section of our board code of conduct which clearly states ‘all board members are entitles to access to the same and complete material.’

 

Board Code of Conduct

 

10. Principles of Personal Conduct

 

f. Board members must inform fellow board members of all material matters in their

 

possession that relate to the conduct and management of RA-Aus, including meetings

 

with politicians and public and industry officials. Board members must not make any

 

deals or undertakings with third parties that materially affect RA-Aus without making

 

full disclosure at board level. Board members must not discriminate in dispensing

 

information. All board members are entitled to access to the same and complete

 

material.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

 

 

[facthunter]

Jim. It would be quite debateable who is working in the interests of members, at the moment. They should realise that material that could be damaging to the RAAus should be very limited, one would hope. From what I know of you, you are not the type they seem to regard you as. "All reps are equal but some are more equal than others". (With apologies to Animal Farm) Nev

 

 

[damkia]

Sounds like they are beginning to get the gist that the Executive are not the RA-Aus, and that the Members are.

 

It may appear that I have been personally critical of your motives for the email list, but the point I have been trying to make is that if information IS non-confidential in nature, there is no reason to hide behind a veil of email lists. Emails themselves from those opposing your views should be welcomed as ammunition if it all goes to s**t. Information from the Executive should be free for all to see equally. This would apply to all minutes from exec meetings as you are currently trying to achieve. (should normally available for viewing by members at general meetings - Companies Act, IIRC)

 

What is needed is transparency in communication from the Executive and Board Members.

 

With only one or two exceptions, the members aren't getting any.

 

 

[Powerin]

What is needed is transparency in communication from the Executive and Board Members.

With only one or two exceptions, the members aren't getting any.

Transparency is a double edged sword. On the one hand I applaud Jim in revealing what he has. We members needed to know what we are dealing with.

 

On the other hand, to be effective and allow for free and open discussion without fear of repercussions, board members of any organisation need assurance that the things they say in a board room will go no further (or even a board email list). Important things will go unsaid in meetings if board members think it may be repeated in public.

 

I don't know what the answer is. Jim has revealed important information that needed airing, but at the same time has become untrustworthy in the eyes of some and therefore excluded from some discussions. As much as I hate to say it, and as much as they deserve being exposed, I can't say I blame them. I would be the same.

 

This is not attacking Jim in any way. As a member I am glad that he has said what needed to be said. But as a non-profit board member I can see the need for some confidentiality if a board is to work effectively.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I'm not quite sure which post this was in reply to, and I'm sure you know this, but for general information - Incorporated Associations must include certain standard model rules in their constitutions. If they are not included, and a dispute arises, a court will rule as if the rules were there anyway (in NSW anyway...and the ACT act looks similar)Sorry Jim, for the off topic post.

the ACT act is exactly as you describe!

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

With both the current and former treasurers failing to notice that the membership revenues where 30%+ below their correct level, its hard to see how a new set of eyes aren't going to find more problems.

 

no wonder the exec are desperate to shut Jim's investigation down.

 

 

[Gentreau]

"Disclosure of material that could be used to harm RA-Aus is never advisable"

 

That amounts to a tacit admission that there is indeed something in the documents Jim's requesting that could do harm to those running RA-Aus ???

 

 

[gavinthobaven]

Gents and Ladies. Just to give you an idea what you as members are dealing with I have attached a post to a request I made. The request was that I would like to view insurance documents. The original reply I will not post but it was not flattering to me. The "state representative" then realised the gravity of his writtings and altered the reply. He reads these forums and stopped contributing after a few "members" said what they think of his posts. I would encourage him to reply to the membership on this matter.State Rep said

 

"My apologies.

 

I did write a post for this matter but as I know it would appear on a public forum as soon as he read it I chose to remove it.

 

Disclosure of material that could be used to harm RA-Aus is never advisable. Especially to those who have made it clear that they wish to act contrary to the interests of members."

 

JT:- Just for your knowledge this member is not on the Exec but well alligned. If you hear some board members say there are no secrets well you can judge that for yourself.

 

My request was as follows:

 

Attention: The Executive of Recreation Aviation Australia

 

I formally request a copy of all documents relating to the general members insurance policy and my (the boards) professional indemnity insurance including the following:

 

1. Tender documents including all companies that responded to any tenders

 

2. Details and any disclosure statements of individual policies

 

3. Materials that show how the prices are calculated for the policies issued

 

4. A copy of all invoices received

 

I have reproduced below a section of our board code of conduct which clearly states ‘all board members are entitles to access to the same and complete material.’

 

Board Code of Conduct

 

10. Principles of Personal Conduct

 

f. Board members must inform fellow board members of all material matters in their

 

possession that relate to the conduct and management of RA-Aus, including meetings

 

with politicians and public and industry officials. Board members must not make any

 

deals or undertakings with third parties that materially affect RA-Aus without making

 

full disclosure at board level. Board members must not discriminate in dispensing

 

information. All board members are entitled to access to the same and complete

 

material.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

Dear members

 

In reply to Mr Tatlock as he requests:

 

Insurance policies relating to legal protection (in this instance of board members) have included in them a directive that the contents of the policy are not to be disclosed to any third party. Clearly this is because if someone had the intent to perform an act requiring that policy to be implemented they would be unfairly advantaged by knowing the full extent of legal coverage. The policy held by RA-Aus for this purpose has a clause stating that it is not to be disclosed and if it is then the policy is void. That was made very clear to the members of the board.

 

The only harm that could be done is if the contents of the documents are made public.

 

Regards

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Gavin, aren't you at least concerned that neither the current or former RAA Treasurer picked up on the fact that the RAA membership revenue was almost 30% below where it should have been? It took me less than 5 minutes of reading the RAA financials to notice that fact that the RAA has been fluffing the membership numbers.

 

The likelihood that the insurance documentation holds some sort of gross error needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. Disclosure of a likely error needs to exposed before the next insurance bill is negotiated. Last year the insurance bill jumped $60K, this is far beyond the rise in risk or membership numbers would allow for.

 

Can you please explain how the board is going to resolve the likelihood of an error with the history of exec showing gross incompetence? No offence Gavin but your argument against Jim lacks evidence and smacks of spite.

 

 

[Gentreau]

Dear membersIn reply to Mr Tatlock as he requests:

 

Insurance policies relating to legal protection (in this instance of board members) have included in them a directive that the contents of the policy are not to be disclosed to any third party. Clearly this is because if someone had the intent to perform an act requiring that policy to be implemented they would be unfairly advantaged by knowing the full extent of legal coverage. The policy held by RA-Aus for this purpose has a clause stating that it is not to be disclosed and if it is then the policy is void. That was made very clear to the members of the board.

 

The only harm that could be done is if the contents of the documents are made public.

 

Regards

So Mr Thobaven,

 

It would appear that a refusal to provide a board member with the details of the insurance cover which apply to him or her, is based upon a prior assumption that the board member will make public that information. Unless there is some hard evidence to suggest that the board member will actually do that, then any refusal seems to be unfounded.

 

.

 

 

[SOS]

So, if I buy Travel Insurance, the Insurance Company shouldn't tell me what events are covered ... in case I ... "create" one of those events?????

 

This is crazy stuff!

 

 

[kaz3g]

There is a clear difference between members' insurance and "directors's" insurance.

 

In the first case, the members themselves are paying for the cover and there is no proscription against releasing information.

 

In the second case, if such a proscription occurs, clearly it would be highly damaging to release proscribed information in a public forum.

 

But this does not excuse the Committee from its clear legal obligation to provide all information pertaining to the operation of the Association to each and every Committee member. Withholding information in that manner is precisely the sort of behaviour that will attract the intervention of the ORS and see those responsible held to account in court.

 

Various committee members have, in my view, already put themselves in conflict with statutory obligations that carry significant penalties for non-compliance. It is also my view that they have jeapordised the future of the Association in the process.

 

I note that Mr Runciman still holds himself out as President in his dealings with the media today and continues to understate the seriousness of the now numerous issues besetting RAAus. It will take just one fatal during this hiatus of administrative function to have the coroner settle our future for good. And director's insurance won't protect anyone from criminal negligence.

 

kaz

 

 

[Spriteah]

To be clear hear the information to some degree has been released to me however with the non-agreement of a member who has suggested I have no integrity.

 

At no time have I indicated that I will release the information to the membership. I do however wish to view and research the information because of the varying numbers that have been reported to the membership and I want to be sure we are not over paying.

 

As to the policy that covers me as a director needed to view that for obvious reasons.

 

If board members had been fishing which are words describing what some of my requests have been then some of the problems we now face might have been detected earlier and not causing so much grief.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock. Vic rep.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Couldn't agree with you more Jim.

 

I'd certainly say you have been restrained on this site

 

It could be that the realization is starting to dawn that the old "members would only be bored if we told them" and "small minority" excuses have reached their use by date and there is now some very serious sh$t heading their way.

 

Kaz, laying it out like that, I think, is now the only way to go. I've been tallying up the Accessories, and there's quite a caste coming to light.

 

 

[Admin]

Jim, what is happening to you is EXACTLY what happened to me by several committee members (Middleton, Caban - still a committee members, Jarvis - now made a Life Member, and others). Basically, because you have chosen to keep the members informed on various things they say that you can't be trusted and will spurt out every single thing which, as we know, would never be the case. They attempt to take away ALL your rights in what information can be disseminated to the members but simply cutting you off from everything making you unable to perform effectively as a Committee Member to the Association Members.

 

They may argue that emails, phone calls etc are discussion between 2 or more people but NOT 'official' RAAus business which can only come from the Board Forum by way of motions, listed discussions and voting. They can't and will not exclude you from the Board Forum as that would be in complete breach but as emails and phone calls are NOT deemed true 'Official' business, they can exclude you from them.

 

However I will note that when I went on the Committee, the then Secretary Lynn Jarvis was going to delete or prevent my access to ALL historical information in Board Forum...and that was before I was formally on the Committee. Obviously some email/phone discussions were had and when I demanded that this can not be done, it was only then, and several months after becoming an elected Committee Member, was I then allowed to access the Board Forum...these are the games that are played

 

The main problem is that these 'unofficial' committee business emails and phone calls set the eventual end result anyway and promote the 'click' group and all they need is 51% of the committee in that click group to completely ignore every other elected committee member...and you can't stop phone calls and emails

 

 

[Gentreau]

I used to be apathetic, but nowadays I can't be bothered. Can I join RA-Aus ??

 

.

 

 

[facthunter]

Have you just stated your CV? Nev

 

 

[Powerin]

If board members had been fishing which are words describing what some of my requests have been then some of the problems we now face might have been detected earlier and not causing so much grief.

Exactly!

Again, for other Board members to use a derogatory term such as "fishing" for a board member doing due diligence and fulfilling his responsibilities says a lot about the level of professionalism and integrity present in some of our elected representatives.

 

 

[Admin]

Exactly!Again, for other Board members to use a derogatory term such as "fishing" for a board member doing due diligence and fulfilling his responsibilities says a lot about the level of professionalism and integrity present in some of our elected representatives.

EXACTLY!!! THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT FOR SEVERAL YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and at least NOW people are listening

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its ironic that the President who resigned and then illegally chose not to resign, is accusing a board member of improper behaviour...

 

 

[greybeard]

Its ironic that the President who resigned and then illegally chose not to resign, is accusing a board member of improper behaviour...

I'm intrigued, how could the President 'illegally chose not to resign'? He may have chosen to 'not resign' but isn't the issue with the acceptance of any such decision? Surely any acceptance ( or not ) of the decision 'to not resign' was taken by someone other than the President?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what happened but it tends to weaken an argument when using an 'created fact' as emphasis a statement on irony.

 

 

[damkia]

If there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud or major inconsistencies relating to safety, is it time to call in the police? (AFP)