Victorian members and others interested

[fly_tornado]

I am baffled as to the current status of the office of presidency but I am confident that the member for NQLD has indeed had the most interesting reign as President. No one else comes close.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You would need to read the financial reports to decide that D.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

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? . . .

Greybeard, we are a tiny bit off topic. If you want to read all about the President's Resignation and reincarnation, there is another thread on here devoted to that mystery. But, you are completely right, Runciman once resigned could not un-resign there is no such process available (there is no such word even).

 

I'm sure RecFlyers won't mind too much if we summarise it all for you as:

 

• Runciman said something to the effect that he didn't have the unanimous support of the Board, and that he therefore quit as Nth Qld Board Member and as President. His resignation was unconditional and did not require anyone to accept or decline it. By the time it was received it was a done deal and Runciman was an ordinary member like the rest of us. Well, perhaps not so ordinary - a bit more precious?
   
   
  
• The next day, it seems the Board decided by majority vote that he could be the NQ Board Member and President again.
   
   
  
• If he had only quit as President the Board would be completely within their Constitutional rights to reappoint him President but, as he quit as NQ Board Member, he ceased to be eligible for the Presidency. The Board does not have the right to make anyone a Board Member. To achieve that you must face an election process and win!
   
   
  
• That Runciman resigned is a fact he acknowledges. The Board have not been able to produce written legal advice that approves their action of appointing Runciman to the Board. They say they will seek such advice around mid January.
   
   
  
• A person with real integrity and respect for due process would stand aside until legal support was able to be produced.
   
   
  

 

 

So, FT's amusing statement on the irony still stands tall: an ordinary member presently holding themselves out to be President with the gall to accuse JT of improper conduct when all JT is trying to do is fulfil his duty as a Board Member. Gobsmacking irony! Could be the definition of irony that Wikipedia has been looking for.

 

Apologies to JT and now, back to topic . . .

 

Alf

 

 

[greybeard]

Greybeard, we are a tiny bit off topic. If you want to read all about the President's Resignation and reincarnation, there is another thread on here devoted to that mystery. But, you are completely right, Runciman once resigned could not un-resign there is no such process available (there is no such word even).I'm sure RecFlyers won't mind too much if we summarise it all for you as:

 

• Runciman said something to the effect that he didn't have the unanimous support of the Board, and that he therefore quit as Nth Qld Board Member and as President. His resignation was unconditional and did not require anyone to accept or decline it. By the time it was received it was a done deal and Runciman was an ordinary member like the rest of us. Well, perhaps not so ordinary - a bit more precious?
   
   
  
• The next day, it seems the Board decided by majority vote that he could be the NQ Board Member and President again.
   
   
  
• If he had only quit as President the Board would be completely within their Constitutional rights to reappoint him President but, as he quit as NQ Board Member, he ceased to be eligible for the Presidency. The Board does not have the right to make anyone a Board Member. To achieve that you must face an election process and win!
   
   
  
• That Runciman resigned is a fact he acknowledges. The Board have not been able to produce written legal advice that approves their action of appointing Runciman to the Board. They say they will seek such advice around mid January.
   
   
  
• A person with real integrity and respect for due process would stand aside until legal support was able to be produced.
   
   
  

 

 

So, FT's amusing statement on the irony still stands tall: an ordinary member presently holding themselves out to be President with the gall to accuse JT of improper conduct when all JT is trying to do is fulfil his duty as a Board Member. Gobsmacking irony! Could be the definition of irony that Wikipedia has been looking for.

 

Apologies to JT and now, back to topic . . .

 

Alf

Thanks for the summary, it pretty much summarises what I have read in the 'other thread', hence my comment regarding how anyone could 'illegally chose not to resign'. A resignation may be refused, or accepted, legally or illegally but to accuse someone of 'illegally not resigning' is illogical and detracts from the argument. Yes, the subject matter is emotive, but creating drama by the use of emotive and illogical accusations does the discussion no benefit.

Educating people with facts, clearly stating when speculation has occured, all allows for an informed decision. Once you start down the slope of making up events to support an argument credability suffers.

 

There is more than enough information out there to make the point without statements like this, ironic or not.

 

Let the facts speak, I'm very confident that the people who read this forum are smart enough to reach a valid conclusion.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Posting in the wrong thread is a good way to muddy up the water greybeard.

 

You aren't educating anyone with this nitpicking on what might well be just a rushed post which could have had more precise wording.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Thanks for the summary, it pretty much summarises what I have read in the 'other thread', hence my comment regarding how anyone could 'illegally chose not to resign'. A resignation may be refused, or accepted, legally or illegally but to accuse someone of 'illegally not resigning' is illogical and detracts from the argument. Yes, the subject matter is emotive, but creating drama by the use of emotive and illogical accusations does the discussion no benefit.Educating people with facts, clearly stating when speculation has occured, all allows for an informed decision. Once you start down the slope of making up events to support an argument credability suffers.

There is more than enough information out there to make the point without statements like this, ironic or not.

 

Let the facts speak, I'm very confident that the people who read this forum are smart enough to reach a valid conclusion.

The interesting thing here is that, legally speaking, there is no acceptance of a resignation. A resignation, if presented in the correct way, cannot be refused and thus is never accepted, it is simply taken to have occurred. That is, if an employment contract says you must give 2 weeks written notice of resignation then, once this is done, the employer does not accept it and nor can they refuse it. Simple as that.

 

They can, however, choose to accept a withdrawal. So if someone resigns then the person who holds the power to appoint someone to that position (the boss) could go and have a word to the employee and ask them to reconsider. Alternatively, the employee could ask to withdraw the application on their own choice. At this point, the withdrawal can be accepted.

 

So, two questions remain:

 

1. Was the resignation valid in the first place?

 

2. Does the committee have the authority to accept a withdrawal of the resignation?

 

Nowhere in the constitution does it detail notice periods, method of notice, etc. for resignation from the committee. In the absence of clear direction it is safe to assume that an email is a sufficient means to resign Email is recognised as a means of communication, it was delivered to the secretary, the notice contained clear advice in terms of intent, etc. Pretty valid. The law also requires a test to see whether the resignation was "deliberate and considered". This is essentially a test to ensure that a resignation was not made under duress, was done by a person who was of sound mind, and so on. There's a great catch 22 here. If SR is not of sound mind then his resignation is not valid but at the same time he is not fit to govern. If he is of sound mind then the resignation is valid and thus we move onto the second question.

 

The committee has the power to assign roles amongst its members. This means that it can choose a secretary, treasurer and of course, a president from its make up. The problem is - is SR part of this make up? SR resigned from not only the presidents role but also the committee. Members are appointed to the committee through the election process and not by any other means. Thus, the committee does not have a right to allow withdrawal of a resignation, only those with the authority to appoint someone to the role in the first place have this right. In other words - only the membership can choose to allow the withdrawal of the resignation, not the committee. Given that the membership was never consulted, the reappointment is invalid.

 

In this sense the committee has acted beyond its powers (indeed they have ABUSED their powers) and acted against the powers granted to them by the constitution and the Act. So, what are we doing about it?

 

Are you going to the meeting? If not, have you appointed someone as your proxy?

 

PS. I'm not making this stuff up. The resignation of someone from a position has been tested in law. See for example Luszczynski v Cement Australia Packaged Products [2005] NSWIRComm 1180.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I always thought that SR accepted his withdrawal of his "resignation as representative and president" as president and board member, which he wasn't at the time.

 

 

[webbm]

So what was the actual Board resolution in regards to this matter? To accept a withdrawal or to reappoint? Can someone legally resign from the RA-Aus board via email under ACT Law? Is the exact wording of the resignation known to people?

 

just looking for the facts...

 

Cheers.

 

 

[kaz3g]

... Can someone legally resign from the RA-Aus board via email under ACT Law? Is the exact wording of the resignation known to people?just looking for the facts...

 

Cheers.

Yes.

 

kaz

 

 

[webbm]

Yes.kaz

Thanks. :)

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

So what was the actual Board resolution in regards to this matter? To accept a withdrawal or to reappoint?

They are great questions to put to your local member's rep. We would all like to understand that.

 

. . .Is the exact wording of the resignation known to people?

Yes. It was included in the Thread "President Resigns and . . ." The important bit said something to the effect of "this is official notice of my resignation from the Board and as President". The key points are that he was not making an offer to resign, he was notifying of something that had already happened - that he had resigned - Past Tense. His resignation was not forward or post dated. It was immediate and unconditional and it was a resignation of both his North Queensland Board Member's position and as President.

 

Runciman, despite continuing to pass himself off as President, resigned from the Board. End of story.

 

The Board has no power under the Constitution to fill a casual vacancy on the Board by any means other than an election by Queensland members who live North of latitude 22 deg South. On this logic, Runciman is not President and is acting Ultra Vires. He needs to be very careful or he may end up with a very big bill to repay to RA-Aus.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're right Alfa, the slightest incident now and he could lose his house.

 

With four legal opinions now alleged to confirm that is no longer President, the legal implications of his actions after the date of his resignation have been steadily multiplying.

 

For example, if someone was to go after him for workplace bullying, the implication of a person involved in workplace bullying while impersonating an official produces a much more compelling case than someone arguing he was just doing his job, perhaps a trifle abrasively.

 

 

[nomadpete]

You're right Alfa, the slightest incident now and he could lose his house.With four legal opinions now alleged to confirm that is no longer President, the legal implications of his actions after the date of his resignation have been steadily multiplying.

 

For example, if someone was to go after him for workplace bullying, the implication of a person involved in workplace bullying while impersonating an official produces a much more compelling case than someone arguing he was just doing his job, perhaps a trifle abrasively.

Has anyone considered the possibility that SR is already planning to abdicate his throne just proir to the Feb meeting to avoid facing the music?

 

That would alow the rest to use his departure as proof of "It's alright folks, WE've fixed it" and thereby keep the status quo - and just appoint another figurehead.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Has anyone considered the possibility that SR is already planning to abdicate his throne just proir to the Feb meeting to avoid facing the music?That would alow the rest to use his departure as proof of "It's alright folks, WE've fixed it" and thereby keep the status quo - and just appoint another figurehead.

Personally I reckon that would be a win for the membership. I don't really care how it is that he is prevented from doing more damage than he has already done. But what about Middo and Eugene?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Personally I reckon that would be a win for the membership. I don't really care how it is that he is prevented from doing more damage than he has already done. But what about Middo and Eugene?

It appears to me that it is not possible for one individual to hijack the complete control of a board all by himself.

 

 

[Admin]

Personally I would bet Middleton, the great hider of all information including his own aviation accidents from being printed in the mag or the debacle of aircraft registration numbers, or the emails he sends out of lies and deceit to manipulate others (starting from Aug 2007, the copies I have start at this date) as the person bucking for President...my personal opinion given the untold history would be RAAus would go backwards at a great rate of knots...if it happens then please let me say "I told you so"...now I can refer back to this post in the future.

 

Reid, in my opinion, is a "Yes" man, a follower, and does have a lot to offer RAAus in terms of his experience and knowledge. The problem is his quest for supremacy in the top 'title' of President has got in his way instead of RAAus managing his talents, his pros, without letting his weaknesses come out. Reid would be a good general committee member and a 'lobbyist' in the anales of aviation parliament but NOT as President, Secretary or Treasurer. I told him this and recommended to him that he doesn't put his hand up for the Treasurer's position but he did and now he is in the package deal of the firing line.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

My vote for president would got Jim or John. They have a good understanding of the issues and a willingness to seek out the truth. I reckon the other board members never say squat on here for fear of being found out as being ignorant of the issues. Not sure about Gavin, without someone to follow he probably could achieve something but lets face it following Uncle Steve is an easy way to fritter through your 2 years on the board.

 

It would be good if we could lure Uncle Don back to the board.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Has anyone considered the possibility that SR is already planning to abdicate his throne just proir to the Feb meeting to avoid facing the music?.........

I doubt he is actually planning it. He strikes me as a spur of the moment, precipitous sort of individual with anger management problems . Never met him, but this is the impression I now have.

 

The alleged circumstances of his resignation tend to confirm this I feel.

 

kaz

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

It appears to me that it is not possible for one individual to hijack the complete control of a board all by himself.

True but it seems to have been easy enough for the Middo/Runciman combination. Not sure which one is Batman and which one boy wonder. Aggression and secrecy are potent weapons.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Jim,

 

Thank you for starting an open channel of communication. I believe that there is not much that should be kept 'in camera' or secret. After all we, the members are better able to understand the reasons for actions and events if we are provided with all the relevent inforamtion about stuff. And that includes the lead up information that is essential to put things into context. The only reservations that folk may harbour is a fear that a personal circulation list may become a selective way to communicate with a target group. That willprobably be used (by those afraid that truth is a problem) as criticism of your efforts. I fully understand your intentions are simply to provide a pathway that RAAus is at present reluctant to employ. I believe that the larger your circulation list is, the better it is. Preferrable please don't differentiate based on geographics or demographics. That way the messages will not be seen as being selective information.

 

Hopefully the content will eventually become rather boring reading. Then we will know that things are improving. When thing are going well in an organisation there are no exciting press releases and no shocking bombshells to read in the bulletins.

 

Most of all thanks for including the members in the information loop. You have the support of many members to back up your courageous move. From where I sit, you are showing the integrity that we are all crying out for. Keep up the good work.

 

PeterT

 

 

[Tiger]

Congratulations to Jim Tatlock for his stand on the board. It appears that you are not alone at being left out of board emails "illegally". We currently don't have a board representative in North Qld, so we need you and others to hang in there fighting for our rights to re-elect a new representative. Chin up Jim, and turn the other cheek. Some other board members may be ignoring you, but not us, the real members of RAA.

 

In post 150, John says he received a reply from Mr Runciman. John, can you please post Mr.Runciman's "political reply" here so we can all see its full content and not get it taken out of context as we all need to know what he said.

 

Mr.Runciman also made a lot of political statements to the AGM on the questions on notice. The statements told us a lot, but in effect said "nothing" and has apparently not settled things down on this site.

 

In post 156, John says a letter has been sent asking for Executive Board members to step aside. This is indicative that the membership is now asking for the Executive to stand aside. It is up to the other members of the Board to now convince the Executive that for the overall good of RAA that the current Executive must resign their Board positions before the 9th February meeting. Threads all indicate that a number of Board members have had no specific or individual matters raised against them, however seriously thinking members have identified and indicated on this forum that the current management style of our Executive is the main problem within RAA.

 

When you have a serious problem it is up to those who have the authority , fellow board members and the membership in general, to address the problem and fix it, even if it may hurt a persons personal aim or self ego. The retiring Board Executive will be able to hold their heads up high if they do this before the overall general membership of RAA terminate their appointments and they have to vacate their board positions "kicking and screaming". We need a genuinely impartial person to Chair this meeting in February.

 

This will allow those members at the 9th February meeting the chance to start restructuring our RAA into the future and raise it out of the ashes of a bygone era.

 

Have a look at the structure that RAA has to work under with our CASA agreement. http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_93439

 

Has our Executive been following this guideline that was introduced in 2010. I think not, and that is why we, the members of RAA have failed this audit.

 

 

[Captain]

The Board has no power under the Constitution to fill a casual vacancy on the Board by any means other than an election by Queensland members who live North of latitude 22 deg South. On this logic, Runciman is not President and is acting Ultra Vires. He needs to be very careful or he may end up with a very big bill to repay to RA-Aus.

Well said AR.

 

Once the RAA's own lawyers prove that member Runciman is not President, the membership will expect him to reimburse RAA for airfares and accommodation associated with the Board Meeting on Feb 8th and the GM on Feb 9th. He can get himself there and bear the costs the same way that the rest of us have to.

 

And he & Middo can pay for the legal advice associated with this resignation issue too, which they have both clearly caused to be incurred.

 

Plus members can rightly expect member Runciman to do the same for any other costs that he has incurred on RAA's behalf since the minute of his resignation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good point Captain.

 

I would think he could be prosecuted for any expenditure obtained from RAA in the name of board member or executive member after his resignation.

 

That may be a quicker way to resolve things.

 

 

[Gibbo]

The interesting item that I keep noticing with their statements as per 'legal advice' is that it quotes the Corporations Act (ACT). Should'nt they be looking at the Associations Act (ACT) as that is the applicable governing law.

 

The briefing provided to the legalise would be interesting. Garbage in = Garbage Out!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

really simplistically (and therefore full of anomolies) inCORPORATEd Associations are a specific type of CORPORATion where they are generally community based and as such dont have the same level of legislated obligations as for profit corporations. In not having the same level means you dont do 100% of that which for profit corporations require but it sure isnt 0% either.......

 

the corporation part as I recall from my legal studies 101 at uni is simply the mechanism of allowing a business to transact with other people or businesses as though it were a legal entity and can therefore be legally bound. Without that capability the people executing agreements on behalf of the coporation would be undertaking the obligations as themselves not the entity or pehaps more accurately they couldnt execute because there was no party B to the agreement......

 

and Im now out far enough on the limb to feel the breeze blowing dangerously....I'll retreat back to the safety of IT which I understand......

 

Andy