turboplanner Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Well the next tough man Gavin may see is the ACT Attorney General. It would seem, unless some board members have disowned this email stream, that all have decided to take the risk of breaching the RAA Constitution, but I'd be surprisedf if they've considered the personal consequences of their actions.
David Isaac Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 In his email to Andy Saywell Gavin Thobavin said: “I was requested by the members of my state to put forward a motion of their making. The motion seeks to have important motions brought to the attention of all members to allow them to have an equal input into the future of their association. The motion is: “That only motions that have been presented to the full membership of Recreational Aviation Australia can be voted on at the meeting of 9th February 2013.”…..” My recollection was that Gavin Thobavin was the one emailing all members in WA soliciting support for this motion, yet he claims his members put up the motion … In the same email Gavin Thobavin also said: “There is no known way that a request for equal rights and equal representation could be unconstitutional. Only those with a dishonest intent would seek to silence the majority of the membership on important issues………. “. The constitution already gives the members equal rights and equal representation. The meeting has been called constitutionally, every member has a right to attend and now and only now since the last constitutional amendment do the members have the right to appoint a proxy they trust to attend and vote on their behalf on any matter whether given notice or not. Gavin appears to be attempting to stifle any action of the members in attendance. That action alone is a deliberate attempt to stop the business which has already been announced by the secretary in the notice of meeting which was to put motions from the floor, debate and vote on them. It would appear that Gavin is attempting to deny those present in person and by proxy to their democratic right under the constitution. 1
Admin Posted January 24, 2013 Author Posted January 24, 2013 This is just getting more and more disgusting...a friendly Association of like minded people down to name calling etc...Gavin, with everything aside, this is, in my opinion, NOT a professional manner in which a Committee Member should be acting towards ANY member no matter what...we are suppose to be buddies as in member/representative and it is very clear, enormously clear, that there are HUGE issues and instead of trying to resolve them you have attacked a member...in the scheme of things Gavin, and every Committee Member, you are all at the very bottom of the food chain...the members, every single one of them, is way above you...PLEASE start to realise that or simply move on and let another person come on who does start acting for EVERY RAAus member and not just 1 2
Riley Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 It gripes me that Gavin's missals include the phrase "My WA members requested that I put the motion...." Let me say that while some WA members may have requested this questionable (under the circumstances) move, certainly not all are supportive of it!! In fact, when canvassed by Gavin in the days prior to it's circulation, myself and at least one other of his former supporters warned him that it could only lead to more charges of attempting to gag the meeting and further muddy the waters. Having bogged on regardless, his subsequent communications should also state that he is not following the wishes of some of his constituents. In the days since his broadcast request for proxys I have spoken to three WA members who responded as requested and who later expressed regret that they weren't aware of the multiple reasons for the petition for the GM by concerned RAA members last Nov. So, for what it's worth, there will be a sizeable content of ignorance in whatever block of proxys are carried by the WA Rep to the meeting. Mind you, the responsibility for that rests with those who were yarded up like sheep assuming all was right in Canberra. Riled up Riley
Spriteah Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I'd like to point out that some board members do not support the actions of others. I have raised constitution issues privately with emphasis on actions in a Legal and Ethical manner to which the outcome was not satisfactory to me. Please do not tar us all with the same brush. 7
Powerin Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 It's a shame, but perhaps not surprising, that Mr Thobaven seems to regard all this as a battle of wits that requires war room tactics when all the membership want is answers and a way forward. 1
fly_tornado Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I'd like to point out that some board members do not support the actions of others. I have raised constitution issues privately with emphasis on actions in a Legal and Ethical manner to which the outcome was not satisfactory to me. Please do not tar us all with the same brush. Jim, your good work tends to highlight, what a waste of RAA resources Gavin is... 1 1
turboplanner Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 It gripes me that Gavin's missals include the phrase "My WA members requested that I put the motion...." Let me say that while some WA members may have requested this questionable (under the circumstances) move, certainly not all are supportive of it!! In fact, when canvassed by Gavin in the days prior to it's circulation, myself and at least one other of his former supporters warned him that it could only lead to more charges of attempting to gag the meeting and further muddy the waters. Having bogged on regardless, his subsequent communications should also state that he is not following the wishes of some of his constituents. In the days since his broadcast request for proxys I have spoken to three WA members who responded as requested and who later expressed regret that they weren't aware of the multiple reasons for the petition for the GM by concerned RAA members last Nov. So, for what it's worth, there will be a sizeable content of ignorance in whatever block of proxys are carried by the WA Rep to the meeting. Mind you, the responsibility for that rests with those who were yarded up like sheep assuming all was right in Canberra. Riled up Riley Those members who gave proxies to contravene the RAA Constitution should consider very carefully what will be the consequences; it may be safer for you to withdraw them now And Jim you would need a formal motion or statement of disagreement with the other board members on the record to be safe. What has been uncovered over the past months is well beyond a slight difference of opinion. 1 1
horsefeathers Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 OK. So what is the motive behind the secrecy / lack of communication with members (Jim and John are specifically excluded from these comments). I have read just about all these postings, but STILL cant get my head around WHY the board is being so apparently obstructionist and non-communicative. <RANT MODE> FFS, I just want this board to stop playing politics - tell us if there is problems, register my plane and licence, and behave like grown ups. IT IS NOT THEIR ORGANISATION!!! WHY do they have to circle the wagons???Why do they see the members as the enemy?? WHY take this bloody minded US and THEM attitude??? (Yes Gavin, I'm talking directly to you) its like a frigging kindergarten - I'm disgusted with this behaviour. (Oh and BTW, why do I have to pay an annual licence fee for my plane registration, when my annual licence renewal pays for insurance?????) </RANT MODE> 1
facthunter Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Every thing that I have seen from Gavin make me regret that he beat the former WA candidate ( Ed Smith) a perfectly good rep by ONE vote. What a pity. Having put himself up and (it must be said he is perfectly entitled to do) he has then aligned himself with the problem and obstructed the solution. Did he live up to the expectations of the WA members for serious reform? Big disappointment Gavin. You have been hoodwinked and the insults should not be part of your response. This organisation cannot be run by people with an "Our Gang" mentality such as you are part of . Nev 3 1
AlfaRomeo Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Interestingly, in his bid for election in 2011 Gavin Thobaven wrote in his election manifesto published in SportPilot: "I believe my experience in dealing with legal procedure and interpreting legislation would be of some benefit to the membership." Well, you need to know what State or Territory the Association is incorporated in, and what legislation applies and then you need to actually read the Act and the Regulations before you can interpret it. "I am well aware of the obligations for people sitting on Boards of Management." No doubt the ACT's Office of Regulatory Services will consider this statement when Thobaven pleads ignorance of his responsibilities under the Act and the Constitution - both of which he is a party to breaching. No leniency available to a learned Board Member like you Mr Thobaven! In the rest of his statement, there is a lot about Gavin and what a great bloke he is but almost nothing about what he would do if elected. Oddly enough, there was no statement along the lines that "While I am on the Board you must appreciate that I will be a volunteer and not accountable for anything as anything that goes wrong will be somebody else's fault." And Thobaven beat Ed Smith by 1 vote. I think Gavin might regret that narrowest of wins before the ORS is done with him. Alf
Guest bluespot Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 We have found a witch. May we burn him? Burn him! Burn! Burn him! Burn him! How do you know he is a witch? he writes like one. CROWD: Right! Yeah! Yeah! Bring him forward. Ian remembers -- "a friendly Association of like minded people" I remain to be convinced Forum decision making is much like the Monty Python villagers.
biggles5128 Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 This is turning out to be a very sad state of affairs indeed..... almost makes me regret leaving good old GA behind, not even CASA was this bad. The phrase "Divide and conquer" comes to mind.....
AlfaRomeo Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 bluespot (perhaps bs for short?) I don't understand how the factual situation described above could be compared to a bunch of superstitious, medieval, parochial characters intent on a bit of human pyromania. The people advocating change seem to me to have good reason to not want more of the same from the same people who have held the reins, in some cases, for more than 20 years. The old boys club on the Board may have done great things in the past but surely they have demonstrated in the last 12 months that they are just not capable of running a business the size of RA-Aus anywhere other than into the ground? biggles, if you're sick of all this imagine how sick of it the people are who've been trying for the last couple of years to get some professionalism into the way RA-Aus is run. There is no joy in this for anyone but if left to their own devices, all our aircraft could become hangar ornaments or almost worse still, CASA could get sick of being ignored 4 times a year and pull the pin and we'll all be catapulted into the wonderful environment known as GA (god awful?) . I agree it would be nice if this discussion didn't have to happen on RecFlying and RecFlying could get back to being the happy place it was 2 or 3 years back. Booting RA-Aus governance issues to an RA-Aus website and RecFlying going back to being the social, operational and technical place it was would be good for RecFlying. Alf 1 1
Admin Posted January 25, 2013 Author Posted January 25, 2013 I agree it would be nice if this discussion didn't have to happen on RecFlying and RecFlying could get back to being the happy place it was 2 or 3 years back. Booting RA-Aus governance issues to an RA-Aus website and RecFlying going back to being the social, operational and technical place it was would be good for RecFlying. Alf Hang on, isn't that a decision that Corrine and I will make? You said some pretty nasty things about this site and me personally on other web sites and your Facebook Group yet we have allowed you to post all your political RAAus Governance Issues here without question...have we not? Rest assured any, and I mean any and ALL RAAus Governance Issues WILL be discussed on this site if Corrine and I, and ALL the thousands of other site users wish them to be, whether they are first raised on the RAAus web site or not...sorry but I am just getting sick and tired of being told how to run this site, this resource for RAAus Members, and if it is not the RAAus Board doing it to me every way they can but now you...This site is now in its 9th year, 9 bloody long and hard years, successfully providing everything we can to all RAAus members, and even for your own political endeavours, and we will keep providing this resource to RAAus Members for another 9 years. 2
AlfaRomeo Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Ian, I have overstepped the mark - my apology for that. Let me assure you, I had no intention to offend. It is without question your prerogative. Alf 3
Admin Posted January 25, 2013 Author Posted January 25, 2013 Ian, I have overstepped the mark - my apology for that. Let me assure you, I had no intention to offend. It is without question your prerogative. Alf Thank you very much "Alf"...greatly appreciated
facthunter Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Remember pilots are supposed to work OK under stress chaps. It's not easy times. Nev
Tiger Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Given the posts that I have just seen under meetings - general meeting called, and above here, it appears that the board member Gavin Thobaven has no concept of meeting protocol, procedures, legal issues or any other issues required to remain in the position of being on a board, any board for that matter. This is also totally contrary of his post when he applied for the board position. Mr. Thobaven has demonstrated that he is not fit to be an RAAus board member and therefore should resign his position on the board forthwith before the members apply, I think someone said, rule 17 of the constitution, and terminate his position. Natural justice has been mentioned somewhere. Mr. Thobaven has brought the Board of RA-Aus and the other members of RA-Aus into disrepute. He has had natural justice applied through this website link already and has demonstrated how he personally is not becoming of a RA-Aus board member. It is also up to the other board members to point this out to Mr. Thobaven and solicit his resignation now before he does any more harm to OUR RAA. Regarding proxies, someone mentioned they had given some to Mr. Thobaven without understanding the full situation. Does this indicate that Mr Thobaven has been soliciting proxies from members without due process and correct information?Before any member gives anyone a proxy, we are bound by ethics to explain the questions and issues that are of concern, to share with that person their intentions, and in what circumstances a proxy would be used. If you want to withdraw your proxy, put it in writing to RA-Aus and if you wish to make a new proxy, that is your decision now that you are better informed. Your proxy may be the one that will guide RA-Aus into the future. Remember Mr. Thobaven only won his position by one vote. It could now be one misplaced proxy that could make all the difference! I have been told that one member had refused to give a proxy over the past weeks until they had solicited as much information about the meeting, the process and what the intentions of their proposed proxy holder would be. That is an informed member who really cares about OUR RA-Aus!. 3 1
webbm Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 This is exactly the kind of situation I was worried about in this post. Though it wasn't directed toward a Board member (or a non-Board member for that matter!!) Although he is well within his right to be representing as many members as he wants to through proxies, and I agree that some items should be voted on directly by members (such as constitutional changes, board elections), I would trust that the attendees would take the appropriateness of motions into consideration when they are presented and debated. An overarching gag on the whole meeting is certainly not appropriate. Is the concept of quorums in our constitution? If not, there needs to be. In any case, this is a good reminder to try to have legal opinion prepared on motions you may raise and motions that may come up. If any actions of any attendee is considered illegal to our Constitution or the laws it supplements, have it on record. Demand it be recorded in the minutes (or video/audio recording preferably, which I checked should be allowed. RA-Aus By-Law 5.1.b is only applicable to Board Meetings) and lodge a complaint with the relevant authorities. 2 1
Spriteah Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Gents and ladies, Or Ladies and Gents, If any of you have signed a proxy form and believe you have not been correctly informed then I urge you to contact the proxy holder and remove your authority. I would strongly suggest your also express your concerns if you were not correctly informed and attach the email to others including board members such as myself. If you are in this predicament please email or call me if you want further advice. Email: [email protected] or phone 0403 22 8986. Regards, Jim Tatlock Victorian State Rep and RAA board member 6
AlfaRomeo Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 . . . Is the concept of quorums in our constitution? . . . The quorum for a General Meeting is 7 ordinary members.
facthunter Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 Hardly a barrier to holding one. One could argue whether that is large enough to serve the purpose of having a quorum. Nev 3
webbm Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 The quorum for a General Meeting is 7 ordinary members. Let 's hope at least 7 turn up... 1
JohnMcK Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 Oh Andy. - This is not correct. - "And yet that is exactly what your board is trying to do. Have a read of the following exchange between myself and the board (bottom up):-" Andy, a better choice of words could perhaps be - "Some Board Members ..........." Guys, (and Carol) the last reply was not acceptable from a Board Representative to a general Member. Full stop. Perhaps the hour of the post clouded the judgement. It is normal that there will be many different opinions on the one subject, and it is so vitally important that there is civil discussion, and civil argument, about those opinions. After all we all belong to the one Association, unlike Parliament, where the antagonist belong to different political parties. Regards, John McK 9
Recommended Posts