Head in the clouds Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 It may be easy to police and fine 10 or even a 100 people if caught flying UL aircraft after a Total Grounding. Try policing and fining 1000 pilots. Not going to happen. Actually that's exactly what did happen - and when there were a lot less than 1000 of us (more like 200) in the whole of Australia flying ultralights, that's why we eventually had to form the AUF. Kim Beasley (he was Minister for Aviation at the time) was there at the inauguration to congratulate us on seeing sense at last ... It was all quite funny really, looking back on it. Unload the trailer, assemble the plane, go flying, get back overhead to see the DoA car parked at the airfield, fly away and land at another airfield or paddock instead. Thumb your nose at them, thumb a lift home, get your wife to drive you back to the first airfield. Drive the first car and trailer home because you couldn't go to where you'd left the plane with the DoA bloke following you. Go and collect the plane the next day. Do it all again the next weekend from a different airstrip. Or not, if the DoA bloke decided to sit outside your house and wait for you to head out. Oh, I forgot to mention - pay the ever increasing fines when you did get Court. And it wasn't even illegal to fly them, it was the crossing roads, and the overweight aircraft that were the issues. You miss my point! EDIT - sorry I did miss your point Jamel. As someone else mentioned, via RAAus, and you'd get an email, or phone call if you haven't given them an email. That's the secondary method. The primary method is, of course, by NOTAM. So as you access your NOTAMs before going for a fly you'd get a horrible shock. You do get your NOTAMS each time you fly don't you ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I have good reason to believe that Keith's previous suggestion may not be folly on his part.....And for those who may think CASA doesn't have the ability to close us down overnight, should seriously think again as it would be very obvious they haven't had much experience dealing with CASA. IF CASA does withdraw our authority to operate overnight, I would personally suspect that those in CASAs' office of Sport -Aviation who may be pulling strings (and we all know who I refer to there) may also like me, simply be pissed off and very bored with the pack of hounds who have been simply playing politics with Raas' current situations and problems, instead of recognising those experienced people we do need in the organisation for the future . If I happen to be completely off the mark on this assumption (and that's possible), it doesn't matter a hoot, as either way those who are pulling the strings from above (and who have past board and exec office holder experience, as we know) will be playing an Ace card that they have had stuck up their sleeve all along...They of all people, do know who are good for our future, and who are not......interesting times indeed !.................Maj........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 And by the way in case you haven't noticed the poll is now is now in the 'yes' box......?.............Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulh Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Wonder if the proximity of the federal election is helping us at the moment? Surely the minister (and therefore CASA) would be wary of pissing off 10,000 pilots this close to an election? Might be a factor in CASA's deliberations... I wondering if this is really an advantage to us? My perception of the general public's feeling about ultralight flying is that we are a group of noise making risk takers who expose them to some risk when we fall out of the sky into their backyard. Politics seems to involve a lot about perceptions of the voter etc so it could be very easy for a pollie to say that the xyz party has saved the general public from having to worry about little aeroplanes crashing. ( not meant by any means to initiate any discussion about federal politics) Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamel Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Actually that's exactly what did happen - and when there were a lot less than 1000 of us (more like 200) in the whole of Australia flying ultralights, that's why we eventually had to form the AUF. Kim Beasley (he was Minister for Aviation at the time) was there at the inauguration to congratulate us on seeing sense at last ...It was all quite funny really, looking back on it. Unload the trailer, assemble the plane, go flying, get back overhead to see the DoA car parked at the airfield, fly away and land at another airfield or paddock instead. Thumb your nose at them, thumb a lift home, get your wife to drive you back to the first airfield. Drive the first car and trailer home because you couldn't go to where you'd left the plane with the DoA bloke following you. Go and collect the plane the next day. Do it all again the next weekend from a different airstrip. Or not, if the DoA bloke decided to sit outside your house and wait for you to head out. Oh, I forgot to mention - pay the ever increasing fines when you did get Court. And it wasn't even illegal to fly them, it was the crossing roads, and the overweight aircraft that were the issues. EDIT - sorry I did miss your point Jamel. As someone else mentioned, via RAAus, and you'd get an email, or phone call if you haven't given them an email. That's the secondary method. The primary method is, of course, by NOTAM. So as you access your NOTAMs before going for a fly you'd get a horrible shock. You do get your NOTAMS each time you fly don't you ... [ATTACH=full]22744[/ATTACH] Of course! Every time I go up for a water run or to have a gecko at the fences, the first thing I do is check the NOTAMS 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 The public would not be behind as at all, they haven't been from day 1, to them we're just simply another pack of crazies out there intent on killing themselves , and hopefully not landing on their roof when we do it !......................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Greed Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 There comes a time when the only way to fix something that is completely broken, or out of hours, is to re-build; and the RAAus operation is both. I began following this forum after a letter from our Club regarding RAAus membership was ignored, as was the follow-up phone call to the RAAus President. This forum has been one of the few insights into the governance, management and operations of RAAus, and while discussions are mainly management and operations oriented, provides those of us removed from the action with at least some indication of what is transpiring within the organisation. I say "mainly management and operations" because that is where most of the comments and opinions are directed. It became evident to me as an Ex General Manager and current Board member of community based businesses, the issues of governance and strategic planning, were at the heart of the problems that confront RAAus . At that time I began posting my concerns on this forum and have been consistent in my criticisms of the confusion that exists between true governance, and management. This is not about personalities. It is however about a culture that exists within RAAus that must be purged before proper governance and management process can be implemented. A fresh start based on a team approach that makes a clear distinction between the Chairman/Board and the CEO/Staff and additionally the obligations we might have to those we partner with; be they Government, through Deeds of Agreement, or like associated organisations, via Memorandums. In the absence of a strategic plan, embraced by the membership, RAAus is rudderless. And, as I said in a previous post - simply to overlay good governance over poor operations does not solve the problem. Lets continue to draw our Board members from our membership, but when necessary, skill them in corporate governance - rather than move to a professional academic model of the corporate sector. I for one was very disappointed at the lack of action since the Feb EGM (which we attended). I would suspect that we now face a serious situation with regard to RAAus and its relationship with CASA and can understand CASA's frustration at not only the inaction, but the lack of real understanding of government process. RAAus needs to buy in professional help as the back-yard approach to restoration is no longer appropriate (if it ever was). For this to happen the current board must resolve to put in place the actions that will set the re-structure in motion. After all the stewardship of RAAus is their primary role. Not to act would, in my opinion, run the risk of serious ramifications for the Board and, of course, its members. Without a formal relationship with CASA, RAAus would become an empty shell with the decisions of recreational aviation being made by others. We have a board........lets put the pressure on them to respond before its too late. Pete 1 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Pete I'm pleased to see this version of the advertisement appears to be moving in the right direction, however the current crisis is very simple. A group of elected officials were made aware by CASA that they are not complying with the Deed of Agreement. There is some confusion on the timing of that, it could have been several years ago. However we know that the duties of the board members to comply with this were spelled out in a document three years ago. While at least two Presidents are alleged to have tried to get their boards to bring the Association into compliance a majority of board members have not supported them. So the situation is as simple as x number of people, who were elected to represent the members appear to have thought they could ignore their statutory duties. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodo Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 So the situation is as simple as x number of people, who were elected to represent the members appear to have thought they could ignore their statutory duties. I am not sure that is correct. At the EGM, all the board clearly wanted to resolve these problems and move on, but despite everything they have said, nothing has changed. The conclusion I draw from that, and from the posts I have seen here, is that pretty much all the board are doing their best, believe they are doing the right things, and yet, the board is dysfunctional, does not communicate within itself or to the membership, and cannot form a unified view. For a typical example, if CASA has delivered an ultimatum to RA, both verbally, and now in writing, why is the only information to members that a position was created and filled due to unspecified urgency? I give up. I'd like to think that firing x, or electing y would improve the situation, but frankly, if I was CASA, I would have the same view that they appear to have: "If after all this time, and so many warnings, RA can't resolve these issues, we must find someone who can!" Nothing has changed. Our elected representatives are going to drag us into disaster. dodo 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Actually that's exactly what did happen - and when there were a lot less than 1000 of us (more like 200) in the whole of Australia flying ultralights, that's why we eventually had to form the AUF. Kim Beasley (he was Minister for Aviation at the time) was there at the inauguration to congratulate us on seeing sense at last ...It was all quite funny really, looking back on it. Unload the trailer, assemble the plane, go flying, get back overhead to see the DoA car parked at the airfield, fly away and land at another airfield or paddock instead. Thumb your nose at them, thumb a lift home, get your wife to drive you back to the first airfield. Drive the first car and trailer home because you couldn't go to where you'd left the plane with the DoA bloke following you. Go and collect the plane the next day. Do it all again the next weekend from a different airstrip. Or not, if the DoA bloke decided to sit outside your house and wait for you to head out. Oh, I forgot to mention - pay the ever increasing fines when you did get Court. And it wasn't even illegal to fly them, it was the crossing roads, and the overweight aircraft that were the issues. EDIT - sorry I did miss your point Jamel. As someone else mentioned, via RAAus, and you'd get an email, or phone call if you haven't given them an email. That's the secondary method. The primary method is, of course, by NOTAM. So as you access your NOTAMs before going for a fly you'd get a horrible shock. You do get your NOTAMS each time you fly don't you ... [ATTACH=full]22744[/ATTACH] All I will say is- Is that they better start employing ALOT of DoA blokes if they want to successful at policing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryc Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 There comes a time when the only way to fix something that is completely broken, or out of hours, is to re-build; and the RAAus operation is both.I began following this forum after a letter from our Club regarding RAAus membership was ignored, as was the follow-up phone call to the RAAus President. This forum has been one of the few insights into the governance, management and operations of RAAus, and while discussions are mainly management and operations oriented, provides those of us removed from the action with at least some indication of what is transpiring within the organisation. I say "mainly management and operations" because that is where most of the comments and opinions are directed. It became evident to me as an Ex General Manager and current Board member of community based businesses, the issues of governance and strategic planning, were at the heart of the problems that confront RAAus . At that time I began posting my concerns on this forum and have been consistent in my criticisms of the confusion that exists between true governance, and management. This is not about personalities. It is however about a culture that exists within RAAus that must be purged before proper governance and management process can be implemented. A fresh start based on a team approach that makes a clear distinction between the Chairman/Board and the CEO/Staff and additionally the obligations we might have to those we partner with; be they Government, through Deeds of Agreement, or like associated organisations, via Memorandums. In the absence of a strategic plan, embraced by the membership, RAAus is rudderless. And, as I said in a previous post - simply to overlay good governance over poor operations does not solve the problem. Lets continue to draw our Board members from our membership, but when necessary, skill them in corporate governance - rather than move to a professional academic model of the corporate sector. I for one was very disappointed at the lack of action since the Feb EGM (which we attended). I would suspect that we now face a serious situation with regard to RAAus and its relationship with CASA and can understand CASA's frustration at not only the inaction, but the lack of real understanding of government process. RAAus needs to buy in professional help as the back-yard approach to restoration is no longer appropriate (if it ever was). For this to happen the current board must resolve to put in place the actions that will set the re-structure in motion. After all the stewardship of RAAus is their primary role. Not to act would, in my opinion, run the risk of serious ramifications for the Board and, of course, its members. Without a formal relationship with CASA, RAAus would become an empty shell with the decisions of recreational aviation being made by others. We have a board........lets put the pressure on them to respond before its too late. Pete I agree with all that you have said Pete but how do you suppose we put pressure on the board. All of the ways that we have come up with to date have failed. The idea that we all ring our rep and then magically all's well is not going to cut it now. I have no intention of asking my rep to hand his vote over to Ed so he can do as he pleases. I've been saying all along that following proper processes is not optional and just because out backs are to the wall doesn't mean we throw that out of the window. Casa would be just as frustrated with Raa's poor governance as it is with non compliance. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 The statutory duties in this urgent issue being compliance with the CASA requirement of a Safety Management System. I agree with you to some extent dodo. My first instinct would be to call a meeting, get them all into the same room; go over the CASA documents very carefully so no one could misinterpret what is required of them; hand out the CASA information on board member obligations; explain the consequences to thousands of people of failing to comply with the deed of agreement; have a cup of tea; read the riot act; and kick their arses into submission. There is a simple job to do; it has to be done 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I have good reason to believe that Keith's previous suggestion may not be folly on his part.....And for those who may think CASA doesn't have the ability to close us down overnight, should seriously think again as it would be very obvious they haven't had much experience dealing with CASA.IF CASA does withdraw our authority to operate overnight, I would personally suspect that those in CASAs' office of Sport -Aviation who may be pulling strings (and we all know who I refer to there) may also like me, simply be pissed off and very bored with the pack of hounds who have been simply playing politics with Raas' current situations and problems, instead of recognising those experienced people we do need in the organisation for the future . If I happen to be completely off the mark on this assumption (and that's possible), it doesn't matter a hoot, as either way those who are pulling the strings from above (and who have past board and exec office holder experience, as we know) will be playing an Ace card that they have had stuck up their sleeve all along...They of all people, do know who are good for our future, and who are not......interesting times indeed !.................Maj........... Hi Maj, there is a difference between CASA having the ability to close the RAA down. To CASA getting everybody to comply with any closing down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Escadrille Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Guys I emailed Mark Clayton RAA CEO wrt to RA AUs being shut down and he sent me this in reply. Rumours – I am unable to add anything here since I hadn’t heard anything along these lines, before now. Long experience has also taught me to ignore rumours, and deal only with facts. In relation to the latter, I can say that we were visited last Friday by a CASA delegation who were here to discuss in detail the renewal terms for our 2013-2014 RA-Aus/CASA Agreement. It seems odd that they would send a delegation down for this purpose, if they were also looking to shut us down. I think there is a lot of misinformation at the moment and it would be prudent if we avoid panic and scare mongering... Just my thoughts. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Hi Maj, there is a difference between CASA having the ability to close the RAA down. To CASA getting everybody to comply with any closing down. Dazza, Not really any difference if you want to stay out of jail, or keep whatever you currently own to finance staying out of jail. unfortunatly the penalities for non-compliance of federal regulations are well spelt out, and quite severe in some cases. Is it really worth having your prized possesion impounded on arrival back at your hangar, and then sold to the highest bidder at the next government auction ??.............................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 We've all had enough of the 'board bashing'. Now is the time to work as a team. Back to the thread."Training Compliance" Are you all aware that there is now a "Federal Education Board"? (my name for it) this mob requires all training to be done in accordance with the "Australian Quality Training Framework" There is actually a federally approved training module called "How to land an aeroplane" and a list of many others, of course. Unfortunately whether we like it or not, we have to conform to this training format just like all the schools and TAFE's do. At present, we don't use any of the approved training modules, or use the correct new processes. Also, under AQTF, that training shall be presented by a holder of Cert IV in Training and Assessment, (or above). the rules require tracable training and assessment carried out as per the strict process. Until we start following these new training rules it is unlikely that CASA will be happy with our concept of training compliance. This is what Myles is ultimately (I think, but nobody has actually confirmed it) tasked with bringing to RAAus. Peter T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 If we do have to comply with the AQTF, then it looks like we will have to get all instructors to get a Cert IV in Training and Assessment. This is usually a three to six month course one full day a week plus extras, and costs between $1000 and about $2000 depending on how and where it is done. I would like to hear whether this will be part of the new training regime for RAAus? Peter T 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 We should not under any circumstances be taking up the time of the RAA staff over this. this is totally to do with board members. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Are you all aware that there is now a "Federal Education Board"? (my name for it) this mob requires all training to be done in accordance with the "Australian Quality Training Framework" If you are referring to ASQA, their jurisdiction is for vocational training which RAAus & (probably) PPL most certainly isn't. There is actually a federally approved training module called "How to land an aeroplane" and a list of many others, of course. These units of competency are aligned to compliment the CPL training syllabus . Unfortunately whether we like it or not, we have to conform to this training format just like all the schools and TAFE's do. No - we don't. At present, we don't use any of the approved training modules, or use the correct new processes. Also, under AQTF, that training shall be presented by a holder of Cert IV in Training and Assessment, (or above). the rules require tracable training and assessment carried out as per the strict process. AFAIK its not mandatory even for CPL training to be conducted by RTO (or Cert IV T&A holders). Only a trivial number of flight schools offering CPL course are registered (& those mostly seem to cater for overseas students where (I think) the RTO status makes it easier for them to get study visas. Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 There's an old saying Alfa "He doth quote himself too oft" Not sure who said that or how it applies to me? Not a slur or innuendo is it? (definition: "Innuendo" - Italian suppository?) If it seems I make the same point over it is because it is still valid and has never been the subject of a logical, argued correction. All we get is unsubstantiated statements of a contrary position that basically adds up to "the ends justifies the means" and we had to do it and stop criticising the breach of good governance. This is no time for slurs and innuendo against Keith Tempting as that may be there is no slur nor innuendo about Keith in anything I have posted here. Saying it doesn't make it so TP. Keith's information will either be right or wrong." 10/10 for that one. However, as it turns out we now know that it is NOT true - but don't expect to see a retraction any time soon from KP. Tiger flying large aircraft and carrying fare paying passengers is rightly subject to a higher standard than need be applied to ultralights - a sport know to have certain risks that the people who take up that sport are well aware of and manage to some extent. I doubt that Tiger makes for comparing apples with apples. . . . and certainly no time to try to justify the part you played in this. Like to elaborate your innuendo so that I can copy it to Slater & Gordon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 . . . I'd say that if a couple of Board members don't stop and have a long hard think about what's good for the Association at this critical time, and support the President rather than continuing to worry about their injured sensibilities, then we'll all be grounded . . . I'd suggest those Board members put aside their prejudices for a short while so that we can comply with the CASA 'Directive' (which is what it now is) and those members can revisit their indignation when the essential work has been done and the SMS is fully established. (My highlights)What you seem to be suggesting HITC, is that our elected representatives who don't subscribe to the principle (lack of principle?) of "the ends justifies the means" should forsake their principles and do whatever Ed wants done HIS way? Use of words with a pejorative context is hardly elevating the debate. These are the sorts of words that could attract a "slur" criticism from Turbo except that he agrees with your pretext. You don't seem to get that ignoring the Rules is what got RA-Aus into this mess in the first place. In aviation I have learned that Rules are not optional - you don't get to just follow the ones you are OK with. This was not a new lesson to me but rather expected. The same principle applies in all walks of life. And, please explain to me how you came to know that there is a CASA Directive motivating the President? Have you seen it? Has it been published in the Members Only Section of the RA-Aus website? Or are you presuming? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Bagging some aspect/bias of opinion is not justified. We are here to discuss. If SOMEONE knows EVERYTHING about this please enlighten ME (and others). Speculation is not fact but proper process is definable and not being done. People are being seriously compromised here and it has gone on for too long so why wouldn't a few caring people want answers and assurances that we will behave properly. How can that be too much to ask? Anyhow just ticking boxes won't stop planes falling out of the sky. There's some fundamental lack of skills and attitiudes that need addressing in the ACTUAL operational area. Australia used to have some of the best flyers around and was an aviation nation. Nev 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 . . . Whatever your feeling about Ed's actions may be, it had to be done, and I now see why he was right. We've had a good discussion about it on this thread and the wheels are in motion to change the entire way RAAus runs in the future but until September it's imperative that we maintain the status quo. Feelings? You mean like bitter disappointment that what Ed said in front of the EGM last February counted for nothing and yet we took him at his word? Feelings like disbelief that Ed's judgement was so off that he thought he could just ram through HIS way against the express wishes of the Board majority? Feelings like astonishment that Ed would nominally commit RA-Aus to a course of action with CASA that he had not first obtained approval from the Board to make that commitment? What will he be telling CASA tomorrow afternoon and will it have been approved by the Board or will it be more of Ed shooting from the hip? This has now become a very serious situation. Think carefully if you value your flying privilege. I IMPLORE you all, just for now - STOP the bickering and phone your Rep and tell him to support Ed NOW. If Ed doesn't have the support of ALL of the Board (and he doesn't, that's the problem) we will all be grounded soon, believe me!Your Rep's number is here - pick up the phone PLEASE! Did you ever stop to consider that the majority on the Board might actually be right? Is it not totally disrespectful to people you don't know or know how they voted or why? People can't be damned because they have a different view of how this matter should be resolved. Clearly, Ed is not listening. Do we not run a democratic system? Majority rule? There is nothing about a democracy that says the majority will always get it right but they have the right to have their view acted on. It is a bit like the jury system, a crap system but better than the alternative. The Board Majority will not have a bar of the nepotism that Myles's appointment represents - Ed has to support that not the other way around. Ed is just another Board Members he does not out rank the Board, he is the servant of the Board. He is not the Captain in the left seat. That is not how a Board works. Have a look at the definition of bickering. "Yes it is/ no it isn't / Yes it is". That is bickering. An interchange of assembled facts, tied together with a logical train of thought is not bickering even if you don't like the outcome of that process. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 . . . how many people have actually spoken with their local Rep in the last week? . . . I spoke at length with Ed on the phone and have also spoken with three Board Members and written to another. Now, imagine if 1,000 of our 10,000 members did that and they became well informed and communicated their wishes to the Board? A good thing? A good start? Not really because despite the Board Members getting drowned in those enquiries 90% of RA-Aus members would still be in the pitch dark and would not have communicated their preferences to the Board. That is no way to communicate with Members. Steve Runciman always used to say "ring me" but very few people did - why? Because that is a ridiculous way to attempt to have a meaningful communication with 10,000 peopel. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaRomeo Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I have good reason to believe that Keith's previous suggestion may not be folly on his part..... Is it not folly to "cry wolf"? Isn't that what Keith has done? And for those who may think CASA doesn't have the ability to close us down overnight, should seriously think again as it would be very obvious they haven't had much experience dealing with CASA. IF CASA does withdraw our authority to operate overnight, I would personally suspect that those in CASAs' office of Sport -Aviation who may be pulling strings (and we all know who I refer to there) may also like me, simply be pissed off and very bored with the pack of hounds who have been simply playing politics with Raas' current situations and problems, instead of recognising those experienced people we do need in the organisation for the future . Nobody doubts CASA's ability to do just that. There are grave doubts that they would take the decision lightly. That they would take this action because some people have been critical of governance and communications failures defies logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now