CASA --- RAAus Relationship?

[David Isaac]

..........I believe it is important to communicate with the membership, as a board member, and it is still high on my list of personal priorities.

That was until I recieved really inappropriate applies from some, on this forum, including from our ever- present resident idiot FT.

 

I was then effectively gagged on this forum by the removal of several of my posts, by one of the forum adjudicators, unnecessarily in my opinion.

 

I now understand why other board members rarely post on this forum. It has nothing to do with board confidentially, or being 'gagged'....I for one was prepared to take that risk to keep members in the loop, and to accept the circumstances if necessary.

 

No, it is because of all the unnecessary non- productive responses one receives when attempting to do so, often from people who are 1. Not even paid RAA members anyway. 2. have no understanding of how the system works, and aren 't interested in learning about it...Maj....

Sorry to hear this is the consequence of what you have detailed above Maj. I haven't been on this forum for some time and it concerns me that you refer to your posts being deleted. Is this a new version of censorship?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Censorship has been very restrained lately so more likely a hot exchange.

 

 

[Teckair]

As an example (fictitious)..... If i was looking to purchase an aircraft Brand xxx but heard on he grapevine that brand xxx had such bad safety problems that RAAus had grounded the fleet. I contact my Rep and ask if this is true that all Brand xxx aircraft have been grounded? My Rep tells me that the Board has in fact discussed this aircraft type and they have not been grounded. (this is true but only the information he is allowed to repeat) What he is not allowed to repeat at this time is that the RAAus has contacted the manufacturer of Brand xxx and demanded they show what actions they have done to remedy the situation or the fleet will be grounded.

To me Kev that would be only half the truth and would be misleading and unacceptable. The answer I would expect in that situation is "Sorry but I am not able to comment on that". If anybody has evidence of anything this sort of thing happening then I am sure they would have said something.

 

I have no reason to disbelieve that Maj knows why other Board Members don't post on this forum.

This the part you needed to understand.

 

I now understand why other board members rarely post on this forum. It has nothing to do with board confidentially, or being 'gagged'

[Aerochute Kev]

To me Kev that would be only half the truth and would be misleading and unacceptable. The answer I would expect in that situation is "Sorry but I am not able to comment on that". If anybody has evidence of anything this sort of thing happening then I am sure they would have said something.This the part you needed to understand.

I understand this to mean he knows other Reps do not post here because of the negative feedback or personal attacks they may receive, not because they have been told they cannot post on a forum for confidentiality reasons.

I'm pretty sure I have not said one personally negative thing about Maj or the job he is doing in his role as our Rep. If you find one of my posts that I have, I will withdraw it or apologise unreservedly because that is not my intention. As said before, this is not about what the Reps are doing but a system that requires a duly elected Rep, with lawful access to all RAAus information granted by the constitution, being withheld by someone unless they sign a further document swearing them to secrecy/confidentiality. THAT is not part of our constitution and I doubt would be even lawful.

 

I'm not sure where you are going with this Techy, as we seem to believe in the same thing, that these documents should not exist and a duly elected Rep should have access to all information held by RAAus, as specified in the constitution, without having to swear allegiance to the Board "club". Communication with the members cannot be improved as long as it is in place. I have not claimed there should be no confidentiality at all, if the situation requires it, but that has to be determined by the Board on a case by case basis and not just a blanket secrecy on the whole of the Board activities.

 

Perhaps that raises another issue in that any other elected official will be sworn into that position. Maybe it is time we did a similar thing with swearing in elected officials where they swear to act in an honest, open and accountable manner to the benefit of the organisation. Maybe a sworn oath will negate the need for such a confidentiality agreement? Just a thought.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Ross,

 

Keeping the comms open makes sense, just don't engage the stupid hot stuff. Keep cool and keep up the comms it is appreciated by all.

 

It is a mistake to criticise anyone who is enquiring, it is after all our basic right, however, I don't appreciate the needless baiting activities of a particular contributor.

 

This a great media for keeping in touch with a great number of truly interested members, don't throw the baby our with the bath water buddy.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Hey Maj talking openly and passionately about something you love is not a crime, not inappropriate and given your in a voluntary capacity those that want you to stop can bite my ### .....

 

Stay real ignore the knockers. Doesn't matter what you say and how good you do something 10% of people will have a problem with you and express disgust.

 

I think your doing a great job and I think you talking openly and honestly without inhibition by the controlling thought police is worth 100 times their attempt to silence you.... Just remember Ross everyone who ever did anything great in this world was considered crazy or non conforming by the conformist thought police. In reality what dod the thought police and conformists ever contribute to society . Nothing. They just used it to abuse power and enforce the status quo

 

The thought police have no roll in the modern world and they certainly dont serve a membership organisation by asking a board member to be silenced.

 

With social media giving everyone a voice , the thought police feel very threatened that they can no longer control people behind closed doors and use traditional media against them. You have been elected on your character. Use that character

 

 

[SDQDI]

I don't really like commenting on politics but I do enjoy putting my ten cents in:chuffed:.

 

In regards to what you are saying aero chute Kev I am a paid up member of RAA and they have all my details they know a lot of stuff about all of their members that is personal and needs to be kept confidential, so if someone wants access to all that info then I think it is absolutely necessary to have a confidentiality agreement to not do so would potentially be inviting big trouble. So I don't see the problem with holding confidential information back from someone who refused to agree to that. Obviously personal details would only be a small part of the confidential stuff involved in running RAA and I can see that there needs to be a clear line between what we need to know and what is needed to be kept confidential.

 

Yes we need a nice transparent process but we also need to be sensible about it.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I don't really like commenting on politics but I do enjoy putting my ten cents in:chuffed:.In regards to what you are saying aero chute Kev I am a paid up member of RAA and they have all my details they know a lot of stuff about all of their members that is personal and needs to be kept confidential, so if someone wants access to all that info then I think it is absolutely necessary to have a confidentiality agreement to not do so would potentially be inviting big trouble. So I don't see the problem with holding confidential information back from someone who refused to agree to that. Obviously personal details would only be a small part of the confidential stuff involved in running RAA and I can see that there needs to be a clear line between what we need to know and what is needed to be kept confidential.

 

Yes we need a nice transparent process but we also need to be sensible about it.

I'm not sure but don't think that information IS confidential. A confidentiality agreement between a Board Member and the Board itself won't cover this. According to our constitution it seems to be available to any member on request. From our constitution:

36. Inspection of books.

 

The records, books and other documents of the Association shall be open to inspection at a place in the ACT, free of charge, by a Member of the Association on request at any reasonable hour.

 

I assume this section of the constitution is to ensure that the staff or Board are not able to hide or otherwise deny access to important information to the Members (in reality, the owners of the organisation).

 

Maybe we should use this clause more often!!

 

 

[kaz3g]

I don't really like commenting on politics but I do enjoy putting my ten cents in:chuffed:.In regards to what you are saying aero chute Kev I am a paid up member of RAA and they have all my details they know a lot of stuff about all of their members that is personal and needs to be kept confidential, so if someone wants access to all that info then I think it is absolutely necessary to have a confidentiality agreement to not do so would potentially be inviting big trouble. So I don't see the problem with holding confidential information back from someone who refused to agree to that. Obviously personal details would only be a small part of the confidential stuff involved in running RAA and I can see that there needs to be a clear line between what we need to know and what is needed to be kept confidential.

 

Yes we need a nice transparent process but we also need to be sensible about it.

Personal details are protected by the Privacy Principles and are quite separate to general information held by the organisation.

 

Personal information can only be collected and stored for a legitimate purpose such as to comply with the business requirement to contact members to distribute aviation advice or renew certificates.

 

General information, such as minutes of general meetings and type-specific data of aircraft is not protected.

 

Some information of a general nature may have to remain confidential,for commercial reasons such as negotiations with a prospective new importer regarding type acceptance, or discussions at a Board meeting about prospective punitive action against an offending member.

 

I can't see any issue with any of this while people can be trusted to work together as a Board in the interests of the membership rather than, as apparently has happened some time in the past, taking decisions that are clearly in their personal interest but at the expense of the membership.

 

The best thing we can all do is consider whom we may favour with our vote and judge him or her on performance. Better 5 or 7 members good and true all working with the same level of diligence for the common good, than twice that many with a number of them only passengers along for the ride.

 

I do believe it is very important that our organisation presents a united, professional image to the world if it is to flourish and grow. That means differences need almost always be kept internal to the Board and that the Board should speak publicly with one voice unless matters of great moral compass are involved where an individual's right to freedom of expression is paramount.

 

It doesn't mean that the flow of information should be stifled nor that particular Board members should not encourage consultation and debate. That's all part of ensuring good governance by the Board and good management by the EO. It does mean respecting those who serve if the rest of us want respect too.

 

In that regard, I apologise for any personal offence occasioned by a previous post about the submission, Jim. Sometimes I forget I'm not in Court and am unforgivably blunt.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I was hoping you were around to comment on this, Thanks Kaz

 

Edit: Would this mean that the confidentiality agreement we are speaking of would not be necessary as those things that should ordinarily be considered confidential are already covered by other legislation?

 

Kev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

One way of putting it is ' the buck stops with the board' on many things, financially, operationally and all the rest too.

 

On most items a decision has to be made one way or the other. All of the board members are there for the membership and the health of the organisation.

 

I haven't yet seen a decision made, that hasn't been the best decision for all. Often unfortunatly , and many times where CASA is concerned, the final choice is the best of a bad choice...............Maj........

 

 

[turboplanner]

And there is no reason in the world to hide that final choice and share the other unpalatable choices with the members and infrastructure involved in providing facilities.

 

Out of 10,000 members there will be one with enough professional skills, to solve the problem a better wat.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't really like commenting on politics but I do enjoy putting my ten cents in:chuffed:.In regards to what you are saying aero chute Kev I am a paid up member of RAA and they have all my details they know a lot of stuff about all of their members that is personal and needs to be kept confidential, so if someone wants access to all that info then I think it is absolutely necessary to have a confidentiality agreement to not do so would potentially be inviting big trouble. So I don't see the problem with holding confidential information back from someone who refused to agree to that. Obviously personal details would only be a small part of the confidential stuff involved in running RAA and I can see that there needs to be a clear line between what we need to know and what is needed to be kept confidential.

 

Yes we need a nice transparent process but we also need to be sensible about it.

It would do you well to read through the old threads in the Governing Bodies section to see what allegedly WAS done with member information.

 

Apart from the fact that the individuals imposing this agreement have now power under the Association's constitution to do this, if there is no Constitutional Rule, then there are no boundaries to what might be genuinely confidential (usually only something discussed in rare "in camera" sessions) or what is required by the Incorporated Associations Act to be disclosed to all owners, and this is where Ross and the others engaged in this secrecy are leaving themselves open to future claims.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Pri

 

I was hoping you were around to comment on this, Thanks KazEdit: Would this mean that the confidentiality agreement we are speaking of would not be necessary as those things that should ordinarily be considered confidential are already covered by other legislation?

 

Kev

Privacy considerations are covered by legislation. This is the protection of personal information about a person...their personal affairs.

 

Information about matters under investigation is part of the area of law covered by procedural fairness sometimes called natural justice. This says, for example, that a person is entitled to know the substance of a complaint made against them.

 

Information that is before a court for consideration is protected by the rules covering contempt and we have all read about that media idiot with the big mouth who keeps on attempting to pervert the course of justice and jeopardises the prospect of convictions of those he rails against.

 

There is no formal protection for commercial in confidence other than that provided under FOI laws as best as I am aware. But an organisation is under no legal obligation to tell shareholders all that it's doing on a day to day basis. Confidentiality can actually protect the integrity of decisions rather than damage it because decision-makers will be more inclined to make the right decisions rather than the most popular ones. Conversely, it can avoid scrutiny which is what people here are concerned about. Choose your reps carefully and assess their performance is the best advice because when they meet for a Board meeting they ought be making those decisions in our collective best interest.

 

Confidentiality agreements are common instruments. I don't have a problem with them in general terms. It depends upon what they encompass and the motives behind those who might hide behind them.

 

Kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you submitting a tender you do not know the details of the others , or it is corrupted. At an auction you do. Inspection of any files kept on you should be available and you should have some right to correct inaccuracies. If someone who complains is known and suitably roughed up or penalised. No reports go in. There are logical consequences of many actions. Total transparency in everything is unworkable, at certain points in time when it is impractical. Deliberate deception is another matter. There is is a time when you put the best people in and let them get on with it. If you are trying to work your way through "negotiating" with CASA would you want each members opinion being available to all and sundry. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

I'm not sure where you are going with this Techy, as we seem to believe in the same thing

Yes I think you are correct there.

I think we have some good board members now who need our support.

 

I don't think the confidentiality agreement is still as much of a significant problem as you appear to think.

 

When you went number 4 on the serial pest team I thought your time could be better spent.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Yes I think you are correct there.I think we have some good board members now who need our support.

 

I don't think the confidentiality agreement is still as much of a significant problem as you appear to think.

 

When you went number 4 on the serial pest team I thought your time could be better spent.

I had no idea I was signing up for a "serial pest"team, merely stating my agreement with the opinion he was stating at that time. That does not mean i agree with everything else some of those posters had to say.

I agree we have some good board Members but I also remember the mess created when we had no information or control of the Boards direction. Some of those Board members may not have been at any fault but the members demanded more accountability and demanded an EGM to push that point. We have since changed some Board members but have made no changes to the processes that allowed that situation to develop in the first place. Regardless of how good or honest we think our current Board is, we must change the system to ensure such a situation can never occur again. Interestingly none of the Board Members elected since have been able to show they have been making any attempt to change the way the Board operates to make it more accountable.

 

Members have been accused of being apathetic as a reason the problems occurred, and I could well have been one of those. Not so much apathy but simply a case of not actually knowing what was happening within our association. I was flying, I was happy. I now know and as I wish to continue with my flying privileges will do whatever I can to make sure I am kept informed as the Board, even the current one, seem unable to keep the members up to date with what is happening within our association.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

And there is no reason in the world to hide that final choice and share the other unpalatable choices with the members and infrastructure involved in providing facilities.Out of 10,000 members there will be one with enough professional skills, to solve the problem a better wat.

Well he should be on the board then Turbo......................Maj.....

 

 

[Teckair]

I had no idea I was signing up for a "serial pest"team, merely stating my agreement with the opinion he was stating at that time.

FT never has anything good to say about anything but himself, the ALP and illegal immigrants if you find yourself in agreement with him think again because there is a very good chance you will be wrong. If you lie down with dogs you get up with flees.

 

Regardless of how good or honest we think our current Board is, we must change the system to ensure such a situation can never occur again. Interestingly none of the Board Members elected since have been able to show they have been making any attempt to change the way the Board operates to make it more accountable.

The ball is in the members court with this they have to not be apathetic and participate in elections and what ever is required, that means if you have a concern you should contact a board member, you have 13 to choose from. To expect the board to do everything for you is silly, they are volunteers, as for expecting the board to change how it operates do you even know if that is with in their power? I some how doubt it.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

We voted in new Reps on the basis of their claims to want to see things change from what was happening before. Their behavior may be better now but none of the process seems to have changed. That behavior could change at any time and it may take along time for us to find out.

 

Of course it is within the power of the Board to change things, that is what they are there for. The secrecy and confidentiality agreements are not part of the constitution, merely a process, something that someone introduced at some time thinking it would be a good idea. Turned out it was, for the Board, but not such a good idea for the members wanting to be able to keep an eye on what the Board are doing.

 

Any one of our Board Members could raise a motion at any Board meeting to have that document scrapped or amended so it cannot be used to hide information from members that they would ordinarily have a right to know.Don't forget that some of the Reps well involved in previous deceptions are still there.

 

Of course if it did happen, we would not know who voted for or against that motion as the minutes we get are cleverly devoid of information on how our Reps individually vote, so we cant tell if any one of them are not actually supporting the ideals that they stated when we voted for them.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Kev,

 

There are a number of special resolutions for constitutional amendment coming up at the General Meeting at Natfly that will require the minutes to record each Board members vote. They need to be supported

 

 

[Teckair]

Kev most the REPs are just ordinary people like you and I and I believe even though they get some things wrong they are not out to destroy the RAA. The confidentiality agreement is there because the majority of them think it should be. That means they don't have the power to change it.

 

Have you discussed it with any of the Reps? That is the only way you will find out about it and you can pass on your views to them.

 

Only the members have the power to change the REPs if they don't do it whose fault is it?

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

"Only the members have the power to change the REPs if they don't do it whose fault is it?"

 

We do........We did............ No additional accountability.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Kev,There are a number of special resolutions for constitutional amendment coming up at the General Meeting at Natfly that will require the minutes to record each Board members vote. They need to be supported

Thanks for that David. Where can we get more information as to what will be in that agenda, I cant find any info on RAAus site. Is there an agenda?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Richard,

 

You are not considering the EGM that was called and held in Canberra to hold the Board to account over a number of piss poor performance issues and one of them was this accountability issue relating to transparency of process and the attitude of secrecy.

 

I think most of us understand the need to maintain reasonable levels of confidentiality, but to use confidentiality as a reason not to communicate with transparency when matters should be known to members is what got the Board in trouble in the first instance.

 

The original confidentiality document was disgraceful and arguably illegal. It was changed and I believe the current version is benign, but until someone sends me a copy of the current one, I couldn't possibly know.

 

One thing is for sure that the platform on which pretty much all of the new Board members advertised was for transparency. I am seeing a lot more now than ever, but there are years of cluster Fs to fix up. For the moment I am prepared to give them space.

 

I am hoping that the Natfly GM will be an opportunity to provide the members with quality information on real progress. Having to deal with CASA would bring its own challenges (not all bad), but nevertheless a learning curve for all.