RAAus to disclose member details

[kasper]

Well the magazine with the column has been pulled from the RAAus member website and the magazine on Issuu has a totally different column.  

 

Wonder what went out in the printed magazine for November ...

 

 

[Downunder]

AAA, 340 members, website wont allow members identities to be seen for privacy

The irony that the RAA wants to give our details to a "company" that won't give out their members details ......

 

 

[Blinky Bill]

So much for a Members organisation (RA Aus), run by the Members for the benefit of the Members!

 

 

[frank marriott]

had reply from CEO, yes its happening

feels we should all pay our way but doesnt think councils should charge fees?????

 

no deal with avdata just AAA, 340 members, website wont allow members identities to be seen for privacy

 

Says tight rules on what released data to be used for

 

re cta deal, 75% of 1400 members surveyed supported cta access

 

fees issue has been discussed at 20 meetings/events and supported

Doesn’t sound like a draft to me.

 

Link and Monk giving replies,

 

one is telling porkies by the looks.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Well the magazine with the column has been pulled from the RAAus member website and the magazine on Issuu has a totally different column.  

Wonder what went out in the printed magazine for November ...

 

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

And while you lot are at it, you’d better get on to your respective motoring registration authorities who disclose your information to local councils when you overstay a parking meter.  Which by the way is a hell of a lot more than you’ll ever have to pay by way of landing fees

 

 

[turboplanner]

“this decision” is not “this draft”

 

 

[kasper]

And while you lot are at it, you’d better get on to your respective motoring registration authorities who disclose your information to local councils when you overstay a parking meter.  Which by the way is a hell of a lot more than you’ll ever have to pay by way of landing fees

Perfectly happy to be grumpy when there is a piece of legislation that provides for the provision of personal data to groups as exists with registration details of motor vehicles.  

 

Equally I’m Perfectly happy to call out breaches of legislation protecting personal information when there is no legislative or permissive need for that information to be transferred.

 

 

[kasper]

[ATTACH]38001[/ATTACH]

So it appears the DRAFT magazine was also sent to the printers and distributed ... great to see the quality systems at RAAus extend to the main external communication tool.  

 

 

[slb]

So it appears the DRAFT magazine was also sent to the printers and distributed ... great to see the quality systems at RAAus extend to the main external communication tool.  

So what was the point of deleting/changing the online magazine? This is the third time RAAus has had to backtrack recently. What’s next?

 

 

[frank marriott]

“Whilst RAAus accepts this decision may anger some members”. (Implied -  but I don’t care, RAAus is no longer interested   in the wishes of mere members, we will decide what will happen so there)

 

 

[Downunder]

"At this stage the agreement is limited to the members of the AAA." Trying to downplay and mitigate the fact that the members of the AAA (including avdata I assume) probably cover most, if not all, charging airports........

 

 

[Downunder]

“this decision” is not “this draft”

"We are pleased to announce an agreement HAS been struck....." Past tense, not future intention....

 

 

[Downunder]

And while you lot are at it, you’d better get on to your respective motoring registration authorities who disclose your information to local councils when you overstay a parking meter.  Which by the way is a hell of a lot more than you’ll ever have to pay by way of landing fees

This is the status quo. Nothing is being changed. You know what you are getting into with an expired meter.

 

The RAA on the other hand are REVERSING previous policy without member/ client support or authorisation.

 

And in fact publically approved and acknowledged this previous stance. Almost claiming it as an " advantage" to the RAA membership.

 

This is the difference.....

 

 

[facthunter]

 The issue is HOW this was arrived at and whether members rights as expressed by wishes/instructions were disregarded.  without prior warning ,advice or consultation.. Nev

 

 

[KRviator]

And while you lot are at it, you’d better get on to your respective motoring registration authorities who disclose your information to local councils when you overstay a parking meter.  Which by the way is a hell of a lot more than you’ll ever have to pay by way of landing fees

I dunno about that... I overstayed a parking meter in Brisbane once. $52 fine. But to do an hour of circuits at Warnervale will cost $82.50 - plus another $110 if I want to refuel there (not counting the cost of the actual fuel, either...)

 

I don't begrudge paying my way at all. What I have an issue with is a private organisation performing an extraordinarily quiet backflip on a well-known public policy - that was reaffirmed in writing as recently as 18 months ago, in an attempt to feather their own nest at my expense. And then being told I am the one who mis-read their privacy policy, when I called them out on it. 

 

Well the magazine with the column has been pulled from the RAAus member website and the magazine on Issuu has a totally different column.  

Wonder what went out in the printed magazine for November ...

Given they've gone to the trouble of actually removing and replacing it, it smacks of a cover up. Exactly the same as when I called them on the Privacy Policy and their URL's...Not even a mention of it in the December one, not even an 'errata' or correction advising the membership "a draft release went out last month, sorry about that".

 

One can only wonder just what is going on down in Canberra....

 

 

[NotSoSuperSonic]

One can only wonder just what is going on down in Canberra....

Fraud (including Corporate), Coverups, etc., etc...

 

 

[Keith Page]

Fraud (including Corporate), Coverups, etc., etc...

Isn't there an audit getting about which was done about something about 4 months ago. (Will stand being corrected on time)

 

This audit cover RAAus governance. I have not heard of anyone discussing it.

 

Is this audit stuck under the carpet?

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

Would (should?) the Board have had a say in this? If so surprising that someone didn't ask the question whether the proposal was legal given that most members indicated they didn't want their details revealed. Anyway - how do we get this reversed? Do we individually write to RAA confirming that we don't our personal  details revealed ? Other suggestions?  Thanks,  Bill

The "Board" is now a board of directors, no longer a board of management where the board members managed an association day by day and communicated with the members.

 

Most companies communicate with their customers through the CEO, Managers and appointed officials.

 

Directors usually show up at board meetings and look at company performance for the period, e.g. monthly or quarterly; they may call a manager in to the meeting to explain something, but that's about it.

 

So as much as the new structure has thrown up problems like this, the directors haven't deviated much from what would be expected of them.

 

Remember, many people have said on this forum over the years, "I only want to fly", and the famous words of one contributor; "No sense having a dog and barking yourself"

 

 

[NotSoSuperSonic]

The "Board" is now a board of directors, no longer a board of management where the board members managed an association day by day and communicated with the members.

Most companies communicate with their customers through the CEO, Managers and appointed officials.

 

Directors usually show up at board meetings and look at company performance for the period, e.g. monthly or quarterly; they may call a manager in to the meeting to explain something, but that's about it.

 

So as much as the new structure has thrown up problems like this, the directors haven't deviated much from what would be expected of them.

 

Remember, many people have said on this forum over the years, "I only want to fly", and the famous words of one contributor; "No sense having a dog and barking yourself"

 

The families and friends who have lost loved ones, or caring for those with serious injuries might have something to say if they found out about the dodgy conduct of RAAus staff.  And the public shouldn't be funding an organisation like the current RAAus.

 

 

[kasper]

The families and friends who have lost loved ones, or caring for those with serious injuries might have something to say if they found out about the dodgy conduct of RAAus staff.  And the public shouldn't be funding an organisation like the current RAAus.

Ah but you see as a not for profit company with turnover under $3m taking the govt money for activities that are within the scope of the govt authority is what makes RAAus subject to the privacy act ?.  

 

Take the money RAAus and you will find the information commissioner VERY interested in any agreement to hand over private information ... and that’s an address not just the name so any RAAus staff or board members reading this please note that by excluding the name of the registered owner does not remove the breach ... 

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Actually, as CASA funds RAAus in part under a contract the Privacy Act (ie RAAus is a ‘contracted service provider’ is defined in s 6(1) of the Act ) there is no lower limit to which the Act applies.

 

https://www.oaic.gov.au/agencies-and-organisations/app-guidelines/chapter-a-introductory-matters

 

 

[kasper]

Actually, as CASA funds RAAus in part under a contract the Privacy Act (ie RAAus is a ‘contracted service provider’ is defined in s 6(1) of the Act ) there is no lower limit to which the Act applies.

https://www.oaic.gov.au/agencies-and-organisations/app-guidelines/chapter-a-introductory-matters

Yep that’s what I was getting at.  Until turnover hits $3m - probably this year anyway - the continued acceptance of CASA cash means they are within the privacy act ... and that will mean that the board should fairly rapidly get a grip on management and possibly set out that breaking the law should not be part of their management plans.  

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

And then there is S.97AB of the Act which RAAus and CASA seem to be ignoring!

 

 

[NotSoSuperSonic]

Having just been shown a copy (as I no longer receive it myself) of M.Monk’s editorial in the current magazine which caused a bit of mirth, at least locally, normal irrelevant stuff until the last couple of paragraphs - it would be ironic if 4 board members throw him out after the mini non representative board was his (and a couple of others) claim to fame in order to gain autocratic control of RAA.  There might be some light at the end of the tunnel after all, if they go through with it.  

Shades of the Rudd & Turnbull saga just up the road.

Just read Bearded Micks? November and December editorials, plus a couple of other articles.  There appears to be some lazy journalism in the magazine, as they copy and pasted a young fellas comment from an AOPA Australia Facebook page post, and claimed it as a "Letter to the Editor".

 

In regards to the editorials and the like, it's known that there's a number of con-artists among the RAAus membership and management who would make ol'Baron Munchausen look pretty modest and honest, but do people blindly believe the tripe put out by the Executive/Management/Board members?  Are RAAus members the intelligent, Well Educated Morons (iWEMs for short), they appear to be?

 

It might end up being the case that Mick does a runner like the former Safety Officer and Tech Manager, to avoid facing any responsibilities and accountabilites.