gandalph

Neil, I'm not doubting your word that you have the email as you said. What I was asking was whether you have credible information that votes postmarked after the close of poll are being being included in the poll. That would be a crucial bit of info. Regards G

Neil, do you have confirmation that votes to which your e-mail refers will be counted in the election? My flying colleague next door to me tells me he forgot to vote. He could post his vote in today but that doesn't mean it would count. Now if you can confirm that votes post marked after the cut-off are being counted then you have clear evidence of electoral fraud and I'm sure the whole membership (me included) would be in uproar. But without that evidence, your information is just that - information. The test is: is it relevant information?

No Kasper. That is not what I said. Please do me the courtesy of not twisting my words. I expected better of you. You MAY be correct. A letter to the AEC might provide a definitive answer or at least get them interested in the process. But that's a job for those that feel aggrieved enough, not me. No. It's not me that's making a fuss about it. People say they suspect, this or believe that but no one seems willing to get some proof. KP says he asked some questions but the answers he got didn't agree with answers from another source but he has declined (as is his right) to disclose what the questions were, what the answers were and what the dissenting opinion was, so it is difficult to treat that information as anything more that rumour. Kasper says he doesn't have a copy of the rules but seem certain that the election has not been conducted according to the. He may well be right but at the moment it just an opinion. You say that you suspect that the election process in flawed and contrary to law but you haven't provide anything other than an opinion. You may be right. Neil has been engaged in the debate but I haven't been able to adequately parse his posts. FT is just being FT. Not much more to be said there. Someone, I can't be bothered at this time of night to trawl back through the thread to determine who, suggested that the voting period had been extended to ensure that the "right" candidate could continue to campaign and get got elected. Is anyone able to name this mysterious "right candidate" that the board is allegedly colluding to have elected? Has any member here had additional campaign material sent to them that they would care to disclose and add some veracity to those claims? I know I haven't received any additional material And finally after much grumbling about bad financial management and squandering of funds by the new board, some people are arguing that they should spend another bucket of OUR funds to run another election. I ask again, what harm has been suffered by the membership? Kasper said: "Get real". I agree. Let's get real!

Nice try Turbs, but if his comment is taken within the context of this thread then he is clearly NOT talking about a federal election but about the recent RAAus election. But if those claiming to be aggrieved by the conduct of the RAAus election are not willing or don't have sufficient confidence in their evidence to mount a challenge in any meaningful forum then I think the horse has received enough of a flogging here. I'm interested in facts, fairplay and decent honest discussion not defamation and innuendo. That's the extent of my "agenda" in this matter.

Every fibre of my body shouts at me to remember the warning given in Proverbs 26:4 , but sometimes one has to act to protect a fool from causing harm to themselves and to others. FT, it seems to me that you are implying that a Director or Directors has manipulated the voting process to achieve a particular result contrary to law. You might ask someone to explain the general ideas spelled out in the link below. You might then consider asking someone more learned than yourself whether you would be wise to withdraw the imputation you make in post #80 . The moderator or administrator might consider whether the allegation made here by FT at post # 80 could be damaging to this site. What is defamation? - The Law Handbook

and your reason for asking is....?

Bill, You've got me! I admit it, I do have vested interests. In the interest of full disclosure let me detail them here for all to see and pick over at their leisure. I own a light aircraft. I want to be able to fly it utilising the Pilot certificate rather than having to migrate to a PPL and. I am a paid up member of RAAus and have been for about 10 years now. Other than that I have no relevant vested interests. As to who I am, I prefer to keep my name out of the public eye. I work in an industry where the having my details publicly available presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of me and my family. If it would give people some comfort I could change my name here to a fictitious one and no one would be any the wiser. I doubt that Mr Tornado or Mr Neil or Mr Planner are using their real names nor are many other frequent posters here. A quick look at the "Members" pages here suggests that only about 5% of members choose to use a name that doesn't appear to be a nom de plume or perhaps more correctly a nom de guerre . Does that change the value of their posts? p.s. I am not a Director, past or present of RAAus. I have never been a board member of the RAA. I am not nor have I ever been an employee of wither the RAA or RAAus. My sole connection to RAAus is as a current member. If you have any other questions feel free to PM me and we can what you feel you need to know about me and what I feel I want to disclose. Regards Gandalph

Turbs, you old scallywag! If you are going to quote the constitution you should QUOTE it, not paraphrase it You said: The constitution says: "34.4 Subject to the Corporations Act, the Directors may from time to time determine the process by which Directors shall be elected and re-elected by the Members in General Meeting. Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body." The additional emphasis has been added by me for clarity. When you "forgot" to include the words that I have highlighted in the quote, above you changed the whole complexion of that clause and that could mislead people reading your post about what the constitution ACTUALLY says. You then muddy the waters further by implying that as the AEC operates the Federal Elections ACT 1918, section 34.4 of the RAAUS constitution must comply with clause 157 of that Act. I would argue that the words "consistent with those methods accepted by the AEC do not necessarily tie us to all the clauses of the Federal Elections Act 1918 but allow a degree of latitude by the AEC to accept other methods. The question people might want to ask is has the AEC accepted the method used by RAAUS in this instance. I'm sure you didn't mean to mislead members but as you regularly contribute to these discussions, some readers could take what you say at face value and thus be misinformed. Surely the bigger question we should be asking is: Has any member suffer harm by having the deadline for the election extended? A supplementary question could be: Would we rather be flying?

Kasper, I've never considered you as a whinger. I've said in other discussions here that I applaud your passion and enthusiasm, and I certainly appreciate that you back up your assertions with well set out supporting arguments and reliable plausible information in support of your views. I wish that others were as lucid. I may not always agree with what you say but I read your posts with interest and respect. Regards G

Thank you Keith. You say "something is being hidden". One could say the same about your answer. Too cryptic for me. Of course you are not in any way obliged to provide more details here but your responses often have the flavour of a five year old coquettishly telling friends: "I've got a secret but I'm not going to tell you what it is." That's your choice of course. and please don't take umbrage at my pressing you for details. If the Executive have exceeded their powers or broken the law then it should be brought out in the open and dealt with, clearly and without the innuendo that can be so prevalent in some internet fora. But is so hard to for members here to judge when people who claim to have the facts speak in such indirect terms. Which is why I suggested that if those who have the facts feel strongly enough about it, they should take legal action. If a person knows a law has been broken but chooses not to report it appropriately, is he or she not guilty of an offence as well? Keith, I'm not implying that you do have that knowledge so the previous sentence is NOT directed specifically at you, but if the shoe fits..... Regards Gandalph or perhaps I'm now Randalph! That might be a step up - ET can now call me Randy instead of Gandy! Cheers!

Thank you Turbs, I did that some time ago when I was considering how I would vote on the new constitution, but I think you (perhaps mischievously) miss the point. It wasn't me who sniped at the RAAUS with the comment about "Never correct answer there", It was Keith, and I thought it germane to the conversations here to ask him if he had actually asked the question. I'm not interested in arguing at this time, or in this venue, whether or not the action taken by the RAAUS leadership was in someway underhanded and/or illegal. There are enough bush lawyers and out of practice solicitors hereabouts to entertain us with their thoughts on that subject. It doesn't require my input. If members of the RAAUS feel strongly enough, they could mount a legal challenge to the conduct of the election, but that would require that they put their money where mouth(s) are. Are you a gambling man?

Thanks Keith for the "Like", but there was a serious question in there. Did you actually ask someone at RAAUS or did you just assume what the answer would be? The reason I pursue this is because if you have asked the question of RAAUS and you didn't like the answer then it is entirely appropriate (and informative for fellow forumites) for you to say so here. Itt would add credibility to your comment at post #61 However, if you haven't actually asked someone in authority at RAAUS then it seems to me that you are just using this Forum to take a swipe at the RAAUS

Keith, you have actually asked and either not received an answer or received an unsatisfactory answer?

Keith, As you've addressed your question to Turbs I must assume that you're being rhetorical. If you really want an answer, perhaps you should ask it of the CEO of RAAUS. Anything else is just grandstanding.

Yes Turbs, speaking as just one of the 800 members that Frank seems disappointed with, I am pleased. I'm pleased with the performance of the Board since they were elected (by a significant majority of votes cast, if people care to remember. - that's called representative democracy.). I'm pleased that the Board acted promptly and in a reasonable manner to alleviate the problem of Aust post not getting ballot papers to members in a timely fashion and I'm always pleased when the ne'er-do-wells show their true colours and expose their agendas once again. It's the same tune sung by the same groaners.

Is that the the "Newcastle song" I can hear playing in the background again KP?

Yup.

Shafted or failed to gain enough support for your viewpoint? Democracy can be painful. I should add Kasper, that although I didn't support you motions at the Canberra AGM I applaud your tenacity and intestinal fortitude in vigorously promoting them. As you say, you had a view and you stood up here and put it to the test. It didn't get up but you had a go and for that you deserve much credit. It's the "referees" that stand behind the fence in the safety of the crowd but won't don the Jersey and get into the game that annoy.

I agree PMcC. I think the current crew are doing a good job for the members. It's interesting, but sadly, not surprising that none of the grumblers and knockers have seen fit to put their name forward for election Many are happy to talk the talk but not to walk the walk.

Agreed. I must confess that I was responding in general about what might or might not be considered a defect and not specifically to the matter you mentioned in your post. I should have made that clearer when I responded. My bad!

It could be a maintenance issue, in which case I'd agree that the "defect" is not with the aircraft but with the maintainer, or it could be the result of a design flaw. In that case it's certainly a defect and needs to be reported. Like most things in life it depends largely on context.

Can you provide the reference for that study please Capt Wally?

Sorry Turbs, It didn't occur to me that you might think I was being serious. Apologies to all for introducing thread drift.

Thanks Oscar for setting us straight re backwards compatibility of the CAE engineering and mods. It's pretty obvious when you think about it but it helps to have it clearly enunciated for those of us who haven't clearly thought it through. I take issue with your totally unwarranted promotion of Microsoft products over Apple though. There are enough partisans here with the bike vs cars; plastic vs rag & tube; Holden vs Ford; Jabiru vs anything else and RAAus vs ELAA, without you introducing Apple vs 20th century computing technology. What were you thinking man!?

Kinda depends on what caused the outlanding Keith. Could be a simple as putting fuel in the tanks.