Hi again, Glen. Let me reiterate my earnest hope that you will get something positive out of all of this. However, your posts do manifest a dangerous level of naïveté.
At post #440 you said:
I sent the following request under Freedom Of Information request on 20/08/19
Dear Mr Gobbitt, On Saturday 12th January 2019 , Mr XXXXXXXX, attended the Ballarat Aero Club to make his own assessment of APTA. He did this in his senior position as the Executive Manager Regulatory Service and Surveillance. Under FOI, may I request the notes that were made by him related to that site visit. Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation, respectfully, Glen.
The response from CASA to the Freedom of Information request;
“I am the decision maker for your request. In accordance with subparagraph 24A(1)(b)(ii) of the ACT, I refuse your request for access as I am satisfied the documents you are seeking do not exist
Really?, One of CASA most senior executives travels from Canberra to Melbourne to look first hand at APTA. He then elects to gret a hotel and a rental vehicle and stay an extra day, and travels down to Ballarat Aero Club (1 ½ hour drive), spends a significant amount of time talking to everyone, gains a positive overview, and heads back to Canberra. Surely there would be something. Some kind of a report. Anything.
Your FOI request was not for “some kind of report” or “any” record created about the visit to, the meeting at or observations made about APTA and the Ballarat Aero Club on 12 Jan 2019.
Your FOI request was for “notes that were made by [CASA’s Executive Manager Regulatory Service and Surveillance] related to that site visit”.
If he didn’t make any notes, they do not exist. Even if one of his hapless minions attended as well, and took notes, the notes taken by the hapless minion do not fall within the scope of your request.
You’re in a gunfight, armed with a popgun.
Do your recent woes boil down to the interpretation of the word “employee” and CASA’s judgment of whether the expanding APTA had a sufficient number of suitably qualified and competent “employees”?