Crush Depth:
LeadSled,
Thanks for that.
I am aware that there was a meeting scheduled for Sunday 10 February (called by the AWAL board), the idea of which was to get the issues associated with Part 132 out into the open.
CASA are going, all board nominees (including those whom the president has described as 'his team') were invited, as well as a number of prominent warbird stakeholders (HARs, Temora etc). The concept was to allow people the opportunity to question CASA on the new legislation.
Apparently, the President has now threatened to take AWAL to court again, if the meeting goes ahead.
Why would he do this? The only reason I could think of is that perhaps he has been promulgating information that is incorrect and he is now concerned that the truth will come out.....
Crush Depth, it appears to me that a reasonable explanation for your Presidents opposition to such a meeting is that its purpose is to railroad the Board nominees into accepting the CASA position - setting up a fait accompli.
Furthermore the nominees have no legal status, so any member should be able to attend, not just a select little group to get "the good oil" like a certain NSW politician appears to have got..
The organisational behaviour term f.or that is "Co-opting" and it appears that is exactly what CASA has done to the existing Board of AWAL if they have participated in rule development without the knowledge and full understanding of each and every member of AWAL. The desired intent of CASA was obviously to preclude much opposition to new regulation on the simple grounds that: (a) Your organisation already approves of them and no opposition will be forthcoming from it. (b) Your organisation has already consulted you, so shut the &*&* up..
And furthermore, the proposed meeting is not capable of making decisions since it ain't a Board meeting as you would know from your long experience as a DIrector of a public company.
If I were a member of AWAL, which I'm not, I believe I might be forgiven for thinking that a cosy little group is trying to ram through something in the way of regulation that would not stand up to the scrutiny of the members if they knew about its full implications.
.
To put that another way, the process of establishing new regulations, if required, needs to be transparent to all affected and provide all with an avenue to contribute and if necesary criticise.
It would appear that your President believed that there were sufficient failings in transparency to go to court over the matter. This is not a light decision.
For the record, transparency requires that anyone with a vested or conflicted interest in the proceedings has to declare it. I hope that no such conflicts exist.