Sunday head scratcher.
Thanks Creamy, enjoyable article to start a Sunday with; Canberra Times, who'd a thunk it. Whilst on the subject of sleight of hand; can anyone explain in lay terms where the CASA board actually stand on that subject, in law. Just suppose (for arguments sake) that the board was vaguely aware of a problem – say Pel Air – as we are all familiar with it.
Would a meeting be called to discuss 'the issue'; or, would it be left to the ground troops to sort it out and report back during the routine meeting schedule?
To what degree could the board expect to be informed on the progress of a matter like the Norfolk ditching?
What I am trying to determine is 'where the buck stops'. If the board have only been given a brief outline and not too many specifics, can they be accountable in some way? Corporate law and director liability legislation is way beyond my poor skill set, but I expect that somewhere in the rules, someone has to carry the can. The question, to my lay mind is one of how much would they be told and was that information sufficient for the board to form a clear picture of circumstances, events and probable outcomes? There is quite a scale difference between being told – no worries – minor event all under control, to 'Huston we have a problem'.
Would it be quite forgivable for a board to go back to the tea, biscuits and budget without a care, relying on 'executive' advice; or, would there be a 'legal' need to investigate further or ask for more information? Can't see an event like Quadrio or Barrier making it into the hallowed chambers as much more than a one line summary – notice of execution – with little in the way of detail; but what, in general terms does the board 'need' to know?, how is that decided? and by whom?
Too much for my wooden head; wouldn't mention it normally, only the article and an interesting conversation with a savvy 'CEO' prompted the little grey cells.