Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
A win aginst CASA
Regarding a successful action against CASA. It has been done before, and somene did establish contact with me to refer me to the person. As you can imagine this has been a very substantial battle, and I am unable to recall who that was, and am unable to find the details, Could I ask that person to re-establish contact with me, as i would like to talk to that person.
If your dealing with the truth, pound the truth.
If your dealing with the law, pound the law.
If its not the truth, or the law, pound the table.
I intend to deal with truth and the law and pound those.
Quite simply if the conduct isn't lawful, as I am advised.Those people will be held to account.
Consider the Regional Managers direction to my employer to terminate my employment, on the basis of me defending myself on Pprune. How can that possibly be lawful.
On release of the law firms report, we will know.
Should I fail, the matters are on public record, and I will be forced to head off and start again, irrespective, CASA personnel that choose to bully and intimidate imdustry, will have a strong message sent to them.
Craig Martin has written to me, and he has nominated himself as the accountable person in CASA. Craig Martin has a "history" that has been well documented by Bruce Rhoades prior to his passing. By me also documenting his inappropriate behaviour, surely a pattern must be building.
Eventually someone in CASA must decide that they can sit idle no longer, and take action to remove personnel that decide to act inappropriately, and tarnish the good work of the vast majority in CASA that choose to act in a professional manner
If your dealing with the truth, pound the truth.
If your dealing with the law, pound the law.
If its not the truth, or the law, pound the table.
I intend to deal with truth and the law and pound those.
Quite simply if the conduct isn't lawful, as I am advised.Those people will be held to account.
Consider the Regional Managers direction to my employer to terminate my employment, on the basis of me defending myself on Pprune. How can that possibly be lawful.
On release of the law firms report, we will know.
Should I fail, the matters are on public record, and I will be forced to head off and start again, irrespective, CASA personnel that choose to bully and intimidate imdustry, will have a strong message sent to them.
Craig Martin has written to me, and he has nominated himself as the accountable person in CASA. Craig Martin has a "history" that has been well documented by Bruce Rhoades prior to his passing. By me also documenting his inappropriate behaviour, surely a pattern must be building.
Eventually someone in CASA must decide that they can sit idle no longer, and take action to remove personnel that decide to act inappropriately, and tarnish the good work of the vast majority in CASA that choose to act in a professional manner
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont play fair
Glen, unfortunately it’s not about CASA. The best way to describe CASA is that they are a ‘front’. It’s about the Government at the highest levels. The only reasonably high level person in CASA is Carmody, and even he has his wings clipped to a degree. The rest of the managers - Martin, that numpty Crawford and many before him along with other regional managers and the Board are minions when placed in the pecking order besides the Infrastructure Secretary, the Minister and the PMC. The Government, and numerous ones before it, are the ones who empower CASA and give it the finances, muscle, protection, authority and power to do as it pleases. Politicians are dumb, and there main concern is about where the next vote, campaign donation or taxpayer funded freebie is coming from. They are bamboozled by CASA spin doctors and frightened into submission. Any one of them that does have a brain, raises a poignant question or sniffs out a scent is quickly scared back into the protective cocoon of their Canberra cave.
You can’t beat them on a level playing field, with an honest fight. To be honest, you simply can’t win. But you can play by your own ruleset. Your need good solid evidence on any CASA malfeasance or shenanigans that you can find and dump it everywhere in the media, and make sure the media understand it is a matter for the Minister to address CASA as he/she is the top of the food chain. Ministers and top Bureaucrats don’t like spotlights on them. Watch them scurry.
The same organisation that granted English language assessment approval ‘over the phone’ (to a 30 years of experience instructor) with zero guidance given when requested(in total disregard for ICAO requirements) then removed ALL his flight test approvals when it claimed( also with no guidelines) the ‘test recording length’ was insufficient. Loss of confidence in him being a fit and proper person!!!
A lawsuit followed and they caved. Gutless group of arrogant aggressive individuals hiding behind a public tax funded organisation operating outside International
protocol ( pelair ditching a perfect example) and causing more harm than good in a country with a pretty darn good record of flying safety.
Appalling.
A lawsuit followed and they caved. Gutless group of arrogant aggressive individuals hiding behind a public tax funded organisation operating outside International
protocol ( pelair ditching a perfect example) and causing more harm than good in a country with a pretty darn good record of flying safety.
Appalling.
In the public service where I worked for a few years, any action taken by the Government involving an individual or company required simply reams of paperwork - documentation in detail of every action taken in a timeline with supporting evidence, an entire spotless, consistent paper trail leading logically and truthfully to the action proposed, be it prosecution or the awarding of a contract. There was absolutely no room for the weasel words “appropriate”, “acceptable” or “discretion” those words were reserved for the Minister alone to use. As public servants we were expected and required to follow exact rules to the letter.
I checked with a Police officer relative the other day, their instructions are identical, for defence lawyers are capable of destroying a case purely on a single error in page numbering in a hundred page document (the Catholic Church are apparently masters at this).
One wonders if CASAs standards are the same?
I checked with a Police officer relative the other day, their instructions are identical, for defence lawyers are capable of destroying a case purely on a single error in page numbering in a hundred page document (the Catholic Church are apparently masters at this).
One wonders if CASAs standards are the same?
Thread Starter
A stern message from Glen
I have been chased out of the industry by the conduct of Mr Brad Lacy, Jason Mc Heyzer, Mr Craig Martin, and Mr Graeme Crawford. Their conduct has left me on the cusp of being declared bankrupt. My actions improved safety, theirs have reduced safety. That is measurable and demonstrable.
Soon i will initiate a legal action to have their conduct tested. That is a fact.
Soon Mr Mathews as Chair of the Board, and Mr Carmody as the CEO will have to make an important decision. Will they continue to stand behind these personnel. If they are aware of their own CASA Regulatory Philosophy, they will not be able to stand behind them. Its that simple. They will lose all credibility. Mr Mathews will tarnish a distinguished career, and Mr Carmodys credibility as the Head of a Government Department will be tarnished at least.
I am here with my laptop on the roof of my borrowed car, and I am parked at Essendon Airport. Drawing on happy memories, and trying desperately to re-energise myself, and my mind drifted to all the wonderful people that work within CASA. Right back to Robyn Maleki, Phil Betts, Nishi, John Costa, the entire CLARC team over the years, the people in licencing, to the Mathew Fords, and the Peter Finches, to Owen Richards, Peter White, Graeme Taberner, Ben Cook, Tim Baker,John Lindsay, Mr John Hanton, Derek Fox, Grant Howard, David Gobbitt, Gavin Secombe, Teoh, Bill Cox, Tim Penney, Michael White,Michelle Massey, Harold Bankien, Colin Mc Lachlan,and many others.
I apologise because I know I have missed many, but that is not the point of this post. There are probably well over 800 well intentioned people in that organisation, people that genuinely want to work with industry and conduct themselves in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philiosophy. They really want to go into work, and play their part in improving aviation safety, they really do.
There are others, that I have named above that choose not to.
Is that defamation. Absolutely not. I write it to protect all the good people that work within CASA. If I bitch and moan about “CASA” then I only bring harm to them, and that is not my intention.
Mr Carmody simply cannot allocate any more public funds to this "project", it is a clear breech of his obligations under the PGPA Act. As individuals they are welcome to initiate action against me. I relish the opportunity to tell the truth, and will demonstrate that it is in the public interest. I am actually protecting the reputations of the vast majority of CASA personnel.
In fact if all of those named people stepped aside, and others within CASA stepped up, that would be a measurable and demonstrable increase in aviation safety in Australia, and 100% og the General Aviation industry will concur with that statement. I repeat 100%. Every business owner, every regional aero club, every charter business, flying school, engineer, and pilot will concur.
So where to from now. As my legal process begins, I know my legal team will tell me to stop posting, and I will. So what will I be doing.
I will be working diligently in the background, on my well prepared, and well documented case.
I will be seeking employment outside of aviation.,
I will commence an active campaign commencing at the end of next week, to promote myself as an independent candidate for the seat of Chisolm, and I will topple Gladys Liu, at the next opportunity.
One thing I will not be doing. Once this process commences within the next 21 days, I will not back down. A condition of engaging my legal firm, is that there must be no compromises. This must absolutely, go ALL the way to a determination. A settlement is a bribe. This will go to a determination, so we actually know who is right or wrong.
I encourage Mr Carmody to make the right decisions over the next 21 days, or an irreversible path will commence.
The time has arrived. Any person within CASA that is involved in this process, must now display ethics. You must choose to step aside, or be complicit.
Those of you with ethics will say. ""Sorry, but im not comfortable being involved in this process". Its that simple. You will be fully protected by your union, but more importantly, you will be displaying ethics.
I can assure CASA, that if they choose not to sit down with me in the next 21 days. I am going all the way. You cannot bring so much totally unnecessary harm to me and my family, and not be held fully to account. I mean it, I really do.
The only thing that will stop it, is me having a stress induced heart attack. My wife said the other day. "If you have a heart attack, im going inmto CASA, and im going to slap Brad Lacey" You have been warned.
Soon i will initiate a legal action to have their conduct tested. That is a fact.
Soon Mr Mathews as Chair of the Board, and Mr Carmody as the CEO will have to make an important decision. Will they continue to stand behind these personnel. If they are aware of their own CASA Regulatory Philosophy, they will not be able to stand behind them. Its that simple. They will lose all credibility. Mr Mathews will tarnish a distinguished career, and Mr Carmodys credibility as the Head of a Government Department will be tarnished at least.
I am here with my laptop on the roof of my borrowed car, and I am parked at Essendon Airport. Drawing on happy memories, and trying desperately to re-energise myself, and my mind drifted to all the wonderful people that work within CASA. Right back to Robyn Maleki, Phil Betts, Nishi, John Costa, the entire CLARC team over the years, the people in licencing, to the Mathew Fords, and the Peter Finches, to Owen Richards, Peter White, Graeme Taberner, Ben Cook, Tim Baker,John Lindsay, Mr John Hanton, Derek Fox, Grant Howard, David Gobbitt, Gavin Secombe, Teoh, Bill Cox, Tim Penney, Michael White,Michelle Massey, Harold Bankien, Colin Mc Lachlan,and many others.
I apologise because I know I have missed many, but that is not the point of this post. There are probably well over 800 well intentioned people in that organisation, people that genuinely want to work with industry and conduct themselves in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philiosophy. They really want to go into work, and play their part in improving aviation safety, they really do.
There are others, that I have named above that choose not to.
Is that defamation. Absolutely not. I write it to protect all the good people that work within CASA. If I bitch and moan about “CASA” then I only bring harm to them, and that is not my intention.
Mr Carmody simply cannot allocate any more public funds to this "project", it is a clear breech of his obligations under the PGPA Act. As individuals they are welcome to initiate action against me. I relish the opportunity to tell the truth, and will demonstrate that it is in the public interest. I am actually protecting the reputations of the vast majority of CASA personnel.
In fact if all of those named people stepped aside, and others within CASA stepped up, that would be a measurable and demonstrable increase in aviation safety in Australia, and 100% og the General Aviation industry will concur with that statement. I repeat 100%. Every business owner, every regional aero club, every charter business, flying school, engineer, and pilot will concur.
So where to from now. As my legal process begins, I know my legal team will tell me to stop posting, and I will. So what will I be doing.
I will be working diligently in the background, on my well prepared, and well documented case.
I will be seeking employment outside of aviation.,
I will commence an active campaign commencing at the end of next week, to promote myself as an independent candidate for the seat of Chisolm, and I will topple Gladys Liu, at the next opportunity.
One thing I will not be doing. Once this process commences within the next 21 days, I will not back down. A condition of engaging my legal firm, is that there must be no compromises. This must absolutely, go ALL the way to a determination. A settlement is a bribe. This will go to a determination, so we actually know who is right or wrong.
I encourage Mr Carmody to make the right decisions over the next 21 days, or an irreversible path will commence.
The time has arrived. Any person within CASA that is involved in this process, must now display ethics. You must choose to step aside, or be complicit.
Those of you with ethics will say. ""Sorry, but im not comfortable being involved in this process". Its that simple. You will be fully protected by your union, but more importantly, you will be displaying ethics.
I can assure CASA, that if they choose not to sit down with me in the next 21 days. I am going all the way. You cannot bring so much totally unnecessary harm to me and my family, and not be held fully to account. I mean it, I really do.
The only thing that will stop it, is me having a stress induced heart attack. My wife said the other day. "If you have a heart attack, im going inmto CASA, and im going to slap Brad Lacey" You have been warned.
Last edited by glenb; 28th Oct 2019 at 22:38.
Thread Starter
My suggestion to Mr Carmody
Why wouldn't you place Mr Crawford, Mr Martin, Mr Mc Heyzer, and Mr Lacey on temporary relief from their respective positions. On full pay, and maintaining full entitlements. Only until they have had the opportunity to demonstrate those personnel have not displayed unconscionable conduct, and that they have acted lawfully, and in the interests of aviation safety.
THis would temporarily remove them from an obviously stressful work environment, protect the good work and reputation, of the other personnel within CASA, decompress the situation, demonstrate at least a "professional" level of support for those personnel, expediate an outcome, and maintain or improve safety levels. My allegations are substantial, surely in Australia's safety authority that would be the most suitable course of action.
THis would temporarily remove them from an obviously stressful work environment, protect the good work and reputation, of the other personnel within CASA, decompress the situation, demonstrate at least a "professional" level of support for those personnel, expediate an outcome, and maintain or improve safety levels. My allegations are substantial, surely in Australia's safety authority that would be the most suitable course of action.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone call a Doctor.....or maybe not
Glen, the biggest stumbling block to CASA reform, the biggest stumbling block to CASA leaving the dark ages, the biggest stumbling block to the aviation Regulator becoming a modern, just, safety focused Regulator is Dr Aleck. There is where the heart of the CASA machine lays. He has had 26 years to craft his trade and mold CASA into his own personal play thing. Every organisation has its ‘faceless men’. Remove Aleck and you will finally see CASA and it’s culture change.
Glen, you mention that you want to see names, names of the decision makers, names of those who have vilified you and made the decisions against you that have been made. I can guarantee you that Alecks name is hidden in there left, right and center. Nothing escapes the legal department. No decision is made without the legal department. No individual in industry is prosecuted, persecuted, vilified or sent to the wall without the full knowledge of the legal department.
Folks,
I am personally aware of details of two cases where CASA was beaten, and made substantial payouts, both case involved major legal efforts, but the aggrieved had that support --- but they were not self financed.
In one of the cases, an improperly cancelled CAR 30 approval, the confidential settlement was a seven figure sum plus indemnity costs.
Sadly, I know of proportionately more where seven figure sums in legals have been accumulated, and CASA won ---- but these were at the AAT, not a real court.
My subjective memory tells me that CASA often does not fare will in a proper court, with fixed and known rules of evidence.
It also tells me that, with one exception, the individuals never worked in the aviation industry again.
Tootle pip!!
I am personally aware of details of two cases where CASA was beaten, and made substantial payouts, both case involved major legal efforts, but the aggrieved had that support --- but they were not self financed.
In one of the cases, an improperly cancelled CAR 30 approval, the confidential settlement was a seven figure sum plus indemnity costs.
Sadly, I know of proportionately more where seven figure sums in legals have been accumulated, and CASA won ---- but these were at the AAT, not a real court.
My subjective memory tells me that CASA often does not fare will in a proper court, with fixed and known rules of evidence.
It also tells me that, with one exception, the individuals never worked in the aviation industry again.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Where do they live?
I must jump in. I would rather not know where they live. Those CASA personnel have bought so much havoc and destruction into my own home, and I am acutely aware of the damage that has caused. I have no desire to impact on their families, as they have on mine.
The correct venue for this, can only be a courtroom, and I cannot do anything that would compromise that.
Best to stay calm and professional, and stay the course. That will achieve the desired outcome.
The correct venue for this, can only be a courtroom, and I cannot do anything that would compromise that.
Best to stay calm and professional, and stay the course. That will achieve the desired outcome.
As a side Glen, Harry is doing his best to be professional and certainly trying to look after his wife and family as you are.
Harry has chosen the court and seems family are not happy, but he wishes to protect his family at all costs.
Charles will want this a closed hearing I expect!
Harry is putting a very lot on the line.
The pressures on people in your case and Harry's will have parallels - so have truths to tell others, have agendas to follow.
Keep a level head mate, it is a multi dimensional fight you have.
Stand by your wife (seems you have a good one),
Regards Bendy with parts of Harry's DNA!
Harry has chosen the court and seems family are not happy, but he wishes to protect his family at all costs.
Charles will want this a closed hearing I expect!
Harry is putting a very lot on the line.
The pressures on people in your case and Harry's will have parallels - so have truths to tell others, have agendas to follow.
Keep a level head mate, it is a multi dimensional fight you have.
Stand by your wife (seems you have a good one),
Regards Bendy with parts of Harry's DNA!
Glen, the biggest stumbling block to CASA reform, the biggest stumbling block to CASA leaving the dark ages, the biggest stumbling block to the aviation Regulator becoming a modern, just, safety focused Regulator is Dr Aleck. There is where the heart of the CASA machine lays. He has had 26 years to craft his trade and mold CASA into his own personal play thing. Every organisation has its ‘faceless men’. Remove Aleck and you will finally see CASA and it’s culture change.
Glen, you mention that you want to see names, names of the decision makers, names of those who have vilified you and made the decisions against you that have been made. I can guarantee you that Alecks name is hidden in there left, right and center. Nothing escapes the legal department. No decision is made without the legal department. No individual in industry is prosecuted, persecuted, vilified or sent to the wall without the full knowledge of the legal department.
1.42 Dr Jonathan Aleck, Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs at CASA, laid out the objective of CASA's approach to this issue:
Our objective here is not to specifically address what caused those two accidents; it's to address what kinds of things can cause incidents and accidents of this kind. We're being prospective. If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.
It's been back to the dark ages on CVD for a while, and now with CSRs.
Well done, CASA. Keep up the good work.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 26th Oct 2019 at 09:49.
1.42 Dr Jonathan Aleck, Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs at CASA, laid out the objective of CASA's approach to this issue:
Quote:
Our objective here is not to specifically address what caused those two accidents; it's to address what kinds of things can cause incidents and accidents of this kind. We're being prospective. If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.]
Quote:
Our objective here is not to specifically address what caused those two accidents; it's to address what kinds of things can cause incidents and accidents of this kind. We're being prospective. If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.]
To put that another way, unless you have detailed knowledge of the population, you cannot make such sweeping statements. You don’t know if your apparent “cluster” of events is purely coincidental and that is even assuming there is a common cause, without knowing the baseline accident rate and the standard deviation.
Given what is called “infant mortality” in maintenance, CASAs new rules on Angel Flight may even increase the accident rate.
Thread Starter
Dr Alecks involvement
There is no doubt in my mind that Dr Aleck is very involved in this matter. He is the Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, and very entrenched in the Iron Ring.
At this stage, he is off my radar, because he is the one who will be drawn into this as the matter escalates. He will be the one leading the defence of the indefensible, his time in the light is approaching. Trust me, he is not off the hook. Like The Chair of the Board, and the CEO, he will be a decision maker.
He will be instrumental in determining whether CASA support these staff. As a key member of the "iron ring" he is integral.
He has deliberately, laid very low on this, and attempts to involve him, after carefully deflected. Ive experienced it.
He is in a difficult situation, and will have to decide to "show his hand". If he chooses to be complicit, as I believe he will, he will also be held to account. Ill let him, shoot himself in the foot, totally unassisted.
The iron ring will rust and collapse. Professional integrity, will prevail.
My work is almost done. The paticipants malpractice is on public record. Personally, I would havev resigned, but I obviously maintain a higher moral compass than Mr Crawford, Mr Martin, Mr Lacey, Mr Mc Heyzer, and indeed Dr Aleck.
All, will be revealed.
At this stage, he is off my radar, because he is the one who will be drawn into this as the matter escalates. He will be the one leading the defence of the indefensible, his time in the light is approaching. Trust me, he is not off the hook. Like The Chair of the Board, and the CEO, he will be a decision maker.
He will be instrumental in determining whether CASA support these staff. As a key member of the "iron ring" he is integral.
He has deliberately, laid very low on this, and attempts to involve him, after carefully deflected. Ive experienced it.
He is in a difficult situation, and will have to decide to "show his hand". If he chooses to be complicit, as I believe he will, he will also be held to account. Ill let him, shoot himself in the foot, totally unassisted.
The iron ring will rust and collapse. Professional integrity, will prevail.
My work is almost done. The paticipants malpractice is on public record. Personally, I would havev resigned, but I obviously maintain a higher moral compass than Mr Crawford, Mr Martin, Mr Lacey, Mr Mc Heyzer, and indeed Dr Aleck.
All, will be revealed.
Thread Starter
Mr Craig Martin
Some time ago I stumbled upon a link to a post that Mr Bruce Rhoades made regarding his experience with Mr Martin. Whilst that link has been removed, I do recall that the claims Bruce made about Mr Martin were.
Venomous
Vicious
Vindictive
Vexatious
I would use those exact 4 words to describe my experience with him. Those exact words.
Nevertheless, it is he that has chosen to step up again, and be CASAs "hatchet" man.
I dont think he will get away with it a second time, I really don't. There is too much of a pattern developing.
He must be very proud of the good and important work that he does. A great role model to industry, and his family.
Hold your head high Mr Martin. Aviation in Australia is safer because of your good work.
Thankyou
Venomous
Vicious
Vindictive
Vexatious
I would use those exact 4 words to describe my experience with him. Those exact words.
Nevertheless, it is he that has chosen to step up again, and be CASAs "hatchet" man.
I dont think he will get away with it a second time, I really don't. There is too much of a pattern developing.
He must be very proud of the good and important work that he does. A great role model to industry, and his family.
Hold your head high Mr Martin. Aviation in Australia is safer because of your good work.
Thankyou
Thread Starter
Apology from Mr Mc Heyzer
Letter of apology – inappropriate remarks
Dear Glen
On 26 August 2019, I had a telephone conversation with APTA’s new CEO, Mr XXXXX. In the course of that conversation, Mr XXXXX advised that statements you make in relation to matters concerning your personal experience with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should not be regarded as communications reflecting the view or position of APTA.
On the following day, 27 August 2019, I was provided with a copy of an email from you addressed to the Prime Minister, among others, which included remarks of the kind mentioned above, under your signature as APTA’s Deputy Head of Operations (HOO) in an APTA signature block.
Later that day, 27 August 2019, I sent an email to Mr XXXXXXX, seeking his confirmation as to whether you were employed by APTA as Deputy HOO, as your signature block indicated, and whether you were or were not authorised to speak on behalf of APTA in that capacity. In the circumstances, I found the designation of your status in the email you sent to the Prime Minister to be inconsistent with the assurances Mr Qushair had previously provided.
In querying the situation with Mr XXXXXX I wrote:
I understand that Mr Buckley remains as APTA deputy HOO. This is no longer tenable with the comments that Mr Buckley is making publicly. Please confirm APTA's intentions in relation to Mr Buckley as deputy HOO and whether Mr Buckley is authorised to speak on behalf of APTA.
My reference to the untenability of the situation was intended as a reflection of what I considered to be the impropriety of your remarks appearing to have been made on APTA’s behalf, without the apparent knowledge or endorsement of the APTA CEO.
On reflection, I can certainly see how my statement could have been construed as raising a question about the tenability of your employment in the position of APTA’s Deputy HOO.
I contacted Mr XXXXXX by phone on the afternoon of 27 August 2019 to minimise any potential misunderstanding.
My choice of the word ‘untenable’ and the way in which I phrased my query was inappropriate, and I unreservedly apologise for any apprehension this may have caused you.
Yours sincerely
Dear Glen
On 26 August 2019, I had a telephone conversation with APTA’s new CEO, Mr XXXXX. In the course of that conversation, Mr XXXXX advised that statements you make in relation to matters concerning your personal experience with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should not be regarded as communications reflecting the view or position of APTA.
On the following day, 27 August 2019, I was provided with a copy of an email from you addressed to the Prime Minister, among others, which included remarks of the kind mentioned above, under your signature as APTA’s Deputy Head of Operations (HOO) in an APTA signature block.
Later that day, 27 August 2019, I sent an email to Mr XXXXXXX, seeking his confirmation as to whether you were employed by APTA as Deputy HOO, as your signature block indicated, and whether you were or were not authorised to speak on behalf of APTA in that capacity. In the circumstances, I found the designation of your status in the email you sent to the Prime Minister to be inconsistent with the assurances Mr Qushair had previously provided.
In querying the situation with Mr XXXXXX I wrote:
I understand that Mr Buckley remains as APTA deputy HOO. This is no longer tenable with the comments that Mr Buckley is making publicly. Please confirm APTA's intentions in relation to Mr Buckley as deputy HOO and whether Mr Buckley is authorised to speak on behalf of APTA.
My reference to the untenability of the situation was intended as a reflection of what I considered to be the impropriety of your remarks appearing to have been made on APTA’s behalf, without the apparent knowledge or endorsement of the APTA CEO.
On reflection, I can certainly see how my statement could have been construed as raising a question about the tenability of your employment in the position of APTA’s Deputy HOO.
I contacted Mr XXXXXX by phone on the afternoon of 27 August 2019 to minimise any potential misunderstanding.
My choice of the word ‘untenable’ and the way in which I phrased my query was inappropriate, and I unreservedly apologise for any apprehension this may have caused you.
Yours sincerely
Last edited by glenb; 26th Oct 2019 at 23:41.