Australian Warbirds
Crush Depth:
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.
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.....
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.....
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.
Last edited by Sunfish; 4th Feb 2013 at 17:21.
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 criticize.
I’m saddened to be witnessing the dirty laundry of AWAL, but I’m not surprised because, as I’ve observed earlier, it’s a fairly common malaise in these kinds of organisation.
However, what really p*sses me off is that the consultation process for Part 132 has not been public. CASA should have disclosed the same information to everyone – ie the public – at the same time. If someone in CASA chose to disclose the draft regulations to AWAL, that’s completely inappropriate. If someone in CASA chose to disclose the draft regulation to a select few within AWAL, with a view to co-opting the organisation, that’s not only completely inappropriate but also a corruption of the legislative development process.
CD: Being the director of 3 companies does not necessarily result in you understanding anything about the rights and obligations of company officers and members. However, I’m confident you do have a good understanding of those matters, and I’m confident I know where you fit into this (very messy) picture. You might do the membership of AWAL a favour if you have a whisper in the ears of Mr R-S’s colleagues, to confer your understanding. You could start with this:
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..
Last edited by Creampuff; 4th Feb 2013 at 22:22. Reason: Changed "directors" to "members".
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nononsence
Tailwheel, I'd be 100% in favour of your censorship, but you allow Leadsled and T28D free kicks with all sorts of rubbish, including the long winded rant by Kim Rolph Smith. When I put some indisputable facts that show Rolph-Smith, Leadsled, and T28D are total hypocrites, you censor me.
Shows the value of this forum!
Shows the value of this forum!
Moderator
It is one of those days again! 
I will make it very clear, no one gets a free kick here to post comment which is in bad taste, contrary to the rules of PPRuNe, or contrary to the laws of Australia.
Whether your statement is correct or not, I will tell you is that you can not post a comment that any PPRuNe users is a "total hypocrite" and expect to remain a registered PPRuNe user.
T28D posted a letter to Members of the Australian Warbird Association Ltd by M.P. Rolph-Smith who I understand is the President or Chairman. I assume it is a not for profit public company limited by guarantee? Having far more than a passing knowledge of not for profit incorporated associations and not for profit companies limited by guarantee, I see no issue with the President or Chairman's public letter being published in PPRuNe, if that accesses more of the Members, provided the letter does not contravene the rules.
Your posts which I removed appear to be selective copy and past from the companies internal correspondence which were probably confidential to the author and intended recipient only. In my opinion you came here solely to throw a little sh!t, hoping some would stick.
If the document author and the intended recipient send me an email granting their express consent to those comments being published, I wil reinstate your post.
I have already clearly indicated by email to some who have posted in this thread, that any PPRuNe forum will not become a battleground for the Warbirds internal disputes. They have agreed to limit their comments and if the thread gets out of hand, it will be closed. I expect you to also respect those boundaries.
I don't make a habit of deleting posts, removing thread or banning users as in general there has not been the need. However, over many years a few miscreant users, habitual trolls and wannabe jerks have been banned, without fear or favour. I can confirm that some users who have posted in this thread have previously been banned, learnt a valuable lesson and now contribute value to our Dunnunda Forum.
I think that makes our position clear?
I will make it very clear, no one gets a free kick here to post comment which is in bad taste, contrary to the rules of PPRuNe, or contrary to the laws of Australia.
When I put some indisputable facts that show Rolph-Smith, Leadsled, and T28D are total hypocrites.
T28D posted a letter to Members of the Australian Warbird Association Ltd by M.P. Rolph-Smith who I understand is the President or Chairman. I assume it is a not for profit public company limited by guarantee? Having far more than a passing knowledge of not for profit incorporated associations and not for profit companies limited by guarantee, I see no issue with the President or Chairman's public letter being published in PPRuNe, if that accesses more of the Members, provided the letter does not contravene the rules.
Your posts which I removed appear to be selective copy and past from the companies internal correspondence which were probably confidential to the author and intended recipient only. In my opinion you came here solely to throw a little sh!t, hoping some would stick.
If the document author and the intended recipient send me an email granting their express consent to those comments being published, I wil reinstate your post.
I have already clearly indicated by email to some who have posted in this thread, that any PPRuNe forum will not become a battleground for the Warbirds internal disputes. They have agreed to limit their comments and if the thread gets out of hand, it will be closed. I expect you to also respect those boundaries.
I don't make a habit of deleting posts, removing thread or banning users as in general there has not been the need. However, over many years a few miscreant users, habitual trolls and wannabe jerks have been banned, without fear or favour. I can confirm that some users who have posted in this thread have previously been banned, learnt a valuable lesson and now contribute value to our Dunnunda Forum.
I think that makes our position clear?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been involved in numerous not-for-profit clubs and associations, nearly all of them have internal politicking with some seeming to get out of hand. One very very simple solution in any organisation where the board is voted in is to simply:
1. Hold an EGM, with appropriate notice and agenda in-accordance-with all rules nd regulations, to ALL members and declaring all positions open.
2. All issues are put to the membership
3. The membership votes.
4. The membership/AWAL then put up with whatever is decided by the board after this point.
QED
This is the only way to solve these problems and if the membership is apathetic, then they deserve whatever outcome they get. If they are active and involved then I am sure they will achieve the best for AWAL and the Australian warbird movement.
Really the rest of what has been written here is just posturing and chest beating. Some if it is undoubtably true on both sides, some is undoubtably untruths and some us undoubtably outright lies. The truth ALWAYS lies somewhere in between. It is up to an interested and active membership to work it out and vote in the board that will look after the interests of the Australian warbird movement, not individuals.
Such a simple solution.
Cheers
CB
1. Hold an EGM, with appropriate notice and agenda in-accordance-with all rules nd regulations, to ALL members and declaring all positions open.
2. All issues are put to the membership
3. The membership votes.
4. The membership/AWAL then put up with whatever is decided by the board after this point.
QED
This is the only way to solve these problems and if the membership is apathetic, then they deserve whatever outcome they get. If they are active and involved then I am sure they will achieve the best for AWAL and the Australian warbird movement.
Really the rest of what has been written here is just posturing and chest beating. Some if it is undoubtably true on both sides, some is undoubtably untruths and some us undoubtably outright lies. The truth ALWAYS lies somewhere in between. It is up to an interested and active membership to work it out and vote in the board that will look after the interests of the Australian warbird movement, not individuals.
Such a simple solution.
Cheers
CB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cloud Basher sadly this whole saga may well get to the EGM point, there are simply too many shiboleths in the saga to see an equitable ending under the current circumstances.
It all sends a really poor message to those who have come to warbirds lately and who have little access to the history of the organisation and those who put the original self admin process in place.
Asthe fat lady saga says, it ain't over yet, sadly.
It all sends a really poor message to those who have come to warbirds lately and who have little access to the history of the organisation and those who put the original self admin process in place.
Asthe fat lady saga says, it ain't over yet, sadly.
Last edited by T28D; 5th Feb 2013 at 10:36.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tailwheel, in defence of NoNonsence...you posted a letter from the President of AWAL that may have been written by the President, but was not posted by him, and as far as I am aware....has not been posted anywhere else (or even issued to members).
Did the president give you permission to post that?
How is the posting of that letter by T28D any different to the posting of the email excerpts by NoNonsence?
Did the president give you permission to post that?
How is the posting of that letter by T28D any different to the posting of the email excerpts by NoNonsence?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, ta..
Good to see then that the meeting invitation has been extended to all members....so they are obviously trying to ramroad the regulation through...because as aircraft owners themselves, I am sure they must really enjoy helping CASA implement regulation that makes their own lives harder...
I have a number of good friends on the board and as they are quite clearly the victims of skullduggery in this whole arrangement I will be lobbying to get them as many votes as possible at the upcoming AGM.
Good to see then that the meeting invitation has been extended to all members....so they are obviously trying to ramroad the regulation through...because as aircraft owners themselves, I am sure they must really enjoy helping CASA implement regulation that makes their own lives harder...
I have a number of good friends on the board and as they are quite clearly the victims of skullduggery in this whole arrangement I will be lobbying to get them as many votes as possible at the upcoming AGM.
Moderator
One document is prefaced and clearly intended for general distribution:
The other excerpts are prefaced:
One document was specifically intended for general distribution, the other appears to be extracts from private, personal correspondence between two individuals which were accessed by a third party, presumably without their knowledge or consent.
This thread is not available for personal attacks on or insults to individuals, by either group of protagonists. You are welcome to dispute and logically argue against the views expressed by the Association President, Leadsled, T28D et al; you may not attack and insult individuals personally.
That is my final comment. You know the rules…….
Members of Australian Warbird Association Ltd
I still have some papers from my brief time on the inside with AWAL a few years ago. Here are some extracts:
This thread is not available for personal attacks on or insults to individuals, by either group of protagonists. You are welcome to dispute and logically argue against the views expressed by the Association President, Leadsled, T28D et al; you may not attack and insult individuals personally.
That is my final comment. You know the rules…….
Crush Depth:
So lets get you over with first because there is a bigger issue here.
Taking the last matter first, the "skullduggery" victim is Mr. R-S, as the Supreme Court has decided.
I have been a member of enough clubs and societies to have seen any number of "Kitchen Cabinets", Cabals of all sorts, Dictators and would be dictators, axe grinders,, psycopaths and downright loonies and I have sadly participated in their execution on more than one occasion, so I think I know a smattering of their tricks.
To put that another way, I think I have a fair idea of what has occurred just be reading between the lines if there is some truth in them, so don't try that "victim" BS here.
Secondly, Ah Yes! "The meeting" if I have my facts straight, this was supposed to be for a select invited group, but now is open to "All members". That strongly suggests to me that a certain amount of backside covering is going on and that members interest has been piqued to say the least, but what would I know?
What I do know is that you cannot and better not call it a "meeting" implying that it is a meeting of members with the power to make a resolution, vote of confidence, expression of support for something or someone or anything else. All you can have is an information session that takes no action whatsoever unless you fulfil the requirements of your constitution and the Corporate law about notifying all members, tabling of motions, etc.
The intent I've occasionally seen in the conduct of such meetings, called in haste and attended by a minor portion of the membership, is to use the outcome at a latter date to intimidate the rest of the membership through such assertions as "That was explained at the meeting"/ "didn't you attend the meeting? If you had you would know,blah,blah". In other words suggesting that the meeing was the definitive decision point for action - which it cannot be. In other words, part of an attempt to railroad the membership.
In other words, call it an information session, distribute an attendance list to all members along with whatever Q & A, presentation transcripts you have, or better still, don't hold it at all until there are discussion drafts sent to everyone, but even then , it can only be a Q & A session. Railroading is not a good tactic.
As for the motives of the Board, I cannot comment, except to say I have seen "clubs within clubs" before with the strangest of ideas.
But now the big issue: Exactly what does CASA think its doing? Is CASA aware of the likely attitude of the average member of AWAL to it's proposals? If that attitude is likely to be negative, how did it think it was going to convince the Board of AWAL to engage with it and possibly support it? What is the safety case for changing the rules - apart from the obvious one that if all flight is prohibited, accidents will not occur.
The only "safe" thing for CASA to do now is not to engage with AWAL in private or to wait till there is a new Board after a meeting, as well as fully disclose their proposed regulations and the associated safety case.
Good to see then that the meeting invitation has been extended to all members....so they are obviously trying to ramroad the regulation through...because as aircraft owners themselves, I am sure they must really enjoy helping CASA implement regulation that makes their own lives harder...
I have a number of good friends on the board and as they are quite clearly the victims of skullduggery in this whole arrangement I will be lobbying to get them as many votes as possible at the upcoming AGM.
I have a number of good friends on the board and as they are quite clearly the victims of skullduggery in this whole arrangement I will be lobbying to get them as many votes as possible at the upcoming AGM.
Taking the last matter first, the "skullduggery" victim is Mr. R-S, as the Supreme Court has decided.
I have been a member of enough clubs and societies to have seen any number of "Kitchen Cabinets", Cabals of all sorts, Dictators and would be dictators, axe grinders,, psycopaths and downright loonies and I have sadly participated in their execution on more than one occasion, so I think I know a smattering of their tricks.
To put that another way, I think I have a fair idea of what has occurred just be reading between the lines if there is some truth in them, so don't try that "victim" BS here.
Secondly, Ah Yes! "The meeting" if I have my facts straight, this was supposed to be for a select invited group, but now is open to "All members". That strongly suggests to me that a certain amount of backside covering is going on and that members interest has been piqued to say the least, but what would I know?
What I do know is that you cannot and better not call it a "meeting" implying that it is a meeting of members with the power to make a resolution, vote of confidence, expression of support for something or someone or anything else. All you can have is an information session that takes no action whatsoever unless you fulfil the requirements of your constitution and the Corporate law about notifying all members, tabling of motions, etc.
The intent I've occasionally seen in the conduct of such meetings, called in haste and attended by a minor portion of the membership, is to use the outcome at a latter date to intimidate the rest of the membership through such assertions as "That was explained at the meeting"/ "didn't you attend the meeting? If you had you would know,blah,blah". In other words suggesting that the meeing was the definitive decision point for action - which it cannot be. In other words, part of an attempt to railroad the membership.
In other words, call it an information session, distribute an attendance list to all members along with whatever Q & A, presentation transcripts you have, or better still, don't hold it at all until there are discussion drafts sent to everyone, but even then , it can only be a Q & A session. Railroading is not a good tactic.
As for the motives of the Board, I cannot comment, except to say I have seen "clubs within clubs" before with the strangest of ideas.
But now the big issue: Exactly what does CASA think its doing? Is CASA aware of the likely attitude of the average member of AWAL to it's proposals? If that attitude is likely to be negative, how did it think it was going to convince the Board of AWAL to engage with it and possibly support it? What is the safety case for changing the rules - apart from the obvious one that if all flight is prohibited, accidents will not occur.
The only "safe" thing for CASA to do now is not to engage with AWAL in private or to wait till there is a new Board after a meeting, as well as fully disclose their proposed regulations and the associated safety case.
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Feb 2013 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, a great summation of the position at present, your management expertise allows you as usual to present a succinct summary without involving personalities.
Well done.
Well done.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 132
Gentlemen – in the interests of being accorded the pleasure of making your own decisions:-
Proposed - Part 132 - legislative changes.
Click the blue Part 132 link, this will take you to a download page. Click the "Download" big red button on the top right corner and the document will appear in wherever you keep your down loads (or, get the kids to do it).
PAIN_Net does NOT track downloads.
P18 –AKA - Blind Freddy
Proposed - Part 132 - legislative changes.
Click the blue Part 132 link, this will take you to a download page. Click the "Download" big red button on the top right corner and the document will appear in wherever you keep your down loads (or, get the kids to do it).
PAIN_Net does NOT track downloads.
P18 –AKA - Blind Freddy
Folks,
There has been much said about what is in the proposed legislative changes, those in favour suggesting those against don't know what they are talking about, but never with any details of why. Often expressed in somewhat stronger and more lurid terms.
In contrast, those opposing the new rules have presented fact and detail.
Now, here is the actual draft legislation, to read for yourself.
To understand the full impact of the new proposed impositions, you do need a working knowledge of the current rules, so it will help to understand the new impositions by using Stephen Dines overview as a guide as you have a look at the major changes.
This will not prevent you also making a judgement about the accuracy of Stephen's overview. We are still working our way through some of the details, but there is nothing that mitigates the major new imposts and the whole raft of new offences created, and the radically new styles of offences.
It's not easy reading, but the serious ramifications of this proposal getting onto the statute books cannot be overestimated.
As I have stated, time and again, this represents an attempt at a major winding back if the (then) new rights and freedoms represented by the changes instituted by the Government, with bi-partisan political support, in 1998.
Tootle pip!!
There has been much said about what is in the proposed legislative changes, those in favour suggesting those against don't know what they are talking about, but never with any details of why. Often expressed in somewhat stronger and more lurid terms.
In contrast, those opposing the new rules have presented fact and detail.
Now, here is the actual draft legislation, to read for yourself.
To understand the full impact of the new proposed impositions, you do need a working knowledge of the current rules, so it will help to understand the new impositions by using Stephen Dines overview as a guide as you have a look at the major changes.
This will not prevent you also making a judgement about the accuracy of Stephen's overview. We are still working our way through some of the details, but there is nothing that mitigates the major new imposts and the whole raft of new offences created, and the radically new styles of offences.
It's not easy reading, but the serious ramifications of this proposal getting onto the statute books cannot be overestimated.
As I have stated, time and again, this represents an attempt at a major winding back if the (then) new rights and freedoms represented by the changes instituted by the Government, with bi-partisan political support, in 1998.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
visibility
Also in the interests of making your own decisions, and now that the draft legislation can at last be viewed, you should cross-check the quotes in Dines' report.
Dines' report: Zippyshare.com - review of 132 consultation draft.pdf
Watch out for the Ad buttons, click the red Download button at the top right corner of the window.
Dines' report: Zippyshare.com - review of 132 consultation draft.pdf
Watch out for the Ad buttons, click the red Download button at the top right corner of the window.
Last edited by Blowie; 7th Feb 2013 at 00:40.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that unlike the freedom of speech practiced by Pprune the sitting members of the AWAL board have come out in a rather abrupt rebuttal of the recent criticisms of P132 but have offered no real explanatory material relying solely on the premise each of us can contact CASA and get private briefings or attend a soiree this weekend and listen to a CASA officer try to explain the ramifications of Part 132 .
This ignores the factual position of what is written in the draft, what is on the paper is the position, legal interpretation relies on what is written, not opinions, it is up to each of us to become properly informed and not rely on platitudes.
Provided this debate stays apersonal and is not a slanging match it will remain on Pprune where all can judge for themselves what the actual position is.
This ignores the factual position of what is written in the draft, what is on the paper is the position, legal interpretation relies on what is written, not opinions, it is up to each of us to become properly informed and not rely on platitudes.
Provided this debate stays apersonal and is not a slanging match it will remain on Pprune where all can judge for themselves what the actual position is.
T28D it's called "abrogating responsibility" in other words, the board are saying " it's nothing to do with us" make up your own mind.
Sorry board, it's your job to convey the news to members, then carry the members views to casa and argue them.
.otherwise you are just a mouthpiece for casa like the union rep who represented me at Ansett.....right up until he joined Ansett hr.
That attitude could be summarized as:
"well we,don't have any problems with the new regs, if you do, well, that is your problem, not ours, you deal with it, don't expect us to lift a finger".
I am reminded of the late Don Dunstan who decided as tourism commissioner for Victoria that he knew more about the subject than the board he reported to and they abrogated their powers to him. There were Two copies of the consultants report that detailed the debacle that followed. The Premier, John Cain, told Donny that he hadn't read it and wouldn't need to if Don resigned. Donny fell on his sword, citing "personal reasons". The Two copies were destroyed. I proof read and contributed to that report. I wish I'd kept a copy it was a hot document for a while.
To put that another way, it is very unwise for a Board to deny that it has carriage of governance and policy, even more unwise to try to delegate what can't be delegated.
To put that yet another way, you are Directors, so start Directing. you cannot delegate.
If there is some obstacle, then remove it.
Sorry board, it's your job to convey the news to members, then carry the members views to casa and argue them.
.otherwise you are just a mouthpiece for casa like the union rep who represented me at Ansett.....right up until he joined Ansett hr.
That attitude could be summarized as:
"well we,don't have any problems with the new regs, if you do, well, that is your problem, not ours, you deal with it, don't expect us to lift a finger".
I am reminded of the late Don Dunstan who decided as tourism commissioner for Victoria that he knew more about the subject than the board he reported to and they abrogated their powers to him. There were Two copies of the consultants report that detailed the debacle that followed. The Premier, John Cain, told Donny that he hadn't read it and wouldn't need to if Don resigned. Donny fell on his sword, citing "personal reasons". The Two copies were destroyed. I proof read and contributed to that report. I wish I'd kept a copy it was a hot document for a while.
To put that another way, it is very unwise for a Board to deny that it has carriage of governance and policy, even more unwise to try to delegate what can't be delegated.
To put that yet another way, you are Directors, so start Directing. you cannot delegate.
If there is some obstacle, then remove it.
Last edited by Sunfish; 7th Feb 2013 at 04:13.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a whiff.
Is there a whiff of conflict of interest in the air ? – seems passing strange that a board has not fully informed the members and has their opinion on the impact that a legislative change may have on the operation. Please tell me no one on the board had any part of actually writing the proposed rules and flogging them off to the members. Nah - but then, if it walks like a duck ??? 
Last edited by Kharon; 7th Feb 2013 at 05:12.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like a duck
Kharon said
Dunno who wrote it, but they sure knew about it.
Please tell me no one on the board had any part of actually writing the proposed rules and flogging them off to the members.
18/01/13 From a letter e-mailed to all AWAL members
Dear Members
We’ve worked very hard to ensure the net result of these new regulations is positive for our community, and while CASA has not yet given us permission to release copies of the legislation, we can assure you that it is very favourable for us all! Another point worth mentioning is that Part 132 has been reviewed by the whole board on several occasions.
Stephen Crocker CEO
Dear Members
We’ve worked very hard to ensure the net result of these new regulations is positive for our community, and while CASA has not yet given us permission to release copies of the legislation, we can assure you that it is very favourable for us all! Another point worth mentioning is that Part 132 has been reviewed by the whole board on several occasions.
Stephen Crocker CEO