HGFA DISSATISFACTION
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Kelley
Aug 20, 2008, 10:49:25 AM8/20/08
to sa...@googlegroups.com
A few members including Stuart received this email a couple of
days ago, worth a read if you have the time. Dosen't instil much
confidence in the Board or Gm if the allegations are true. pk.
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for your long and informative email!
It seems that my issues are different from yours, but that we're
experiencing the same kind of "handling". I'll try and give you a
quick run-down.
I've been flying since 1989 (hang gliding) and about 1992 (para), and
paramotoring since about 1997, and hangmotoring for the last 3 or 4
years too. I'm on the board of "The Pico", co-founded the CCSS club,
and did much of the recent work representing our interests to CASA
regarding part 103.
Late last year, while listening to the club members complain about
"loosing sites", I thought "Why doesn't anyone ever *do* something
about this" - so I set out to try and "make a positive difference".
I discovered that the NSW-Parks "ban" on flying seemed to have been
put in place wrongly (NSW parks are supposed only to be allowed to
write laws that compliment the "enabling legislation" and it's intent;
which is to "foster enjoyment of national parks".) I proposed to the
HGFA that we investigate the repeal of the ban. It was good timing,
because all NSW legislation is automatically repealed every 7 years,
and it was currently the 7th anniversary of the legislation.
Chris Fogg (GM) blocked my idea. Remember - I wasn't proposing to
submit anything - just to *investigate* if the ban had any chance of
being lifted by repeal, and if so - what's a good way to request it.
The GM told me that there's no need to repeal anything, because NSW
parks have a "Hang Gliding policy". So - I read the policy. It says
we're allowed to fly, if we have consent. So - I asked to see a
consent. The GM refused. I reminded him that, under 8.12 of our
constitution, he's not allowed to refuse to let me see documentation.
He refused again anyhow. Next - I did some research about consents; I
discovered that when the new "ban" law came in, NSW pilots were
granted "interim consents" for all their existing sites - to give them
time to get official consents put in place. I then discovered that
all these interim consents expired in October 2007. To cut a long
story short - depending on the phase of the moon when you ask the GM,
we either "do" have consents, or we "don't need" consents, or any
number of increasingly implausible explanations are given (eg:
friendships with park rangers, old letters from rangers, or historical
"arrangements" etc). In other words - NSW law says we need a consent
with an "SMP" (site management plan), and an "REF" (review of
environment factors), for every site in any NSW park that HGFA members
want to fly in (or over*). The HGFA has none.
* Yes - NSW Parks legislation covers park airspace too. I don't
believe NSW parks have jurisdiction over airspace, but nevertheless,
their laws are written to include it.
* "NSW Parks" includes historic sites, state conservation areas,
regional parks, nature/conservation reserves, Aboriginal areas, crown
lands, and other public/government areas, including all roads and
waters within.
Next - it occurred to me that anyone flying illegally, would be doing
so without insurance - because our insurance probably excludes all
illegal activity. So - to confirm my suspicion, I asked to see our
insurance policy. The GM refused. I asked again - he refused again.
I asked 10 more times, and he refused every time - giving numerous
different excuses for not letting me see it. Eventually - on the 11th
request, he said it was "Confidential Information", so I could only
see it if I signed a perpetual gag order that - among other things -
forbids me from ever discussing anything about insurance ever again -
including my opinions etc - to anyone. I said he has no right to
impose gag orders, and said I'd get it from Vero or a board member if
he doesn't give it to me. He still refused, so I also asked every
board member, and I phoned up Vero. I was told by Vero that the GM
had instructed them not to release our insurance policy to any
members. All of the board members also refused (or had been told not
to give it to me - I'd have to check my records on this one).
Today (many months after the 1st phone call) - I phoned up Vero again.
They told me that there is no confidentiality agreement or any other
intellectual-property documents or non-disclosure conditions
preventing members from seeing insurance documents. Armed with that
knowledge, I called our broker, who happily confirmed the same, and
sent me a copy of the insurance. In other words - the GM's refusal
was unjustified, and his extraordinary activities taken to block me
from seeing our insurance have no legitimate explanation.
Back in March, when all the consent research was going on, many things
were said by the board and GM about the consent issue that were not
true. More requests of mine for information were refused, and every
time they said something that "undermined" my research, they were
unable to prove anything, or refused to check or supply any evidence.
Many board members started making personal attacks against me, and the
GM published a "character assassination" of me, saying such silly
things like "Chris Drake regularly engages in illegal paramotoring in
NSW parks" (not true of course). Ironically - the GM persuaded the
board to place a "gag order" on me at this point - I am currently
forbidden to question, oppose, or challenge anything that the GM says
or does, and I'm forbidden to express disapproval of any HGFA staff...
otherwise I'll get expelled. Javier went 1 step further, and refused
to guarantee impartiality of disciplinary tribunals - saying that the
board will choose whoever they deem appropriate.
On April 1st (ironically) - I'd had enough, and I filed an official set
of member motions under constitution (#7.15). They're attached for
your amusement. I called for action on the consents issue, for a halt
to the HGFA's constant refusal to provide documents when requested,
for publication of meeting minutes/agendas and our insurance, for the
GM to explain his actions regarding a pile of his indiscretions, and
to start keeping verifiable records of what he's up to, for board
members who refuse to obey the constitution to be automatically
dismissed from their office, and for the GM to be replaced. Not
surprisingly - none of them were happy about this.
The secretary - who originally agreed to present the motions, decided
that "Member motions can only be heard at the AGM" - and refused to
let them be voted on at the next committee meeting. I challenged the
refusal, and requested meeting agendas and minutes, from him and all
the board. Everyone refused - some even were so incensed with rage
that I'd asked for the meeting agenda - that they broadcast open
threats against me to all board members.
Time passed, then I wrote a letter to Suzy for inclusion in our
magazine - it read thusly:-
-------------------------------------
Your HGFA!
Love or hate it - we're all in the HGFA, and one time each year, we
get the chance to make a difference - at the AGM. To propose a motion
for all members to decide on, simply phrase it as a "yes/no" vote, get
another member to second your motion, and send it to the HGFA
secretary. All motions are published in time for everyone to
postal-vote before the next AGM - in October. I sent mine in April,
so look for your ballot in the coming months. For more info, check
our constitution items 7.15, 7.16, 7.36, 7.1, 7.37, and 8.12.
-------------------------------------
The GM censored this, and told Suzy not to print it. Later, I
received an email from the secretary alleging that "legal opinion" had
been sought, and he listed about a dozen amusing reasons why he
thought he had a right to not allow my motions to go before the AGM.
I made a series of phone calls to the secretary and president (Javier)
about this. They both suspiciously refused to tell me who provided
the legal advice, and both refused to say who gave the "report" to
Paul, which he quoted as the reason for refusing my motions. Javier
said the report was based on "expensive legal opinion", but admitted
he'd never seen a bill for it. Paul said "I don't know" when I asked
him if this "expensive advice" was oral or written. Several people in
the HGFA tell me that this "report" was written by the GM himself. A
disturbing number of people point-blank refuse to tell me who wrote
it. Javier accidentally told me that the GM did *not* write it, so I
know now for sure that at least some of the Board are actively
deceiving me about this report. Javier also refused to give me any
evidence to back up his claims about the legality of the opinion in
the report, and he in fact told me that if I want any evidence - I
should take it to a lawyer to verify it.
I later spoke at length with the Treasurer - and he confirms that he's
never paid any lawyers recently, and never seen any financial records
relating to legal expenses.
I got *my* lawyers report back a few days ago (at considerable
personal expense) - the HGFA's "report" is completely illegal; all the
claims and requirements in it are unjustified, and there's no chance
that anyone who knows anything about law had anything to do with
writing it. In other words - if I believe the people I've spoken to
today who said the GM wrote this report - it seems he did so with the
express intent of peddling bogus advice in order to subvert our
constitution, and prevent a vote taking place regarding his own
replacement.
Some other recent things have made me quite unhappy too.
1. The HGFA spent ~$3000 sending us all us all a personal letter
(instead of just sticking the info in our magazine) - telling us
they're doing everything possible to save money. They then said
they're putting up our fees, because of CPI and other excuses.
The April board minutes document the reason for the fee increase:
Insurance premium shortfalls meant more money was needed, and board
members decided that the only way to get the money was raise
membership fees.
Basically - because the HGFA is allowed to pay premiums quarterly,
instead of all at once, they seemed to think that they're allowed
to spend our insurance money on other things - so they're now $200K
"in the red", and quite possibly - we are all now flying uninsured
(if the HGFA can't produce the missing $200K in the face of a
claim; our insurance is void).
2. HGFA "Expenses" look to me completely out-of-control. $25,000 just
to move a small office to the other side of town? Even the
original $25,000 to move to Melbourne in the 1st place sounds
bogus; the "office", according to someone who saw it at Hallidays,
would have fitted into a box trailer. How does it cost $25K to
move just that?
$10,000 to set up something like PayPal to accept online payments?
If they'd asked me or any of the dozens of clubs who do this
already, they'd get it for free!
$30,000 for "Office Projects" - WTF?? There's only 3000 members in
our club - nothing sensible could ever cost that much - and again -
many clubs already do all this for their own members - if the HGFA
asked, someone could provide it for free for sure.
$5000 to scan or re-type 30 forms and put them on the web? Why
isn't this the job of the staff or GM who's wages we're already
paying?
$20,000 to re-write the Ops Manual? Who exactly would get that
money? I offered to help write it when I was doing the part-103
work last year, and I know at least a dozen other members who'd be
happy to work on this for free.
$72,000 for rent ($1200/mo)? Well - if "personality conflicts"
between the GM and HGFA staff and suppliers didn't keep getting us
kicked out all the time - we'd still be in rent-free offices, with
countless tens of thousands in unnecessary extra moving expenses
better off.
In short - I don't see any evidence that anyone in the HGFA is
being responsible with our money. Not with insurance. Not with
budgets. Not with expenses. They're not even letting anyone see
any records (I was told - when I questioned why my requests for
this are being ignored - that the board has agreed not to answer
my emails. Others in QLD, were told "sure - we'll show you, but
only if you come here to the Melbourne office")
3. The SARSIG "matrix" and later "model options" etc - I was amused at
the 3 options we were given for payment models: It was my opinion
that the GM selected an "option" he wanted, then invented a couple
of other ridiculous options, put all 3 up and made us "choose".
Not surprisingly, the option he wanted got "selected".
4. HGFA Record keeping. Not much of what really happens at meetings
gets into the minutes (if they keep any minutes at all - Paul told
me he was "too busy" to keep minutes for a large number of meetings
I've asked him about). Most of the board think that meetings are
confidential, and no members should know what goes on anyhow, and
they seem to think that it's OK to omit whatever they want from the
minutes.
5. Board understanding of their responsibilities and member rights is
lacking. Javier tells me that HGFA business is typically conducted
at meetings by the GM telling everyone what to do. I don't think
the board understand that they're supposed to tell the GM what to
do; not the other way around!
I found out today that two more board members have resigned. Caroline
Dennis and Rick Williams recently (and Andrew Polidano on Day 1). I'm
glad to see that some people refuse to be involved in what's going on,
but dismayed that they're bailing out instead of facing their
responsibilities or fixing the problems.
---
I think a national (not moderated by any HGFA officials!) forum is a
great idea. Quite a few members get openly hostile when politics
distract from their "flying" forum posts, and there appear to be a
massive number of other questionable things going on in the HGFA, but
each "victim" doesn't seem to know all the others even exist. Other
angry clubs around here include Canungra and Northern rivers. There
seem to be a fair number of people saying they'll quit the HGFA if
there's a fee rise. I'll spend some time looking into other club
forums around the place, and try and send you a list.
I recommend you read these bits of our constitution: 7.15, 7.16,
7.36, 7.1, 7.37, and 8.12. There's still time to submit motions to
the Secretary, which every HGFA member will then get in time to vote
before the AGM on September 29th.
Kind Regards,
Chris Drake
Monday, August 18, 2008, 4:25:13 PM, you wrote:
SMca> Hi Chris,
SMca> Yes there were and still are some very unhappy people in SA.
SMca> There is a long history leading up to this, but it came to a head over
SMca> recent issues, primarily centred around that last regional funding group
SMca> vote. Most people just complained to themselves until then, but it
SMca> pushed a few too many buttons.
SMca> Button 1 was :
SMca> Basically from history that dates from long ago (~20 years), at the time
SMca> I remember this happening even though I was a new member, (probably
SMca> because I was new). Anyway at the time SAHGA members complained about
SMca> having to post off two memberships, (the easy path often bites) and they
SMca> asked SAHGA to go to HGFA to get an arrangement so they could collect
SMca> the funds and pass it back to SAHGA. A practical simple system, that got
SMca> put in place i.e. state fees collected as members paid and quarterly
SMca> cheques sent back to SAHGA. And at the time payment of the state fee was
SMca> voted on to be acceptance as membership of SAHGA.
SMca> Worked good for 20 odd years BUT (can I write that but any bigger) time
SMca> passed agreements were forgotten, or lost, or never formally documented
SMca> between SAHGA and HGFA.
SMca> So SAHGA members continued to pay and believe that the state fees, which
SMca> were set by SAHGA and SAHGA members to cover SA costs and liabilities
SMca> was theirs. HGFA became to believe that the money was always theirs and
SMca> it was a donation to the states as shown by the yearly transfers. As
SMca> you can guess a unified fee that may or may not be return the SAHGA
SMca> component depending on if HGFA decides, made the members upset.
>>From HGFA side of things the arguments were varied as to why this must
SMca> be. They include about 10 years ago HGFA changed from Federation to
SMca> Organization and from that point it was illegal to collect fees on
SMca> another organisations behalf, unless GST was paid (also includes that we
SMca> have no members now). HGFA was worried about dwindling membership
SMca> especially micro-lights and they took the complaints of some of the pico
SMca> pilots and some micro-light pilots and concluded that because the money
SMca> was theirs it was their responsibility to provide a better distribution
SMca> system. This all lead to button 2
SMca> Button 2 was how things were managed.
>>From the SAHGA members perspective what appeared to happen was. The
SMca> board called a special meeting to discuss this, this info was to go back
SMca> to the states, so it could be discussed, and then discussion taken back
SMca> to board and then voted on. What appeared to happen was that the
SMca> discussions coming back were decided on as being the consultation and
SMca> the changes accepted as passed. This made the members squeal about
SMca> dictator ships.
SMca> Now HGFA saw this as something that urgently requiring fixing, because
SMca> it was a long standing problem, and that is probably what drove the old
SMca> board to push it through in such a manner. Also things were complicated
SMca> in this process because boards changed, but the anger and decisions did
SMca> not. To get newly in office and be faced with a barrage of criticism may
SMca> have been a bit much for the new board.
SMca> I believe that in this process there were many diversions, but basically
SMca> SA members felt that due consultation had not happened, that the
SMca> arguments weren't being heard, that questions were not answered.
SMca> The board felt that all this had been discussed and was done and that
SMca> it was a long standing problem that needed to be fixed, so why are they
SMca> squealing anyway.
SMca> And like a bad marriage, even though the words were being exchanged the
SMca> discussion became less, people became more entrenched and embittered and
SMca> before long things were being said that people probably would not
SMca> normally say. Basically it is a very human trait that when we are not
SMca> heard we shout louder.
SMca> Regretfully all this has left a bad taste in a more than a few mouths on
SMca> both sides of the trenches.
SMca> After the last vote, the outcome of which surprised me, but the
SMca> subsequent consequences of that vote did not.
SMca> But because of that outcome, we now must operate in the new regime.
SMca> Specifically for SA, HGFA has stated that they have paid the monies for
SMca> many years so why would they stop paying us, and if the states do the
SMca> appropriate justification, there should be no problem, and may this
SMca> would even allow us small states to punch above our weight.
SMca> I personally will continue to have qualms about the fundamental problem
SMca> of having the monies in one organization and the liabilities in another,
SMca> but are willing to try it. Some members are not so willing.
SMca> Anyway I believe the board is now thinking like a person under siege,
SMca> and that the members are thinking like terrorists. The real answer is
SMca> to put the problems out there and have some serious and meaningful
SMca> debate about the many possible solutions. I don't think that this
SMca> happened previously or is happening well now. Both sides have improved
SMca> but we are still a long way from a good place.
SMca> I think if the issues had been discussed out in the open over a longer
SMca> period things would have been better. Both sides could have done better
SMca> at this. Currently there is some dialog that is happening with HGFA
SMca> with some members, and some of the reasons for decisions are coming back
SMca> to us, a basis to build on. but I think it needs to be more open for all
SMca> HGFA members to read and understand, to help stop problems building
SMca> before they happen. Time will tell all.
SMca> You may want to contact woody
SMca> rob_wo...@ultimatepositioning.com - he
SMca> has had longer time connections to the board and may be able to
SMca> enlighten you further.
SMca> Specifically to you point about the motion. The motion at the board was
SMca> relating to a letter from Paul, In the height of these debates Paul was
SMca> told that the letter would not be tabled unless through SAHGA. Pauls
SMca> words were strong, but typical and indicative of the feelings and
SMca> emotions of the local members about the matters, and although we did not
SMca> agree with the way it was written it was endorsed so it could at least
SMca> be a voice that was heard. In hindsight not one of my better decisions,
SMca> but one that was probably also driven by frustration that debate at the
SMca> time had well and truly stalled in the quagmires, that the time left to
SMca> debate before things changed was disappearing, and the doubt that maybe
SMca> I was taking the wrong approach and debating with the fireman while Rome
SMca> burned. For better or worse it happened. Maybe it was Pauls way that
SMca> finally got a vote going.
SMca> And yes I believe, the board has a reasonable expectation not to be
SMca> personally abused and respond in the way they did, but also I think they
SMca> have a responsibility to answer questions in a way accessible to members
SMca> which is open to debate.
SMca> Anyway Paul's email is pske...@bigpond.net.au in this regard you will
SMca> find him a reasonable but frustrated individual.
SMca> You may also want to contact Sun Nickerson, sun.ni...@gmail.com in
SMca> WA he is also an independent thinker that has a successful dialogue
SMca> going with HGFA at the moment, a dialog that I feel is helping things
SMca> get better.
SMca> To your point about insurance, from my dialog with HGFA I thought that
SMca> the money was needed to cover a call back on premiums in case of a claim
SMca> and that the current insurer (which is I gather the cheaper insurer) has
SMca> part of this as their requirements. I will see if I can find that
SMca> documented some where. This is really where we need open debates.
SMca> Yes I think the increased fees will make things worse not better,
SMca> especially if HGFA can not impart why this is need to its members.
SMca> I would be keen to keep a track of what other people are thinking,
SMca> something I think we needed before. Can I access your forums somehow,
SMca> currently our SA abroad person sends some info to our forum
SMca> sa...@googlegroups.com which is open to be read, become a member to post.
SMca> There is also a sa...@googlegroups.com but that is closed so you will
SMca> have to become a member to read contact Peter Allen pgp...@gmail.com for
SMca> this.
SMca> I have thought about starting a national forum in a similar vein - I
SMca> think its something we need
SMca> Stuart
SMca> -----Original Message-----
SMca> From: Chris Drake [mailto:chris...@pobox.com]
SMca> Sent: Friday, 15 August 2008 10:37
SMca> To: McClure, Stuart (CLW, Urrbrae)
SMca> Subject: hgfa criticism
SMca> Hi Stuart,
SMca> I notice in the latest meeting minutes that more people besides myself
SMca> are being threatened with expulsion for trying to discuss possible
SMca> HGFA mismanagement!
SMca> Is there some history or info I can get about what's going on over
SMca> there?
SMca> The main issue with me is that I put forward a member motion to have
SMca> the GM replaced, but the board are colluding to prevent my motion from
SMca> going to a vote at the AGM - so I've engaged lawyers now.
SMca> The second big issue is the current fee situation: the HGFA spent our
SMca> insurance premiums on other stuff, so they're now $200K short in
SMca> funds, but they chose to blame "CPI" instead of the real reason when
SMca> justifying their fee hike. There's hundreds of angry people on
SMca> east-coast forums currently getting together to work out how to handle
SMca> this.
SMca> Kind Regards,
SMca> Chris Drake
SMca> May minutes:
SMca> 5. ABUSE COMING FROM SOUTH AUSTRALIA (SAHGA):
SMca> The use of abusive and totally inappropriate language in emails coming
SMca> from the SAHGA people and also on their forums is unacceptable and
SMca> will not be tolerated. The Board will not respond to anyone who
SMca> behaves in this way and any continuation of such abuse or language
SMca> directed at either Board members or the General Manager will be
SMca> considered as acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the
SMca> Federation and disciplinary action will be taken under Section 5.2 of
SMca> the Constitution.
SMca> April minutes:
SMca> 10. CHRIS DRAKE ISSUES:
SMca> Motion 08-05:
SMca> WRITTEN RESPONSE TO CHRIS DRAKE:
SMca> 4. Any further statements impugning the GM or his handling of this
SMca> matter will be considered as acting in a manner prejudicial to the
SMca> interests of the Federation (Constitution: 5.2)
SMca> CARRIED.
Thanks for your long and informative email!
It seems that my issues are different from yours, but that we're
experiencing the same kind of "handling". I'll try and give you a
quick run-down.
I've been flying since 1989 (hang gliding) and about 1992 (para), and
paramotoring since about 1997, and hangmotoring for the last 3 or 4
years too. I'm on the board of "The Pico", co-founded the CCSS club,
and did much of the recent work representing our interests to CASA
regarding part 103.
Late last year, while listening to the club members complain about
"loosing sites", I thought "Why doesn't anyone ever *do* something
about this" - so I set out to try and "make a positive difference".
I discovered that the NSW-Parks "ban" on flying seemed to have been
put in place wrongly (NSW parks are supposed only to be allowed to
write laws that compliment the "enabling legislation" and it's intent;
which is to "foster enjoyment of national parks".) I proposed to the
HGFA that we investigate the repeal of the ban. It was good timing,
because all NSW legislation is automatically repealed every 7 years,
and it was currently the 7th anniversary of the legislation.
Chris Fogg (GM) blocked my idea. Remember - I wasn't proposing to
submit anything - just to *investigate* if the ban had any chance of
being lifted by repeal, and if so - what's a good way to request it.
The GM told me that there's no need to repeal anything, because NSW
parks have a "Hang Gliding policy". So - I read the policy. It says
we're allowed to fly, if we have consent. So - I asked to see a
consent. The GM refused. I reminded him that, under 8.12 of our
constitution, he's not allowed to refuse to let me see documentation.
He refused again anyhow. Next - I did some research about consents; I
discovered that when the new "ban" law came in, NSW pilots were
granted "interim consents" for all their existing sites - to give them
time to get official consents put in place. I then discovered that
all these interim consents expired in October 2007. To cut a long
story short - depending on the phase of the moon when you ask the GM,
we either "do" have consents, or we "don't need" consents, or any
number of increasingly implausible explanations are given (eg:
friendships with park rangers, old letters from rangers, or historical
"arrangements" etc). In other words - NSW law says we need a consent
with an "SMP" (site management plan), and an "REF" (review of
environment factors), for every site in any NSW park that HGFA members
want to fly in (or over*). The HGFA has none.
* Yes - NSW Parks legislation covers park airspace too. I don't
believe NSW parks have jurisdiction over airspace, but nevertheless,
their laws are written to include it.
* "NSW Parks" includes historic sites, state conservation areas,
regional parks, nature/conservation reserves, Aboriginal areas, crown
lands, and other public/government areas, including all roads and
waters within.
Next - it occurred to me that anyone flying illegally, would be doing
so without insurance - because our insurance probably excludes all
illegal activity. So - to confirm my suspicion, I asked to see our
insurance policy. The GM refused. I asked again - he refused again.
I asked 10 more times, and he refused every time - giving numerous
different excuses for not letting me see it. Eventually - on the 11th
request, he said it was "Confidential Information", so I could only
see it if I signed a perpetual gag order that - among other things -
forbids me from ever discussing anything about insurance ever again -
including my opinions etc - to anyone. I said he has no right to
impose gag orders, and said I'd get it from Vero or a board member if
he doesn't give it to me. He still refused, so I also asked every
board member, and I phoned up Vero. I was told by Vero that the GM
had instructed them not to release our insurance policy to any
members. All of the board members also refused (or had been told not
to give it to me - I'd have to check my records on this one).
Today (many months after the 1st phone call) - I phoned up Vero again.
They told me that there is no confidentiality agreement or any other
intellectual-property documents or non-disclosure conditions
preventing members from seeing insurance documents. Armed with that
knowledge, I called our broker, who happily confirmed the same, and
sent me a copy of the insurance. In other words - the GM's refusal
was unjustified, and his extraordinary activities taken to block me
from seeing our insurance have no legitimate explanation.
Back in March, when all the consent research was going on, many things
were said by the board and GM about the consent issue that were not
true. More requests of mine for information were refused, and every
time they said something that "undermined" my research, they were
unable to prove anything, or refused to check or supply any evidence.
Many board members started making personal attacks against me, and the
GM published a "character assassination" of me, saying such silly
things like "Chris Drake regularly engages in illegal paramotoring in
NSW parks" (not true of course). Ironically - the GM persuaded the
board to place a "gag order" on me at this point - I am currently
forbidden to question, oppose, or challenge anything that the GM says
or does, and I'm forbidden to express disapproval of any HGFA staff...
otherwise I'll get expelled. Javier went 1 step further, and refused
to guarantee impartiality of disciplinary tribunals - saying that the
board will choose whoever they deem appropriate.
On April 1st (ironically) - I'd had enough, and I filed an official set
of member motions under constitution (#7.15). They're attached for
your amusement. I called for action on the consents issue, for a halt
to the HGFA's constant refusal to provide documents when requested,
for publication of meeting minutes/agendas and our insurance, for the
GM to explain his actions regarding a pile of his indiscretions, and
to start keeping verifiable records of what he's up to, for board
members who refuse to obey the constitution to be automatically
dismissed from their office, and for the GM to be replaced. Not
surprisingly - none of them were happy about this.
The secretary - who originally agreed to present the motions, decided
that "Member motions can only be heard at the AGM" - and refused to
let them be voted on at the next committee meeting. I challenged the
refusal, and requested meeting agendas and minutes, from him and all
the board. Everyone refused - some even were so incensed with rage
that I'd asked for the meeting agenda - that they broadcast open
threats against me to all board members.
Time passed, then I wrote a letter to Suzy for inclusion in our
magazine - it read thusly:-
-------------------------------------
Your HGFA!
Love or hate it - we're all in the HGFA, and one time each year, we
get the chance to make a difference - at the AGM. To propose a motion
for all members to decide on, simply phrase it as a "yes/no" vote, get
another member to second your motion, and send it to the HGFA
secretary. All motions are published in time for everyone to
postal-vote before the next AGM - in October. I sent mine in April,
so look for your ballot in the coming months. For more info, check
our constitution items 7.15, 7.16, 7.36, 7.1, 7.37, and 8.12.
-------------------------------------
The GM censored this, and told Suzy not to print it. Later, I
received an email from the secretary alleging that "legal opinion" had
been sought, and he listed about a dozen amusing reasons why he
thought he had a right to not allow my motions to go before the AGM.
I made a series of phone calls to the secretary and president (Javier)
about this. They both suspiciously refused to tell me who provided
the legal advice, and both refused to say who gave the "report" to
Paul, which he quoted as the reason for refusing my motions. Javier
said the report was based on "expensive legal opinion", but admitted
he'd never seen a bill for it. Paul said "I don't know" when I asked
him if this "expensive advice" was oral or written. Several people in
the HGFA tell me that this "report" was written by the GM himself. A
disturbing number of people point-blank refuse to tell me who wrote
it. Javier accidentally told me that the GM did *not* write it, so I
know now for sure that at least some of the Board are actively
deceiving me about this report. Javier also refused to give me any
evidence to back up his claims about the legality of the opinion in
the report, and he in fact told me that if I want any evidence - I
should take it to a lawyer to verify it.
I later spoke at length with the Treasurer - and he confirms that he's
never paid any lawyers recently, and never seen any financial records
relating to legal expenses.
I got *my* lawyers report back a few days ago (at considerable
personal expense) - the HGFA's "report" is completely illegal; all the
claims and requirements in it are unjustified, and there's no chance
that anyone who knows anything about law had anything to do with
writing it. In other words - if I believe the people I've spoken to
today who said the GM wrote this report - it seems he did so with the
express intent of peddling bogus advice in order to subvert our
constitution, and prevent a vote taking place regarding his own
replacement.
Some other recent things have made me quite unhappy too.
1. The HGFA spent ~$3000 sending us all us all a personal letter
(instead of just sticking the info in our magazine) - telling us
they're doing everything possible to save money. They then said
they're putting up our fees, because of CPI and other excuses.
The April board minutes document the reason for the fee increase:
Insurance premium shortfalls meant more money was needed, and board
members decided that the only way to get the money was raise
membership fees.
Basically - because the HGFA is allowed to pay premiums quarterly,
instead of all at once, they seemed to think that they're allowed
to spend our insurance money on other things - so they're now $200K
"in the red", and quite possibly - we are all now flying uninsured
(if the HGFA can't produce the missing $200K in the face of a
claim; our insurance is void).
2. HGFA "Expenses" look to me completely out-of-control. $25,000 just
to move a small office to the other side of town? Even the
original $25,000 to move to Melbourne in the 1st place sounds
bogus; the "office", according to someone who saw it at Hallidays,
would have fitted into a box trailer. How does it cost $25K to
move just that?
$10,000 to set up something like PayPal to accept online payments?
If they'd asked me or any of the dozens of clubs who do this
already, they'd get it for free!
$30,000 for "Office Projects" - WTF?? There's only 3000 members in
our club - nothing sensible could ever cost that much - and again -
many clubs already do all this for their own members - if the HGFA
asked, someone could provide it for free for sure.
$5000 to scan or re-type 30 forms and put them on the web? Why
isn't this the job of the staff or GM who's wages we're already
paying?
$20,000 to re-write the Ops Manual? Who exactly would get that
money? I offered to help write it when I was doing the part-103
work last year, and I know at least a dozen other members who'd be
happy to work on this for free.
$72,000 for rent ($1200/mo)? Well - if "personality conflicts"
between the GM and HGFA staff and suppliers didn't keep getting us
kicked out all the time - we'd still be in rent-free offices, with
countless tens of thousands in unnecessary extra moving expenses
better off.
In short - I don't see any evidence that anyone in the HGFA is
being responsible with our money. Not with insurance. Not with
budgets. Not with expenses. They're not even letting anyone see
any records (I was told - when I questioned why my requests for
this are being ignored - that the board has agreed not to answer
my emails. Others in QLD, were told "sure - we'll show you, but
only if you come here to the Melbourne office")
3. The SARSIG "matrix" and later "model options" etc - I was amused at
the 3 options we were given for payment models: It was my opinion
that the GM selected an "option" he wanted, then invented a couple
of other ridiculous options, put all 3 up and made us "choose".
Not surprisingly, the option he wanted got "selected".
4. HGFA Record keeping. Not much of what really happens at meetings
gets into the minutes (if they keep any minutes at all - Paul told
me he was "too busy" to keep minutes for a large number of meetings
I've asked him about). Most of the board think that meetings are
confidential, and no members should know what goes on anyhow, and
they seem to think that it's OK to omit whatever they want from the
minutes.
5. Board understanding of their responsibilities and member rights is
lacking. Javier tells me that HGFA business is typically conducted
at meetings by the GM telling everyone what to do. I don't think
the board understand that they're supposed to tell the GM what to
do; not the other way around!
I found out today that two more board members have resigned. Caroline
Dennis and Rick Williams recently (and Andrew Polidano on Day 1). I'm
glad to see that some people refuse to be involved in what's going on,
but dismayed that they're bailing out instead of facing their
responsibilities or fixing the problems.
---
I think a national (not moderated by any HGFA officials!) forum is a
great idea. Quite a few members get openly hostile when politics
distract from their "flying" forum posts, and there appear to be a
massive number of other questionable things going on in the HGFA, but
each "victim" doesn't seem to know all the others even exist. Other
angry clubs around here include Canungra and Northern rivers. There
seem to be a fair number of people saying they'll quit the HGFA if
there's a fee rise. I'll spend some time looking into other club
forums around the place, and try and send you a list.
I recommend you read these bits of our constitution: 7.15, 7.16,
7.36, 7.1, 7.37, and 8.12. There's still time to submit motions to
the Secretary, which every HGFA member will then get in time to vote
before the AGM on September 29th.
Kind Regards,
Chris Drake
Monday, August 18, 2008, 4:25:13 PM, you wrote:
SMca> Hi Chris,
SMca> Yes there were and still are some very unhappy people in SA.
SMca> There is a long history leading up to this, but it came to a head over
SMca> recent issues, primarily centred around that last regional funding group
SMca> vote. Most people just complained to themselves until then, but it
SMca> pushed a few too many buttons.
SMca> Button 1 was :
SMca> Basically from history that dates from long ago (~20 years), at the time
SMca> I remember this happening even though I was a new member, (probably
SMca> because I was new). Anyway at the time SAHGA members complained about
SMca> having to post off two memberships, (the easy path often bites) and they
SMca> asked SAHGA to go to HGFA to get an arrangement so they could collect
SMca> the funds and pass it back to SAHGA. A practical simple system, that got
SMca> put in place i.e. state fees collected as members paid and quarterly
SMca> cheques sent back to SAHGA. And at the time payment of the state fee was
SMca> voted on to be acceptance as membership of SAHGA.
SMca> Worked good for 20 odd years BUT (can I write that but any bigger) time
SMca> passed agreements were forgotten, or lost, or never formally documented
SMca> between SAHGA and HGFA.
SMca> So SAHGA members continued to pay and believe that the state fees, which
SMca> were set by SAHGA and SAHGA members to cover SA costs and liabilities
SMca> was theirs. HGFA became to believe that the money was always theirs and
SMca> it was a donation to the states as shown by the yearly transfers. As
SMca> you can guess a unified fee that may or may not be return the SAHGA
SMca> component depending on if HGFA decides, made the members upset.
>>From HGFA side of things the arguments were varied as to why this must
SMca> be. They include about 10 years ago HGFA changed from Federation to
SMca> Organization and from that point it was illegal to collect fees on
SMca> another organisations behalf, unless GST was paid (also includes that we
SMca> have no members now). HGFA was worried about dwindling membership
SMca> especially micro-lights and they took the complaints of some of the pico
SMca> pilots and some micro-light pilots and concluded that because the money
SMca> was theirs it was their responsibility to provide a better distribution
SMca> system. This all lead to button 2
SMca> Button 2 was how things were managed.
>>From the SAHGA members perspective what appeared to happen was. The
SMca> board called a special meeting to discuss this, this info was to go back
SMca> to the states, so it could be discussed, and then discussion taken back
SMca> to board and then voted on. What appeared to happen was that the
SMca> discussions coming back were decided on as being the consultation and
SMca> the changes accepted as passed. This made the members squeal about
SMca> dictator ships.
SMca> Now HGFA saw this as something that urgently requiring fixing, because
SMca> it was a long standing problem, and that is probably what drove the old
SMca> board to push it through in such a manner. Also things were complicated
SMca> in this process because boards changed, but the anger and decisions did
SMca> not. To get newly in office and be faced with a barrage of criticism may
SMca> have been a bit much for the new board.
SMca> I believe that in this process there were many diversions, but basically
SMca> SA members felt that due consultation had not happened, that the
SMca> arguments weren't being heard, that questions were not answered.
SMca> The board felt that all this had been discussed and was done and that
SMca> it was a long standing problem that needed to be fixed, so why are they
SMca> squealing anyway.
SMca> And like a bad marriage, even though the words were being exchanged the
SMca> discussion became less, people became more entrenched and embittered and
SMca> before long things were being said that people probably would not
SMca> normally say. Basically it is a very human trait that when we are not
SMca> heard we shout louder.
SMca> Regretfully all this has left a bad taste in a more than a few mouths on
SMca> both sides of the trenches.
SMca> After the last vote, the outcome of which surprised me, but the
SMca> subsequent consequences of that vote did not.
SMca> But because of that outcome, we now must operate in the new regime.
SMca> Specifically for SA, HGFA has stated that they have paid the monies for
SMca> many years so why would they stop paying us, and if the states do the
SMca> appropriate justification, there should be no problem, and may this
SMca> would even allow us small states to punch above our weight.
SMca> I personally will continue to have qualms about the fundamental problem
SMca> of having the monies in one organization and the liabilities in another,
SMca> but are willing to try it. Some members are not so willing.
SMca> Anyway I believe the board is now thinking like a person under siege,
SMca> and that the members are thinking like terrorists. The real answer is
SMca> to put the problems out there and have some serious and meaningful
SMca> debate about the many possible solutions. I don't think that this
SMca> happened previously or is happening well now. Both sides have improved
SMca> but we are still a long way from a good place.
SMca> I think if the issues had been discussed out in the open over a longer
SMca> period things would have been better. Both sides could have done better
SMca> at this. Currently there is some dialog that is happening with HGFA
SMca> with some members, and some of the reasons for decisions are coming back
SMca> to us, a basis to build on. but I think it needs to be more open for all
SMca> HGFA members to read and understand, to help stop problems building
SMca> before they happen. Time will tell all.
SMca> You may want to contact woody
SMca> rob_wo...@ultimatepositioning.com - he
SMca> has had longer time connections to the board and may be able to
SMca> enlighten you further.
SMca> Specifically to you point about the motion. The motion at the board was
SMca> relating to a letter from Paul, In the height of these debates Paul was
SMca> told that the letter would not be tabled unless through SAHGA. Pauls
SMca> words were strong, but typical and indicative of the feelings and
SMca> emotions of the local members about the matters, and although we did not
SMca> agree with the way it was written it was endorsed so it could at least
SMca> be a voice that was heard. In hindsight not one of my better decisions,
SMca> but one that was probably also driven by frustration that debate at the
SMca> time had well and truly stalled in the quagmires, that the time left to
SMca> debate before things changed was disappearing, and the doubt that maybe
SMca> I was taking the wrong approach and debating with the fireman while Rome
SMca> burned. For better or worse it happened. Maybe it was Pauls way that
SMca> finally got a vote going.
SMca> And yes I believe, the board has a reasonable expectation not to be
SMca> personally abused and respond in the way they did, but also I think they
SMca> have a responsibility to answer questions in a way accessible to members
SMca> which is open to debate.
SMca> Anyway Paul's email is pske...@bigpond.net.au in this regard you will
SMca> find him a reasonable but frustrated individual.
SMca> You may also want to contact Sun Nickerson, sun.ni...@gmail.com in
SMca> WA he is also an independent thinker that has a successful dialogue
SMca> going with HGFA at the moment, a dialog that I feel is helping things
SMca> get better.
SMca> To your point about insurance, from my dialog with HGFA I thought that
SMca> the money was needed to cover a call back on premiums in case of a claim
SMca> and that the current insurer (which is I gather the cheaper insurer) has
SMca> part of this as their requirements. I will see if I can find that
SMca> documented some where. This is really where we need open debates.
SMca> Yes I think the increased fees will make things worse not better,
SMca> especially if HGFA can not impart why this is need to its members.
SMca> I would be keen to keep a track of what other people are thinking,
SMca> something I think we needed before. Can I access your forums somehow,
SMca> currently our SA abroad person sends some info to our forum
SMca> sa...@googlegroups.com which is open to be read, become a member to post.
SMca> There is also a sa...@googlegroups.com but that is closed so you will
SMca> have to become a member to read contact Peter Allen pgp...@gmail.com for
SMca> this.
SMca> I have thought about starting a national forum in a similar vein - I
SMca> think its something we need
SMca> Stuart
SMca> -----Original Message-----
SMca> From: Chris Drake [mailto:chris...@pobox.com]
SMca> Sent: Friday, 15 August 2008 10:37
SMca> To: McClure, Stuart (CLW, Urrbrae)
SMca> Subject: hgfa criticism
SMca> Hi Stuart,
SMca> I notice in the latest meeting minutes that more people besides myself
SMca> are being threatened with expulsion for trying to discuss possible
SMca> HGFA mismanagement!
SMca> Is there some history or info I can get about what's going on over
SMca> there?
SMca> The main issue with me is that I put forward a member motion to have
SMca> the GM replaced, but the board are colluding to prevent my motion from
SMca> going to a vote at the AGM - so I've engaged lawyers now.
SMca> The second big issue is the current fee situation: the HGFA spent our
SMca> insurance premiums on other stuff, so they're now $200K short in
SMca> funds, but they chose to blame "CPI" instead of the real reason when
SMca> justifying their fee hike. There's hundreds of angry people on
SMca> east-coast forums currently getting together to work out how to handle
SMca> this.
SMca> Kind Regards,
SMca> Chris Drake
SMca> May minutes:
SMca> 5. ABUSE COMING FROM SOUTH AUSTRALIA (SAHGA):
SMca> The use of abusive and totally inappropriate language in emails coming
SMca> from the SAHGA people and also on their forums is unacceptable and
SMca> will not be tolerated. The Board will not respond to anyone who
SMca> behaves in this way and any continuation of such abuse or language
SMca> directed at either Board members or the General Manager will be
SMca> considered as acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the
SMca> Federation and disciplinary action will be taken under Section 5.2 of
SMca> the Constitution.
SMca> April minutes:
SMca> 10. CHRIS DRAKE ISSUES:
SMca> Motion 08-05:
SMca> WRITTEN RESPONSE TO CHRIS DRAKE:
SMca> 4. Any further statements impugning the GM or his handling of this
SMca> matter will be considered as acting in a manner prejudicial to the
SMca> interests of the Federation (Constitution: 5.2)
SMca> CARRIED.
bette
Aug 20, 2008, 6:42:32 PM8/20/08
to SAHG
paul,
a simillar situation is occurring at our childrens school, we are
going down the path of forcing a spill.
does the board as a whole support mr fred bloggs ? if so find in the
constitution , specifically the points on calling special gm, ie how
many people required to force sgm, canvas the general membership for
numbers, call meeting, vote noconfidence, ask board to step down, vote
new board in, new board sacks general manager...adios muchachos.
it is an involved processand getting rid of an autocrat will be
difficult, they dig in deep, and will resist to the bitter end.
the biggest obstacle is finding a replacement board....who wants to do
it ?
there would be costs involved in terminating mr floggs employment
contract.
keeping the pressure on is most important.
like i have said...they sell these neat little pirate flags down at
victor real cheap, if everyone was to pull the pin things would
change, there would period of turmoil, but everything tends towards
equilibrium.
remember......if there is no membership , he is outta job......
> SMca> rob_woodw...@ultimatepositioning.com - he
> SMca> CARRIED.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
a simillar situation is occurring at our childrens school, we are
going down the path of forcing a spill.
does the board as a whole support mr fred bloggs ? if so find in the
constitution , specifically the points on calling special gm, ie how
many people required to force sgm, canvas the general membership for
numbers, call meeting, vote noconfidence, ask board to step down, vote
new board in, new board sacks general manager...adios muchachos.
it is an involved processand getting rid of an autocrat will be
difficult, they dig in deep, and will resist to the bitter end.
the biggest obstacle is finding a replacement board....who wants to do
it ?
there would be costs involved in terminating mr floggs employment
contract.
keeping the pressure on is most important.
like i have said...they sell these neat little pirate flags down at
victor real cheap, if everyone was to pull the pin things would
change, there would period of turmoil, but everything tends towards
equilibrium.
remember......if there is no membership , he is outta job......
> SMca> has had longer time connections to the board and may be able to
> SMca> enlighten you further.
>
> SMca> Specifically to you point about the motion. The motion at the board was
> SMca> relating to a letter from Paul, In the height of these debates Paul was
> SMca> told that the letter would not be tabled unless through SAHGA. Pauls
> SMca> words were strong, but typical and indicative of the feelings and
> SMca> emotions of the local members about the matters, and although we did not
> SMca> agree with the way it was written it was endorsed so it could at least
> SMca> be a voice that was heard. In hindsight not one of my better decisions,
> SMca> but one that was probably also driven by frustration that debate at the
> SMca> time had well and truly stalled in the quagmires, that the time left to
> SMca> debate before things changed was disappearing, and the doubt that maybe
> SMca> I was taking the wrong approach and debating with the fireman while Rome
> SMca> burned. For better or worse it happened. Maybe it was Pauls way that
> SMca> finally got a vote going.
> SMca> And yes I believe, the board has a reasonable expectation not to be
> SMca> personally abused and respond in the way they did, but also I think they
> SMca> have a responsibility to answer questions in a way accessible to members
> SMca> which is open to debate.
> SMca> Anyway Paul's email is pskel...@bigpond.net.au in this regard you will
> SMca> enlighten you further.
>
> SMca> Specifically to you point about the motion. The motion at the board was
> SMca> relating to a letter from Paul, In the height of these debates Paul was
> SMca> told that the letter would not be tabled unless through SAHGA. Pauls
> SMca> words were strong, but typical and indicative of the feelings and
> SMca> emotions of the local members about the matters, and although we did not
> SMca> agree with the way it was written it was endorsed so it could at least
> SMca> be a voice that was heard. In hindsight not one of my better decisions,
> SMca> but one that was probably also driven by frustration that debate at the
> SMca> time had well and truly stalled in the quagmires, that the time left to
> SMca> debate before things changed was disappearing, and the doubt that maybe
> SMca> I was taking the wrong approach and debating with the fireman while Rome
> SMca> burned. For better or worse it happened. Maybe it was Pauls way that
> SMca> finally got a vote going.
> SMca> And yes I believe, the board has a reasonable expectation not to be
> SMca> personally abused and respond in the way they did, but also I think they
> SMca> have a responsibility to answer questions in a way accessible to members
> SMca> which is open to debate.
> SMca> find him a reasonable but frustrated individual.
>
> SMca> You may also want to contact Sun Nickerson, sun.nicker...@gmail.com in
>
> SMca> WA he is also an independent thinker that has a successful dialogue
> SMca> going with HGFA at the moment, a dialog that I feel is helping things
> SMca> get better.
>
> SMca> To your point about insurance, from my dialog with HGFA I thought that
> SMca> the money was needed to cover a call back on premiums in case of a claim
> SMca> and that the current insurer (which is I gather the cheaper insurer) has
> SMca> part of this as their requirements. I will see if I can find that
> SMca> documented some where. This is really where we need open debates.
>
> SMca> Yes I think the increased fees will make things worse not better,
> SMca> especially if HGFA can not impart why this is need to its members.
>
> SMca> I would be keen to keep a track of what other people are thinking,
> SMca> something I think we needed before. Can I access your forums somehow,
> SMca> currently our SA abroad person sends some info to our forum
> SMca> sa...@googlegroups.com which is open to be read, become a member to post.
> SMca> There is also a sa...@googlegroups.com but that is closed so you will
> SMca> have to become a member to read contact Peter Allen pgp...@gmail.com for
> SMca> this.
>
> SMca> I have thought about starting a national forum in a similar vein - I
> SMca> think its something we need
>
> SMca> Stuart
>
>
>
> SMca> -----Original Message-----
>
> SMca> From: Chris Drake [mailto:christop...@pobox.com]
> SMca> going with HGFA at the moment, a dialog that I feel is helping things
> SMca> get better.
>
> SMca> To your point about insurance, from my dialog with HGFA I thought that
> SMca> the money was needed to cover a call back on premiums in case of a claim
> SMca> and that the current insurer (which is I gather the cheaper insurer) has
> SMca> part of this as their requirements. I will see if I can find that
> SMca> documented some where. This is really where we need open debates.
>
> SMca> Yes I think the increased fees will make things worse not better,
> SMca> especially if HGFA can not impart why this is need to its members.
>
> SMca> I would be keen to keep a track of what other people are thinking,
> SMca> something I think we needed before. Can I access your forums somehow,
> SMca> currently our SA abroad person sends some info to our forum
> SMca> sa...@googlegroups.com which is open to be read, become a member to post.
> SMca> There is also a sa...@googlegroups.com but that is closed so you will
> SMca> have to become a member to read contact Peter Allen pgp...@gmail.com for
> SMca> this.
>
> SMca> I have thought about starting a national forum in a similar vein - I
> SMca> think its something we need
>
> SMca> Stuart
>
>
>
> SMca> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jones Stuart - Clincal Matron
Aug 21, 2008, 3:01:14 AM8/21/08
to sa...@googlegroups.com
Great E-mail
Warm Regards,
Stuart
Stuart Jones
Clinical Matron - Health and Wellbeing
Tel: 023-92736999
E-mail: stuart.jones.@ports.nhs.uk
Portsmouth
City
NHS
Teaching
Primary Care Trust
.
This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail message in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail message and any files transmitted with it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender.
From: sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Kelley
Sent: 20 August 2008 15:49
To: sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SAHG] HGFA DISSATISFACTION
miguelder
Aug 21, 2008, 6:42:57 AM8/21/08
to SAHG
I would not care paying extra to get rid of bad managememt,o we need
more money lets increase the fees by a fucking $140,please put a gag
order on me ,when I pay for a insurence I also get to see a policy
right?in HGFA case wrong,it sounds to me like some pleople have power
trips a well I love a free speech but I better be carefull what I say
On Aug 21, 4:01 pm, "Jones Stuart - Clincal Matron"
> the report, and he in fact told me that if I want any ...
>
> read more »
more money lets increase the fees by a fucking $140,please put a gag
order on me ,when I pay for a insurence I also get to see a policy
right?in HGFA case wrong,it sounds to me like some pleople have power
trips a well I love a free speech but I better be carefull what I say
On Aug 21, 4:01 pm, "Jones Stuart - Clincal Matron"
<Stuart.Jo...@ports.nhs.uk> wrote:
> Great E-mail
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> Stuart Jones
>
> Clinical Matron - Health and Wellbeing
>
> Tel: 023-92736999
>
> E-mail: stuart.jon...@ports.nhs.uk
> Great E-mail
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> Stuart Jones
>
> Clinical Matron - Health and Wellbeing
>
> Tel: 023-92736999
>
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages