RE: [aees] What is the strategy for deciding on a new constitution by AEES?
col....@gmail.com
Hi Adam, colleagues and AEES readers,
Thank you for making a brief explanation as to what on earth is AEES trying to do?
Would it be asking the Honorary Secretary or President too much, for him to communicate what the process of the Management Committee is, in proposing a Constitution change?
( As former AEES Secretary under Bill Boyce, we did exactly that process in 2013).
The current situation smacks of mismanagement or bullying takeover bid.
What are we about to lose?
AEES has an honourable and aspirational provenance. It originated outside of the old Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust), now EA
It is non-profit organisation that promotes KNOWLEDGE and practice. It is not a “Professional member advocacy organisation”
AEES has much diversity in membership from practising seismologists and earthquake engineers across the wide stage of the dynamic earth’s systems, more multidisciplinary than engineering.
AEES encourages school students, new undergrad. researchers and communicates with the public through speakers or its web and blog group.
AEES promotes university research scholarships. It recognises its own member expertise with the prestigious Charles Bubb medal.
AEES manages itself through volunteer office bearers.
AEES has (non engineer) members that have the advanced technical expertise to build. repair and maintain earthquake observatories, some as Citizen Scientists.
Some AEES members still produce academic papers in their retirement and publish through AEES proceedings or other Learned Societies (Royal Society, Geological Society of Australia and Geomechanics Society and even Royal Inquiries).
AEES has become the recipient from a large benefactor ensuring its future.
Some EA and AEES members may think I am being too “one-eyed” on the matter of the siloed vision of Corporate EA.
Let me quote here an article from the recent CREATE digital magazine of Engineers Australia.
The article illustrates an emerging recognition that existing EA management process and templates are fallible .
The real world practice of engineering is much more in flux with the thoughts of WEC2019 keynote speech, Lydia Gentle OAM, Engineering Manager for mining giant BHP,
said diversity is so important in the engineering profession today. …there is now an imperative to change – and change quickly.
“The workforce expects more from us; they look for things like flexibility and serving an inspiring purpose,” she said.
=====================================================================
“The system is broken”: Experts make the case for a more diverse engineering profession at WEC 2019
Engineering has a diversity problem, and who better to discuss solutions to this challenge than a cross section of the global engineering community?
Engineers from around the world converged on Melbourne last week for the World Engineers Convention (WEC), and one of the main topics up for discussion was how the profession can improve diversity within its ranks – and in turn better reflect the communities it serves.
Excerpt
While many discussions of diversity in engineering focus on gender, diversity of culture and ethnicity is important as well. Allan Murray, Senior Manager – Indigenous Participation and Outcome for WSP Australia, told attendees during his presentation that it’s time for a closer relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and Australian industry.
He shared his experience working with an Aboriginal Design Principles process for WSP’s Southern Program Alliance (SPA). He said it has put this in practice by using Aboriginal design concepts on infrastructure.
The project took place in Boonwurrung country, and the diamond symbol representing the Boonwurrung, of the Kulin nation, became the preferred symbol for the project. WSP’s Indigenous Specialist Services team took steps to make sure that their use of the symbol was respectful and considerate, and community consultation led to meaningful conversations about appropriate use of the design.
Murray said incorporating traditional designs was a way to combine engineering and architecture with Indigenous ingenuity and principles.
“It enhances the connection to place, and pays homage to the land,” Murray said.
“To have the community involved is a great outcome.”
Looking even further back to Indigenous engineering, Bill Jordan, Director of Bill Jordan & Associates Pty Ltd, spoke about the significance of one of Australia’s earliest engineering feats: the eel traps of Budj Bim.
The site, a complex system of weirs, channels and races, has recently received UNESCO World Heritage listing. But for something that is more than 6000 years old, it took a while to be recognised for the feat it is, Jordan said.
Budj Bim received World Heritage listing earlier this year.
He spoke of the early efforts to recognise the site in Australia as a place of significance. It received National Landmark status some years ago, which helped the bid for UNESCO World Heritage listing. Still, there are those who oppose applying the term ‘engineering’ to efforts like this, Jordan said.
“Defining it as engineering was a problem for some,” he said, as its creators “didn’t have four-year engineering degrees”. But he said that’s an extremely narrow and limited view, and only served to reinforce the idea that engineering only came to Australia with colonisation.
Murray echoed this thought, pointing to achievements like the boomerang as evidence of engineering thinking.
“I see my ancestors as engineers,” he said.
“Their ability to transform raw materials into tools, and to see the potential for what can be done … that’s engineering ingenuity.”
From: aee...@googlegroups.com <aee...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Pascale, Adam
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 10:56 PM
To: aee...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [aees] AGM attachments 2019 - who would have known?
Just for context until the AGM minutes come out, this is the EA template for a technical society constitution. The point of distributing it is to get feedback from members as to what we (AEES) might want to add, remove or modify to make it match our existing and/or future constitution before returning a draft to EA. A few points were raised and the AGM and a few more here, so like Col and Edgar we encourage all members to read the template and provide their feedback over the next few months. Adam
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 9:44 pm, <edgar...@resoilstone.com> wrote:
Hi mate,
.
john.s...@sgrs.com.au
Col & All
I was hoping to get to the AEES conference this year – not to be – however I have been noting the despatches about the EA relationship with interest and some grimacing when I saw the all-encompassing legalised language about who owns what. 2013 was a long time ago now.
I believe that this issue has arisen from the latest incarnation of the corporatised vision of EA and a lot of consequent EA board management decisions to exert top-down ownership and control over “its” societies. This is not unique to EA, or to AEES. The Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) still manages a form of relationship with EA, but more measured and distanced particularly regarding finances and IP issues. The Geological Society of Australia has in recent times “cleaned-up” its corporate relationship with the various interest groups under its umbrella. Messily, but ultimately worked-through.
AEES is, by nature of its interests, a multidisciplinary group. I think we all treasure that openness to a community of interests. We can’t deny the corporate vision of EA, but have to work out whether we still live under its banner or should strike out independently. I believe that the AGS has got the balance about right, though I am aware that there is continued friction with the corporatists in EA. For heavens’ sake, EA has an interest group for leadership and management which is hardly a tech function of EA but more a way of allowing non-tech engineering business managers to sound like they are still able to wear EA post-nominals and accumulate CPD points! I’ve been an EA Member for generations and am growing increasingly exasperated. EA has always given the Cols of the profession the short end of the stick.
So I’d urge the AEES management team to work this through carefully. It’s EA that has to change its relationships and outlook, but AEES that has to look after it’s members’ interests. Maybe a dialogue with the AGS National Committee to get a few ideas and perspectives might help? But please hasten slowly and stick by AEES members’ interests including those of our several national living treasures.
Hope this helps…
John Simmons
Sherwood Geotechnical and Research Services
--
⚠️ YOUR REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE WILL BE SENT TO THE ENTIRE MAILING LIST
⏭ If you wish to reply to the sender only, FORWARD the message to their personal address.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "aeesorg" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to aeesorg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/00ba01d5a7eb%24f8a08440%24e9e18cc0%24%40gmail.com.
Pascale, Adam
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/003301d5a811%24b8b64100%242a22c300%24%40sgrs.com.au.
Peter McBean
Dear all,
Be reassured that there is nothing sinister happening here. I provided some context on the document and the situation during the AGM, however those not in attendance have rightly asked what’s going on?
The draft constitution circulated on Saturday in preparation for the AGM was first sent to us by EA, for our review and comment, back in 2016. It apparently arrived during the handover of the Presidency from Paul to me, fell between the cracks and had until now been essentially overlooked.
Recently, whilst representing the AEES at the EA Engineering Practice Advisory Committee (EPAC) meeting in Canberra, I was politely reminded by EA that they hadn’t heard anything from us on the draft sent some years earlier and they asked if we could look at it and get back to them with anything we would like to amend. I understand the purpose of providing technical societies under EA’s banner with harmonised constitutions is to better manage their and our risk and to ensure important governance issues have been properly addressed by the societies. I don’t believe there is any intent to interfere with the organisation and running of our Society.
Following that conversation, I obtained a copy of the draft and circulated it around the AEES Executive committee who generated similar comments to those raised here already. We now have the opportunity to add or delete clauses to ensure the document better captures what the AEES was established to do. I encourage others to comment on the document. The newly elected AEES executive will then be in a position to formulate a response to EA based on our collective position. I have no reason to think that there will be any difficulty in reaching a sensible compromise with EA that effectively merges our current constitution with the governance matters captured by the EA draft. In my opinion, there remains much more to be gained for the AEES in working with and continuing our association with EA, rather than cutting ourselves adrift and running alone.
Regards,
Peter
Peter McBean
Immediate Past National President
BE (Hons), FIEAust, CPEng, NER, RPEQ, GAICD
60 Wyatt Street, Adelaide SA 5000
From: aee...@googlegroups.com <aee...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Pascale, Adam
Sent: 1 December 2019 6:00 PM
To: aee...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [aees] What is the strategy for deciding on a new constitution by AEES?
There’s a bit of history around this that Peter McBean plans to expand upon for those that were unable to attend the AGM.
Rest assured that the Executive Committee will look after the interests of AEES and its members. This is just a step towards standardisation, so I’d suggest we remain calm and not read too much into the template at this stage.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/CAFBb%3DE8zKmj%3Dqpm64ubQUQa%3DUBp2JNLbKDvUgs81Dhq9w3zqDQ%40mail.gmail.com.
geor...@bigpond.net.au
Peter
It is important that the AEES remain an independent learned Society associated with Engineers Australia - and free to also associate with other relevant Societies - like the Australian Geomechanics Society, and not be regarded by Engineers Australia as part of their stable of Societies.
The Australian Wind Engineering Society operates as an independent Society because of fear something like this would happen and I am not aware that it is ever suffered in any way from this so I don't agree with your comment that 'there remains much more to be gained for the AEES in working with and continuing our association with EA, rather than cutting ourselves adrift and running alone'.
It may be worthwhile seeing how NZSEE handles its relationship with Engineering New Zealand since NZSEE is similar to AEES in being multidisciplinary and not just an engineering Society.
It was a great conference by the way. Having not been to one for 3 years or more I was amazed by how far earthquake engineering in Australia had advanced since I last attended one.
Regards
George Walker
PO Box 134
Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia
Home Phone: +61 7 5478 6867
Mobile Phone: +61 487 403 751
Email: geor...@bigpond.net.au
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/MEAPR01MB39906064F64627F0907CBA2488400%40MEAPR01MB3990.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com.
Peter McBean
Dear George,
It was great to see you at the conference and I thank you for your comments below, the conclusion of which I respectfully disagree with.
Firstly, the AEES is not being asked to give up anything, or change the way we operate. The draft constitution, is just that, and it needs considerable work before it would be acceptable to any of us, so lets not panic. We have apparently had it for four years and they are only just following up now, so EA don’t seen too anxious about it either.
Secondly, the AEES has achieved much in the past three years via EA, a fact which is not widely known or understood by the membership. With over 100,000 members, EA has a seat at the top table and is able to influence decisions at a political level. The AEES President sits on the EA Engineering Practice Advisory Committee (EPAC) which reports to the EA board and their CEO. This reporting mechanism allows us to have a voice.
Thirdly, via that voice, EA agreed to sponsor me to sit on the Standards Australia BD-002 committee to be an advocate for change to the earthquake provisions within the Concrete Structures Code, AS3600. EA have only two seats on the committee, so this support was both significant and practical to the advancement of earthquake engineering in this country. That appointment allowed me to explain to other members of the code committee the science behind the need for change to what were outdated, unsafe and inappropriate seismic design practices permitted by the standard for concrete buildings. Then, drawing on the wonderful research work undertaken by many of our AEES members, I was in a position to directly steer the drafting of new clauses. This culminated in the significant amendments we were collectively able to achieve to the seismic design provisions published last year in AS3600-2018. Without the support and involvement of EA, this would not have been possible. In my opinion, our continued association with them remains of great benefit to both the AEES and the furthering of earthquake engineering in Australia.
Regards,
Peter
Peter McBean
Immediate Past President
BE (Hons), FIEAust, CPEng, NER, RPEQ, GAICD
60 Wyatt Street, Adelaide SA 5000
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/003201d5a952%2429eba860%247dc2f920%24%40bigpond.net.au.
da...@earthquake.net.au
Dear all
I also would prefer to see our AEES remain as a technical society of EA if that is reasonably possible.
We need to review and keep in mind our aims and objectives. The interaction of engineers and seismologists is right up in objective 1, and interaction with insurers, emergency responders, scientists and others is certainly in objective 2. It would be good to have contact with the societies mentioned by George and John to help us along.
To start the ball rolling I suggest the following rough preamble, and winding up statements.
Preamble
The AEES was formed in 1990 (?) following the 1989 Newcastle Earthquake. Particular emphasis was placed on connecting engineers and seismologists, and other practitioners affected by earthquakes, to reduce vulnerability and improve the science and our understanding. Conferences have reinforced this interaction outside the general scope of engineering. The founding President was Charles Bubb, and a substantial grant was made through his benefactors to further the society’s objectives. The society became a technical society of Engineers Australia in (?).
Winding up or dissociation of the Society
34. In the event that AEES finds EA bylaws, regulations and policies are hindering the stated aims of the society, AEES may dissociate from EA following a vote of 75% of the members at an AGM.
35. In the event of a dissociation, AEES retains the right to continue to use the same name and logo, and retain any funds of the society.
Regards
David Love
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/MEAPR01MB39908DFB974ACD6ECB42F86188430%40MEAPR01MB3990.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com.
geor...@bigpond.net.au
Peter
I appreciate where you are coming from. 30 years ago when I was Chairman of the Australian Wind Engineering Society immediately following a stint as Chairman of the then National Committee on Structural Engineering (which preceded the formation of the National College for Structural Engineering) I lobbied hard for the AWES to become a Technical Society of what was then IEAust using similar arguments to what you are using. However the majority of the members were against it, the fear being that the Institution would want to control it. In retrospect staying Independent has not significantly affected its operation and I now believe my close association with IEAust had blinded me to the inherent objective of any bureaucratic organisation such as EA has become, which is to gain centralised control of all activities with which it is associated.
To say that the AEES is not being asked to give up anything is completely false. EA wants to take it over. The proposed new Constitution is a classic set of rules devised by bureaucrats with the objective of taking complete control of the AEES. Clause after clause is directed at doing this. Even the office bearers can only be non-members of EA in exceptional circumstances! Every member, irrespective of their own profession's rules, are to fully subscribe to all the laws, rules etc of EA. It is not to be a independent learned society associated with EA. It is to be a Technical Society of EA and subject to all its rules as now exist or may be changed by EA in the future. Even the first function of AEES would be to collaborate with Engineers Australia and its Colleges to develop and promote the professional and academic disciplines of engineering - not to promote excellence in the management of earthquake risk in Australia. The 9 clauses in our present constitution are to be replaced by 35 clauses many of which include rules specifying control by EA and the bureaucratic procedures which will have to be followed to ensure this. We are being asked to give up our freedom in exchange for having Big Brother, who knows best, looking after us.
In my opinion the present relationship is working fine. Why change it? The arguments for change are nonsense but typical of those always put up by bureaucrats who would rather have centralised control than allow members basic democratic freedoms. The SAA example is a red herring. SAA would probably have welcomed a representative from AEES without any involvement of EA. There are several AWES members on SAA committees without them representing EA.
If EA says they are not prepared to accept the present arrangement then we should seek to negotiate a new arrangement of association with them that preserves our independence, but if their only terms are full control, then we should be prepared to walk away from them and become as independent as AWES.
Regards
George
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/MEAPR01MB39908DFB974ACD6ECB42F86188430%40MEAPR01MB3990.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com.
Peter McBean
George,
Again with respect, you are jumping to a position based on an intrinsic mistrust of bureaucracies before we have even commenced any form of discussion or negotiation with EA. As we are yet to provide any form of response back to them on the draft document, issued to us for review and comment some four years ago, we can’t possibly know what they will and won’t accept.
I too highly value our independence and believe that it must be maintained, and I agree that many of the proposed clauses in the draft are inappropriate for our Society. However, I believe that a sensible resolution with EA should be our objective and that such a resolution should be possible to achieve without the need to sacrifice the very real benefits derived by the AEES from its ongoing association with EA.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/000701d5a9a1%24a266e9e0%24e734bda0%24%40bigpond.net.au.
Hugh Halcrow
Dear George and Peter
Why don’t you two have a private email argument between yourselves without including all, the rest of us in your replies. You are just creating a huge amount of useless spam
Hugh Halcrow
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/MEAPR01MB3990ED0A6AE44CE7A9CA236C88420%40MEAPR01MB3990.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com.
Kevin McCue
On 4 Dec 2019, at 09:34, Hugh Halcrow <hu...@halcrows.com.au> wrote:
Dear George and PeterWhy don’t you two have a private email argument between yourselves without including all, the rest of us in your replies. You are just creating a huge amount of useless spamHugh HalcrowFrom: aee...@googlegroups.com [mailto:aee...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter McBean
Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2019 6:12 PM
To: aee...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [aees] What is the strategy for deciding on a new constitution by AEES?George,Again with respect, you are jumping to a position based on an intrinsic mistrust of bureaucracies before we have even commenced any form of discussion or negotiation with EA. As we are yet to provide any form of response back to them on the draft document, issued to us for review and comment some four years ago, we can’t possibly know what they will and won’t accept.I too highly value our independence and believe that it must be maintained, and I agree that many of the proposed clauses in the draft are inappropriate for our Society. However, I believe that a sensible resolution with EA should be our objective and that such a resolution should be possible to achieve without the need to sacrifice the very real benefits derived by the AEES from its ongoing association with EA.
Regards,Peter<image001.png>
Regards,Peter<image001.png>
<image001.png>
<image002.jpg>Budj Bim received World Heritage listing earlier this year.
He spoke of the early efforts to recognise the site in Australia as a place of significance. It received National Landmark status some years ago, which helped the bid for UNESCO World Heritage listing. Still, there are those who oppose applying the term ‘engineering’ to efforts like this, Jordan said.
“Defining it as engineering was a problem for some,” he said, as its creators “didn’t have four-year engineering degrees”. But he said that’s an extremely narrow and limited view, and only served to reinforce the idea that engineering only came to Australia with colonisation.
Murray echoed this thought, pointing to achievements like the boomerang as evidence of engineering thinking.
“I see my ancestors as engineers,” he said.
“Their ability to transform raw materials into tools, and to see the potential for what can be done … that’s engineering ingenuity.”
<image003.jpg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/24BE96214568F24DB253FC30161F2EAF0241C429B3%40SERVER.halcrows.local.
Adam Pascale
Russell Cuthbertson
Yes, the comments of these people with extensive knowledge of other Technical Societies and experience in dealing with EA is indeed interesting and informative, and I would like to see it continue, but the question posed in the original subject line has not been answered.
What is the strategy for deciding on a new constitution by AEES?
Of course this presupposes that we need a new constitution, but if EA have proposed one for us then clearly we have to respond. The choices then are:
1 – Tell them “we like our constitution as it is thank you very much” and see what they say. Undoubtedly this will probably be unacceptable to them.
2 – Attempt to modify their proposed Constitution in a manner that is acceptable to our members (ie. maintains some degree of independence, etc). This is then presented to EA. If it is acceptable to them then fine. If not we then start to think about whether we stay or go. But that is a decision to make down the track.
The immediate task is to provide EA with a response and how do we go about this? Circulating the draft as it is and having everyone add their comments is clearly unmanageable due to the large number of obviously contentious items.
A sensible approach would be to get one person or a committee to edit this draft, come up with something that is more acceptable to our members and circulate this for comment.
Who is this person/persons, and what is the timeframe? These are the questions that need answering now.
Regards,
Russell Cuthbertson
Senior Seismologist, Seismology Research Centre
Head office: 141 Palmer Street, Richmond VIC 3121, Australia
T +61 7 3289 0004 M +61 4 2917 0056
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/F350ADCE-D849-4B22-9143-69FF2B1EEF3B%40gmail.com.
col....@gmail.com
Dear colleagues and AEES readers,
This issue has made me appreciate the great wealth of scientific history that is collectively and collegially contributed within our virtual archives on http://www.aees.org.au
The tireless work of the founding web manager and the AEES Newsletter Editors are an invaluable intellectual property of this society.
I have excerpted some articles below to remind us how this society once communicated to the members and decisions achieved.
I encourage you to have a ramble, more often, through our AEES archives.
· AEES Newsletter 2000 No 1 http://aees.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AEES_2000_1.pdf
Public-Good Research in the Geosciences or the Rise and Fall of Geoscience in Australia
This article is based on a presentation made by David Denham at the AEES Conference held in Sydney on 29/30 September 1999.
The future looked good, however, within one year of the 2nd Howard Government, the whole thing fell apart.
AGSO was split up, downsized and demoralised. All the main mineral explorers started sacking exploration geoscientists,
and in some cases pulling out of exploration altogether. Exploration budgets were slashed, and companies vanished overnight.
In the last round of CRC applications not one new Geoscience CRC bid was successful,
and both the AMET and the Geodynamics CRCs will cease to exist at the end of this financial year.
The new ANSIR is also critically short of funds and is struggling to operate effectively in the present environment.
So how did we get in this mess, and what can be done about it? Let us look in some detail at what went wrong and why.
· AEES Newsletter 1999 No.1 http://aees.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AEES_1999_1.pdf
President’s Perambulations (Assoc Prof Bill Boyce)
There are many professional (and other) organisations and societies vying for your time and energy and we appreciate
your decision to be a member of AEES. The Executive intends to continue to work hard to meet your needs and interests
and values your feedback as to how this might be achieved most effectively.
I have received permission from the President of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, USA to use their
recently adopted Mission Statement as a basis for formulating our own if members so agree. It seems to me that
the statement encapsulates in a succinct but comprehensive manner the purpose of any national earthquake engineering society.
I have reproduced it below with 'AEES' substituted for 'EERI'.
The objective of [AEES] is to reduce earthquake risk by advancing the science and practice of earthquake engineering,
by improving understanding of the impact of earthquakes on the physical, social, economic, political and cultural environment,
and by advocating comprehensive and realistic measures for reducing the harmful effects of earthquakes.
· AEES Newsletter 2000 No 3 http://aees.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AEES_2000_3.pdf
PROPOSAL FOR REVISION TO AEES CONSTITUTION
For some time our practice has not been consistent with the provisions of our Constitution. At the
AGM in Sydney last year, I indicated that I would be drafting revisions to the Constitution for the
consideration of members. A proposed new Constitution is set out below, together with brief notes on
the changes. The present Constitution is also re-printed below for information.
The proposal is published in the Newsletter for information and comment and it is intended that we
vote on its adoption at the AGM in Hobart.
Proposed AEES Constitution
1. Name
The name of the Society shall be –
AUSTRALIAN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SOCIETY
2. Objective
The objective of the Society is to reduce earthquake risk by:
· advancing the science and practice of earthquake engineering and engineering seismology
· improving understanding of the impact of earthquakes on the physical, social, economic,
political and cultural environment,
· advocating comprehensive and realistic measures for reducing the harmful effects of
earthquakes.
Col Lynam, Brisbane
If you wish to reply to the sender only, FORWARD the message to their personal address.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aeesorg/027701d5aa3e%24da1d8680%248e589380%24%40src.com.au.
William Boyce
<image001.jpg>