Statement of Grievance Between a Member (Bruce Cameron ...



Statement of Grievance Between a Member (Bruce Cameron) and the Committee (nominally its President, Tony Crook) of the

1st Armoured Regiment Association

 Introductory Note of Explanation. 

The matter below concerns the 1st Armoured Regiment Association (1AR Assn) Members’ Forum.  This was an on-line forum which was part of the 1AR Assn website.  It was used primarily by older members to discuss matters related to the Regiment’s heritage and history, and to keep in touch.  These members preferred this type of forum, in contrast to the Facebook site favoured by younger members (primarily for social networking).

The complainant bears no animosity towards the President, nor any individual member of the 1AR Assn C'tee.  Rather, he praises the work that the 1AR Assn C'tee is doing, particularly with respect to the 1st Armoured Regiment itself.  This grievance represents a matter of principle, one so important that the circumstances which have occurred cannot be allowed to represent accepted standards of governance for an incorporated association.

Narrative

In 2014, a former member of the Regiment posted a message on the Forum to say that the Cairns Artillery and Tank Museum had acquired a Centurion tank and were keen to find out its history.  After some investigation it was found that the only source of this was the tank's log book.  The topic was discussed further on the Forum.

Where were the logbooks?  The person who had purchased the majority of Centurions from the Army was contacted.  He said that he sold the log books as a single lot, on a confidential basis, to a private collector.  He was asked if he could pass a message to the purchaser to let him/her know about the Cairns Museum’s quest.  He said he would, however, nothing was heard in response.

In the course of seeking information about the whereabouts of log books, it was revealed that the log books for the Centurions at Puckapunyal had ‘disappeared’ from the Tank Museum.  The Army History Unit (AHU) were unable to investigate the loss because it had happened before the AHU assumed responsibility for the Museum.

Suddenly, the C'tee closed the Members’ Forum (in such a way that all posts were lost).  When asked, the explanation from the C'tee's Webmaster was that the Forum was costing too much and the Association could not afford to maintain it.  A person who operated a similar forum hosted by the same company was surprised, as there had been no cost to him.  It was subsequently revealed that 1AR Assn members were not being levied any charge by the C'tee for the forum. 

 The 1AR Assn President presumably in consultation with the C'tee) then informed the complainant that a “formal complaint” had been made.  No information as to the basis of the complaint or who it was made by, was able to be provided because it was made “on a confidential basis“.  What constituted a ‘formal’ complaint was discussed with the Patron of the 1AR Assn.  No clear answer was arrived at, though the possibility of a threat of litigation was not ruled out.

After considerable lobbying, the Forum was reopened by the C'tee, incorporating a Disclaimer advising that the views expressed were not necessarily those of the Association (a suggestion from members).  Members also identified a person experienced in managing on-line forums to act as an administrator (at no cost).  He would be able to ensure that no breaches occurred with respect to posting protocols (standards) drafted by members.  The 1AR Assn C'tee declined to appoint an administrator, nor adopt any formal protocols of use.

Suddenly, the C'tee closed the Forum again.  It is possible that the same alleged impropriety had occurred, but without having been told what this was, members could hardly be alert to particular sensitivities associated with their posts.

In the March 2015 1AR Assn Newsletter published by the C'tee, the President stated that the Forum was closed because content was “offensive and was not representative to the standard and values that the Association abides to”.  All users of the Forum were publically ‘tarred’ with posting offensive messages.  The injustice of not being able to respond to this allegation was raised by members.   The President stated that “I have a responsibility to the reputation of our Association and to protect us from litigation”.

At the May 2015 Extraordinary General Meeting the President stated that because of “changes to the legislation in Victoria and that under the current constitution we are not covered for liability insurance. This was a deciding factor to remove the forum”.  After the Minutes were published, it was pointed out to the Committee that the Association is liable in exactly the same way for defamatory statements made on the Association’s Facebook site.  It was recommended that a disclaimer be incorporated, along with clear protocols of use.  The latter suggestion was adopted only recently by the C'tee, while the Facebook site still operates without any form of disclaimer.

On 6 July 2015, the President telephoned the complainant to say that there had been no formal complaint, offensive content, nor threat of litigation.  There was, however, some concern expressed about the “tone" of some of the posts on the Forum.

At the 10 July 2015 AGM, the following motion was proposed by four members (including two Committee members):

“Just over 12 months ago the 1st Armoured Regiment Association’s Member’s Forum was closed, reopened and closed again. Members are now limited to the use of Facebook, which is not universally popular. In December last year the 3rd Cavalry Regiment (Vietnam) Association’s SITREP Forum also closed but was reopened under different management shortly afterwards. That forum now has over 180 members and has active, ongoing discussion. Among the contributors are former members of the 1st Armoured Regiment who are uncomfortable with Facebook.

The value of the forum method of communication is well demonstrated through the recent SITREP posts concerning the extension of the award of the RVN Cross of Gallantry With Palm (CGWP) Unit Citation to the Australian units of the US 173rd Airborne Brigade. That discussion led directly to the preparation of the submission for the extension of 8RAR’s CGWP to its supporting units (which include A Sqn 1 Armd Regt) during Operation Hammersly.

Motion 10/15: That the Assn reinstate a member’s discussion forum accessible from the Assn website as an alternative to Facebook”.

The outcome decided by the C'tee was “Unable to do with the current Website capabilities. Matter to be considered once new Web site is operational”.

In November 2015, warning was given that a Committee Meeting was to be held soon.  I asked that progress with respect to AGM motion above be made known.  The President emailed the complainant to say that ” no [new] forum will be considered at this stage”.

 On 14 November the President responded to an email from the complaianant re the reasons for closing the Forum.  He confirmed that there had been no cost to the members.  He also confirmed that he had told the complainant on 6 July that there had been no formal complaint nor threat of litigation. He now also admitted, however, that there had, in fact, been a formal complaint.

 Later that month the complainant emailed the President to set out the sequence of events associated with the closure of the Forum and to point out that it raised two distinct issues:

(i)  “Action by the President and C'tee which negatively impacts members of the Assn, undertaken for a reason which is supposedly so secret that it cannot be shared with members of the Assn; and

(ii) The long term future of the Assn Members’ Forum.”

The complainant indicated that grievance action was warranted.  The President responded to say that “In regards to your assumptions in passage below, it is not factual and based on some self induced fantasy.  As far as natural justice you are the person that is wrong and the cause of the entire episode” 

The minutes of the 6 December 2015 1AR Assn Committee Meeting advised that, with respect progress re Motion 10/15 at the AGM (above): "nothing could be done until pending grievance action was resolved".

On 8 December 2015, the complainant emailed David Patterson, the 1AR Assn Ctee's Operations Manager to advise: “A formal grievance statement will be put together [with respect to the first issue above] and forwarded to you.  Once the reason that the Forum was closed is known, another grievance statement might be submitted in that regard (obviously this cannot be done at present).”

Statement of Grievance 

The President of the 1AR Assn has publically alleged impropriety on behalf of members of the 1AR Assn.  Neither he, nor the C'tee, however, will provide any details of this impropriety, nor indentify the supposed complainant.

By this action, the President and C'tee have denied members natural justice by preventing them defending themselves with respect to the allegations made.

Furthermore, the President and C'tee have penalised members on the basis of an unsubstantiated impropriety by closing down the Members’ Forum.  In the course of all this, members have been given a series of false reasons for closing the Forum, in breach of the principles of honest governance.  Finally, a member of his Committee has intimidated and threaten members for evoking their right to natural justice.

Evidence.

If needed, statements can be requested from the person who expressed surprise at the cost of the Forum and the 1AR Assn Patron to verify claims that the Forum was alleged to have been closed because of cost and a formal complaint.  A statement can also be sought from the person who offered to act as a moderator should the Forum be re-established.

Following the closure of the Forum and the secrecy involved, the complainant set up a public blog to provide a means of open and transparent discussion of Royal Australian Armoured Corps matters.  This became a form of daily diary and can be accessed at . 

The ‘News’, 'Grievance Round 1' and ‘Shame of the Centurion Log Books’ sections are relevant.  Past daily posts can be accessed in the Archives (at the very end of the blog).  Dates with reference to the Forum are at:  24 March/3 April (litigation); 28-30 April (log books); 8/13 July, 17/18 July (reasons for closure); 13/14/15/19/29 November and 4/5/7/8 December (events leading to grievance). 

Related Matters. 

Intimidation.  Some members of the 1AR Assn Committee strongly believe that the Forum has no place in the Association.  Just a few examples from 1AR Assn Facebook posts (first two) and 2015 AGM minutes are copied below:

“I see there is still rumblings about our past forum. FFS move on …”

 “The committee has made its decision and some need to learn abide buy [sic] it and not act like bloody school kids. Either that or combine sex & travel! It is simple the forum is now no longer and all the stamping of feet or holding ones breath will not change this. …  Or shut the hell up!! Or even better, bugger off and start their own association!!!”

 ” a couple of people should take a good look at themselves … the want’s [sic] and needs of the precious few should not and never should outweigh the many … the subject of a forum is now closed and should be placed in history”.

 Threat.  When the complainant advised that a grievance would be lodged, one Committee member threatened him on the 1AR Assn Facebook site by saying that if the grievance action had a negative impact on the Association, the complainant should rest assured that there will be some people “who will bring the person responsible to account”.

Speculation

The secrecy imposed on the reason for closing the Forum, promotes speculation.  There is no evidence for the following, it is speculation fuelled by secrecy and apparent deviousness.

(i)  The President claims that he cannot name the person who complained about the ‘tone’ of a post on the Forum, because the complaint was made in “confidence”.  The person who purchased the Centurion log books did so on a conditional basis.  Why this person doesn’t want anyone to know he/she owns the log books is a mystery.  Is it the same person who complained (possibly about the post related to the log books)?

(ii)  It has been suggested that the disappearance of the Centurion log books from the Tank Museum occurred during the period that the President 1AR Assn was the Museum’s property member;

(iii)  Is it possible that a threat of litigation was made and would be enacted if the identity of the complainant was made known?  How is it that this person can manipulate the President and C'tee in such a way?; and

(iv)  It might be that there never was a complaint, rather the claim to this effect was used by the President and the C'tee as an excuse to close the Forum

Questions for the President and C'tee

The secrecy and obscuration associated with the matter, raise the following questions:

1. Who was the person who complained?

2. If you won’t reveal his (or her) identity, why not?

3. Do you know the person who complained about the ‘tone’ of the post(s)? If so, what relationship does the President and C'tee have with him?

4. If you don’t know the person who complained, why put the interests of a total stranger above those of long standing members of the 1AR Assn without giving members the right of reply?

5. What was the post(s) that the person complained about?

6. Who was the author of that post?

7. What was it about the ‘tone’ of the content that was so serious that the Forum had to be closed?

8. Why was the reason that the Forum was closed misrepresented as cost, then offensive content, and then threat of litigation, when none of these was true? Can actions to deliberately mislead members of the 1AR Assn be justified at any time?

9. If the lack of liability insurance was a valid reason for closing the Forum, why was the Facebook site allowed to continue for so long without protocols of use (and even now, without a Disclaimer).

Conclusion

The President and C'tee have alleged improper behaviour by members and have punished them by closing down the Members’ Forum.  They refuses to provide details of the impropriety and thereby deny members their right to be able to respond to the allegations and contest their innocence.  Furthermore, members have been misled by being giving false reasons for closing the Forum.

The President’s and C'tee's actions are not in accord with the honest and fair, open and transparent, governance practices expected of an association incorporated in Victoria.

The President and C'tee are asked to explain their actions by answering the questions above.  They are also asked to apologise to members for denying them natural justice.

Should the President and C'tee decline either of these requests, they should resign.

This is a matter of principle in relation to the governance of members of an association; one which must be defended if justice and fairness are to remain the hallmarks on which our society is based.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum 1 to Grievance Statement

The Grievance Statement was submitted on 11 December 2015. The facilitator (a member of the 1AR Assn C’tee) immediately informed both parties that:

“I feel it necessary to say that this is not a legal proceeding and that is why I am offering you both an opportunity to resolve this directly at this stage however the grievance statement as presented lacks any direct evidence in relation to the grievances raised. The current document fails to name any names of association members that the president is alleged to have accused of impropriety, it fails to provide details of the loss suffered by these unnamed members, it fails to detail how members have been penalised by the alleged actions of the president and it fails to provide specific details of the intimidation that has been alleged. It is a list of allegations without the substance required to formulate a charge.  In short, if this were a legal proceeding the complaint would be dismissed due to a lack of legal substance.”

It is the complainant's belief that the view of the facilitator, as expressed above, is not only inappropriate, but also intimidatory.  If it was not intended to lessen the case on the complainanat's part and strengthen that on the part of the President, it is considered to have had this effect.  The complainant responded as below:

“You have decided to make known to both parties your opinion of the evidentiary merit of my case.  You have done this in such a manner that the case for the other party is given an advantage.  It could be argued, in fact, that my case has been greatly jeopardised.  This is not the role of a facilitator.  According to the constitution your role is to ask both parties to try and resolve the matter, and, if this fails, to arrange for a mediator.  Your advice below will be added to my grievance statement for the information of any such mediator.  You will be aware that the consitution makes no requirement for the representation of a grievance to be made in legal terms (ie as a solicitor might brief a judge).  You have no right whatsoever to judge my statement of grievance on this basis.  Should a mediator wish to ask for additional information, it is their place to do so.”

The mediator is asked to take account of the above when considering the statement of grievance.  The mediator is also asked to note the following points.

The facilitator seems to have misunderstood the primary nature of the grievance.  He states that the “current document fails to name any names of association members that the president is alleged to have accused of impropriety” … this goes to the very heart of the matter, the president has stated that the nature of the impropriety and the person(s) who committed it must remain secret.  As a consequence, all members who made use of the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum stand accused.

It is also stated that “it [the grievance statement] fails to detail how members have been penalised by the alleged actions of the president. This is not correct.  Members have been penalised by the closure, because of matters which must remain ‘secret’, of the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum.  A grievance may be raised in this regard, but before a statement can be prepared, the reason for the closure must be made known.  It is for this reason that the existing grievance has been lodged.

Addendum 2 to Grievance Statement

The Grievance Statement was submitted on 11 December 2015.  On 4 January 2016, the end of the period before which the Constitution deemed that a mediator was to be appointed, a member of the 1AR Assn C’tee posted the following notice on the 1AR Assn Facebook page (it should be remembered that the grievance relates to the fact that just the alleged ‘tone’ of a post (nothing offensive in its content) was sufficient to warrant the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum being closed down):

“Bruce I find it funny the only time you come on FB is to have a shot at the assn. Mate where oh where were your heart felt [sic] condolences for Bruce Radermaker [sic]. Oops I forgot it wasn’t about you! Put that on your blog mate. Give it a rest Bruce you are acting like a goose. And before you go running to admin crying about my response mate give it up we all know what you are up too [sic]!

Oh nearly forgot to mention! These are my views alone and not the committee’s. Funny thing these days we are allowed our own views about stuff!”  

An explicit graphic followed with the following wording: “I’d like to see things from your point of view but I can’t seem to get my head that far up my ass”.  

The accusation about having a “shot at the Assn” is incorrect.  My last post was to offer two books on tanks at no cost to anyone who might care for them.  With respect to the late Mr Rademaker, I have never met him and have no idea of the nature of his service with 1st Armoured Regiment.  The absence of a condolence message on my part reflects this, not any lack of compassion.  Reference to him as part of a complaint against me is in appalling bad taste.  The ‘tone’ of the remainder of the message needs no comment.

In connection with the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum, the President stated that he had a responsibility to protect the Assn against litigation.  Given the content of the above, it is not inconceivable that I could initiate litigation action against the 1AR Assn.  I am the author of a history of 1st Armoured Regiment in Vietnam.  Mr Soutar’s post calls into question my credibility … this could affect book sales.  (Of course, given that I have donated all proceeds from the book sales to the 1AR Assn, the idea of litigation is hypothetical.)

After a formal complaint to the 1AR Assn, Mr Soutar’s post was removed from the Facebook page (interestingly, Mr Soutar stated that it was his decision alone to remove it).  Almost immediately another post appeared in its place: “Was out there long enough for the truth [to] be told well done mate.  Now is the time of the minions. LMFAO” Given that Mr Kennard is a C’tee member and Webmaster to boot, his comments might well be regarded as an endorsement by the C’tee of the content of Mr Soutar’s original post.

The double standards displayed above suggest that that the closure of the 1AR Members’ Forum is related to something more than just the ‘tone’ of a post (details of which have to be kept ‘secret’).  I would like this factor to be considered in connection with the Statement of Grievance.

Addendum 3 to Grievance Statement 

The grievance is headed:  “Statement of Grievance Between a Member (Bruce Cameron) and the President of the 1st Armoured Regiment Association (Tony Crook)”.  It relates to a number of decisions announced by the President of the Association while acting in that capacity over many months.  Association members were informed of these decisions in the Minutes of AGM, EGM and C’tee meetings, as well as Assoc newsletters.  The decisions were enacted by the 1AR Assn C’tee (eg. the closure of the 1AR Assn members Forum).

The preamble to the grievance states: “The complainant bears no animosity towards the President of 1AR Assn.  Rather, he praises the work that the 1AR Assn is doing with respect to the 1st Armoured Regiment itself.  This grievance represents a matter of principle, one so important that the circumstances which have occurred cannot be allowed to represent accepted standards of governance for an incorporated association.”

It is the complainant's belief that a Grievance between an ordinary member and the President of the Association, acting in that capacity in relation to the governance of the Association, comes within the provision set out in the Constitution as a grievance between an ordinary member and the Management C’tee (as distinct to a grievance between two ordinary members).

The C’tee, however, is adamant that the grievance is one between two ordinary members.  This is deemed to be the case as the word ‘Committee’ does not appear in the title of the grievance.  The complainant undertook to rephrase the grievance to refer to the respondent as ‘The C’tee of the 1AR Assn as Represented by the President (Mr T Crook).  The C’tee refused to consider this, however.

Whichever interpretation is decided upon, determines the manner of mediation.  The Constitution states:

“The mediator must be: 

(a) a person chosen by agreement between the parties; or 

(b) in the absence of agreement: 

(i) if the dispute is between a member and another member—a person appointed by the Committee; or 

(ii) if the dispute is between a member and the Committee or the Association—a person appointed or employed by the Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria”.

As evidence of the correctness of the C’tee’s position, the complainant was advised that: “The committee have taken legal counsel and are advised that the grievance as lodged by you is being dealt with correctly in accordance with the provisions of the constitution”.  

The C’tee refuses to disclose who provided the advice (a friend of the C’tee or a member of the C’tee, perhaps), whether members’ funds were used to pay for it, or the detail of the advice.   The complainant is expected to simply believe that the C’tee obtained independent legal advice and that advice supports their contention that the mediator must be appointed by them.

Furthermore, the C’tee state that “It is normal commercial practice for organisations to seek legal advice as necessary to protect the interests of its members“.  But the interest being protected here is that of the C’tee (ie. it is a vested interest).   The C’tee also state that “such advice is always subject to legal privilege”. 

‘Legal privilege’ protects communications between lawyers and their clients.  Such protection is forfeited, however, if the communication is substantially revealed.  The C’tee has done this.  It is the compainant’s belief that if the C’tee wish to assert that the they are acting correctly based on legal advice, they must provide the detail of that advice.

The complainant has advised the C’tee that he is left with no alternative other than to seek his own advice.  The C’tee, however, refuse to acknowledge the complainant’s right to do this, insisting that mediation proceed quickly under arrangements made by the mediator appointed by them.

This is not a grievance between two ordinary members.  It involves decisions made by the President (possibly made in consultation with the C’tee) and enacted by the C’tee.  The C’tee claim to have obtained legal advice which supports their interpretation of the Constitution.  It is the complainant’s strong view that the concepts of fairness and natural justice give him the right to seek independent advice on the interpretation of the Constitution.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download