Complaint against the entire committee for their inadequate investigation process

From: Brett Davis

To: info@shoalhavenbushwalkers.com, John Kubale, John Souter, Sue Feary, Rick and Marg O'Shea, Jennifer Himmelreich, Ines Gale, Albert Forgan, Kynie Evison, Andy Winfield. Peter Walsh, Greg Smith

Subject: Complaint against the entire committee for their inadequate investigation process

Date sent: April 15th, 2024

Hi SBW committee,

Like another complaint against John Kubale, John Souter and Kynie Evison, this complaint deals with Section 13 of the constitution, the David Campbell complaint against me, the quality of the subsequent "investigation" by the ad hoc "panel" into David's allegations, the acceptance of the panel's findings by the committee, and the committee's actions which resulted from the whole affair.

Every part of process was flawed. If we assume that it is in the best interests of the club for the committee to follow the constitution, be competent in its actions, and to avoid being an embarrassment to the rest of the club, then the whole "David Campbell complaint process" shows that the committee "willfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Club".

The members of the committee named in this complaint are John Kubale, Kynie Evison, Clare Lord, Rick O'Shea, Andy Winfield, Kynie Evison, John Souter, Sue Feary, Marg O'Shea, Greg Smith, Ines Gale, Jennifer Himmelreich, Peter Walsh and Albert Forgan.

As mentioned in a previous complaint, the August / September 2023 committee meeting minutes say that "Kynie Evison gave a brief outline to the recent posts on the SBW website referred to in the first two items of correspondence and the discussions held with John Kubale, John Souter, Kynie Evison and Brett Davis." Those "discussions" were actually the meeting (kangaroo court) which was sprung on me as a result of the Lawless and Campbell complaints about my emails and web pages, and John Kubale's decision to do things his way rather than follow the constitution.

At that meeting -

the only documents tabled were the two complaints
the emails which were the subject of the complaint were not specifically identified
there were no minutes taken
there was no evidence presented in support of the complaints
the truth of the complaints and my guilt was simply assumed by the other three committee members
the suggestion was made that I remove two pages from the SBW website - "SBW Incorporated" and "The Role of the President"

Those so-called "discussions" were then presented verbally to the committee by Kynie at the September 2023 committee meeting. Presumably, at that meeting, there was also no evidence presented to support the complaints, and again, my guilt was simply assumed by everyone on the committee.

As a result of the kangaroo court and Kynie's presentation, in the September committee meeting minutes under "Business arising from correspondence" point 5, John Souter proposed that the committee authorize the President or VP to send a letter to Graeme and Lyndal Lawless saying that it "does not endorse the disrespectful content of the posts". In Point 6 of the "Business arising from correspondence", John Souter proposed a similar letter be sent to David Campbell saying "that committee members who were on the previous committee apologise for not making it their business to ascertain that the frequency, constancy and tone of the detailed email critiques of the Proposed Safety Procedures document and process were causing undue hurt and distress to Julienne". In "Business arising from correspondence" point 7, Rick O'Shea proposed that a similar letter to that described in point 6 (i.e. an apology) be sent to Mary Furness.

As far as I am aware - given that they do not appear in the minutes - my emails to the old committee sent in May 2023 - which allegedly contained "personal and hurtful" content directed at Julienne - were not tabled at the September committee meeting. This meant that new committee members John Kubale, Andy Winfield, Ines Gale, Peter Walsh and Albert Forgan had almost certainly never read those emails for which they were apologising. They were relying on believing the recollections of some other committee members about the precise content of emails sent four months previously. I also suspect that many of the old committee members had not actually read the emails that I had sent out as well - because if they had actually read those emails they would know that there was no personal or hurtful criticism of Julienne McKay in them whatsoever!

In addition, the amended complaint by David Campbell said that the "frequency, constancy and tone" of those emails were causing undue hurt and distress to Julienne. This actually shows Julienne's inability to cope with criticism of her ideas. The frequency and constancy of the emails is irrelevant, as Julienne could choose to read those emails whenever she wanted. The supposed "tone" of the emails is never demonstrated by David, and it should be remembered that none of the committee objected to anything in those emails at the time.

The contents of the three web pages I uploaded to the website in September 2023 - two of which were mentioned in the Lawless and Campbell complaints - were also not tabled at the meeting - and those web pages had been removed from the website prior to the committee meeting. I suspect that very few members of the committee had actually read those web pages during the short time they were "live" as well, and have probably not read them yet either.

So the new committee, many of whom may never had read my emails to the old committee sent in May 2023 and / or the content of the three web pages, decided that I was guilty based on -

the non-constitutional investigation into my behaviour by the "panel" of John Kubale (who probably had not read my alleged distressing emails), John Souter and Kynie Evison
the non-constitutional "discussion" (kangaroo court) at my place which was not minuted
a verbal report of the "discussion" from Kynie at the committee meeting, with no details of what Kynie reported actually recorded in the minutes
the recollections of some committee members about emails sent four months previously which they may have read only once - if at all, and
the opinions of those committee members who had actually read the web pages in question.

If that is how the current committee reached the decision that I was guilty of the allegations against me, then the committee willfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Club with its incompetent and embarrassing response to the Campbell and Lawless emails, and its failure to follow the rules of the constitution.

According to SBW committee meeting minutes, the committee has sent letters of apology to Mary Furness and David Campbell. Why did you not apologize to Julienne McKay, given that she was the one who suffered the alleged "undue hurt and distress"?

Many recent decisions by the committee have illustrated that its members simply do not think things through, or to put it another way, they do not carefully consider the possible results of their actions. One perfect recent example is the sentence in the "Misconduct" clause of the "committee Members Code of Conduct" which said "Where there is an allegation of misconduct, the President will arrange for a sub-committee to undertake an investigation to establish the facts". You did not consider what would happen if it was the President who was charged with misconduct, especially given that it is a constitutional rule that the President is a member of all sub-committees.

The more sub-committees, rules, changes, codes of conduct, procedures, decisions and complications the committee creates, the more likely it is to make embarrassing mistakes like the examples shown above. The committee once had a guiding principle of keeping things simple. It is a pity that the principle - along with making things as easy as possible for leaders, and like many other club traditions - have recently been lost.

Regards,
Brett

This page shows one of the 20 complaints sent by the Shoalhaven Bushwalkers webmaster to the SBW committee in 2024 about the illegal actions - in the webmaster's opinion - of various members of the Shoalhaven Bushwalkers committee.