|
Hi SBW committee,
It was not until relatively recently - February 6th this year - that I noticed the discrepancy in the date and title of the original David Campbell complaint used in the unconstitutional complaints meeting against me, and the date and title of the revised David Campbell complaint recorded in the September committee meeting minutes. John Souter and Kynie were obviously aware of the first complaint email, and almost certainly aware that it was not tabled at the September committee meeting minutes.
As I believe that this document should have been recorded as "correspondence in", I distributed it via email to all committee members - which should have been done by John Kubale after he had received it almost five months before! As I explained at the time in the email which I sent out, given that its subject is “REQUEST FOR ACTION TO ADDRESS DAMAGING BEHAVIOURS IN SBW”, it would seem to be important for Shoalhaven Bushwalkers" and therefore important to everyone on the SBW committee as well.
In addition, given that the David Campbell complaint of September 10th was one of the documents used against me in the unconstitutional complaints meeting of September 11th which was alluded to in the September committee meeting minutes, it certainly should have been shared with the committee as "correspondence in" as it was relevant to the actions of John Kubale, John Souter and Kynie Evison!
I was therefore extremely surprised to receive a printed letter on March 10th this year marked "Private and Confidential" hand-delivered, signed by John Kubale and dated March 8th, which contained alleged judgements from the entire SBW committee in relation to my "recent" conduct.
I have never seen a "Private and Confidential" document from the committee in my 25 years with the club, my 24 years on the committee, my 2 years as President, or during the 8 years when my wife was President of the club and I acted as her unofficial advisor, so I have no idea how to deal with "Private and Confidential" documents. It was not sent via the "official" SBW email address so I also did not know whether it was genuinely from the committee or not.
Additionally, there are no guidelines, responsibilities or codes of conduct in our constitution, our standing orders or on our website to tell me how documents of this type are to be treated. At the risk of breaking whatever "Private and Confidential" restraints have been thought up by the committee, I asked a committee member (who shall remain nameless just in case he or she gets charged with misconduct for breaking the "Private and Confidential" rules) whether the document had been authorized by the committee and have been assured that this was so.
At the risk of getting into trouble yet again for sending the committee documents that the committee should already know about, I have attached an image of the Private and Confidential document to this email.
Anyway, the first judgement in the document said -
"1) The committee considered your conduct on 6th February in circulating by email the David Campbell document of 10th September 2023 to all committee members without the informed prior consent of the author, the author's partner referenced in the document or the committee. The committee judged this conduct to be prejudicial to the interests of SBW in that the conduct constituted an invasion of privacy of the author, the author's partner and those committee members who had not previously seen the document."
While that paragraph says that I should not have sent my email to the committee without the consent of David and Julienne, it also says that I should not have sent my email "to all committee members without the informed prior consent of ... the committee". When you work out how that is actually possible, let me know. Could you also let me know how sending an email to committee members about "third parties" invades the privacy of the committee members? I am tempted to ask who writes and / or approves this crap, but have decided to let that go for the moment.
Apart from the fact that the document in question should never have been kept SECRET from the committee in the first place, I would hope that the committee has considered cancelling John Kubale's membership as well as mine, because if my conduct in distributing the David Campbell email to committee members was "prejudicial to the interests of SBW" then John Kubale's identical conduct in distributing the David Campbell email to committee members (John Souter, Kynie Evison and myself) must have also been "prejudicial to the interests of SBW" and he should be treated the same as me.
In addition, I would like to point out that John Kubale did not place any restrictions on the document's distribution when he presented it to me at the unconstitutional complaints meeting on September 11th. He did not tell me it was confidential. He did not tell me not to contact the committee about it. And given that it had been addressed to the President and used in a meeting attended by three members of the SBW committee where nothing but club business was discussed, I would contend that it was perfectly reasonable for me to assume that the committee already knew about the first David Campbell email.
How many other items of correspondence has our President received and kept SECRET from the committee? How many other actions has he taken as a result of that SECRET correspondence without informing the committee of those actions?
When the committee found out that John Kubale, John Souter and Kynie Evison had kept important correspondence a SECRET, why was their response to kick me - the whistle-blower - out of the club rather than the three committee members who had not only kept the document SECRET from the committee, but who had also neglected to comply with provisions of the constitution and who had willfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Club?
Given that the constitution under Rule 22 states that is the committee who manages the club, supervises the general functioning of the club, and transacts all business of the club, David Campbell's "request for action to address damaging behaviours in SBW" had to be sent to the committee to be actioned. Therefore, the first judgement can be dismissed completely. I came into possession of correspondence that was intended for the committee. I sent it to the committee. How can anyone in their right mind consider that action to be "prejudicial to the interests of SBW"?????
I will deal with the second judgement in the "Private and Confidential" letter in another complaint.
Regards,
Brett
|
|
