Conflict resolution, resolved?
There was a need to be careful counting the votes on one BRB Easter bash topic. The discussion was ‘interesting’ enough; but the conclusion was so unanimous, I determined that a full count was required before bringing the matter to Aunt Pru’s attention.
The question was simple enough – ‘Should Hood step aside until his part in the Pel-Air debacle is fully examined’? The massive perceived conflict of interest has been artistically glossed over; even the Estimates committee accepted Hood’s ‘statement’ relating to that, without demur. Given that Hood was the ‘decision maker’ and had to be fully aware of the entire spectrum of the Pel Air Norfolk investigation (if not, why not) to be able to make fair, reasoned, legal ‘decisions’. This, potentially at least, makes him appear, reasonably so, to at least be in the ‘perceived of conflicted interest’ arena – as head sherang ATSB.
Now, it seems passing strange that Hood is the ATSB boss and is in a position to ‘influence’ – directly or by inference his part in the shambles which emerged as a result of the Senate Norfolk Inquiry. Simply stating that ‘he is not involved’ in the long overdue Pel-Air report is not really good enough; is it?
A rock solid 87% call for resignation was not too much of a surprise (all things considered); but 100% support for Hood to step down during further, forensic investigation of the matter demanded a recount. No error: the deep distrust of the ATSB created as a result of not only Norfolk and Pel Air but of ‘other’ suspect reports during the period Hood was with CASA have created a vote of no confidence. Tragic really; but there it is.
The call to dismantle CASA and rehabilitate the ATSB is neither loud nor vocal; which is, once again, tragic as industry simply shrugs and says “what can you do?”
Aye, that’s just the way things are done. Clarity, probity ? Never heard of ‘em.
Toot toot.
There was a need to be careful counting the votes on one BRB Easter bash topic. The discussion was ‘interesting’ enough; but the conclusion was so unanimous, I determined that a full count was required before bringing the matter to Aunt Pru’s attention.
The question was simple enough – ‘Should Hood step aside until his part in the Pel-Air debacle is fully examined’? The massive perceived conflict of interest has been artistically glossed over; even the Estimates committee accepted Hood’s ‘statement’ relating to that, without demur. Given that Hood was the ‘decision maker’ and had to be fully aware of the entire spectrum of the Pel Air Norfolk investigation (if not, why not) to be able to make fair, reasoned, legal ‘decisions’. This, potentially at least, makes him appear, reasonably so, to at least be in the ‘perceived of conflicted interest’ arena – as head sherang ATSB.
Now, it seems passing strange that Hood is the ATSB boss and is in a position to ‘influence’ – directly or by inference his part in the shambles which emerged as a result of the Senate Norfolk Inquiry. Simply stating that ‘he is not involved’ in the long overdue Pel-Air report is not really good enough; is it?
A rock solid 87% call for resignation was not too much of a surprise (all things considered); but 100% support for Hood to step down during further, forensic investigation of the matter demanded a recount. No error: the deep distrust of the ATSB created as a result of not only Norfolk and Pel Air but of ‘other’ suspect reports during the period Hood was with CASA have created a vote of no confidence. Tragic really; but there it is.
The call to dismantle CASA and rehabilitate the ATSB is neither loud nor vocal; which is, once again, tragic as industry simply shrugs and says “what can you do?”
Aye, that’s just the way things are done. Clarity, probity ? Never heard of ‘em.
Toot toot.