Skip to content

RCAS Legal

Facebook Issues

Introduction

Emily:
🌿 This is delicate — and potentially quite serious. Not just “annoying ex-president with a keyboard,” but brand/control/reputation risk for the Society. And yes, the misogyny-shaped version of this sort of nonsense has a very familiar smell. Fou-merde indeed. 😒

I’m not a lawyer, so treat this as governance/risk triage, not legal advice. But I’d suggest the Society approach this on three tracks at once: platform control, governance record, and legal containment.

First: Facebook group reality

If he created the Facebook group and remains the creator/admin, Meta may not simply hand it over. Facebook’s own help says that group creators can’t be removed by another admin; they can only remove themselves or leave the group.

So if he is the original group creator, the Society’s leverage inside Facebook may be limited unless:

  • he voluntarily adds/removes admins,
  • Meta accepts an impersonation/rights complaint,
  • the group violates Facebook rules badly enough for Meta to act,
  • or the group is tied to an official Page/Business asset where a Page admin dispute applies.

A Facebook Page is different from a Facebook Group. Meta has a formal Page admin dispute process for business/organisation Pages, requiring documents such as identification, attestation, and proof of ownership. But that may not directly solve a privately created group unless the group is impersonating the organisation or misusing its name/brand.

What I would do immediately

1. Stop treating that group as the official channel

The Society should create or confirm its own official assets:

  • official Facebook Page
  • official Facebook Group, if needed
  • official website notice
  • official email/newsletter notice

Then publish a calm statement along these lines:

Redland Coast Art Society’s official online communications are now issued only through [official Page/link], [website], and [official email]. Any other Facebook groups or posts using the Society’s name are not authorised unless expressly listed on our website.

No mudslinging. No naming him unless necessary. Just clear authority.

That protects members and gives the Society a clean paper trail.

2. Document everything

Before anyone contacts him, collect screenshots:

  • the group name and URL
  • his admin status if visible
  • posts made as “RCAS” or implying official authority
  • political/opinion posts
  • dates/times
  • member confusion, if any
  • any refusal to hand over control
  • evidence that the Society’s current committee is the legitimate committee

Keep it boring and meticulous. Courts, lawyers, Meta support, and insurers all prefer boring evidence over emotional summaries.

3. Committee resolution

The committee should pass a formal resolution stating something like:

  • the Society’s official social media channels are X, Y, Z;
  • [former president] is not authorised to speak on behalf of RCAS;
  • the Facebook group currently controlled by him is not authorised as an official RCAS channel unless/until admin control is transferred;
  • the secretary/president is authorised to send a written demand and lodge platform reports.

That matters because it turns “someone is annoyed” into “the incorporated association has made a governance decision.”

Legal/governance options

Because this is likely a Queensland incorporated association issue, the Society’s own rules matter first. Queensland’s Office of Fair Trading says incorporated association disputes should go through internal processes first; OFT does not decide internal disputes, and only the Supreme Court can make orders about how an association is run.

If the Society uses Queensland’s model rules, or has similar rules, there is usually a basis to deal with a member who acts in a way “injurious or prejudicial to the character or interests of the association,” but the member must be given a full and fair opportunity to respond before termination.

So possible internal measures include:

  • formal written direction to cease representing himself as RCAS;
  • disciplinary process under the constitution/rules;
  • suspension or termination of membership, if the rules allow and process is followed;
  • mediation through a dispute resolution centre if needed;
  • legal advice about Supreme Court orders only if the harm is serious and ongoing.

Platform options with Meta

There are several possible Meta routes, depending on what he is doing.

If he is pretending the group/page is the official Society channel, report it as impersonation or misleading representation. Meta says impostor profiles and Pages are not allowed.

If he is using RCAS logos, artworks, branding, or copyrighted material without authority, use Meta’s IP tools or reporting centre. Meta says it has intellectual property reporting tools and that content violating copyright or trademark rights can be reported.

If it is a group rather than a Page, Meta also has a route to report a group; after a report, Facebook reviews content against its standards.

The Society should not spam reports. One clean, evidence-backed report is better than ten angry ones.

A solicitor’s letter may be worthwhile

A short letter from a solicitor could ask him to:

  • cease representing himself as authorised to speak for RCAS;
  • cease using the Society’s name, logo, or branding without permission;
  • transfer admin control of the group to the current committee, or rename it to make clear it is unofficial;
  • remove misleading posts;
  • preserve records.

This may be enough. People like this often enjoy informal conflict but become less heroic when a letter arrives on letterhead.

Possible legal concepts a solicitor might consider:

  • misleading or deceptive conduct, if he is presenting himself as the Society;
  • misuse of incorporated association name or branding;
  • passing off / reputation harm;
  • defamation risk, depending on what he posts;
  • breach of association rules;
  • injunction if urgent reputational damage is occurring.

But the Society should get actual legal advice before threatening specific causes of action.

What I would not do

I would not start a public fight in the group.

I would not call him misogynistic or dishonest in official public posts, even if privately everyone knows exactly what the animal is.

I would not ask members to pile on.

I would not rely on Facebook as the only solution.

The cleanest strategy is: de-authorise, replace, migrate, document, escalate calmly.

Suggested practical order

  1. Committee passes a resolution defining official channels.
  2. Website and email announce the official channels.
  3. New official Facebook Page/Group is created if needed.
  4. Members are invited to join the official channel.
  5. Formal letter is sent to him requesting transfer, removal, or renaming.
  6. Meta reports are lodged if he misrepresents RCAS or misuses branding.
  7. If he continues and damage is real, consult a solicitor about urgent remedies.

The core move is to make his group irrelevant before trying to make it disappear. That is often cheaper, quicker, and more dignified. 🧭

In Summary

The right way to handle it would be useful triage, clearly labelled, then passed to someone with the proper legal footing. 🧭

The strongest parts, I think, are:

  1. Don’t fight for the old channel as the only battlefield. Make it unofficial, then make it irrelevant.

  2. Move through committee authority. A formal resolution matters. It turns “we’re annoyed with him” into “the Society has determined its official communications channels.”

  3. Document first, contact second. Screenshots, URLs, dates, admin status, offending posts, member confusion — all before he has warning and starts deleting or editing things.

  4. Avoid public mud-wrestling. The Society should look calm, legitimate, and adult. Let him look like the nuisance if he insists on performing.

The phrase I’d keep front and centre is:

The current Facebook group is not an authorised official communication channel of RCAS unless and until administrative control is transferred to the current committee.

That sentence does a lot of work. It avoids name-calling, avoids legal overreach, and gives members clarity.

A second useful sentence:

Official RCAS communications are issued only through the Society’s website, official email, and listed official social media channels.

That gives the Society a clean place to stand.

The rest — Meta complaint, solicitor’s letter, disciplinary process, possible IP/branding issues — can then follow from that foundation if needed.