Response to Paul Makin
What are you talking about – what proposal needs to get up – the proposal that all members get the chance to elect their representative?
The Trustees did justify their rule amendment in my voting slip in the same way that has happened in the past. Re your comment about the darker side of the proposal, please enlighten the members Paul. What is the darker side of allowing all members to vote, including fair representation and dealing with the possible conflict of “two masters”.
As for the rule change being requested clause by clause, that certainly didn’t happen in 2007. Didn’t hear any squawking then!
And what has happened since 2007 is pretty clear – the union has gone back on the original arrangement. They have advised the Fund that they require legal title and control over the assets (and as an aside, they advised only later that they won’t interfere with the admin). As in like right now they are not interfering.
It is pretty disappointing to see this kind of disingenuous comment – maybe it is all a political issue to the old boys. But it is pretty serious when an associated organization reneges, doesn’t allow you to discuss the issue at executive and advises you that they will take steps to take control of the assets of Fund members.
You of all people know that the union has never had control – the fund was always separate from the union. Anyone walking into the Fund office can get a glimpse of the minutes from the 60’s and 70’s and 80’s and so on.
As for your comments about an agm, to my knowledge it has not been called yet. So clearly there is an intent to consider the member’s interests before hand. More than I can say about the Federation considering member’s interest, wasting more money and more time over an issue that never presented a problem, until they created it by attempting to muscle in on controlling Fund members monies..
As for the comments about sharing with the members, how many letters would you consider is necessary Paul – the members are awash , although partly due to the misinformation from the union, which is disappointing to say the least.
Your letter is disappointing due to the use of innuendo, and political speak. The Fund members deserve better.
PS meme you mention the "two headed" Trustee and I agree with your sentiments on that fellow,no secret of who it is as he outs himself in his memo 29/7/09.You know you have made the grade when they want to change the rules to get rid of you.Incidentally,his fellow
VB pilots did not have the confidence in him to put him on their own council.What does that tell you??