Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund

[meme]

Paul Makin,

First up I think it’s rather unbecoming of you to launch into a personal attack on forum members referring to them as being sycophants, and of course your amusing little effort with my user name. Rather childish given the nature of this discourse I feel. Furthermore it tends to display your apparent inability to recognise that ordinary members, i.e. those not serving in the capacity of Board member, Trustee or Proxy etc., can in opposition to your own views, show support for the AAPMBF’s recommendation without having some political attachment. Contrary to your unfounded assertion, I qualify amongst the ordinary members. Perhaps this is where we differ since I have no political affiliation with anyone on this issue.
Now;
I don’t think I have you at a disadvantage at all. I asked a simple question however rather than answer directly, you seemed to have launched into a rant about not knowing what so and so’s done to warrant this etc. etc. I should have perhaps explained more clearly that the question I asked was hypothetical specifically relating to a position (in this case, dual trusteeship) and the behaviour exhibited by its occupant. The ‘respective parties’, being those the occupant represents as a trustee. Here it is again;

“Would you as a MBF member endorse a person holding dual trusteeship, actively involving himself in the decision/voting process on issues of conflict or potential conflict between the respective parties?”

I have highlighted the section of particularly interest. This question has nothing at all to do with (ICAC) definitions of, Public Duty, Private Interests, Commercial Entity, Personal Advantage and any other unrelated information which I presume you ‘cut & pasted’ from the internet in an apparent attempt to confuse the issue with legalese, but rather that of ‘propriety’. It shouldn’t be difficult to ‘Google’ more relevant examples if that’s what you’re after.

Paul, with regards to your question;
The reason for my concern is demonstrated in my previous question to you. (Hint; the bit in bold). All you need to do is reference that behaviour to the current individual occupying the position in question and you have it. With regards to benefiting to non MBF union members, no idea, has he?. On the ‘personal gain or potential gain’ reference, I also have no idea, nor have I questioned it! I think we’re getting ‘wrapped around the axle’ with your non relevant (ICAC) definitions here. I’ll move on.

I have said in previous posts about as much as I can about the reasons for my concerns and believe the nature of the correspondence emanating from the AFAP website was a sufficient cause. I think it’s important to bear in mind that this is more about the potential for abuse of the position rather that the present occupier. However, the fact that he highlighted this potential has, IMHO been the catalyst for the necessary and recommended rule change before us.

I’ll let it go at that.
Stay civil