Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund

[paul makin]

meme.
A couple of minor points to start.
My reference to sycophants was aimed at those other gentlemen on this forum, Capt. Bloggs and The Bolter, who, as with yourself, prefer to remain isolated behind the cloak of anonymity. It was not directed at the Board of the AAPMBF, (many of whom are noble and upstanding gentlemen), it was you who drew that arrow.
In respect of your username: the use of capitalisation was an unintended error. If it offended your sensitivities I apologise. No offence intended.
With respect to the conflict of interest issue, you seem to miss the point I was trying to make, perhaps that is down to my communication style or perhaps it is something you do not wish to acknowledge.

The AAPMBF is a collective, it is not a commercial entity. It has one purpose, to advance and protect the interests of the members. More specifically Rule 1 (b ) states that the “object of the fund is to provide financial assistance to any of it’s members whose earning capacity as a pilot has ceased or been downgraded……..” The fund has no other purpose.
The AFAP is a Federation, it is not a commercial entity. Unfortunately I don’t have the AFAP rules at hand, but broadly speaking, the object of the AFAP is to advance and protect the industrial interests of its members. The AFAP has no other purpose.

The point that is being missed is that the organisations are non commercial allies, they are not competitors, a point that I think the current fund manager and her legal adviser have also failed to grasp. Because of the shared membership, what benefits the collective benefits the federation and visa versa. They are legally separate for reasons of protection but they are still allies, each working for the same group with the same aim, the betterment of the position of that group, albeit in different but not opposing directions. It is impossible to benefit one group to the detriment of the other group as with a few exceptions the groups are the same individuals. Assuming both executive groups are doing what they are committed too, the worst that can happen is that the few members of AFAP who are not also members of AAPMBF, will get some flow on benefits from the synergies of the allies.

So we get back to the conflict of interest issue. Simply put, in respect of the two organisations, there cannot be one.

Should a Board member/ Trustee fail to act in the best interests of the AAPMBF members there are already procedures and rules in place to deal with him. Rules 14 ( c ) ( v ) and 14 (e ) ( vi ), just as there are rules and procedures to remove an office holder of the AFAP.

A case for the removal of the AFAP or Capt Seedsman has yet to be put or justified to the membership.

With respect to the rule change, let me give you a little perspective. I have before me a letter from Capt. O’Neil dated 8th of May, which you will recognise, is before all this blew up. It states inter alia;
Your comments from this letter and the previous letters have been considered during the Board’s extensive rule review process this year.
In due course the proposed rule amendments will be forwarded to all members for voting.

I have it from persons involved at in that process, that none of the changes you are currently being asked to vote on was proposed or discussed in that process. That was all done after that process, i.e. after the date of my letter from Capt O’Neil

The matters to which Capt O’Neil refers, relate to the fact that under certain circumstances, members of the fund engaged in single pilot operations and members employed overseas effectively have no coverage.
To date we have seen no move on those anomalies despite them having been a big issue in the case of at least one of our members over the past couple of years, and despite me raising this and other issues with the Board over two years ago. Yet within a matter of a couple of weeks we have had moves to plug a perceived deficiency in respect of officers duties, which is already catered for within the rules. Do we have a distorted sense of priorities here?

Members this whole charade is a smokescreen. I do not know what the end game is and I do not know who is driving it, but rest assured there is one.

Don Diego Spite is not a word I would have used, but I am very concerned. Yes I do have several axes to grind, but missing out on election is not one of them. I didn’t want it then and I don’t want it now, but I do not want the current situation to prevail.

Paul Makin