Further response to Paul Makin
There are too many inaccuracies to know where to start with your comments Paul.
What a shame that you did not contact the Fund to obtain all of the facts prior to going in to public print.
1.It was in 2006 that the then new Fund Manager identified a range of issues. One of these was the legal framework.
2.In 2007 after extensive discussions a rule change was put that would NOT CHANGE the running of the Fund but offer protection via the AFAP. In place was a simple and agreed structure that met all laws – it is this that you have misunderstood. This was agreed by the AFAP and the members. There were two legal opinions plus AFAP’s original opinion that supported this structure.
3.In 2009 the AFAP advised they required legal title and CONTROL OF THE ASSETS. This fact is unassailable.
4.In 2009 the Fund removed the AFAP as Trustee.
5.In 2009 the Fund proposed a rule change. This rule change has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Trustee issue. The ability to change the Trustee was enshrined in the rules. The Rules that the members accepted in 2007.
6.In 2009 the AFAP threatened the Fund with legal action unless they reverted to being the Trustee.
IN FACT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CAMPAIGN RUN BY THE AFAP THAT THEY ARE RUNNING SCARED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ALL MEMBERS ELECTING THEIR OWN TRUSTEES.
The confusion that surrounds this issue is due to the AFAP making statements similar to yours Paul. They reflect a complete lack of understanding of the structure used to provide protection. If you really wanted to understand you would have telephoned the Fund and asked.
As for T S – his ambition has always been to bring the MBF under the control of the AFAP but don't take my word for it just ask him. This has been stated so many times now – what he and you need to remember is that the Trustees are OBLIGED TO ACT IN THE MEMBERS INTERESTS, and absolutely NOT to PROP UP A CASH STRAPPED UNION.
The Fund has provided consistent financial support to the union. If you want to know more about this contact the Fund. The Fund has never interfered in the running of the union. Instead the Fund has focused on strengthening its place as the premier loss of licence provider in the country. However the union has constantly lit fires to distract and undermine the Fund.
This particular fire is a great example of the adversarial and aggressive approach of the management of the union. Nothing productive has come of this debate and the members in the Fund have become increasingly polarised. The small administration team at the Fund has groaned under the load of confused and unhappy members who are asking the question – “ why do we have to stay in the union when this is how they react to a rule change that will allow me to vote in my trustees”.
So Paul, in the union’s determination to win a fight, they have again caused enormous damage. What a disservice, that you have chosen not to obtain all of the facts and INSTEAD, have simply regurgitated the union party line and the selected facts used by the union to derail an opportunity for members to elect their representatives.