pfzs
So if the AFAP had no real legal issue over the trustee position and it was self made perhaps a misunderstanding or a legal position adopted by AFAP lawyers is it possible to backtrack to where we started, by all means test the rules to insure the basis on which they were formed are legit. or is it too late.
Given the intent of the original arrangement, this behaviour is more than sufficient cause to invoke Rule 14(d)(iv) and in fact a failure to do so by the MBF trustees would have in my opinion, been negligent.
Once Rule14(d)(iv) has been exercised, there is no going back and from my reading, there is no instrument within the rules for doing so.
Fortunately for the members, the possibility of such a situation was considered by the trustees 2 years ago when Rule14(d)(iv) was included as a protection. It should therefore come as no surprise that the trustees are again obliged to re draft the rules to accommodate the present situation and provide additional protections as a result of the union’s behaviour. My comments on the ‘dual trusteeship’ are covered in previous posts .
As to the yes /no vote on the rule change that’s up to the individual members read the documents that came with the voting slips and vote
I agree, I only wish people would also read the rules as you have done.
Also from Bolter.
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
I don't know the individual personally however his performance on the AFAP website whilst holding the position of MBF trustee is enough for me to have grave concerns about his motives. Regardless, it seems no longer acceptable to have a person holding executive positions in both organisations concurrently.
A No vote could allow those who attend the AGM the opportunity to sack board members who they disagree with from the floor, and be replaced from the floor changing the balance of the trustees so a new vote and who will have legal ownership of the assets and control of the MBF board by the end of the night.
Remember This is your MBF
I agree with your sentiments entirely. We have a proven MBF Board of Trustees who have served us well. A number of these are highly respected long term trustees who through their stewardship, have managed to achieve outstanding results on our behalf.
To those who are apparently hell bent on destroying this arrangement through a misplaced allegiance to a number of union officials; BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. Don't spoil it for the rest of us.
ozbiggles
Amongst other issues, it was recommended that all MBF members should be given the opportunity to elect trustees rather than the current and method of giving that privilege to AGM attendees only . Having decided to go down this track, it follows that all members be given the opportunity to vote on that recommendation, prior to any further Trustee elections.
HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST!
It would be highly inappropriate to offer information of that nature on a public forum. Suffice to say the Board of Trustees would have taken it into account in their recommendation. The 'lesser of two evils' you might say. Just doing their job.
All these unreasonable questions and stalling tactics from other users are getting old very quickly. As I'm sure you would agree, it is unrealistic for the membership as a whole to be privy to and vote on, all the decisions the trustees are expected to make.