Cut legal funding at all costs
Seems the AOA President has a mandate to stop the legal funding at all costs. One has to ask, why? Rumor has it that he will up the dues to 6% in the hopes people will stop funding the legals. Time will tell.
VR- I wish it were that easy. It was business but got very personnel from CX. Trying to have people thrown out of their home, sending letters to banks - credit cards being cancelled, defamation of character, blacklisting, etc. Don’t think a touchy feely letter to AS, on down would suffice.
Tamalai- somehow I believe you are footing the bill - this is an anonymous forum. Very easy to call a truce before we both spend a lot of money. You know what has to be done. Nobody cares what aircraft they fly, just the conditions it has to be done. I will leave it to you- work out the details before we give the money to the lawyers. I believe we are both willing to go the distance, but if both eat a bit of crow and not just the 49ers/AOA, it would be a lot easier to swallow, seems we are eating the whole flock ourselves. Imagine, just a little bit of crow but wash it down with wine and caviar with all the money we both save. Over to you.
Shortly- we fund it because it is the right thing to do. A lot of people were just starting/in the middle of their careers (with obligations) when this happened.
49er Letter:
Dear AOA President,
As one who has defended you in the recent past, I am disappointed to see the following in your 'response to the case against.' Maybe it was written in haste, under pressure or with a feeling of annoyance at the authors - I don't know, but I believe it to be provocative, ill advised and a source of stress for the 49ers.
You said:
'We would need a separate mandate going forward with more than two thirds of the Members voting in favor. There is a clear possibility, therefore, that the Settlement Offer could be voted down with a subsequent Motion on continued legal funding also being voted down; this is critical in any consideration of the Offer at present before us.'
I disagree strongly that there would be such a need. The current path, endorsed by the membership, is that the legal actions will be funded by the AOA. If this offer is voted down then that path has not changed. There will therefore be no need for a 'separate mandate' and I would view the attempted introduction of one with deep suspicion.
You are leaving yourself open to accusations of attempting to manipulate the membership with the threat of the withdrawal of funding for the legal action if the offer is voted down.
As I have no doubt that this is not your intent and that you would rightly deny such an accusation, I would suggest that you clarify or withdraw your comments.