Capt Bloggs.
If HO could unequivocably state that trusteeship and control of the fund will remain with the "Board"/ "Trustees" without outside influence and at no cost to the membership, I would be inclined to say YES.
However, such is not the case. In 2007 we were advised that we must move from the traditional Trusteeship, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINACIAL SERVICES ACT. It was deemed that AFAP was the preferred option.
Nothing has changed. Any move away from the AFAP Trusteeship will cost the fund bulk dollars.
I intend to vote NO in this first vote. If the argument has merit it will get up again after we have been given full information and proper, rational, discussion has ensued.
This is a kneejerk response to a few bruised ego's brought on by the incumbents inability to properly think through and implement a proposal.
Currently we have only half the story. The return of Trusteeship to the Board is only the first of many moves. Following the 2007 Trustees argument, the legislation requires that.
Come on Harry, tell us the full story. Turn the lights on, come out of the dark.
Maui