Capt Bloggs
Just what are you smoking.
You support the proposals, then you talk of a return to the "good old days" being counter productive.
That is exactly what is being proposed by the current Board.
A return to the good old days of 2007! Those same days that the then Trustees, (with remarkably similar names to the members of the current Board), deemed that to comply with the law, we must have a change of trusteeship, and that in the best interests of the membership that trustee should be the AFAP.
If you have any knowledge of the concept of trusteeship, please help me understand how you can appoint a trustee without handing over the assets to be held in trust. The trustee is LEGALLY, ULTIMATELY responsible for the assets.
If by some chance the assets disappeared, the members would ONLY have recourse to the TRUSTEE. And yet the current Board expect the AFAP to accept that responsibility but will not allow them even to hold the title to the assets. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Fund's legal advice would have covered this requirement. In the absence of the transfer of title to the assets, we have a situation where a group of 9 persons, not accountable to anyone, are in possession of the assets, technically able to do with them whatever they wish. Including shipping them off to the Bahamas. But hey that is OK, the AFAP are legally responsible, they will pick up the tab. This is why the AFAP have insisted that title be handed over.
No one with an ounce of intelligence would be critical of the execellent financial result that has occured over the last few years. But credit where credit is due, this has all been down to one decision to move out of the market. Prior to that one pivotal decision, any monkey could make **** loads in the market. We must all be eternally grateful that the Investment Committee had the foresight to sell out when they did.
But the current situation is not about financial results, it is about administrative and procedural correctness and legality. Two years ago the proposition was put that we should move towards the AFAP. The laws requiring that move have not altered. The argument still stands.
Talk of greater democracy is all smoke and mirrors. It is a side show designed to take your attention away from the real issues of governance. The postal vote for Trustees would get up on its own, there was no need to tie it into this current vote. Equally the argument about Principal Officers is specious. It's a distraction and it's personal.
I reissue the challenge.
Harry give us an unequivocal committment that the proposed changes will stand on their own. Tell us with your hand on your heart that the fund will remain free of outside influence and at no increased cost to the membership.
Then I will give you my vote.
Maui
Last edited by maui; 10th Aug 2009 at 12:01.