Originally Posted by Mark Whitaker
they have not corresponded with me...
Really? You have posted here various correspondences between you and the MBF. It's just that you don't like what the MBF is saying. Are you telling us
everything about the communication between you and the MBF?
I say again: Perhaps if the truth was revealed to the masses, the critics here may have a slightly different view on the whole MBF situation.
As for your AFAP point:
· Bringing the AFAP back from the cold and having a full time Trustee from the AFAP as the fund was originally set up.
The MBF is far better off with the new structure. The AFAP/MBF "old boys club" is no longer appropriate in this day and age of accountability. Serious money is involved and serious, unbiased decisions need to be made. I am a member of the AFAP but not the MBF, and I or the people repesenting me at the AFAP have
no business in the affairs of the MBF. What exactly
is the point of having an AFAP appointee on the MBF board if not to influence it's activities, obviously for the good of the AFAP?
At the instigation of the current board members (those old has-beens), the MBF is more transparent than ever, with all members getting to opportunity to vote via secret ballot as opposed to the previous show of hands of interested members at AGMs.
Originally Posted by Twodogs
.....but I have had a long career with peace of mind knowing the MBF is there.
If you are not a member why would you use that statement and post in the way you have?
Perhaps he's retired?