LeadSled
Now I’m truly confused, I see two scenarios, both, from where I sit way beyond that black stump, from apparently “reliable” sources.
If the scenario I described above is so then I do not resile from any of my comments.
But if as you say it is different, then I will have to reconsider some ideas.
The end result (a Board reduction) does not appear to be in dispute, the responsibility for it is.
I even chide our friend
cogwheel for entertaining the notion of a Board number change before the election and AGM, but after the nominations close.
Then I see evidence that suggests that it has “actually” happened.
If I have maligned Mr McKeown in this regard, then he has my unreserved apology.
I will tomorrow (Sun) take up your suggestion and make some further calls.
So how and by whom is still moot then?
Indeed the “thot plickens” and I am dismayed that some feel that it is necessary to “plot” in the first place.
There is arrogance in that as a concept, which does no service to the plotters or the membership.
It promotes the belief that the membership aren’t clever enough out work out who is going to do the best job for them and that they really
need “serious help” to make sure that they, the dumb membership, don’t make a silly mistake.
I have much more faith in people than that.
Reduction of the Board numbers AT the AGM is going to be a tricky job as it means two or more “hopefuls” are going to miss out and further concentrate a “power base”.
If this is to be decided by a vote of those present and proxies then that message should be got out with the April AOPA, so that voters may think more carefully on their voting intentions.
We’ll have to see what the Mag brings eh?
I do not disagree in
principle on the reduction of Board numbers, as being more efficient, but I am further confused and alarmed by your reference to even lower numbers. I will come back to this subject in a moment
Mr Murphies Motion to embed “State” representation has some real merit and echoes the distant past when there was such a system.
That he has pledged 12 months of his life to promote the legitimate interests of AOPA
members, would have to have the support of everyone who has interests of AOPA as their first priority.
My memory is not good enough to recall the details but I’m sure that there is someone around here who can. For reasons I can’t recall, it seems it was abandoned, became superfluous or became a nuisance during the Smith/Munro putsch.
Having said that my gut feeling is that
IF the Board is properly elected in a vigorous election, which we appear to now have in spades, then there should be a natural balance of sensibilities amongst mature, responsible individuals, that would ensure the membership and their interests came first and egos dead last.
That Mr Murphies Motion is even mooted is an indictment of the past modus operandi. It is the MO, which must change.
The idea that AOPA needs another body within it to ride “shotgun” on the Board says much of a prevailing feeling, that the Board can not be trusted, is manipulative, has members who act independently of the Board, unilaterally on policy and with scant regard for the membership whom they are elected to represent.
There is some evidence that suggests that this has been so in the past and why the current robust debate and election process plays on.
At the end of the day the Board are legally responsible for the operation of AOPA. Yes, Mr Murphies proposed “outriders” would have the ability to keep em ‘honest’, but we must understand that they also have the ability to completely disrupt the operation, should, and this is more likely than not, factions fight for and gain control of the “outriders”.
Our friend Nicolo Machiavelli would think he’d died and gone to heaven if he was presented with this as an opportunity.
What are the Board, who hold the legal responsibility, to do then? I know what I’d do, pull the handles.
And whilst I agree in “principle” with a reduction in numbers, I fear it would actually have the opposite effect, by concentrating power in smaller numbers, without the “natural protection” that larger numbers bring with a diversity of opinion.
Larger numbers may be harder work in trying to “sell” an agenda or pursue a policy concept, but they are more likely to be tested for efficacy and general agreement in the heat of debate amongst larger numbers than not. The membership deserve that protection
In summary “the status quo” must prevail until after the AGM, the dust has settled, and the new “TEAM “ whoever they may be, as defined by
hermeias and I'm sure Marjorie would agree, can get on with the
REAL business with Government and Regulator.
Oh and one other little matter on which you may be able to instruct me.
Whilst doing a little research on the Articles, downloaded from the AOPA site, I see Article 38 (b) relating to Committee members who have a full time job blah blah blah, being ineligible for the Presidency, has an exception which specifically exempts Captain W.J.R (Bill) Hamilton from its operation, which I found curious.
Why is this so.?
Creampuff
Do not give up on your dream yet
the fundamental problem on that front is that AOPA doesn’t know who it represents!
= TRUE
And I do hear good things about Mr McKeown which is why my reaction above.
Hmm and regarding the FLOT thingy, one of the largest training organisations in Australia, RACWA, and certainly THE largest in WA are one of the few NOT affiliated with AOPA and haven’t been for some time. They were once.
Win lose or draw they are on my list, but I suspect that things will have to change dramatically to get them back.
I was given to understand that they were present at FLOT at the “express” invitation of CASA, because of their size and influence, maybe even as guests, I can’t be sure, but to ensure that there was “proper representation” of “that” part of the industry.
I could have sworn that is a role that would normally have been the natural domain of AOPA.
Now I’m off to make some telephone calls.