LeadSled
Firstly, it would seem that Andrew/Marjorie (they seem to be both claiming proprietorship, to the exclusion of the other, so you work it out) have proposed a number of items of special business for the AGM. These proposals include an item to amend the articles, which currently authorises a minimum of eight (8) members and a maximum of twelve (12) members on the Board.
Very clever.
You say, they both have proposed a number of items, OK, cant argue with that, as a statement that is likely to be = TRUE.
We know now that there were
several items proposed and that
one of them was the reduction in Board Members, the principle of which I support and there seems to be little disagreement generally.
It is the manner of its implementation, which is controversial.
But
which items were proposed by
whom?
Perhaps, before the nominations were called, an agreement was reached that there would be a "full" Board of 12 elected followed by a reduction at some time in the future. The incumbent Secretary would have held responsibility for this to be implemented as part of their duties
Certainly, when I was considering nomination and made enquiries in this regard I was told that this was so and I had and still have no reservations about the propriety and truth of that advice which was supported from other sources as well.
Perhaps I need to get my hearing checked mrs gaunty has been complaining about it lately.
Perhaps this "agreement” was changed when the number and quality of the nominations of the candidates was revealed and as I have suggested elsewhere in this thread that the ground
needed to be shifted, even unto 10.
If so, why?
I don’t see it amended in the Articles anywhere beyond, that it can be between 8 and 12, but is really 10.
It is clear to me that Article 33 (a) needs some serious amendment.
Might I suggest that until the articles are changed then the outgoing Board
should and could NOT unilaterally DECIDE that the next election will only provide for "X" number of seats, other than the maximum provided for in the Articles. Neither More nor Less.
Might I suggest that neither should the outgoing Board have ANY jurisdiction in that matter whatsoever in regard to the number of seats in an election, lest they leave themselves open to accusations of manipulation.
“Hey we're tight lets just sit”, OR, “hey we need to dilute something here lets expand”.
As at the date of the AGM they cease to be so and the NEW Board duly elected can then do what it likes.
What as you imply about the 10 might have been by "tradition", may have "legal" effect whilst the articles are written as they are, but they do not have the ethical or moral base that is required of this form of Association.
I have not had the time to properly follow it up, but the form of incorporation of AOPA does seem incongruent with its purpose and membership as an Association.
I understand that this is already being investigated and may be the correct vehicle for the Murphy Motion, with the principle of which I and others also agree.
If I understand the difference correctly then trying to run an "Association" along "Company" lines will and has inevitably brought us to this point. But that is for another day.
I do believe however that the current form of incorporation will make it more difficult than it seems.
But I digress;
Did they BOTH propose the reduction of the Board numbers, if so then why the ruction, if NOT then WHO did.
Your statement above is a little disingenuous in that it implies that they BOTH did.
(they seem to be both claiming proprietorship, to the exclusion of the other, so you work it out)
Now a simple soul like me is having a little trouble working out why I should support Mr McKeown as President when he needs a fourth party, maybe or maybe not, via a third party;
To clear the air a little, now that it is becoming clear, there are two issues being mixed up by Andrew, so let’s un-mix them.
If he becomes so easily confused and “mixed up”, about matters of this importance, then he should for our sakes reconsider his position and candidature, if not, then there is indeed mischief in the making.
Unless there is some safe ground in the middle there somewhere, then you can’t have it both ways. I’m not used to working in quicksand and refuse to do so.
We do not have an AOPA forum in which to discuss these issues, directly, PPRuNe has made this forum available to the members for this purpose, Mr Mc Keown like Ms Pagani, has the same access, to personally "clear the air" should his or her actions be misinterpreted.
He should use it, I for one am very keen to be
fully informed
directly.
Oh and I couldn’t fit it in the 250 word profile but any one who wants to call me can do so on ;
Mobile
0417958312. If I’m busy leave a message and I promise to return your call.
And whilst I am at it.
If you are an AOPA member reading this, get behind Bob Murphie, it's his blood, sweat and tears that he is volunteering to try and get State Chapters off the ground. Bob's proposals were never even presented to the Board for their consideration, but Andrew's were ????
Very clever again.
You should indeed get behind Murphie, as you should get behind anyone who volunteers to support your interests in this way.
But you should also be very careful of the rhetoric and throwaway lines such as those "embedded" in the above.
Bob's proposals were never even presented to the Board for their consideration, but Andrew's were ????
Sounds like a conspiracy against Bob by someone in the inner sanctum hey?
Again more than a little disingenuous;
I understand and I am sure it can be confirmed, the simple
fact is, that Bobs proposals and Notice of Motion did not meet the requirements of the Companies Code, under which AOPA is administered and which provide the backbone of equality and equity for ALL the members EQUALLY, for it to be accepted in time for the last meeting.
Neither I, nor you, nor any of the other members who want private members' resolutions put up at a meeting, are beyond the law.
The Secretary cannot change Commonwealth Legislation nor break the law for your or my benefit, notwithstanding that the Secretary may totally agree with and support your motion.
Look at it this way, if a motion got up "illegally" as a resolution, with which you disagreed strongly, then it would be a relatively simple matter to have it disposed of, but it would be a superb waste of everyone’s time, no sense in that, for anyone. Agreed!
Worse, the motion may have had some REAL merit within it SOMEWHERE but needed discussion and with revision may turn out to be very useful, but it and its supporters will forever be tainted by the illegal process. No sense in that either.
Murphies Motion can and is still being pursued and will I am sure be presented in legal form at the appropriate time
Unless this process is administered without fear or favour, then LeadSleds
innuendo that there is some favouritism or conspiracy will become fact.
There are rules of procedure set up to protect EVERYONE and if they are not used scrupulously and impartially then why bother.
Murphie seems to be of the opinion that he is for some reason being obstructed in his earnest endeavours for AOPA.
Axiom can assure Bob that this can not be so, maybe it has been the way in the past and I don't mean the recent past, but it is certainly
not going to be the way of the future if
I have anything to do with it.
Bob can also console himself with the thought that whilst he may not have got the "process" right in the first place, few do including me, the first time round, he has enjoyed the benefits of the old campaign maxim that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. At the very least everyone here, now knows about Bob.
axiom
Old chap, I wasn't asking for your profile, I can get that off PPRuNe, it was your mate Murphies, I was after, he wants us to follow him into the Valley of the shadow of ….. blah blah blah but he’s being a bit coy about his background.
C’mon then, lets see it
