They don't get it, do they? - these directors (dictators) who dictate that the next board shall be ten.
The articles say there shall be twelve.
The articles allow a lessor number if the board agrees, but that provision was obviously made for a board to be able to control itself, not future boards.
The articles of association can only be changed by the members, not the board. The present board can change the number of directors in the present board, but can not interfere with future boards.
Why do they think that articles of association exist?
Hamilton states "For some years, the establishment has been 10, look at last years elections, and the numbers. And the year before etc. There is no change for this election. The number on the Board will be 10, and there are 9 vacancies."
So what? That does not set a precedent. There have been 10 only because there were only 10 nominees. If he wanted the board to remain at 10, why didn't he get the articles changed to 10. He didn't have a problem getting the articles changed for his self-serving purpose of allowing himself to be President. Why was that neccesary? Pike didn't have to have "special approval," although employed in identical circumstances.
No doubt the board should be reduced in size, but by the resolution of the members, not the board.
Of course the members need to be more involved - this is what the resolutions at the AGM are all about. That is where the resolution to reduce the board must be made, not by the board itself, nor by the dictatorial interim and unelected president.
I thought a lawyer would have understood this.
This current board can elect to operate with less than twelve, and as few as seven, which they are down to now. They will collapse with the next resignation unless they can find someone to jump in to fill the void. (Murphie, this may be your 10 minutes of fame - 10 minutes because others may jump out if you jump in.)
LeadSled says "It will be up to the incoming Board to decide, for some future election, say 2004, what the numbers will be on the Board, and hence the numbers up for grabs, regardless of whether the proposal for amending the Articles gets up."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It will be up to the members.
Murphie wants to see the power go back to the members, but he is aligned with those who doing their best to have all control in the President's hands.
Murphie wants people in each state representing AOPA. This process has already been commenced, with the introduction of 'Area Representatives'. Murphie could make himself useful by becoming a Rep and encouraging others to do likewise. I believe Ron Lawford had already been tasked with investigating the benefits of using State bodies, but am not sure whether he has finished that yet. Ron was an Area Rep himself before being appointed to the board. Area Reps were an excellent idea and should be promoted. By the way, whose idea was it?
Last edited by Maxima; 8th Apr 2003 at 12:04.