Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund

[Capn Bloggs]

Just read the latest missives from the AFAP and WR. I have to say there appears to be some selective arguing going on here.

When the Conflict of Interest issue was raised years ago, WR would know, but did not mention in his letter, that MC immediately quit his AFAP post. For WR to use MC's example as "it's OK to have a foot in both camps" without also mentioning Mike's action is a little disingenuous, I think. I note that TS also takes up this point in his memo of the 29th of July. He wrote “MC, as one example, was both for many years and did not find it an issue during those years when he was a Federation officer”, but also fails to point out that MC immediately resigned from his AFAP position when the conflict of interest issue came up.

My understanding is that, even though the AFAP started the MBF, many many years ago, the MBF was split off into it's own organisation (it is, after all, the Australian Air Pilots MBF, not the AFAP MBF). Obviously, the AFAP and/or MBF management (of which WR was one, according to his letter) at the time saw that a conflict of interest could potentially develop between the two, with the (especially now) significant monetary assets in the MBF possibly being compromised. Why is he now spreading doom and gloom just because the current MBF trustees simply want to return the situation to the status quo that existed prior to 2007 when the AFAP was not the trustee/custodian?

The reality is that there is no linkage between the AFAP and the MBF save the fact that you have to be a member of the AFAP to be a member of the MBF, which is enshrined in the rules. The AFAP never had any "control" over the MBF until it (the AFAP) was granted "trustee/custodian" status (the term “custodian” is the one used for this situation in financial circles) in 2007, and then only to facilitate the MBF being covered by the AFAP's simplified Financial Services Regulations arrangements. Any thinking person would agree that the MBF trustees were not handing over the reins of the MBF. Now that the MBF trustees have decided that the previous arrangement is no longer necessary, fierce resistance is coming from the AFAP. While the AFAP (BM, TS and WR) are arguing that they don’t want control over the fund, they are fighting tooth and nail to derail the MBF trustees and their plan to return the MBF to the status quo of 2007, when the AFAP had absolutely no control over the MBF.

Contrary to TS’s claim in his memo that dual appointments have been beneficial, in my view, there is an obvious potential conflict of interest. WR’s statement “a vote in favour of change …will end a tradition” needs further explanation. Is he implying that a principal officer of the AFAP will never have a conflict of interest being a trustee of the MBF, arguably a completely different organisation with no common function? I cannot see any beneficial argument for allowing AFAP principal officers to be trustees of the MBF. On the contrary, I can clearly see an argument for disallowing such an arrangement. Say for example there were a number of AFAP principal officers voted into MBF trustee positions. It is not hard to see a scenario where the MBF’s assets could be manipulated to suit the needs of the AFAP, which may not be in the best interests of the MBF member’s LOL facility. There needs to be an absolutely clear gap between both organisations and the proposed rule preventing dual roles is a fair one, in my view.

BM's letter of the 28th of July carries the same theme. The AFAP, at the MBF's request, was made trustee/custodian of the MBF. Then, suddenly, the AFAP has started demanding all manner of info about how the MBF is being run, in particular what the story was with Austair (which I’m sure WR could have filled him in on), urging a NO vote to stop a return to the pre-2007 situation.

As for the competence and integrity of the trustees running the MBF, the financial state of the fund speaks for itself. Under the stewardship of HO, admin processes and controls have been tightened significantly over previous “arrangements” and above all, the financial health of the fund is stunning compared with almost all other investment funds, again due to HO’s steerage. So much so that the benefit amounts have been increased. To imply that the MBF trustees are engaging in some sort of skullduggery without the best interests of the members at heart is unfair, unjustified scaremongering.

Perhaps the question that really needs to be asked is why, when it didn’t even initiate the transfer of trusteeship to it a couple of years ago, the AFAP is now so vociferous in it’s opposition to relinquishing it? In his memo, TS quotes HO as saying “[the AFAP] required control over the assets of the fund and legal title”. For HO to say such as thing, given all he has done to improve the running and performance of the MBF, alarm bells should be ringing among MBF members.

It is seems to me that the MBF trustees are doing the right thing here. They obviously have major concerns about the current arrangements and want to change them back to the previous setup. It’s a shame the communication to explain the situation isn’t better.

I say vote Yes.

[maui]

Capt Bloggs.

If HO could unequivocably state that trusteeship and control of the fund will remain with the "Board"/ "Trustees" without outside influence and at no cost to the membership, I would be inclined to say YES.

However, such is not the case. In 2007 we were advised that we must move from the traditional Trusteeship, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINACIAL SERVICES ACT. It was deemed that AFAP was the preferred option.

Nothing has changed. Any move away from the AFAP Trusteeship will cost the fund bulk dollars.

I intend to vote NO in this first vote. If the argument has merit it will get up again after we have been given full information and proper, rational, discussion has ensued.

This is a kneejerk response to a few bruised ego's brought on by the incumbents inability to properly think through and implement a proposal.

Currently we have only half the story. The return of Trusteeship to the Board is only the first of many moves. Following the 2007 Trustees argument, the legislation requires that.

Come on Harry, tell us the full story. Turn the lights on, come out of the dark.

Maui

[ozbiggles]

I concur with Maui
IMHO we are not getting the whole story here from one side and I have no idea which side that is. Its a VERY rushed vote.
I have voted NO until more is known, ie after the AGM. It will be very hard (and $$$$$) to unscramble the egg.

[Mr Whippy]

To say I have a limited understanding of the current situation would be an understatement but what I do know is at this time the MBF does not pay tax. In order for this to remain the case, the AFAP are required to continue as the trustee (or at least so I'm told). This is apparantly advice from the ATO and is required by legislation as Maui said.

I also voted NO as I don't think we have all the facts from either side. Annoying that my contributions to both parties are being used in this way.

[dodgybrothers]

wouldnt happen to be mates with HO would you bloggs? Might be fairer to declare an interest before posting on the subject, makes your arguments more plausible when you do.

[Capn Bloggs]

Fair enough comment Dodgy. I am an aquaintance of HO, yes. But with all my Prune posts (apart from the s-stirring ones :), I argue the case at hand; I don't push any particular barrow just for the ideological sake of it, as is happening with other input on this issue IMO. If I didn't think the issues that I have mentioned above had any merit, I would not have posted what I did, regardless of who the person was. I would ask you therefore to treat my opening post in that light rather than "he's a mate of ... so he must be FOS".

Being an aquaintance of HO has shown me that the MBF and it's member's potential payouts are currently in the safest hands that they have ever been. Any move to return to the "good old days" would be counter productive and has to be treated with great suspicion. Contrary to the claim of "breaking with tradition", there will always be AFAP members running the MBF as trustees and a paper ballot system in this day and age is morally mandatory.

[The Baron]

I also voted NO. There is more to this than has become apparent yet. Let us have an extraordinary general meeting so that both parties can put their case. Vote NO, let the membership decide when all the cards are on the table, then make a fully informed and rational decision.

[maui]

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

[fmcinop]

How ridiculous,

I will be voting NO!

The guys on the MBF need a good swift kick up the ass. It has turned into a real boys club.

If we wish to make a rule change, how about one that precludes retired pilots who are no longer financial member of the MBF from being trustees. There are at least 3 there at the moment. These guys are making decisions with the funds money when they have retired, are no longer financial contributing fund members and have taken their 5B refunds.

3 rule changs but only one box to tick. In the past the copy of the old rule was included to compare with the new one. Where is it? Why can I not vote for individual rule changes, why the vote for one vote for all?

This entire mess has been conjured up in record time without due consideration or consultation. The states have taken the fund to court 3 times already to try and change their classificaton and therefore their tax consessions, and thus far they have lost. Maybe not next time.

The AFAP were appointed custodians to avoid the regulated and expensive FSL. Why don't the MBF publish the expected setup and ongoing cost associated with holding and FSL? I have seen the cost estimated from last time they looked at it. We are not talking just a few thousand $$$$.

This will also put the fund one step closer to the state governments having the MBF classified as an insurance as opposed to a mutual benefit fund and losing all its current tax advantages.

I have spoken to TOC, BW, TS and all have said that the AFAP don't want to control the funds as the MBF would have us believe. As custodians they hold the resonsibility however. They don't want to take over the running of the fund. This can be assured within the rules. It’s quite easy. As for the exclusion of AFAP board members being unable to hold the position of trustee is equally ridiculous. AFAP board members have been trustees for years.

At least 2 of the MBF trustees who were absent from the meeting where this situation arose oppose the rest of the trustees on this issue, so it is far from an unanimous trustee decision.

Before they MBF launch into an impulse and reactive course of action they need to sit down with the AFAP like adults and talk to them.

If not I think we may need to ensure the current trustees are not returned to their position. The MBF is a great fund which may be ruined forever. Why the rush. Let’s take a breather, take time to analyse the facts, talk to the AFAP and then make an informed decision.

[paul makin]

An Open letter to Capt O’Neil Board Chairman AAPMBF
From Paul Makin. Former Trustee and Chairman of Trustees of AAPMBF
Harry, I refer to you letter of 12 August.
As you point out, a NO vote (on it's own), will not reinstate the AFAP, as Trustee. However a NO vote will require that to get the proposal up, the Board will need to discuss the matter fully and properly with the membership, before putting the question again. The Board will need to justify its actions.

At the moment the membership have no idea of the circumstances behind this precipitous action.

The membership have not been informed of where you propose to take the fund should your proposal be accepted.

Is it proposed that this reversion to 2007 is the end of the matter?

If the 2007 arguments as to why the AAPMBF should be placed in the Trusteeship of the AFAP were valid, what has changed to allow a return to the pre 2007 status quo, or is some other arrangement still required, should your poll be successful?

What has the AFAP done to warrant its removal as Trustee?

The usual procedure for rule change is to put each change separately, to argue each point and to vote on each separately. Why do you feel the need to lump all these changes together and process them under a single vote? Could it be that you want the motherhood issue of postal voting for Board Members, to cloak a darker side of your proposal?

What are the transitional arrangements? Given that the vote closes just days before the scheduled AGM, what process is to apply for elections at that AGM. Old rules or new rules?

There are too many unanswered questions in this matter. The membership deserve to know what is going on. To put a proposal on the basis of “we reckon this is good for you, swallow it and don’t ask questions”, could be perceived as being somewhat arrogant.

On behalf of the membership I ask that you share with us your concerns. We appointed you to look after our interests, not to treat us like mushrooms. That appointment was not a blank cheque.
Harry. Please talk to us.

Regards
Paul Makin

[ITCZ]

Point of order!

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.

The guys on the MBF need a good swift kick up the ass. It has turned into a real boys club.

Slow down a little, fellas! I can understand why an AFAP and an MBF member might be confused about all this. For your average fund member, this debate came 'out of the blue.'

However, lets avoid the temptation to follow the path from uncertainty, via fear, to suspicion.

It is unfair to conclude that those proposing a rule change do so to benefit themselves, or could somehow care less because 'their money' is not involved.

It has been my experience that those pilots who willingly give up valuable drinking time/family time/recreation time to administer and represent pilots in union activities and not-for-profit organisations, are usually motivated by a sense of the group, responsibility to the community and advancement of the profession.

I too am a little concerned about this "AFAP v MBF" issue.

I have had the pleasure of working alongside both the AFAP president and the MBF chair, and know them to be men who, if faced with a choice, will think it through, and do what they believe is right, not what suits them. Both have been faced similar tests in the past, and chosen the path that they believed was right, and wore the personal cost.

My "master caution" light is going off because two men whose views I respect, have opposing views on a serious matter.

So please, as we move forward on this ... Play the ball, not the man!

[maui]

ITCZ

Like the meterological area you represent, you are a tad confused.


It is unfair to conclude that those proposing a rule change do so to benefit themselves, or could somehow care less because 'their money' is not involved


If you are inferrring, my comments suggested this, read again. (keyword technically)


It has been my experience that those pilots who willingly give up valuable drinking time/family time/recreation time to administer and represent pilots in union activities and not-for-profit organisations, are usually motivated by a sense of the group, responsibility to the community and advancement of the profession.



Toatally concur.

I have had the pleasure of working alongside both the AFAP president and the MBF chair, and know them to be men who, if faced with a choice, will think it through, and do what they believe is right, not what suits them. Both have been faced similar tests in the past, and chosen the path that they believed was right, and wore the personal cost.


If this is the case. How is that two individuals, apparently working to the same ideals, can be so at loggerheads. If they both are doing what they believe is right and if their perception of what is right is alligned, there could be no difference between the two. As it is, there is a major rift.
Ergo there is a major difference between the two, as to what is right.
Ergo there is a need for serious discussion betweeen the parties to determine what IS RIGHT.

It is my understandng that the AAPMBF Chairman has refused any meaningful dscussion, and has even failed to disclose tothe AFAP President,what the AFAP has done to incurr the wrath of the AAPMBF board.
Shame on that man.

Point of order overruled.

Maui

[Don Diego]

fmcinop your last post indicates to me that a large part of your brain is the inoperative item,get some facts prior to posting again on this topic.

[fmcinop]

Don Diego,

As an ex trustee and having been invloved in some of the rule changes we are all talking about I think I know exactly what I am talking about.

Maybe it is you who should get their facts straight.

[WoodenEye]

As has been said elsewhere:

..with globalisation bearing down on the Virgin and Qantas Groups, it’s time for Qantas Group pilots to embrace innovative change which, inter alia, means merging AFAP & AIPA, to bring into existence an Australian Pilots Association (APA)....that the MBF Trustees appears to understand that the MBF needs new blood if it is to grow and continue to offer very attractive LOL insurance to its members, is ...compelling reason to bring on the AFAP/AIPA merger asap.

[maui]

WoodenEye

This discussion has nothing to do with the current state of affairs between AIPA and AFAP. How about leaving this discussion in it's own context, and refrain from muddying these waters with " that other battle royal" that is raging on.

The AAPMBF neither needs to expand nor does it need new blood to grow and to continue to provide it's excellent coverage. It is basically self sustaining now. The fund has grown year on year, and to the best of my knowledge, for the last 25 years or so, has been able to pay all claims out of profits and subscriptions.

Sorry sport we dont need you. Don't conjure up a ficticious need of the MBF, to support your amalgamation ambitions. Let that rise or fall on its industrial merit.
Having said that, I am sure the AAPMBF will be able to make reasonable accomodations for the AIPA members should an amalgamation eventually take place, and should they be invited to join.

Maui

[Don Diego]

fmcinop,in your post you mention those in the AFAP you have contacted in regard to this matter yet there is no mention of any contact with the Fund so have you really only heard one version??
You say you have seen costings on obtaining an FSL so why not put them all here for us to see??
You take a shot at the over 65 years of age trustees because they no longer contribute and have taken their refund yet are happy to hand legal title and control of the Funds assets to the AFAP that have no rules in place to deal with that and has over 800 members who are not Fund members.
You mention a meeting where two trustees were absent,your point being?The AFAP conducts meetings with a bare quorum and all those decisions are not always unanimous.

For the record I agree that dialogue is best way to solve this.DD.

PS this is not AFAP bashing,if you have any doubts then just have a look at some of my older posts on other matters.

[fmcinop]

First of all, I have spoken to some of nut not all of the MBF trustees and the AFAP so have a good grasp of both sides of the story.

The costing I have related to the setup and ongoing cost of having a FSL are about 4 years old so are no longer relevant. I can remember being horrified at the time after being presented with the costing. I would be willing to bet the costing have gone up since then!

I have no real problem with guys giving up their time to be trustees. I know the sacrifice after having done it for 3 years. There is a push however to disallow AFAP board member from being trustees, many of the current trustees have been both at the same time. So what is the real issue? My point is that if there is an issue with AFAP board members boing trustees then I think that there should also be an issue with non current MBF members being trustees.

At least 2 of the current trustee disagree with the current push. If there is not a unanimous agreement by the trustees, why not. What are their concerns?

This is a major change that will alter the fund forever. Why the rush to try and push it all through before the AGM?

Slow down, take a breath, establish communication with the AFAP and go from there.
Don Diego I can only assume you are a trustee at the moment so answer this:
Why the rush??????

[maui]

Don.

A couple of points.

The AAPMBF, (then) Trustrees were aware, in 2007, of the points that you mention. That AFAP had no specific structure in this regard, and that they had several members who were not AAPMBF members. Yet they (AAPMBF Trustees) strongly recommended that we adopt the AFAP as Trustee.

The structure is not an issue, as the AAPMBF Trustees must have realised. Trusteeship is governed by the Trustee Laws of the state of Victoria. Those laws dictate the way funds held in trust may be dealt with.

In practice and in accordance with the rules that we voted for (at the behest of the then Trustees), until the dismissal, the AFAP was to have title, as Trustee, and the AAPMBF Board was to administer the fund and monies. THE TRUSTEE LAWS REQUIRE THAT THE TRUSTEE HOLDS TITLE TO THE ASSETS OF THE FUND. The AAPMBF have legal advice which confirms that fact.

This has all occurred because of a perception that the AFAP, by insisting that the LAW be abided by, has sought to grasp the funds. It hasn't. It has merely sought to run the 2007 proposals to their logical and legal conclusion.

If the AAPMBF Board claim that they were unaware of the consequences of the rule change that they promoted, they are either lying, or are totally inept. Any clown knows that you cannot transfer reponsibility but not transfer access/control to the things for which you are shedding responsibility.

Maui

[ITCZ]

Maui, you ask the question...
How is that two individuals, apparently working to the same ideals, can be so at loggerheads.
.... and you supply your own answer:
If they both are doing what they believe is right and if their perception of what is right is alligned, there could be no difference between the two.
If that were only the case. History books would be thinner and family court lawyers would be driving Daewoos not Daimlers.

Another Pprune hero with 'the facts'. Just more hot air and bombast.

Enough, Maui. I'm tempted to vote YES just to p ss you off.

Lets hear from somebody else.

[maui]

ITCZ

I would prefer if you didn't use "hero" in any sentence relating to me.

Very nasty taste in the mouth after that.

Maui

[meme]

As a staunch long term member of the AFAP, I am somewhat disgusted an embarrassed by the rants and misinformation regarding the AAPMBF board of Trustees linked to the home page on the AFAP’s website.
I am also a member of the AAPMBF and from what I can deduce after making some inquiries, is that there is no substantial evidence suggesting the AAPMBF Board of Trustees, with the exception of one member who incidentally holds the position of ‘Trustee’ in both organisations, has acted improperly. Clearly each organisation has it’s priorities to follow in accordance with the wishes of the respective membership. This fact alone provides fertile grounds for a ‘Conflict of Interest’ should any contentious issue arise albeit the high percentage of common membership.

If ever there was an argument for a Rule preventing AFAP office holders from simultaneously holding the position of Trustee on the AAPMBF board it is the very situation we find ourselves involved in at present.
I find it objectionable that the individual currently holding the position of Trustee on the boards of both organisations has not as a matter of principle, resigned from one of those positions or, at the very least ‘abstained ‘ from any contentious vote due to the potential for a ‘Conflict of Interest’.

Quite the contrary it seems. The subsequent behaviour from this individual who has clearly aligned himself with the AFAP in his capacity of AFAP Trustee is reprehensible. My sympathies go out to the AAPMBF board who it seems have a ‘Rogue’ trustee to deal with until at least the next AGM. Furthermore this extraordinary behaviour appears to be endorsed by the AFAP officers as it tends to support their apparent efforts to get at least some of their fingers on the AAPMBF pie.

Let’s be clear, I fully understand the AFAP’s desire for an increased influence over the AAPMBF as it appeared they were expecting up until the AAPMBF board decided in the interests of the AAPMBF members, and in accordance with the AAPMBF rules, to return to the original status quo.
I was somewhat relieved by this decision as I strongly believe there must be a clear separation between the organisations with regards to any financial and operational issues in order to protect the interests of the AAPMBF membership.

We are extremely fortunate have a number of very experienced trustees on the board of the AAPMBF who have for many years, displayed a high level of maturity and stewardship. The more than satisfactory financial results achieved during the recent downturn speak for themselves not to mention the ongoing support for the membership at large. I for one, very much hope we will be able to continue to enjoy the benefit of their service and expertise well into the foreseeable future. In order to do so, we must support them now.

I have no hesitation in voting in accordance with the recommendations of the AAPMBF Board of Trustees.
Don’t worry AFAP, I’m still on your side regarding the ‘Union stuff ‘ but, fingers off the MBF pleaseJ

[The Bolter]

Response to Paul Makin

What are you talking about – what proposal needs to get up – the proposal that all members get the chance to elect their representative?

The Trustees did justify their rule amendment in my voting slip in the same way that has happened in the past. Re your comment about the darker side of the proposal, please enlighten the members Paul. What is the darker side of allowing all members to vote, including fair representation and dealing with the possible conflict of “two masters”.

As for the rule change being requested clause by clause, that certainly didn’t happen in 2007. Didn’t hear any squawking then!

And what has happened since 2007 is pretty clear – the union has gone back on the original arrangement. They have advised the Fund that they require legal title and control over the assets (and as an aside, they advised only later that they won’t interfere with the admin). As in like right now they are not interfering.

It is pretty disappointing to see this kind of disingenuous comment – maybe it is all a political issue to the old boys. But it is pretty serious when an associated organization reneges, doesn’t allow you to discuss the issue at executive and advises you that they will take steps to take control of the assets of Fund members.

You of all people know that the union has never had control – the fund was always separate from the union. Anyone walking into the Fund office can get a glimpse of the minutes from the 60’s and 70’s and 80’s and so on.

As for your comments about an agm, to my knowledge it has not been called yet. So clearly there is an intent to consider the member’s interests before hand. More than I can say about the Federation considering member’s interest, wasting more money and more time over an issue that never presented a problem, until they created it by attempting to muscle in on controlling Fund members monies..

As for the comments about sharing with the members, how many letters would you consider is necessary Paul – the members are awash , although partly due to the misinformation from the union, which is disappointing to say the least.

Your letter is disappointing due to the use of innuendo, and political speak. The Fund members deserve better.:=:=:=

PS meme you mention the "two headed" Trustee and I agree with your sentiments on that fellow,no secret of who it is as he outs himself in his memo 29/7/09.You know you have made the grade when they want to change the rules to get rid of you.Incidentally,his fellow VB pilots did not have the confidence in him to put him on their own council.What does that tell you??

[meme]

ITCZ,
Quote: My “Master caution” light is going off because two men whose views I respect, have opposing views on a serious matter.

I’m in agreement with many of the sentiments you have expressed. It is indeed difficult when faced with a decision which may go against the wishes/recommendations of people you respect. “They can’t both be right”, you might say.

Well, that could depend on who they are representing. In this particular issue the individuals are representing their respective organisations in accordance with their responsibilities towards that organisation. We would expect no less. On the issue at hand, there is a clear disagreement between the Union and the MBF and both gentlemen are promoting the interests of their respective organisation. To that end they are both could be considered ‘right’ and acting in good faith.

In this instance, it is clearly in the interests of the Union to have the ability for their office holders to occupy positions on the MBF board, so naturally that line would, and is being pursued.
On the other hand, the MBF have very real concerns about a ‘Conflict of Interest’ which not only could, but has occurred. It is therefore their responsibility to recommend closing that loophole in order to avoid further occurrences.

Essentially this is an MBF initiative which on the face of it appears quite appropriate given the circumstances. It could be argued of course that the Union’s efforts as ‘spoilers’ is equally appropriate for promoting their agenda. Either way, when considering this matter, I think it is important we wear our own MBF hat.

I hope you get the opportunity to discuss the issue with both gentlemen so that ‘MASTER CAUTION LT’ can be extinguished.

[paul makin]

Bolter.

Thankyou for your questions and comments, as it is only through dialogue that we can all get a true appreciation of all that is before us. Openness and transparency should be the cornerstone of our existence.

Before you, you have a ballot paper and documentation requiring you to place one mark for all that the accompanying literature brings to you. That is the proposal. You may vote YES or NO to ALL that is proposed, but you cannot vote for one part and against another.

The proposal consists of four distinct elements.

There is the part about postal voting. This is a motherhood issue that requires no argument, and if presented on it’s own, would in all probability be passed unanimously. I would, however, point out that the proposed rule makes no provision for potential candidates to avail themselves of the offices of the AAPMBF to circularise the membership on matters pertinent to their election. From personal experience I can assure you that the current administration of the fund will not allow access to the facilities of the fund, to raise with members, matters of concern.

There is the part about the dual role of Trustees/Board Members vis a vis AFAP Principal Office. This has precedents in both directions, but more importantly this is a personal spat between Board Members/Trustees. It demeans the proposers to have included it in this ballot process.

The third part is about restricting the number of Trustee from any one company. As an attempt to limit the possibility of biased directions and outcomes the proposal has some merit. However past experience has shown that because of the lack of volunteers willing to devote adequate time to the oversight of the Fund, such restriction could result in a the appointment of an incomplete Board.

The fourth and most important part relates to the structure of the AAPMBF, going forward.
In 2000/2001 the then Trustees, faced with changes to the Financial Services regulatory requirements came to the conclusion that the governance of the Fund must be changed. They did their due diligence and from the various alternatives, chose in the best interest of the members, that the AFAP should be approached with a view to becoming the Trustee of the AAPMBF. This move was initiated by the then Trustees of the AAPMBF, not by the AFAP. The question was subsequently put to the members and the proposal adopted.
The proposed amendments to rule 14 undo that which was put in place in 2007, and in effect places the AAPMBF back to the point they were at when on March 9 2006 the Fund’s legal advisers indicated a necessity to change the governance of the fund.
My concern is, that despite several letters on the matter, the Board has failed to inform the members what lies ahead. If we are to vote on a change of structure, we should be informed of what effects will ensue from that change. Will the Fund recommend the appointment of an alternative Trustee or will we seek licensing under the Financial Services legislation? What will the alternatives cost us and what will be the benefits or pitfalls of each alternative?
The one fact you can be assured of is that this vote is not the end of the matter. Other moves must be taken in order to comply with the regulatory requirements.
What I seek, is to have the membership fully informed of the consequences and implications of the vote currently before them.

I have consulted extensively with the AFAP over this matter, and have no doubt that they do not seek to “control” the Fund or to manipulate the assets of the Fund. Any contention to the contrary, in my view does not stand up to scrutiny.
In appointing a Trustee (as we the AAPMBF membership did), we entrust that Trustee to hold our assets/ funds and to act to protect those assets and funds. Enshrined in the 2007 rule change was the facility for the AAPMBF Board to do all their normal things with the funds/assets and to date they have dicharged that responsibility admirably.
The AFAP as Trustee is legally responsible for, and bound to hold, title. This in no way inhibits the Board from functioning as in the past but does give the AFAP the responsibility to act if they feel that the Board is not acting in the best interests of the members. This has not occurred. The AFAP has merely requested that the process of transfer of Trusteeship, which we voted for, be completed. To leave the title to the assets in the hands of non-trustees, would leave the fund open to argument that the arrangement between the AFAP and the AAPMBF was a sham designed to circumvent statutory requirements and therefore, unlawful.
The Trustee Laws of Victoria, to which our funds are subject, are very specific about how those funds/assets may be dealt with, and the standards of behaviour of the Trustee(s). Even if they were inclined, the AFAP in holding the funds/assets cannot divert them to their own benefit.
The assets of the Fund are held by Austair Nominees. Austair Nominees has nine shares each of which is held by each of the Trustees. On becoming a Trustee and accepting that one share, each of the Trustees signs an undated transfer of that share to be actioned at the time of ceasing to be a Trustee. The 2007 Trustees failed to execute that transfer when they assigned the Trusteeship to the AFAP.
That is the root cause of the current situation. This is a legal issue not an ideological one.
The AGM traditionally is held in conjunction with the AFAP Annual convention. Capt Seedsman in his address to the membership stated


A NO vote to this proposal will allow it to be discussed at the MBF AGM to be held at the Melbourne Hilton, East Melbourne on September 14.As an MBF member it is important that your mutual benefit fund and its benefits are not changed without proper consultation and process


So while your statement regards the AGM may be technically correct, it is a reasonable assumption that unless the Board chooses to evade the issues at hand, a meeting will be held as stated.

Regards
Paul Makin

[newsensation]

The MBF fund has to be independent! no interference from the AFAP, why should an organisation like the AFAP dictate that a pilot must belong to a union, the AFAP, to be able to be a member of the MBF. Remember not all members of the AFAP are members of the MBF but they want control... WHY
:= AFAP

[maui]

Newsensation

Settle down. You obviously are not aware of the origin and rationale behind the establishment of the AAPMBF.

Briefly, it was set up BY the AFAP for AFAP members. The rules of the fund, since inception, have made that Fund available only to AFAP members (or like minded groups as approved eg PNGALPA), as it was they who provided the basis for the whole shooting match.

True not all AFAP members are members of AAPMBF, however, most are. Those that are not are generally those that either have some other cover or are excluded from AAPMBF for reasons of age at time of application, or just don't want any insurance.
The exclucivity of the organisation is no different to any organisation providing membership benefits.

The AFAP does not dictate who can or cannot be members, the fund does that.

Maui

[Capn Bloggs]

it was set up BY the AFAP for AFAP members.
It is was the AFAP, decades ago, that took the deliberate step of splitting it off from the AFAP so that it could act entirely independently with NO inteference.

That is exactly why fund members should be viewing this almost paranoid attempt by the AFAP to keep the trusteeship/denigrate the current MBF trustees with extreme suspicion, and why the rule change proposing that people can't be executives of each is a good idea.

[fmcinop]

Paul Makin,

You are one of the few who has actually taken the time to try and understand both sides. You obviously have a better understanding than most of exactly what is happening here and have taken the time to talk/listen to both parties and have a good knowledge of the history behind this current issue. You have hit the nail well and truely on the head.

There are a number of reasons (of which I will not go into here) why you must be an AFAP member to join the fund and non of them relates to providing AFAP membership I can assure you. It is actually for the protection of the fund believe it or not. I has nothing really to do with the AFAP. This rule has been kept in place by the trustees not the AFAP.

I hope you are nominating for trustee. I will certainly vote for you.

[meme]

Paul Makin,

Reading your latest post, I could not help noticing how you appeared to gloss over the AAPMBF Trustee issue describing it as a personal Spat between Board Members/Trustees. I find it a remarkably disingenuous apprisal considering the significant impact of this fundamental breakdown in protocol perpetrated by one of it's members.

The fact that the AFAP, the ones who seem to have convinced you regarding their noble intentions on this issue after your extensive consultation, appear to endorse this behaviour is disappointing to say the least. It is one of the reasons why I feel compelled to distance myself somewhat from the union on this particular issue. Perhaps you can help.

Tell me, would you as a MBF member endorse a person holding dual trusteeship, actively involving himself in the decision/voting process on issues of conflict or potential conflict between the respective parties?

If not, you may understand why the AAPMBF Board of Trustees had no viable option other than to recommend a rule change to close this loophole.

[ozbiggles]

As someone who is a member of both, but knows no one in this I'm not sure who is covering up here (that is one thing that is happening here, by who I'm not sure).
But the idea of having a single yes or no vote on something that covers 4 topics IS WRONG! That is the sort of thing that makes me very wary. Its the sort of tactic used by third world countries (or Australian governments now it seems).
This needs to be discussed at an AGM (and it seems now dummies have been spat over this as well) and votes on individual issues.
If the Fund has an issue fine..... but be mature and deal with it in an adult way and not try and back door with a rushed vote on numerous issues. That has set my master caution light on over this shambles. And tell us how much it will cost as well. If the fund doesn't know this well......

[paul makin]

MeMe
You have me at a disadvantage. Because of the lack of transparency in the communications from the AAPMBF, I have little idea of exactly what it is that Capt. Seedsman is deemed to have done, that warrants action.
You and your sycophants keep on about a conflict of interest. I wonder a) do you understand what a conflict of interest is and/or b) what effect it may have on the organisation.


The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) guidelines on Conflict of Interest state clearly ‘there is nothing unusual or necessarily wrong in having a conflict of interest. How it is dealt with is the important thing’.
ICAC has defined conflict of interest in the following terms, based on the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) definition:

‘A conflict of interest involves a conflict between the public duty and private interests of a public official, in which the public official has private interests which could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities' (OECD guidelines, 2003, para10).

More specifically, conflicts of interest can be actual, perceived, or potential:
· Actual: involves a direct conflict between current duties and responsibilities and existing private interests
· Perceived: conflict exists where it could be perceived, or appears, that private interests could improperly influence the performance of duties—whether or not this is in fact the case
· Potential: arises where private interests could conflict with official duties
· A conflict of interest can be pecuniary (involving financial gain or loss) or non-pecuniary (based on enmity or amity). A conflict of interest can arise from avoiding personal losses as well as gaining personal advantage, financial or otherwise.

In applying the ICAC test of conflict we must ask the following questions.
1) Does a direct conflict exist between the current duties and the existing PRIVATE INTERESTS of the individual concerned?
2) Could the PRIVATE INTERESTS of the individual concerned, improperly influence the performance of his duties?
3) Could the PRIVATE INTERESTS of the individual conflict with his official duties?
4) Will the individual concerned gain in any material way from his support or lack there of, of any decision to which he is party.
5) Is the individual concerned acting out of hostility to the ORGANISATION (AAPMBF) of which he is an officer?
6) Is the individual concerned acting in support of another organisation (AFAP) from which he will derive some material benefit, from the decisions he will support or oppose in the subject organisation (AAPMBF)?

Capt Seedsman is an officer of both the AFAP and of the AAPMBF.
Neither is a commercial entity. The AFAP is an industrial Federation of employees of the aviation industry. The AAPMBF is a Mutual Benefit organisation of some members of the AFAP. All members of the AAPMBF are members of the AFAP, most members (but not all) of the AFAP are members of the AAPMBF. Ipso facto the Board of the AAPMBF can do nothing to harm the members of the AFAP as they are in turn the members of the AAPMBF.
Capt Seedsman has responsibilities to the membership both of those organisations.

Both of the organisations are non commercial collectives of members. To a large degree the membership of the two organisations, is the same. In that the membership is the same and commercial interests are not involved, the interests, if not the responsibilities, of/to the two groups are inseparable. In protecting the interests of the members of the AAPMBF Capt Seedsman is also protecting the interests of the majority of the membership of the AFAP and visa versa.
My understanding of the situation is that Capt. Seedsman made a stand against matters he considered to be detrimental to the AAPMBF membership in properly constituted fora, the AAPMBF Board room and the AFAP executive. This does not constitute a conflict of interest, it signifies a diligent discharge of the responsibilities of a Board member.

A CONFLICT OF RESPONSIBILITY would arise if Capt Seedsman exercised his responsibilities to the AAPMBF members to the detriment of members of the AFAP who are not members of the AAPMBF, or visa versa.

My question to you and to the Board of which you are a member (or proxy thereto). Has Capt Seedsman done anything that benefits the non AAPMF membership of the AFAP, to the detriment of the AAPMBF members of the AFAP. Further, has Capt Seedsman incurred any personal gain or potential personal gain from any of the decisions he has been party to in either organisation.

Basically MeMe, I am asking that you provide us with your concerns about Capt Seedsman’s behaviour rather than the vague unsubstantiated innuendo.
Should you fail to sustain a conflict of interest argument based on the ICAC’s interpretation pray tell what higher authority do you use to judge this man.

To reiterate, the ICAC deems that conflicts, in and of themselves are not necessarily unusual or wrong, but how they are handled is relevant.

MeMe, nothing disingenuous intended in my brevity in dealing with the issue. It is appears to be an artifice designed to distract from the far more important issue of future directions of the AAPMBF. Given that only one Board vote out of nine is affected it was given the attention it deserves.

Anytime you want to tell us what is really going on, and debate the matter openly, I will be happy to oblige.

For the record. Capt Seedsman and I have many areas of disagreement, he even threatened to sue me on one occasion. However I have the utmost respect for his honesty integrity and his dedication to his fellow pilots.

Paul Makin

[meme]

Paul Makin,

First up I think it’s rather unbecoming of you to launch into a personal attack on forum members referring to them as being sycophants, and of course your amusing little effort with my user name. Rather childish given the nature of this discourse I feel. Furthermore it tends to display your apparent inability to recognise that ordinary members, i.e. those not serving in the capacity of Board member, Trustee or Proxy etc., can in opposition to your own views, show support for the AAPMBF’s recommendation without having some political attachment. Contrary to your unfounded assertion, I qualify amongst the ordinary members. Perhaps this is where we differ since I have no political affiliation with anyone on this issue.
Now;
I don’t think I have you at a disadvantage at all. I asked a simple question however rather than answer directly, you seemed to have launched into a rant about not knowing what so and so’s done to warrant this etc. etc. I should have perhaps explained more clearly that the question I asked was hypothetical specifically relating to a position (in this case, dual trusteeship) and the behaviour exhibited by its occupant. The ‘respective parties’, being those the occupant represents as a trustee. Here it is again;

“Would you as a MBF member endorse a person holding dual trusteeship, actively involving himself in the decision/voting process on issues of conflict or potential conflict between the respective parties?”

I have highlighted the section of particularly interest. This question has nothing at all to do with (ICAC) definitions of, Public Duty, Private Interests, Commercial Entity, Personal Advantage and any other unrelated information which I presume you ‘cut & pasted’ from the internet in an apparent attempt to confuse the issue with legalese, but rather that of ‘propriety’. It shouldn’t be difficult to ‘Google’ more relevant examples if that’s what you’re after.

Paul, with regards to your question;
The reason for my concern is demonstrated in my previous question to you. (Hint; the bit in bold). All you need to do is reference that behaviour to the current individual occupying the position in question and you have it. With regards to benefiting to non MBF union members, no idea, has he?. On the ‘personal gain or potential gain’ reference, I also have no idea, nor have I questioned it! I think we’re getting ‘wrapped around the axle’ with your non relevant (ICAC) definitions here. I’ll move on.

I have said in previous posts about as much as I can about the reasons for my concerns and believe the nature of the correspondence emanating from the AFAP website was a sufficient cause. I think it’s important to bear in mind that this is more about the potential for abuse of the position rather that the present occupier. However, the fact that he highlighted this potential has, IMHO been the catalyst for the necessary and recommended rule change before us.

I’ll let it go at that.
Stay civil

[Don Diego]

Paul,the bias and spite in your posts indicates to me that you have an axe to grind.Are you still riled over your unsuccessful attempt to be elected to the AAPMBF board (as it was last year)??
fmcinop,again I disagree with you on rule 2a of the MBF.This rule is not there to advantage or protect the MBF,rather to ensure that MBF membership is a privilege reserved for AFAP members.For the record I believe that is the way it should be.

[paul makin]

meme.
A couple of minor points to start.
My reference to sycophants was aimed at those other gentlemen on this forum, Capt. Bloggs and The Bolter, who, as with yourself, prefer to remain isolated behind the cloak of anonymity. It was not directed at the Board of the AAPMBF, (many of whom are noble and upstanding gentlemen), it was you who drew that arrow.
In respect of your username: the use of capitalisation was an unintended error. If it offended your sensitivities I apologise. No offence intended.
With respect to the conflict of interest issue, you seem to miss the point I was trying to make, perhaps that is down to my communication style or perhaps it is something you do not wish to acknowledge.

The AAPMBF is a collective, it is not a commercial entity. It has one purpose, to advance and protect the interests of the members. More specifically Rule 1 (b ) states that the “object of the fund is to provide financial assistance to any of it’s members whose earning capacity as a pilot has ceased or been downgraded……..” The fund has no other purpose.
The AFAP is a Federation, it is not a commercial entity. Unfortunately I don’t have the AFAP rules at hand, but broadly speaking, the object of the AFAP is to advance and protect the industrial interests of its members. The AFAP has no other purpose.

The point that is being missed is that the organisations are non commercial allies, they are not competitors, a point that I think the current fund manager and her legal adviser have also failed to grasp. Because of the shared membership, what benefits the collective benefits the federation and visa versa. They are legally separate for reasons of protection but they are still allies, each working for the same group with the same aim, the betterment of the position of that group, albeit in different but not opposing directions. It is impossible to benefit one group to the detriment of the other group as with a few exceptions the groups are the same individuals. Assuming both executive groups are doing what they are committed too, the worst that can happen is that the few members of AFAP who are not also members of AAPMBF, will get some flow on benefits from the synergies of the allies.

So we get back to the conflict of interest issue. Simply put, in respect of the two organisations, there cannot be one.

Should a Board member/ Trustee fail to act in the best interests of the AAPMBF members there are already procedures and rules in place to deal with him. Rules 14 ( c ) ( v ) and 14 (e ) ( vi ), just as there are rules and procedures to remove an office holder of the AFAP.

A case for the removal of the AFAP or Capt Seedsman has yet to be put or justified to the membership.

With respect to the rule change, let me give you a little perspective. I have before me a letter from Capt. O’Neil dated 8th of May, which you will recognise, is before all this blew up. It states inter alia;
Your comments from this letter and the previous letters have been considered during the Board’s extensive rule review process this year.
In due course the proposed rule amendments will be forwarded to all members for voting.

I have it from persons involved at in that process, that none of the changes you are currently being asked to vote on was proposed or discussed in that process. That was all done after that process, i.e. after the date of my letter from Capt O’Neil

The matters to which Capt O’Neil refers, relate to the fact that under certain circumstances, members of the fund engaged in single pilot operations and members employed overseas effectively have no coverage.
To date we have seen no move on those anomalies despite them having been a big issue in the case of at least one of our members over the past couple of years, and despite me raising this and other issues with the Board over two years ago. Yet within a matter of a couple of weeks we have had moves to plug a perceived deficiency in respect of officers duties, which is already catered for within the rules. Do we have a distorted sense of priorities here?

Members this whole charade is a smokescreen. I do not know what the end game is and I do not know who is driving it, but rest assured there is one.

Don Diego Spite is not a word I would have used, but I am very concerned. Yes I do have several axes to grind, but missing out on election is not one of them. I didn’t want it then and I don’t want it now, but I do not want the current situation to prevail.

Paul Makin

[Capn Bloggs]

Paul,
My reference to sycophants was aimed at those other gentlemen on this forum, Capt. Bloggs and The Bolter, who, as with yourself, prefer to remain isolated behind the cloak of anonymity.
Sycophant indeed. I object to being called that simply because I choose to post "behind the clock of anonymity". Actually, now that you mention it, looking at the exact definition of the word, a person mentioned in this debate could attract that label. You really do have an axe to grind if you can only "attack the man" and not his argument.

So we get back to the conflict of interest issue. Simply put, in respect of the two organisations, there cannot be one.
Oh yes there can be... You just cannot see it.

[meme]

Paul Makin,
My reference to sycophants was aimed at those other gentlemen on this forum

I acknowledge your misinterpretation as the result of a poor selection of words on my part. I was referring to this board (forum) and have edited the post to reflect that, however the thrust of my point still stands.
Will respond further to your post presently.

[meme]

Paul Makin,
So we get back to the conflict of interest issue. Simply put, in respect of the two organisations, there cannot be one.
Unless you can bring yourself to consider this issue objectively rather than personally, I see no way out for you. Regardless of what you may wish it to be or what best suits you’re agenda, common membership of separate organisations does not, in itself, preclude the possibility for a conflict of interest.:ugh:
I have it from persons involved at in that process
Now that gives you some scope; Come now, do you honestly believe forum members are going to be convinced by all this innuendo, hearsay etc. Then again after seeing this;
I hope you are nominating for trustee. I will certainly vote for you. I have to wonder. You do have one devoted admirer on the thread it seems? fmcinop, be careful what you wish for.

The matters to which Capt O’Neil refers
Your efforts to denigrate the MBF Chairman by introducing issues unrelated to my post smells a bit of soapbox(ing).


I think we have reached the end of the road with this discourse as I don’t see a shift on either of our positions.

Good Luck.

[paul makin]

meme

I think you are correct. As each of us retains our intractability, this dialogue is not going to progress any further. However the questions remain.

1) What changes are to be made to enable ongoing regulatory compliance?
2) How will those changes be beneficial to the membership?
3) What will those changes cost the membership?
4) What has the AFAP done that warrants dismissal from Trusteeship?
5) What has Capt Seedsman done to warrant removal from the Board?
6) Why is it necessary to invent new rules to achieve that removal, when the mechanism currently exists?
7) Why is the issue of dismissal so imperative that it takes precedence over the rectification of longstanding deficiencies in the coverage of a significant portion the membership?

Anytime you or anyone else wish to constructively address those matters, I will be happy to revisit.

Paul Makin

[The Bolter]

Further response to Paul Makin

There are too many inaccuracies to know where to start with your comments Paul.
What a shame that you did not contact the Fund to obtain all of the facts prior to going in to public print.
1.It was in 2006 that the then new Fund Manager identified a range of issues. One of these was the legal framework.
2.In 2007 after extensive discussions a rule change was put that would NOT CHANGE the running of the Fund but offer protection via the AFAP. In place was a simple and agreed structure that met all laws – it is this that you have misunderstood. This was agreed by the AFAP and the members. There were two legal opinions plus AFAP’s original opinion that supported this structure.
3.In 2009 the AFAP advised they required legal title and CONTROL OF THE ASSETS. This fact is unassailable.
4.In 2009 the Fund removed the AFAP as Trustee.
5.In 2009 the Fund proposed a rule change. This rule change has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Trustee issue. The ability to change the Trustee was enshrined in the rules. The Rules that the members accepted in 2007.
6.In 2009 the AFAP threatened the Fund with legal action unless they reverted to being the Trustee.

IN FACT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CAMPAIGN RUN BY THE AFAP THAT THEY ARE RUNNING SCARED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ALL MEMBERS ELECTING THEIR OWN TRUSTEES.

The confusion that surrounds this issue is due to the AFAP making statements similar to yours Paul. They reflect a complete lack of understanding of the structure used to provide protection. If you really wanted to understand you would have telephoned the Fund and asked.

As for T S – his ambition has always been to bring the MBF under the control of the AFAP but don't take my word for it just ask him. This has been stated so many times now – what he and you need to remember is that the Trustees are OBLIGED TO ACT IN THE MEMBERS INTERESTS, and absolutely NOT to PROP UP A CASH STRAPPED UNION.

The Fund has provided consistent financial support to the union. If you want to know more about this contact the Fund. The Fund has never interfered in the running of the union. Instead the Fund has focused on strengthening its place as the premier loss of licence provider in the country. However the union has constantly lit fires to distract and undermine the Fund.

This particular fire is a great example of the adversarial and aggressive approach of the management of the union. Nothing productive has come of this debate and the members in the Fund have become increasingly polarised. The small administration team at the Fund has groaned under the load of confused and unhappy members who are asking the question – “ why do we have to stay in the union when this is how they react to a rule change that will allow me to vote in my trustees”.

So Paul, in the union’s determination to win a fight, they have again caused enormous damage. What a disservice, that you have chosen not to obtain all of the facts and INSTEAD, have simply regurgitated the union party line and the selected facts used by the union to derail an opportunity for members to elect their representatives.

[Capt OverUnder]

So please Bolter , where does AUSAir (a commercial entity set up by the MBF I understand) fit in to all this? The ramifications surely need scrupulous debate , I think members are being left in the dark by both parties!

[ozbiggles]

A lot of history lessons but no one is answering the new questions
Bolter I would suggest to you that very little information has come from the MBF. Plenty from the AFAP on their side.
Why the rush?
What wrong with discussions of this at the AGM?
HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST!
I'm a swinging voter on this. I have voted NO butmightl change WHEN I believe I have all the facts. I'm not going to ring like a thousand others.
Send an email or write the members a letter and one vote/issue thanks

[The Bolter]

Capt OverUnder, Austair is the nominee company established in 1975 to act as the custodian if you like of the assets of the MBF.The present directors of Austair are the nine individuals named in a letter from Capt O'Neil last month as being the trustees of the MBF.This structure ensures that the wishes of the members are obeyed.The other writers on this forum who claim to be previous trustees will no doubt agree with this description.The AFAP has a nominee company called Albair that acts in a similar manner.The fact that this is not widely known does not mean that there is anything sinister rather it is just something that most members are not interested in.Much of this is publicly available on the net if you want to go searching for it.

[Tangan]

The conflict and polarisation of both parties in this "dispute" is the single biggest and most compelling reason for a NO vote.

NO does not mean the rule changes will never be implemented, it simply allows time for the two groups to sit down and discuss all the issues on the table. If the changes are genuinely in the best interest of the members the delay will give ample time for the MBF trustees to provide the detail and reason behind the changes. The members will then be far better placed to to make a valued judgement.

Rushing this through and voting YES now, without all the details, is a huge risk.

[maui]

Tangan.

Thanks. Thats basically what I said back in post #2.
No now means talk and vote later when we have the full information package.

Bolter.
You say that AFAP is a cash strapped organisation. As I understand it the AFAP is in its best financial position since 1990/91, thanks in large part to the efforts of Capts Nicholson and Higgins in their stewardship of the organisation.
The AAPMBF has had a financial arrangement with the AFAP since the sale of 136 Albert Rd, but as you well know that is fully documented and above board.

If you have information to the contrary, how about sharing it with us, and allowing us to make our own assessment of the financial status of the AFAP. Better still how about you state you concerns at convention. I'm sure you won't be far away, and even though you are not a MEMBER of either organisation, I am sure they will listen if you seek to put your case.

Maui

[pfzs]

Its a mad world I am a 30 year member of the afap and the MBF
Reading past posts and the information from the AAPMBF. The trustee issue was resolved by the board because:
AFAP demanded ownership of the assets and control over the board this a perfectly logical position and a requirement as trustee one would think, however,
Cut and paste from bolter
In 2007 after extensive discussions a rule change was put that would NOT CHANGE the running of the Fund but offer protection via the AFAP. In place was a simple and agreed structure that met all laws – it is this that you have misunderstood. This was agreed by the AFAP and the members. There were two legal opinions plus AFAP’s original opinion that supported this structure.
This legal opinion still stands today:
When asked, AFAP advised they sought a legal opinion from another source, MBF advised me that the AFAP did not consult the Law Firm that created AFAP Rule 13 Para 1 and 2 and AAPMBF Rule 14 (and the more I read these together the clearer it becomes).
So if the AFAP had no real legal issue over the trustee position and it was self made perhaps a misunderstanding or a legal position adopted by AFAP lawyers is it possible to backtrack to where we started, by all means test the rules to insure the basis on which they were formed are legit. or is it too late.
As to the yes /no vote on the rule change that’s up to the individual members read the documents that came with the voting slips and vote
The vote on dual trusteeships if they can be held apart that’s fine but
Also from Bolter.
His ambition has always been to bring the MBF under the control of the AFAP but don't take my word for it just ask him. This has been stated so many times now – what he and you need to remember is that the Trustees are OBLIGED TO ACT IN THE MEMBERS INTERESTS, and absolutely NOT to PROP UP A CASH STRAPPED UNION.
Traditionally AFAP stalwarts and those with a specific reason to attend are all that do attend AGM’s usually under 30 members often less so we go from 2000 members voting for new trustees too those that attend.
A No vote could allow those who attend the AGM the opportunity to sack board members who they disagree with from the floor, and be replaced from the floor changing the balance of the trustees so a new vote and who will have legal ownership of the assets and control of the MBF board by the end of the night.
Remember This is your MBF

[ozbiggles]

A big welcome to all the first time posters on this topic:}
PZFS
If that did occur at the AGM I'm sure the fallout for the AFAP would be toxic. The members wouldn't take it
Its a poor reason to vote NO I would suggest.
I'm sure this will be one of the better attended meetings....

[pfzs]

Thanks Ozbiggles

The reference to the AGM was made to encourage attendance from those who care.

Have just now been informed of a special meeting being held by the MBF Friday 11 Sept in South Melbourne venue to be advised notification by Mail I believe
:ok:

[meme]

pfzs

So if the AFAP had no real legal issue over the trustee position and it was self made perhaps a misunderstanding or a legal position adopted by AFAP lawyers is it possible to backtrack to where we started, by all means test the rules to insure the basis on which they were formed are legit. or is it too late.


Given the intent of the original arrangement, this behaviour is more than sufficient cause to invoke Rule 14(d)(iv) and in fact a failure to do so by the MBF trustees would have in my opinion, been negligent.
Once Rule14(d)(iv) has been exercised, there is no going back and from my reading, there is no instrument within the rules for doing so.


Fortunately for the members, the possibility of such a situation was considered by the trustees 2 years ago when Rule14(d)(iv) was included as a protection. It should therefore come as no surprise that the trustees are again obliged to re draft the rules to accommodate the present situation and provide additional protections as a result of the union’s behaviour. My comments on the ‘dual trusteeship’ are covered in previous posts .
As to the yes /no vote on the rule change that’s up to the individual members read the documents that came with the voting slips and vote
I agree, I only wish people would also read the rules as you have done.
Also from Bolter.
His ambition has always been to bring the MBF under the control of the AFAP but don't take my word for it just ask him. This has been stated so many times now I don't know the individual personally however his performance on the AFAP website whilst holding the position of MBF trustee is enough for me to have grave concerns about his motives. Regardless, it seems no longer acceptable to have a person holding executive positions in both organisations concurrently.
A No vote could allow those who attend the AGM the opportunity to sack board members who they disagree with from the floor, and be replaced from the floor changing the balance of the trustees so a new vote and who will have legal ownership of the assets and control of the MBF board by the end of the night.
Remember This is your MBF I agree with your sentiments entirely. We have a proven MBF Board of Trustees who have served us well. A number of these are highly respected long term trustees who through their stewardship, have managed to achieve outstanding results on our behalf.

To those who are apparently hell bent on destroying this arrangement through a misplaced allegiance to a number of union officials; BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. Don't spoil it for the rest of us.

ozbiggles
Why the rush? Amongst other issues, it was recommended that all MBF members should be given the opportunity to elect trustees rather than the current and method of giving that privilege to AGM attendees only . Having decided to go down this track, it follows that all members be given the opportunity to vote on that recommendation, prior to any further Trustee elections.
HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST!It would be highly inappropriate to offer information of that nature on a public forum. Suffice to say the Board of Trustees would have taken it into account in their recommendation. The 'lesser of two evils' you might say. Just doing their job.

All these unreasonable questions and stalling tactics from other users are getting old very quickly. As I'm sure you would agree, it is unrealistic for the membership as a whole to be privy to and vote on, all the decisions the trustees are expected to make.

[maui]

meme

I can't speak for ozbiggles, but if you feel uncomfortable revealing this information in a public forum, I would be quite happy for you to answer by direct communication to the membership. Perhaps at the same time you could tell us where you intend taking us.

Maui

[pfzs]

Hi Maui

My logic may be out but isn't it the other way around

The question should be:

Where is the AFAP taking us, as it is a reaction to there demands that has created this hiatus.

I feel a special meeting of the AFAP is in order to discuss there position.

Threatening legal action against our fund unless they complied with there demands, demands that could have tied up the fund for years in potential litigation.

I feel that the positions taken by both parties on the advice of there legal advisers is the route cause of this. One being from the Law firm that set the rules in place to the agreement of both parties, the other an independent, and just perhaps not fully conversant with the rules in place or not briefed to the depth required to give proper advice reference the rules

as you say we need info

Remember its your AFAP

[ozbiggles]

meme
I'm not asking to be privvy to all decisions at all.
What I'm asking for through the proper channels is INFORMATION (not he said/she said) to make an INFORMED decision on something I'm being asked to vote on.
i.e.
There are a lot of accusations flying.....I have seen NO proof!
I have seen NO costings provided yet you want the membership to give you a blank cheque? Based on trust? In the current state between the two sides?
And you accuse people who have the gall to ask questions on this as stalling and unreasonable?
I'll vote YES for all members having a postal vote
But that is NOT the only thing that vote was for and I RESENT the fact that it is being used as a reason to vote for this.IMHO that borders on deceit.
I don't give a rats who wins this argument MBF or AFAP. I give a rats on being INFORMED when I make a vote.
PS I acknowledge the good work the trustees have done. This issue is not being well handled however and as I said if the AFAP did have 'evil' intent I'm sure it wouldn't be worth the pain it would cause them.
As an old boss used to say all we want is some truth in advertising.
OPEN PUBLIC meetings (AGMs) with both sides is what is needed.

[pfzs]

Ozbiggles

I don’t believe an AGM gets answers to questions as you can be ruled out of order, however a special meeting with notice of the questions to be answered.

I believe it was prevented from being discussed or a motion being put at executive.

MBF are having one how about the AFAP.

The questions I’d like answered among others

Who in the AFAP authorized this action on behalf of the members, under what circumstances.

Was the legal opinion given on the rules tested by AFAP, I cant get an answer.

Lets hear a few more questions we would like answered.

As for costing, That is a result of the action, surely you don’t expect the MBF to transfer title of the funds assets and what ever else has been demanded from AFAP against the rules of the fund and there legal advice.??

I would be interested in your reasoning as I am just coming into this debate and the only information I have had so far is by direct contact with AFAP and MBF

[ozbiggles]

G'day pfzs
I'm as confused as you (well maybe even more confused).
However ask and you shall receive. I just received a letter today from the MBF advising of a meeting that will explain? their reasoning. I'm staggered it will take 6 weeks from when the votes were sent out to explain what the grounds are and the implications.
Hopefully there will be answers from the AFAP AGM as well noting your concerns with AGMs. Or a special meeting if required.
Anyway, I think we both agree the spotlight needs to shine brightly on both bodies to find out who stabbed first!

[rmcdonal]

So if we vote NO, then at the AGM the current board faces being voted off by those who don't want this to go to a vote again and replaced by potentially more AFAP board? Which is sort of what the vote now is against anyway?
Or did i just get that all wrong? :confused:

[pfzs]

Hi Rmcdonal

No you’re correct if there is a no vote potentially the board can be voted off and replaced from the floor.

If a yes vote they can still be voted off but replaced with caretaker trustees from the floor, who can only function as a caretaker until elections are held by postal ballot.

Remember this is your AFAP and MBF

[Capn Bloggs]

So if we vote NO, then at the AGM the current board faces being voted off by those who don't want this to go to a vote again and replaced by potentially more AFAP board?
That sums it up. The concept of branch-stacking comes to mind.:cool:

Let's face it, the MBF board (now back to being trustees) exercised their right under the rules (agreed-to by the AFAP in 2007) to resume the trusteeship of the MBF.

Then, all of a sudden, after the event, the AFAP has a spak attack dummy spit and demands all manner of this and that, threw in a few red herrings such as Austair's role, "far-reaching rule changes", cunningly confusing trusteeship with rule changes, scaremongering over the cost of FSR compliance, voting on the trusteeship, "staying just off the radar screen" and on it goes.

The response from the AFAP demonstrates only one thing; they are mightily miffed over losing the trusteeship of the MBF. For decades, they didn't have it and after they were given it by the MBF trustees, for months and months they made no noise about the process but some obviously thought "hey this is good!". Then, when the MBF decided return the trusteeship to the MBF board members, it's on for young and old. Why is that I wonder?

In 2007, before handing over trusteeship, the then MBF trustees very wisely created rule 14D4. Given the current situation, the MBF members should be very grateful that they did.

If the current MBF trustees are voted off, only one thing will result; an MBF trusteeship stacked with AFAP sympathisers. THAT would be a crying shame and something MBF members should not be wishing for.

[meme]

maui,happy for you to answer by direct communication to the membership. Perhaps at the same time you could tell us where you intend taking us.
I am not a Trustee or Proxy thereof, just a long term ordinary member having a reasonable idea of how the two organisations rub along together.

Remember, the rule change we all voted on 2 years ago included the requirement to remove the AFAP as Trustee in the event the AAPMBF Board felt (expressed by ordinary resolution) that any action by the AFAP jeopardises in any manner whatsoever the interests of the members of the Fund (Ref Rule14(d)(iv).

IMHO, it seem quite clear. The Board where quite justified in believing that a push for control and legal title by the AFAP constituted a reasonable cause for concern, obligating them to exercise the above instrument. With legal threats looming I believe it was of utmost importance to act quickly in order to protect our Fund. Whether or not the AFAP intended to go ahead with their push or not is of no consequence. The concern was real and to not act as they have done so, would have been negligent.

Given that the postal voting is probably not in contention, it just leaves the duel trusteeship issue. All you really have to do there is acknowledge that the potential for a conflict of interest exists. We don't need any actual examples of it being abused, just the 'potential'. The fact that the two organisations are at logger heads makes it rather easy.

ozbiggles
I'm not asking to be privvy to all decisions at all.
I wasn't directing that comment at you but rather the other posts which in my opinion are deliberately clouding the issues in an attempt to disrupt the process. I agree that more information from the MBF would have been of benifit especially to those who are not conversant with the rules. Having said that, I believe there is still sufficient information in the correspondence to vote on the issues albeit in my case it did require a reading of the pertinent rules.

There are a lot of accusations flying.....I have seen NO proof!
THe Chairman of the AAPMBF has stated the reason for the removal of the AFAP in his Jul22 letter. [Quote: The MBF Board strongly believed that such a situation would be wrong and not in the best interests of the members of the Fund]

Remember if that's their belief, they are committed to invoke Rule14(d)(iv) on our behalf. Put simply, it's what we as members asked them to do in the event they became concerned. What other information do you need?

The trustee occupying the 'dual' positions has kindly given us an example of a potential 'conflict of interest'. What else do you need?

To my knowledge, unlike the AFAP through their website, the AAPMBF have not involved themselves in any of the accusations flying about you seem to be referring to.

[pfzs]

From a thread on the Pirep web site there is a suggestion that Wally Reid was the AFAP adviser not Landers and Rogers the firm who wrote the rules and saw to there introduction is this so????

AFAP we need some answers Who gave you the advice on this or did you just google it.

Before we go to the MBF special meeting AFAP needs to be a bit more upfront and the competence of AFAP executive questioned, we don't wish to be led down the garden path this time.


Don't just sit on your Hams being complacent, phone a friend, talk about this, phone AFAP and MBF with specific questions, you want answered remember who and what you are, and the legacy that has been passed on to you here, do something to deserve it.

if I sound angry you could be right.

Remember this is your AFAP and MBF.

[Don Diego]

Has the Executive of the AFAP ever discussed this issue and passed a resolution approving any course of action??

[pfzs]

[U][/UI believe it was prevented from being discussed or a motion being put at executive

[The Bolter]

Maui

As I do not have the AFAP financial records of the last 20 years at hand I will not comment on that point you made.If they are as flush as you suggest I expect a reduction in the 1% subscription is just around the corner.Those who kept the AFAP going through those tough post dispute days were the "non Ansett/TAA" members who remained loyal and in fact continued to pay their full 1%.
Thank you for clearing up my membership status.

[pfzs]

More of my Rant

Its very sad as in all this a vote no will not lead to any meaningful discussion.

But what it will do is to empower AFAP to further aggression against the fund, perhaps even to the point requiring the fund to further protect itself. Perhaps even forcing it into further isolation from AFAP.

The information that has been required by everybody to understand the situation has been in front of him or her all the time they just won’t look.

AFAP’s removal from the trusteeship was because executive received legal advice ??? that was contrary to the advice given at the time of the agreement in 2007. and then refusing to have tested the principles under which the trusteeship was formed.

Rather, took a precipitous action of demanding ownership of the assets and control of the board.

Such a demand means comply or face legal action.

Which could have tied up the fund in litigation probably to the point of tying up the assets of the fund until resolved, this, at a very volatile point in economic history.

You must have asked yourself this during the debate. Just what do you expect from your Board now Trustees. I myself expect them to protect my fund and follow the rules of the fund or beheld accountable personally.

The legal advice to the fund is from a top tier law firm, they wrote the rules of the trusteeship, and advised both AFAP and MBF at the time of setting up the trusteeship.

My reading of the Rules of the Fund and the philosophy behind the rules prohibit the action that AFAP demand.

They don’t just gloss over it or not mention it they actually prohibit it.

So you would have to question the competence of executive forcing the fund into this position, and then mounting an attack on the fund for defying them and there wishes. Just what did they expect? What did you expect?

What AFAP required from the fund board, would require participation from fund membership requesting a rule change, a rule change to allow AFAP to hold fund assets and control the board, and allowing the membership to vote on this expressing there wishes.

Has there been such a request????

If you personally wish AFAP to Hold the assets write to the board/trustees pointing out your wishes for review of the rules governing this. The rules were written the way they were for a specific reason, They may very well need reviewing however lets not deepen the wedge between AFAP and MBF.

Your Vote will be counted on the 8th September don't let apathy over come you.

A No Vote will give AFAP room to manoeuvre to further attack the fund.

Remember this action has not been sanctioned officially by executive there just allowing it to happen.

This is your AFAP and MBF you are an owner let your wishes be known

[maui]

Bolter

Why would you assume a reduction in the 1% would be around the corner. It has been that forever, and members obviously appreciate the value.

And anyway, as an acknowleged non-member WTF has it got to do with you what the members pay.

Maui

[paul makin]

What meme fails to inform you of, is that the responsibilities of the Trustee are determined by the Trustee Laws of the State of Victoria not the rules of the AAPMBF.

Those laws require that the Trustee have control over the adminstration of the assets held in trust.

Requirements of the law may not be opted out of by mutual consent, they are legally binding.

We (under guidance from the AAPMBF Trustees) voted to hand Trusteeship to the AFAP.

The Board of the AAPMBF failed to honour that undertaking.

The AFAP and indeed the rules of the AAPMBF ensure that day to day handling of the funds remains with the Board, but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene. Hopefully that will never be invoked.

The AFAP executive (as Trustee and under legal advice) insisted that the AAPMBF abide by the expressed wishes of it's (AAPMBF)membership. No more no less.

The AAPMBF Board decided that the interests of the members were best served by transferring the Trusteeship. The reasons for that decision in 2007 have not altered.

Where do the AAPMBF Board intend to take us now. Two years ago they told us that remaining with the old structure was not an option, we neeeded another option. Nothing has changed. We still need another option.

Are we to appoint another Trustee, or are we to register under the Financial Services Provisions? What are the ramifications of each of the options. We have not been told.

We now have a notifcation of a Special Meeting. Noticeably absent from the list of items to be discussed is, where do we go from here?

The meeting has been organised on a Friday evening of the AFL finals series. There will be no seats into Melbourne and no accomodation in Melbourne. The members who called for the special meeting are largely Brisbane based. Am I alone in thinking that just possibly, this is a setup.

Demorcracy is dead in this organisation. The immediate past chairman put a ban on any Trustee talking to me (some of whom I have known for in excess of 30 years). Ironically the current chairman and a few other trustees choose to ignore that direction. But the point is that any claims to democracy are mere lip service.

Gents, answer the questions fully, openly and honestly, and I may be inclined to give you my vote.

Until you do, I intend to vote NO.

[Capn Bloggs]

Paul,
The REAL irony is that the AFAP, as trustee, sat on it's hands from 07 to 09until it allegedly said that it wanted control of the assets of the MBF (I wonder who put it up to that idea) and the MBF board swiftly took over the trusteeship to protect your interests. The AFAP then squealed like a stuck pig.

Regarding your other comments/questions, have you actually asked the MBF why the special meeting has been called and why the timing? Have you asked what the MBF is doing about the FSR compliance? Things may well have changed in two years and what was undesirable then (as opposed to "not an option") may well have become desirable (with the AFAP carrying on like it is) and do-able.

The AFAP and indeed the rules of the AAPMBF ensure that day to day handling of the funds remains with the Board, but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene. Hopefully that will never be invoked.
I think you will find that the MBF board got the fright of it's life with the recent antics of the AFAP; your "hopefully never be invoked" was a clear and present danger and the MBF board re-took the trusteeship to protect the member's interests. Like their great handling of the MBF over the past few years, they would not have done so lightly and as a knee-jerk reaction.

Maui,
Since the AFAP cannot do what the MBF has done ie increase member benefit payouts (solely because of good management, I add), the least it could do is lower the premiums. Then I might have some spare money to invest in Babcock and Brown.

[meme]

Paul,The AFAP and indeed the rules of the AAPMBF ensure that day to day handling of the funds remains with the Board, but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene. Hopefully that will never be invoked.
Interesting, For the sake of clarification let's go back to when the AFAP was Trustee. Tell me who exactly within the AFAP could invoke this right to intervene given that Rule 14(c)2nd para. specifically states;

[ No other board or decision –making organ of the AFAP may perform any functions or duties of the Trustee of the Fund] ?

[paul makin]

Capt Bloggs


The REAL irony is that the AFAP, as trustee, sat on it's hands from 07 to 09until it allegedly said that it wanted control of the assets of the MBF


This matter was subject of discussion at Executive/Convention 12 months ago. The AAPMBF was represented by the then chairman Capt Williams. As there was disagreement as to the legal standing of each of the parties, it was decided that the two organisations would confer with a mutually agreed legal council, to determine the EXACT nature of the respective, legal, roles and responsibilities. It was also determined that because of the conflicting opinions at that point, the legal consultant should be a fresh party, i.e someone who had not previously been involved in the writing of rules or the giving of advice to either party.

Capt Williams on behalf of his Board agreed to that arrangement. Capt O,Neil replaced Capt Williams as chairman at the subsequent meeting of the AAPMBF Board.

Despite several attempts to do so, to date the AFAP has been unable to arrange that joint consultation due to a lack of co-operation of the AAPMBF Board. AFAP have since sought and recieved alternative legal advice.

No sitting on hands.

With regard to your questions about the Special Meeting. That is a meeting called at the request of a group of members concened by the actions of the AAPMBF Board, and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22.

meme


Interesting, For the sake of clarification let's go back to when the AFAP was Trustee. Tell me who exactly within the AFAP could invoke this right to intervene given that Rule 14(c)2nd para. specifically states;

[ No other board or decision –making organ of the AFAP may perform any functions or duties of the Trustee of the Fund] ?


You make two fundemental errors.

The first is failure to reconise that FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES are separate from RESPONSIBILITIES AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.

The second error is the assumption that the rules of the AFAP and the rules of the AAPMBF are the only sets of rules in play here.

Functions and Duties can and are set by the organisational rules. Trustee Responsibilities and Legal Obligations are enshrined in the LAW.

Law trumps rules everytime.

Paul Makin

[meme]

.

Paul,

I simply asked you "who within the AFAP could invoke this 'right to intervene'?".

Your answer did not address the question at all but rather waffled on about how law trumps rules etc.

Look at the question.

.

[The Bolter]

Further response to Paul Makin,

So Paul in #65 you contradict the legal opinion obtained by the Fund prior to the 2007 rule change, in order that we may have some credence in your words, would you tell us exactly what qualifications you hold in this area??(Or are you just passing on what you have heard around the traps??)
As for the real concern,you hit the nail on the head with this "but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene".So Paul can you remember any past AFAP President who was not a Fund member??Would you care to tell us how many current AFAP members are not Fund members??It would be preposterous to allow those non Fund members to "intervene" under any circumstances and that is why the AFAP is NO LONGER THE TRUSTEE.
You mention democracy and it is indeed dead in the AFAP at the moment.Paul you might like to take us all to the Executve that debated and approved the present actions of the AFAP.Exactly Paul that has not occured to date,the AFAP membership have had no say as this action has been taken unilaterally.

[paul makin]

meme and Bolter
I will combine the response as the questions/comments are similar in nature.

The persons/entity that would invoke the rights of the Trustee, would be the same persons/entity that the AAPMBF Trustees, presumably under legal guidance, deemed to be responsible and appropriate persons to hold the position of Trustee.

They are the same persons/entity that in the past have held as Trustee in excess of $300 million of members personal funds invested in the AFAP-ADF. I haven’t heard any complaints about their activities there.

They would be the same persons/entity that the then chairman of the AAPMBF, Capt Williams, sought Trusteeship for just a couple of years ago. Of course he would have had to resign his AAPMBF chairmanship had he been successful, wouldn’t he?

They would be the same persons/entity that Capt Brownscombe sought Trusteeship for last year, or was it the year before? Of course he would have had to resign as AAPMBF Trustee had he been successful, wouldn’t he?

They would be the same persons/entity that Capt Charlesworth held principal office for, until he resigned that office in 2001. Now refresh my memory, when was Capt Charlesworth elected as a Trustee of the AAPMBF?

Yes there has been at least one AFAP President who was not a member of AAPMBF. How is this relevant, and if by some convoluted means you can make it relevant, this is not a new concept. As a concept it was present when the AAPMBF Board in conjunction with it’s legal advisers deemed the AFAP the Trustee of choice.

As two prestigious law firms, Slater and Gordon, and Price Waterhouse Coopers disagree with the legal opinions touted by the AAPMBF Board, one must surely ask how valid is the opinion that we have been told the Board has, or does it even exist?

When doing a Cat 3B autoland we are comfortable that our aircraft, with triple redundancy are smart enough to ignore an out of tune component, why do our Board have trouble with this concept?

Too many questions and not enough answers.
I intend to vote NO.

Paul Makin

[Capn Bloggs]

Paul,
They would be the same persons/entity that Capt Charlesworth held principal office for, until he resigned that office in 2001. Now refresh my memory, when was Capt Charlesworth elected as a Trustee of the AAPMBF?

At least Mike, at the first mention of Conflict of Interest, resigned his AFAP officer role immediately, unlike some.

The trusteeship issue is dead. Unless the MBF members change the rules, the AFAP won't ever be the trustee again (just like the last couple of decades except for the last couple of years).

Given the nature of the rule changes put before you (no-brainers, IMO), you are voting NO to teach the MBF a lesson, plain and simple. That's not going to achieve much, is it? Apart from perhaps resulting in the eventual removal of the current MBF trustees... :suspect:

[pfzs]

Paul

You stated on another site that you voted No for the 2007 rule change as there were two many unanswered questions.

Well it didn't work out so where to from here.

The Fund is now in the same position as it was prior to the rule change.

There are many trustee and custodial arrangements around. I think the advice given to the MBF should have been tested by AFAP between there legal advisers.

I doubt that the MBF Board/Trustees would do anything else other than follow this advice and act in other than the best interest of the fund.

but thats history now.

It would appear there has been some agitation for some time from sources outside AFAP executive or the MBF Board/Trustees.

Perhaps this Agitation has resulted in this mess.

Its time we showed support for the MBF Trustees/Board

[meme]

Paul,
Your responses appear to be getting more and more personal in nature amplifying the apparent bitterness you hold towards to current MBF Board, with perhaps the exception of the 'dual trustee'.

You have sufficiently demonstrated your belief that the ultimate control and title of the MBF Funds would have been handed over to the Union had the MBF Board complied with the Union's wishes.

Fancy that, all our assets handed over to an organisation that could, within their rules, have a majority of non MBF members serving as Principal Officers, not to mention the Executive.

This has only served to highlight the very issues that have caused grave concern amongst the MBF membership and has further substantiated the move the MBF Board took in reclaiming trusteeship of the organisation they serve.

Now, to return to the central issue;

The MBF Board’s recommendation to vote YES on the proposed Rule changes designed to remove the above loophole along with the well demonstrated potential conflict of issue, is not only appropriate but absolutely necessary if the MBF is to maintain its autonomy.

Paul, you really do seem to have lost all objectivity in this apparent personal vendetta. I think it’s time for you to get over it and move on.

[ozbiggles]

Meme
I actually enjoy hearing BOTH sides of this story.
I add a lot of cred as well as to people who are willing to put their real name to their posts.
We are seeing what happens right now when two sides want you to hear only their side of the story.

[fmcinop]

"Fancy that, all our assets handed over to an organisation that could, within their rules, have a majority of non MBF members serving as Principal Officers, not to mention the Executive."

Funny, but last time I checked at least 3 of the current Trustees are not current Financial MBF members either. So the difference would be?

[maui]

Bloggs

At least Mike, at the first mention of Conflict of Interest, resigned his AFAP officer role immediately, unlike some.


Let me see if I have got this right. Charlesworth as a Principal Officer of the AFAP became aware of some AFAP activity that would be detrimental to the membership of the AAPMBF. As he has a duty of care to the members of the AAPMBF he felt he could not support the AFAP. He therefore took a moral stand and resigned his position with the AFAP.

If those are the circumstances to which you refer, wouldn't it then be Charlesworths responsibility to report to the AAPMBFmembership, how the AFAP was acting to their collective detriment.

Given that this offence occured in or before 2001, why are we only just hearing about it. And what was it that the AFAP was up to.

Maui

[Capn Bloggs]

Maui,
he felt he could not support the AFAP.
Who said that? I didn't and Mike didn't. He merely felt, since the conflict of interest issue was raised, that the best thing to do was to leave his executive position with the AFAP. There was no suggestion at all that he "couldn't support the AFAP". In fact, he's been an AFAP stalwart for many many years.

[Don Diego]

fmcinop

Read the current Fund rules and you will find the answer.DD.

[maui]

Bloggs

You're saying then that he could support the AFAP, but he resigned anyway?

If that is the case, given that the nature of the organisations is such that there is no financial profit motive, one can only deduce that it was a procedural matter that would adversely impact on the AAPMBF members. As those guys are also AFAP members wouldn't it be then, in his view, that the AFAP was plotting against a large proportion of it's own members.

As a Principal Officer, if he felt that was the csae, he should surely have notified the membership of what was going on. He did not.
As a Trustee of the AAPMBF, if he felt that was the case, he should surely have notified the membership of what was going on. He did not.

Perhaps the key to this is that; having in 2001 given thumbs down, in 2007 when the structure was to be changed he gave the big bad AFAP the thumbs up as Trustee. Now in 2009 they are bad again, thumbs down.
Talk about an old woman, I just wish he would make up his mind.

If he felt strongly that he sould not be involved in whatever it was that got up his nose he could have recused himself from those deliberations rather than resigning.

If this is the case it sounds more like a petulant dummy spit to me, rather than an exercise in propriety.

Maui

[Capn Bloggs]

Oh for goodness sake Maui, give it a rest.

[meme]

Capn Bloggs,
Oh for goodness sake Maui, give it a rest.


I second that!:ugh:

[The Bolter]

Maui

Remember a few years ago Convention was held in Geelong and again last year??This was because they, (AFAP), were a little tight for cash to pay for it in Melbourne so my "cash strapped" comment stands.
I guess they will need an overdraft to proceed with the threatened legal action against their own members!!
As for your rant on the conflict of interest element of the vote,the result would indicate that the members could see the need to eliminate that particular conflict.
The crap that has exuded from the AFAP in this affair is disgraceful and embarrassing.The time is nigh to dispense with those that were responsible and get some new talent.

[Plotter5]

Sheesh... if this is the way we as a group solve our problems, it's little wonder that our pay and entitlements continue to be eroded.

Why is it that we pilots are so parochial and emotive when we are trying to get anything done?

Until we wake up to ourselves and start negotiating with each other, (and more generally) our employers and other stakeholders in the industry in good faith and a willingness to compromise to real solutions we're going to keep going backwards.

I only recently joined AFAP so I could get access to the MBF, but because of all this bickering the MBF CAN'T process new applications! Might as well find LOL somewhere else and relinquish my AFAP membership for all the good it's doing me.

Check your egos at the door people and let's get busy being productive for a change.

[sockedunnecessarily]

When I ring the AFAP and ask why my EBA is 16 months overdue, why we have been strongly encouraged away from industrial action, why we have been screwed on profit share and share gift, and why I'm getting paid way below industry standard, the standard response from the AFAP is:

You need to be united.

When I get bickering letters and emails and ballot forms every friggin day from the AFAP vs MBF saga, my advice is this:

Stop wasting my AFAP and MBF fees on this bull:mad:. Stop telling me "you need unity" when you obviously can't even do that yourselves. Start spending your time and money and paper and postage stamps on representing ME and my colleagues who are getting screwed on terms and conditions.

Get your :mad: together AFAP. Keep this up, you are going to be another member down.

[Dark Knight]

SU: when you obviously can't even do that yourselvesSU you have obviously missed the point or do not understand that YOUR Union is you and every other flight crew member who is a member of YOUR Union.

History vividly illustrates that many who protest loudly how poorly they have been represented or served by THEIR Union that there are two sides to every story and all is not as the protester would have others believe.

The vociferous protesters have usually contributed little, if not nothing, to their union or fellow flight crew members.

SU, if your conscience is clear you would be better being part of your local committee, active within the union, achieving something, doing something positive and constructive rather than wasting your time with un-constructive, puerile rants in a public forum.

As a wise old Captain said many, many years ago; Bar talk can be highly entertaining but achieves very little!

DK

[Captain Sherm]

Hear Hear Dark Knight

SU, you can't say "YOU" about the AFAP or indeed any other union when it's only "WE". Are you a member of your pilot council or negotiating team? Do you talk to them often? That's what unity is.....not waiting for "OTHERS" to look after "YOU".

The MBF is a classic example of "Pilots helping pilots". It was set up by the AFAP (though over the objections of the Qantas pilots at that time) so that AFAP members could get good pilot-managed loss of licence cover. Nothing has changed. It is for AFAP members. If the membership of the AFAP ever wanted to widen the franchise to a wider group that would be a matter for the AFAP and it's MBF members and them alone. That is not a decision that the MBF board or indeed any other group or individual to make unilaterally.

As for the voting system that limits the number of pilots from any airline group that certainly needs to be addressed. And as for the role of the AFAP as trustee....for 40 years I have always believed (and seen in action) that the AFAP was morally the trustee of the Fund it set up....again, nothing has changed.

I have worked my whole career happy knowing that if anything happened to me or my job then my family would be looked after, courtesy of the fund started by the AFAP for its members. To those who set up the MBF and those who keep the "Pilots helping pilots" flame burning.....Thanks

[sockedunnecessarily]

The vociferous protesters have usually contributed little, if not nothing, to their union or fellow flight crew members.

The little ive achieved on this post is more than the nothing which AFAP have achieved in 2 yrs.

SU, if your conscience is clear you would be better being part of your local committee, active within the union, achieving something, doing something positive and constructive rather than wasting your time with un-constructive, puerile rants in a public forum.

My conscience is clear and im involved. "Un-constructive, puerile rants" describes the way the AFAP have presented at eba meetings, every one of which I have attended. It also describes how they are handling the AFAP vs MBF mess.

SU, you can't say "YOU" about the AFAP or indeed any other union when it's only "WE".

I understand what unity is and why it makes a difference. The pilot body was united 12 months ago when it voted against a crap offer and made it very clear to the AFAP what had to be done. We are all still united because we all want the AFAP to stop d*cking around and to get SOMETHING, hell, ANYTHING done.

Are you a member of your pilot council or negotiating team?

No.

Do you talk to them often?

Yes, I talk to the PC rep regularly. They've had a gutfull too because they are banging their head on a brickwall.

That's what unity is.....not waiting for "OTHERS" to look after "YOU".

If we arent supposed to be getting the union to look after us, then what the hell are we paying $1000yr for?
The union is only partly the sum of its members. Its also the AFAP staff like legals, negotiators, industrial staff, technical staff and clerical staff. All of whom are employed by me and my fellow pilots.

And before you ask, I've been both an AFAP and MBF member for some twenty years.

[rmcdonal]

So why am I currently unable to join the MBF (am an AFAP member)? If I am unable to get the insurance I may as well join AIPA.

[Dark Knight]

rmcdonal

Instead of an unverified, unjustified whinge here why don't you ring them and ask them?

When you have done this (called both the MBF & AFAP) and have an answer, pass the reason on.

Then we will be able to pass an educated judgment & comments whether your rant is justified, whether you are just another bitter & twisted whinger or perhaps an AIPA stooge!

DK

ps>>they may even be able to resolve the issue for you: found both extremely helpful and efficient in the past.

[rmcdonal]

Instead of an unverified, unjustified whinge here why don't you ring them and ask them?

When you have done this (called both the MBF & AFAP) and have an answer, pass the reason on.

Not to sure how you came up with unverified? There is a big notice on the AFAP site saying:
We apologise to any Federation member or prospective member who have been attempting to join the Mutual Benefit Fund for Loss of Licence coverage.
Many of you have contacted us but it is a matter that is outside the Federation's control and no reason has been received as to why membership is currently being declined.
As for unjustified, one of the main reasons for joining AFAP was for the MBF, sort of defeats the purpose if you can’t join.
I did call, AFAP fairly well said what their message above says. And the MBF have yet to pick up (by the way the old number is 03 9928 5700, and it no longer works. The new number is 03 9928 4500).

My comment was a question, you can judge that all you like but it is still a question.
As for whinging, I haven’t even started yet. :E:E

[Dark Knight]

rmcdonal

Would have thought the message was self explanatory to a AFAP member who was attempting to join the MBF?

Normally one contacts the organisation one is attempting to join? (do you go to the butchers for your Bread?)

Now you have the new MBF number call them and apply to join.

Seems fairly simple to me.

Let us know how you go.

DK

[Pass-A-Frozzo]

why we have been screwed on profit share and share gift

I'm sure the company would agree to profit share if you agree to loss share.

You know, company makes a profit - you get some of it. Company makes a loss you get some of your pay deducted.

It's only "fair" given that you aren't risking some of your savings / capital (like shareholders).
:ok:

[rmcdonal]

Instead of an unverified, unjustified whinge here why don't you ring them and ask them?
When you have done this (called both the MBF & AFAP)
Would have thought the message was self explanatory to a AFAP member who was attempting to join the MBF?
Normally one contacts the organisation one is attempting to join? (do you go to the butchers for your Bread?)
Ok so first you say call the AFAP, then you say that calling the AFAP is the wrong thing to do? :hmm:
And yes, I have called both: the lady at the MBF said it was a regulatory issue and that she had no time frame for its resolution.

[Dark Knight]

rmcdonal

Firstly, an apology: you are correct the MBF is not allowing AFAP members to currently become members of the MBF as they are entitled to do.

Often pilots attack the AFAP or MBF from their perceived personal view these organisations are not servicing the membership as they see or, believe their personal case has been handled poorly. Examination of the individual’s case reveals there are always two sides to every story and all is not as is purported.

It is too easy to say the AFAP has not achieved a very good result and many times the result required does not meet various expectations. Take into account or look behind the scenes the many factors in play negotiating, arbitrating or deciding what to achieve or accept reveals none of this is easy and in the majority of cases, the best result is what is often achieved.

One of the biggest contributors to the difficulties deciding or achieving a result is the position, divisions, actions, inaction, support or points of view of pilots themselves. Often this disapproval is the direct result of ignorance how their organisation works, the environment it has to work in coupled with pilots lack of involvement in their organisation.

The AFAP is the pilots union, belongs to them and no one else; its effectiveness, achievements, successes and services for its members is directly the result of the efforts, work and dedication pilots involved.

Hence the misunderstanding of the intention of your post

Similarly, the MBF: The MBF was setup and run as an offshoot of the AFAP to provide a loss of licence insurance scheme (which included a death benefit) for pilots namely AFAP members. This organisation has done this exceptionally successfully since its inception providing a scheme second to none throughout the world. Name one other insurance company, scheme, which will return a members contribution to the member when they are no longer eligible to be a member.

Disclaimer and Disclosure: In the past I have been a Branch Committeeman, Branch Chairman of two branches, Negotiator including lead negotiator, Vice President and Trustee of both the AFAP and MBF over a long period of many years. I suggest I have a fair understanding of how things work and whilst I would never claim to know all, still an AFAP member, have some concern for the welfare and well being of my fellow pilots. Until this week I have not contributed to this debate nor did I have any contact concerning the debate with the AFAP, MBF or participants in the debate. I have now made several enquires of the MBF, AFAP and other persons involved for the reason of clarification.

I have read with interest and some dismay where the ability of the MBF to provide benefits appears eroded, where deep divisions amongst the trustees has created a serious loss of trust within the trustees. My thought from the very beginning was this has the danger of pilots losing control and ownership of the MBF.

Pilots should have no illusions, guard ownership of the MBF jealously and with zeal as there are many financial sharks continually circulating always ready to seize upon an opportunity to acquire and wrest control of such a successful scheme from its owners.

However, most importantly as is reported by rmcdonal and others, the MBF is currently not allowing AFAP members to join the MBF and this situation has existed for a number of months. Regardless of any excuses, reasons, explanations supposedly attempting to hide behind financial regulations, etc, this is completely and totally unacceptable and blatant mismanagement. Can anyone imagine any commercial insurance company refusing to take new business from any eligible customer?

The very reason for having such a loss of licence scheme can occur at any time (that is loss of licence or inability to fly) and the very refusal of the MBF Trustees to allow membership could create severe financial hardship to a pilot (and pilot's family) eligible to join the MBF.

This failure of the MBF Trustees and MBF Management to execute their duties, exercise an unquestionable duty of care, their competence and integrity allowing this situation to occur is such they should reconsider their position. Failing a reconsideration of their position MBF members should take clear and positive steps to ensure Trustees with integrity and clear intention to manage THEIR fund for the benefit of MBF members and therefore AFAP members are elected to the position of Trustee!

Captain Paul Makin is one of the few who has actually taken the time to try and understand both sides. He has a clear understanding than most of exactly what is happening here and has taken the time to talk/listen to both parties having a good knowledge of the history behind this current issue. He has clearly and succinctly attempted to clarify the situation.

All pilots would do well to heed his advice and support him and pilots with similars view.

All MBF members are urged to attend the forthcoming general meeting to ensure the unacceptable mismanagement of their Fund is properly resolved.

rmcdonal and others, I urge you to contact each and every AFAP/MBF member you know to ensure they attend this meeting. Members unable to attend, give a proxy on your behalf to ensure the MBF returns to providing the care and benefits it has successfully done in the past.

This is Your Union and Your Loss of Licence Fund; the success of both demands your participation.

DK

[paul makin]

It is apparent that some members of the AFAP are having difficulty in accessing their rightful membership of the AAPMBF.

As we have an Annual General Meeting coming up in a few days (4th December) it is perhaps timely for those who have been disadvantaged to have their voice heard.

If you or anyone you know, has had an application for membership of AAPMBF rejected or been refused application documentation:

If you or anyone you know has had a claim against the fund rejected or modified in an unfair or unreasonable manner:

If you or anyone you know has had any difficulty whatsoever, in their dealings with the administration of the AAPMBF:

I invite you to contact me with those details you feel comfortable about revealing at email address [email protected] ([email protected])

Confidentiality will be respected unless specifically waived.

Paul Makin

[paul makin]

Official notification of the events of the Annual General Meeting of the AAPMBF will, on the basis of past experience, be a long time coming, if ever. To place before the membership some of the events and outcomes of the meeting, what follows are my recollections and interpretations of some of the more important factors. I represent no-one, and have not been solicited by anyone to produce these notes. It is done on a personal basis to, hopefully, give members information on which to judge the various rumours they will hear as they go about their day to day tasks.

Most importantly, earlier in the day one of the new Trustees, Capt John Grady canvassed all the Trustees except Mr Brownscomb, and got a unanimous undertaking that the opening of the fund to all comers was not an option, and that the Trustees have committed to retaining the ties to the AFAP. If the day achieved nothing else, that was a great win for the membership and Capt Grady deserves our gratitude.
In simple terms non AFAP members will not be allowed to retain an AAPMBF membership.
Later in the discussion one bi-directional member stated that he thought it unfair that he could not take his AAPMBF with him as he left AFAP for VIPA. Interestingly I have before me a VIPA document that mirrors that stipulation but in reverse. To maintain VIPA Loss of License one must be a member of VIPA and must be employed within the Virgin Blue Group. Applying the same measure of fairness the VIPA policy is more restrictive.

The Fund Manager expressed concern that of the members of AAPMBF who had resigned since the beginning of the year about 50% expressed the view that dissatisfaction with the AFAP was the reason. She implied that there were hoards of resignations, and that this was a serious threat to the Fund, but the numbers revealed were actually less than 100, so those dissatisfied number less than 50. Given that there is a new contender for representation, VIPA, such a number is hardly surprising.

To put things in perspective it should be remembered that 1989/1990 we had a departure of probably around 300 members with no serious detrimental effect on the viability of the fund. In the early 80’s we lost around 30% of the membership as the Overseas Branch walked out the door. That did not kill the Fund at a time when it was substantially less well off. Any talk of mass resignations threatening the viability of the fund is in my view mere scare tactics to support some other agenda. The percentage of membership resigned this year, using the Fund manager’s figures is in the order of 5% and those expressing dissatisfaction with the AFAP about 2.5%. Given a 35 year average membership one should normally expect about 50 members a year, to resign due to being time expired. The current figures, in my view are nothing extraordinary. In the last reporting period the AFAP membership figure is around 2700 and there have been 60 resignations and expulsions from that organisation. The fund manager’s fear would seem unfounded.


The bulk of the meeting concentrated on the continued pursuit of the Financial Services Licence (FSL) and the relationship with the AFAP. Whilst it is the position of elements of the Board of Trustees and the Fund Manager, that we have no option but to go down that route, it was pointed out that there are other options.

It should be noted that the Air Traffic Controllers fund operates outside the FSL regulated environment, and also that, the Aviation Industry Superannuation Trust (TAIST) is finding the costs of compliance with it’s FSL are so prohibitive that it is seeking alternatives to reduce the effect on members. The TAIST fund has holdings similar in size to that of the AAPMBF, just short of 100 million, and is finding ONGOING REGULATORY EXPENSES, detrimental. The Trustees at a special meeting in September stated that the ON-GOING REGLATORY EXPENSES of the FSL were “negligible”.

Questions were raised about the fact that the AAPMBF is not currently accepting new members. It was revealed that this was as a result of legal advice that to do so while the FSL application process was underway and until a Product Disclosure Statement is produced, that it would be unlawful to accept new members. It was further revealed that the last new member was admitted August 14th of this year.
It is clear from these disclosures that the Trustees knew of this legal advice and had ceased to take members prior to the Special Meeting of 11 September.
As that Special meeting had wide ranging discussions on the FSL and its impact it seems remarkable that the Trustees failed to inform the members present, that the FSL process had proceeded so far. They implied that it was early in a long process.

The point was made that as the sole business of the Fund is to provide coverage to members and that as it was no longer accepting new business it was not fulfilling its function.
Given that the trustees knew of this situation it should have been covered at the Special General Meeting where the discussion centred on the pursuit of the FSL and the deteriorating relationship with the AFAP.
To not reveal such a relevant fact is at best a staggering omission.

At that special meeting in September the Trustees were requested to take no irrevocable action with respect to the FSL, until relationships with the AFAP had been repaired and that the impact of the FSL had been properly assessed. Progress to the FSL has continued unabated and the Chairman has failed to achieve any consensus with the AFAP.

The meeting adjourned for a short time as the Fund Manager was overcome with a temporary incapacitation. Fortunately it was of a passing nature and the Fund Manager returned to good health after a brief break. The meeting wished her well.

Due to the break in proceedings and the protracted nature of the meeting the structure of discussion broke-down somewhat and ultimately many questions were left unasked or unanswered.

Having passed a direction to the Chairman to work towards normalisation of relations with the AFAP to re-establishing a commonality of purpose, and to report to the membership by February 15 2010, the chairman declared the meeting closed as he was on his feet heading towards the door.
No formal question was heard as to there being any further business.

Paul Makin

[Captain Sherm]

I was very impressed that the Board, member by member, committed itself totally to the concept embedded in the rules and history that the MBF was for AFAP members only and that there was not intent, thought, discussion or prospect that this situation would change. Should the AFAP ever move into a wider pilot union grouping then no doubt a re-appraisal could occurr but that would be on the AFAP/MBF members' terms, not by stealth. I feel comforted by that.

I was less comforted that having committed itself to the "By the AFAP members, For the AFAP members" concept, it unfolded that the Board was adopting a strategy suite apparently designed and crafted to achieve the exact opposite. Sort of like committing yourself to dental health but taking toothpaste off your shopping list.

I remain very concerned about the following elements of current Board policy whose collective impact is to significantly lessen the value and strategic worth of the MBF to its current and future AFAP members:


Removal of mention of the founding role of the AFAP from the MBF letterhead
Refusal to accept new AFAP members into the MBF without prior advice to members, compensation or notification of when membership applications might again be processed
Refusal to allow elected AFAP Principal Officers to be on the MBF Board
Failure to seek any form of relief/exemption (interim or permanent) from the "commercial" FSR licence track
Dismissal without published reason of the AFAP as MBF Trustee
Failure by MBF auditors to mention the dismissal of the AFAP in their Audit Report
Open denigration of AFAP activities in MBF publications
Failure to act on the express wishes of the September 2009 Special General Meeting and "heal the rift" with the AFAP before going any further down the regulatory track
Failure to use the success of the fund to actively promote AFAP/MBF membership to the next generation of young pilots
Failure to develop new potential products for MBF members (such as long-term disability protection)


However, given the Chairman's open commitment to reverse the drift away from the AFAP as a matter of urgency I remain optimistic that the above items are not the result of a covert policy to commercialise the fund and hence diminish its worth to current members.

I am sure that when by late February the MBF Board reports back to the members on progress back toward restoring the close AFAP/MBF relationship we will hear that the Board's strategies are once more are aligned with its stated goals. I doubt the membership would have much patience for any other outcome or any further delay. I know I won't.

[clear to land]

I don't know just how committed the Chairman is to the wishes of the Members. Having sent an email stating my viewpoint on this situation, and asking a couple of questions as to the direction of the MBF vis a vis the intent of its founders I have yet to receive a response after one week! The lack of reply is very concerning-are the individuals so arrogant that they consider themselves beyond offering either an adequate explanation, or beyond reproach to members? As an overseas member the only option that I have that leaves a documentation trail is to address issues in writing. Surely if a Member writes in with valid queries then a RESPONSE is required (and also dictated for by common courtesy!!!).

[spag]

I have been waiting for months to join the AFAP and MBF. I called both the AFAP and the MBF today, the best I could get was "this should be resolved early this year".

Does anyone have more information on the situation? Is there any likelihood of a timely resolution? From what I read above most MBF members want relations with the AFAP restored but the fund management is busy creating smokescreens to obscure whatever is happening behind the scenes?

I will have to go elsewhere for insurance soon ...

[Vorsicht]

Just a thought, has it ever occurred to you that maybe one of the two parties involved do not have the members best interests at heart.


V

[maui]

That thought has occurred to me. The unfortunate problem is that those with the lack of membership benefit in mind have control of the fund. Fortunately there are a few good men in there, but they are in the minority.

Interestingly the Fund only produced an abridged presentation of the balance sheet to the last AGM. That single sheet lacked detail and was not certified by the auditors as required by the rules of the fund.
Why not?
What are the Trustees trying to hide?
Whilst the Trustees have been trumpeting their genius as financial managers, bailing out of the equities market before the crash:
how is it that the fund has a loss of 12 million showing in the abridged balance sheet?
If the fund is as strong as is claimed, with a net asset value in the order of 80 milllion (that is only a guess as the "balance sheet" presented had no detail), why has the fund paid out $89,711 in interest?
Without access to the audited accounts as required by the rules, what is the membership to make of this.

Something stinks in the state of Denmark.

Maui

[newsensation]

What needs to happen is the MBF has to be totally independent of the AFAP! and offer loss of licence insurance to anyone regardless of union membership.

[The Bolter]

Spag,

Is your AFAP membership contingent on Fund membership??

Maui,

A full copy was offered and is available to any member that wants it.

News,

Fund membership is a privilige of AFAP membership and that is the way it should be and will remain so ad infinitum.

[spag]

Bolter,

I am not prepared to join the AFAP without access to the MBF.

[Vorsicht]

Just our of interest, and not trying to stir up a hornets nest, why do you think the MBF should be only open to AFAP members.

As an objective observer, I would think that the best interest of MBF members would be served by getting as many members as possible, regardless of union affiliation.

It seems to me that the link between the afap and mbf is a dinosaur from a past time. These days, independent management of financial entities seems to be common practice and growth of membership by opening up to all comers would seem to benefit everyone.

I do understand that there are those that are reluctant to let go of the past and there is an us and them thing with AFAP guys, but trying to get past that, wouldn't it be good to have one great insurance scheme for Aussie pilots, union member or not.

Cheers
V

[maui]

Vorsicht

Would you also advocate that the Royal Melbourne Golf Club should not be able to stipulate who, and under what conditions people may use their facilities. Same principal.

The MBF was set up by AFAP members for AFAP members. You are free to join AFAP and the MBF. If you feel you don't want one of the pair you are free to take your business elsewhere.

This has been done to death in the past and will not get up and run under the rules as they stand. Suggest you research the difference between a Mutual Association and an Incorporated body.

Bolter
I must have been having a micro sleep when the full balance sheets were offered.

I understand that procurring a set of the papers is a tad more difficult than you suggest.

Maui

[spag]

You are free to join AFAP and the MBF

If only that were true :ugh:

[maui]

I stand corrected.

"Excepting in the the current disgraceful and reckless position the MBF has placed itself in, you are free to join the AFAP and the MBF."

Maui

[Vorsicht]

Well I guess it's that sort of big picture thinking that has brought us to where we are.

Thanks Maui, that has cleared the position up for me........it would seem that the primary purpose of the MBF is a recruitment and retention tool, rather than what it's name would suggest.

I would have to say that does not bode well for the AFAP when someone enevitably starts up an equivalent fund that is open to all pilots regardless of union affiliation, but I'm sure the AFAP will spend a heap of members money in the courts trying to stop that happening as well.

Back to my original post. Has anyone considered the people overseeing this may not have the pilots best interests at heart?

V

[maui]

Vorsicht

Back to my original response


That thought has occurred to me. The unfortunate problem is that those with the lack of membership benefit in mind have control of the fund. Fortunately there are a few good men in there, but they are in the minority.



Maui

[The Bolter]

Maui,

As usual all you have to offer is politically motivated hogwash. The predicament the Fund finds itself in now is the end result of the avaricious actions of some of your mates up on the 6th floor. Had the assets been signed over, ultimately they would have been controlled by a staffer, is that what you wanted??
With regard to the AFSL, would you have the Fund flout the law and just carry on regardless??
As for member benefits, the position Spag has on AFAP membership is all too common, i.e. the only reason they have AFAP membership is to get the LOL offered by the Fund. Might I respectfully suggest that your mates on the 6th floor urgently address this issue and desist with their campaign of harassment and vilification of the Fund.
I look forward to your critique of the audited accounts!!

[newsensation]

I would resign from the AFAP in a heat beat if the MBF was independent! and i would not be alone....

[eapilot2009]

I would resign from the AFAP in a heat beat if the MBF was independent! and i would not be alone....

Why is that, Newsensation?

[spag]

I guess people are only willing to put the money in when they feel they are getting value.

Personally, I don't feel I would be getting value by paying for AFAP membership alone. I am well paid for my work and my employer is willing to be constructive when discussing terms and conditions with the pilots, and we in turn will go that extra mile for the company when required. I seem to be getting on just fine without union membership. Of course, this situation could change and I may need to reassess my options.

Having shopped around, membership of the MBF is an attractive proposition, even when considering AFAP membership as part of the cost.

[spag]

Does anyone have any news? Do you know what is going on Mr Makin?

[paul makin]

Last year, at the time we were asked to vote on a group of rule changes I published on this and other fora, the following.

My concern is, that despite several letters on the matter, the Board has failed to inform the members what lies ahead. If we are to vote on a change of structure, we should be informed of what effects will ensue from that change. Will the Fund recommend the appointment of an alternative Trustee or will we seek licensing under the Financial Services legislation? What will the alternatives cost us and what will be the benefits or pitfalls of each alternative?The one fact you can be assured of is that this vote is not the end of the matter. Other moves must be taken in order to comply with the regulatory requirements. What I seek, is to have the membership fully informed of the consequences and implications of the vote currently before them.
And in a subsequent post, the following questions of one anonymous poster who happens to be a Board member.


1)What changes are to be made to enable ongoing regulatory compliance?
2)How will those changes be beneficial to the membership?
3)What will those changes cost the membership?
4)What has the AFAP done that warrants dismissal from Trusteeship?
5)What has Capt Seedsman done to warrant removal from the Board?
6)Why is it necessary to invent new rules to achieve that removal, when the mechanism currently exists?
7)Why is the issue of dismissal so imperative that it takes precedence over the rectification of longstanding deficiencies in the coverage of a significant portion the membership?

To date The Board has not responded to the queries and has never explained the additional requirements. Even as late as two weeks ago the same batch of questions with a few variations and additions was put to the Board from the highest level of the AFAP. As far as I am aware they remain unanswered.

I believe the secondary vote on rule changes is about to be put to the membership.

I expect that we will be presented with a “fait accompli”. We will be told that we have no choice than to go down the road to the issue of a Financial Services Licence. This is not true. In all probability we will be told there are no other options. This is not true.
Members should remember, there was another option, it was put to us in by the Trustees in 2007. The membership voted in favour of it, but the Trustees failed to implement our expressed wish, by not completing the hand over of Trustee responsibilities to the AFAP as we directed.

This is not inconsistent behaviour on the part of the Trustees. In 2001 the rules were changed, eliminating a portion of coverage from overseas members. The Trustees failed to implement the required administrative procedures, and continued for several years, to bill and accept payment for non existent cover.

The Special General Meeting (September 2009) of the members of AAPMBF, passed a resolution that requires the Board to take no irreversible action in respect of the Financial Services Licence (FSL), prior to the normalisation of relations between the AFAP and the AAPMBF. That has not occurred. Discussions to bring that about have been minimal and the current Chairman of the AAPMBF has displayed his contempt for the process by failing to turn up to a scheduled meeting. In the meantime progress toward the attainment of the FSL has continued unabated, despite the expressed desire of the membership.

The clear impression given to both the SGM in September and the delayed AGM in December, was that the issue of an FSL was imminent. The reality is that the formal application for the FSL was not lodged with ASIC until late December, some time after the AGM. The process for issue of an FSL is at least a three month process. Now nearly four months after the AGM, we are only just now about to get the rule changes required to establish and comply with the FSL. All the while the AAPMBF has claimed to be unable to take on new members (since August 2009). This too is not true. Whilst it can be construed that to take on new members without having an FSL (or alternative ) in place, would be to act unlawfully, relief from that restriction is available from ASIC. The Trustees when advised that relief was available, were apparently ignorant of that availability, an in any case declined to pursue the matter. In the meantime a significant number of potential members have signed up to AIPA in preference to AFAP on the basis of lack of availability of Loss of Licence coverage.

The Board of the AAPMBF is overshadowed by a triumvirate of non member Trustees. Each of these gentlemen has received their entitlement from the fund and no longer has a vested interest in outcomes. The manager is a commercially driven person who, in my view, has never understood the origins or the rationale behind the establishment of the AAPMBF. It is my view that she is intent on turning the fund into a lean and mean commercial entity rather than a compassionate caring organisation for those of us who unfortunately from time to time require support.

It is my view that we are being pushed down the road to commercial insurance, where OUR assets could become a target of plunder by some obscenely rich AMP, Lloyds, Citibank or whomever. Should that be allowed to happen there is no doubt our coverage will change to our detriment and we will lose forever the concept of “by pilots, for pilots”. Benefits will be harder to achieve and rates will probably rise as we subsidise newcomers not of our choosing.

The Aviation Superannuation Trust, of which some of you are members, has found that compliance costs associated with the FSL are seriously damaging their bottom line, and in turn the return to members. As such they have been actively seeking other avenues to improve their position. Yet our Trustees, when specifically asked at the SGM, stated that there were no significant ongoing costs in compliance. Either they do not know because they haven’t done the required research , or perhaps they have been misinformed by someone who has.

Members, I have nothing to gain here other than an ulcer. I do not seek office within the organisation. At my age (62), whatever happens in the future will not materially affect me. That said, I and many other long term members and past members are very concerned about the legacy our vintage leave for those that follow. Our fund has been built on mutuality, trust and integrity, we need to ensure that it continues that way. We must ever be vigilant and heed the lessons of the past.

As we are asked to vote consider very carefully;

Is this a unanimous recommendation of the Trustees?
Have you been given counter-arguments?
Have alternatives been put and explained?
Have unrelated matters, some motherhood issues and some unpalatable, been lumped into one Yes/No vote?
Have the regulatory (ASIC) requests been included so you can see for yourself what is required, or are you being treated like a mushroom?
Ask yourself, why is that the Board no longer issues to Trustees, hard copy minutes for its Board meetings. Trustees cannot get hard or electronic copy they may only read them electronically at the office.
Ask yourself, why is that Trustees are requested to sign a confidentiality agreement, in relation to all matters brought before YOUR board. Privacy detail excepted, the Board’s business is YOUR business.
Why is it that the AGM was presented with a single page, uncertified, balance sheet. And why is it that the Auditor chose to send an under informed proxy in his stead.
Why is it that the Auditor made no report of significant events occurring after the close of books, as required by his Auditing Standards. The change of Trustees and the declared inability to take new members are two such events. Did he know? Had he been informed? If not why not?
Why does it cost us on average $12,000 per meeting for Trustee expenses, (a rise of 17% over the previous year. Inflation 4% roughly). Could that possibly be something to do with extravagant dinners and chauffer driven trips to wineries?
How is it that whilst the Trustees have been trumpeting their superior financial wisdom, in cashing out of the equities market BEFORE the GFC, the total assets of the fund have declined by $11 million and at the same time the liabilities have gone down by just $4 million leaving a total loss of equity of $7 million? This has yet to be explained.

If any of these matters give you concern, when you are asked to vote, consider very carefully.
The FSL will not be able to go ahead with the rules unchanged. If you require of your Trustees, more discussion and more transparency a NO vote now will ensure that they either explain themselves properly or they will have to propose another way for the fund to operate. Perhaps they may even find themselves forced to properly implement that which the members voted for in 2007. There may be short term pain in any alternative approach, but such will be far better than the long term destruction of our fund by commercial entities.

DO NOT VOTE EARLY GET ALL THE FACTS BEFORE YOU CONSIDER YOUR ACTION

Paul Makin.
Former Chairman of Trustees.

[slice]

Thanks for the update, but maybe this needs a new thread (and thread title) to alert members as to the state of play.

[paul makin]

I tried that, for exactly that reason. Unfortunately the mods in their wisdom have merged the two threads.

PM

[clear to land]

Paul, you put forward some compelling points. What I find most concerning is the silence from the AAPMBF reference these points. I have contacted them in writing, expressing my concerns also, as an overseas member. The response was, effectively, a non-answer, advising that things were 'under consideration.' I am no fan of the AFAP due to certain members of the current staff (non-elected), but I am afraid I am starting to smell a rat at the Fund. We, as members, are entitled to a comprehensive answer from the fund re: our questions. These answers are not forthcoming? Why? I urge all members to start asking these questions. After all, it is our (the members) fund, not the Trustees.

As this is a widely accessed public forum, I challenge the Fund to answer these questions here. There is no 'commercial in confidence' issue, and it would be one of the best ways for the Fund to widely disseminate their position. If they are unwilling to do this, we again come back to the 'smelling a rat' scenario. Also, if the assertion that a chauffer driven winery trip took place can be proved, I would like a written justification for this, with a cost/benefit analysis to substantiate the trip. I would also ask of the participants an explanation to all members as to how they saw this as appropriate useage of OUR monies.

[The Baron]

While we wait for answers privately or publicly, new members of the AFAP are, by all reports, being denied coverage by the MBF. These are mostly young guys with families, big mortgages etc who should not be left exposed to risk. The MBF has a "DUTY OF CARE" to provide cover and it is clearly not. This has been going on for months and yet no adequate response is forthcoming. Do we have to wait for a personal tragedy to occur, so the people concerned can say, "not our problem, nothing to do with us, he wasn't a fund member!"

[paul makin]

AAPMBF members. You will by now, have before you a set of proposed rule changes for the AAPMBF.

Whilst “prima facie” appearing to be innocuous, closer inspection reveals matters that should be of serious concern to all members.
The proposal eliminates any elected administration from the fund and replaces it with a Board of a separate legal entity (Austair). If this vote is passed, the current, elected Trustees will cease to be Trustees of the AAPMBF. Control will then pass to “Austair”. The proposed rules talk of Directors, but there are no Directors of AAPMBF, and Directors are not defined within the rules of the AAPMBF. The proposal appears to hope that you will assume Directors of Austair are automatically Directors of AAPMBF. As the rules are written, such is not the case. Whether that is by omission or commission is immaterial to the effect.

Austair has nine directors.

Austair is a Nominee Company that has (to the best of my knowledge), no constitution.

None of the current Directors of Austair have been elected to those positions, they have been appointed by the other Board members.

Members of AAPMBF are not ‘members’ of Austair and therefore have no say in the administration of or election of Directors of Austair.

What should precede this current proposal, is the formulation of a proper constitution for Austair Nominees , which gives ultimate control of Austair to the membership of AAPMBF, with process’ for election of representatives and the ability to direct the administration of the company. To the best of my knowledge that currently is not in place.
We are being asked to hand over our assets to an unelected body over whom we currently have no means of control.

The proposal has other serious flaws which I will publish separately, however the above facts are the most serious concern and require your immediate consideration.

To vote for the current proposal is to assign any influence you currently have over the direction of the fund and the disposition of your substantial assets.

I intend to vote NO. I urge you to do the same

Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF

[paul makin]

AAPMBF members.
You have before you a set of ballot papers intended to implement changes to the rules of the AAPMBF. Those changes ‘prima facie” appear to be reasonable, however a closer examination reveals a document that is legally incompetent, technically flawed, and one could also opine, deceitful.

Nowhere in the documentation forwarded to you, is there a declaration of a timetable for the ballot process. At the very least the ballot MUST include a closing date as determined in accordance with Rule 24 of the fund. The absence of a specified date renders the outcome of any vote, vulnerable to a legal challenge as to the validity of any declared result of said vote. Did it close yesterday, will it close next Christmas or sometime in between? The ballot is legally incompetent as it does not comply with the Rules of The Fund.

The inclusion of Rule 24 (c), seeks to impose conditions upon “the constitution” of Austair.

To the best of my knowledge, Austair, a nominee company, at this time:

· does not have a constitution.
· We as members of AAPMBF are NOT members of Austair. Austair has no members, just nine “Directors”.

On that basis the proposed changes to Rule 24 are legally incompetent as we non-members of Austair cannot impose conditions upon a separate legal entity.

There are no “Transitional arrangements”

The changes to the rules eliminate the positions of the current trustees of the AAPMBF, ie , supposing a valid vote in favour of the proposed rules, the positions of the current Trustees of the AAPMBF will no longer exist. It is proposed that, henceforth, there will be no Elected Officials of the AAPMBF as currently defined, only “Directors of Austair”. The proposed changes declare that “Directors of Austair” will be elected officials. To date there are no “ELECTED” directors of Austair, neither is there a mechanism for the members of AAPMBF to elect directors of Austair. The current nine “Directors” have been “APPOINTED” by (presumably) the other members of the Board of Austair. At no time have any of the Ballots for Trusteeship of the AAPMBF been annotated with any reference to the Board of Austair. The proposed changes are legally incompetent as they seek to impose conditions on the Board of a separate legal entity. More importantly they propose the removal of the current elected administration and yet have no “elected” administration to put in their stead. Until Austair has properly elected Directors, the fund will have no elected administration.

Eligibility for the position of Trustee

Rule 1 of the AAPMBF stipulates that a “Trustee” be a “person or persons”. Austair is not a person and therefore not compliant with the requirements of the rules. The rule changes are legally incompetent because they seek to appoint a legal entity rather than a person or persons to the Trusteeship of the Fund.

Retrospectivity

In his covering letter, Capt (ret). O’Neil proposes that the rule changes, if passed, will take effect from the 1st May 2010. Rule 24 of the Fund clearly states that changes to the rules can only follow a resolution by the membership. There is no provision for retrospectivity. Traditionally rule changes have complied with that philosophy, in that they only take effect from the declaration of the ballot. As the ballot process requires (at least) 42 days notice, in writing, at the very earliest, any rule changes effected by this current procedure can not take effect until at least 42 days following the mailout of the ballot papers, May 11th. The proposed changes are legally incompetent because they seek to invoke retrospectivity, which is not authorised by the Rules f the AAPMBF.

The preamble to the Rule changes is deceitful in that it does not tell the complete story. It claims that the Fund is required to obtain an Australian Financial Services Licence in order to comply with the Corporations Act 2001. This is not entirely true. Members will recall that the then Trustees of the AAPMBF, in 2007, proposed that the appointment of the AFAP as Trustee, would satisfy our obligations under the Act. We voted to approve that, but the Board of the AAPMBF failed to fully implement our directions. They then had a change of heart, (for reasons that that have been proved to be false), leading to the sham dismissal of the AFAP last year. Interestingly under the proposed rule changes, the actions of the AAPMBF Board in dismissing the Trustee last year, would no longer be valid. There are no provisions in the new rules for the dismissal of the Trustee. The Trustee can be forced to resign only by direct requisition and ballot by the membership of AAPMBF. As there is no AAPMBF board or Trustees only Directors of Austair, they will hardly be likely to dismiss themselves even if the rules allowed.

The original draft of these rule changes sought to eliminate the requirement for a Trustee to be a member of the AFAP and also eliminated the ability of an Annual General Meeting or Special Meeting to remove a Trustee from office. Fortunately there are some of our Trustees who found the concept repugnant, and secured removal of those provisions. But now these changes have simply removed the position of the current Trustees.

Rather disingenuously, the Chairman in his accompanying letter suggests that an important outcome of an affirmative ballot will be that the fund will have the ability to take on new members. What is not said is that the current inability to take members (since August 2009) is a direct result of the then Board’s action to dismiss the AFAP as Trustee, before they had adequately prepared the Fund for a transition of Trusteeship.

The inadequacies of this proposal are, in my view, the direct result of knee jerk reactions by a section of our current administration hell bent on a secondary agenda. The proposals are so obviously flawed it is difficult to accept that they are the product of any legal professional.

The moves we are seeing here are , in my opinion, the precursors to the sale of the Fund to commercial interests. We should all be mindful of the machinations of the QANTAS board in the unsuccessful sale of that company to Allco.

There are other options which have not been put to us. We are being told this is the only way. It is not. Acquisition and retention of the FSL is expensive and unnecessary, but will facilitate the sale of the organisation further down the track.

I intend to vote NO.

I urge you to do the same.

Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF

[Capn Bloggs]

Austair. Isn't that similar to Altair, the company that owns all the AFAP's assets, controlled not by the members but by the management? :hmm:

The moves we are seeing here are , in my opinion, the precursors to the sale of the Fund to commercial interests. We should all be mindful of the machinations of the QANTAS board in the unsuccessful sale of that company to Allco.

I love it. :D :rolleyes:

[clear to land]

To Capt O'Neill (or other AAPMBF representative). As a relatively long term member, I request again, in an open forum, that you address Mr Makins (and my) concerns as stated above, in this open forum, such that all present and potential future members have full access to your responses no matter where in the world they are. I have yet to receive adequate explanation from the AAPMBF for my own queries. Sincerely, Michael Motts.

[Levelflt]

I, like a few others above have serious concerns as to the direction of the MBF.

Having spoken to a few of the trustees that have so far been kept somewhat in the dark, there can be no other explanation other than foul play.

I am happy to be proven wrong, but until that time I intend to vote NO and I urge others to do the same.

Capt. O'Neil's cover letter that accompanied the voting documentation has several so call "facts" incorrect. One being that the trustees urge you to vote for the changes. This statement is not correct as I have spoken to several trustees and they are NOT going to vote for the changes.

There is a simple way to get more information and that is to vote NO.

[flyingfox]

Personally I have always found Harry O'Neil and Mike Charlesworth to be honourable gentlemen with a long history of service to the AFAP and the MBF. Both have helped many new aviators gain their foothold in the industry and to keep their hard won conditions intact when industrial tensions arose. Both have negotiated resolutions to seemingly hopeless disputes. They have both done the 'hard aviation yards' over the years and know how important the MBF fund is to pilots. I believe that they are trying to protect the MBF capital from any future erosion. That is not an easy task. They both posess the historical knowledge and experience of many industry battles. When the arguments get this mired in conflict, my instinct is to back the people who have proved their integrity many times over.

[ozbiggles]

Then why is is so hard to get an explanation of what is going on?
A one page letter just saying that we have to so your should vote yes is not good enough.
It doesn't explain why we have taken this route. I don't know if its the right way or the wrong way, why? Because they haven't told us their reasoning.
The letter also states they will be able to take on new members.
1. I haven't heard why they couldn't take on new members for the last 6 months from the MBF. I've heard rumours but nothing from the Trustees.
2. Does a new member still have to be an AFAP member?

All in all, its a disgraceful way to treat the members. Apparently they are all knowing and we as paying members should stop asking questions and expecting answers.

I'll be voting NO, until I'm given the FULL backgrond about what is going on. In both this issue and the relationship between the AFAP and the MBF

[Levelflt]

Flyingfox, I have no doubt that all the trustees are of high caliber. I also know the trustees that are being kept in the dark and they are in my opinion of the highest caliber and have also spent their very long careers serving us as pilots through the MBF and several other organisations.

Ozbiggles has hit the nail on the head. We need an explanation, so we can make an informed decision about OUR MBF.

I still intend to vote NO until we get the answers to the questions that have been asked.

[hardNfast]

I have only been a member of AFAP and the MBF for the last year.

During this time I have been getting the updates about this on going issue, and to be honest its all a bit above my head.

Correct me if I am wrong but here is my basic understanding:

The MBF is trying to distant themselves from AFAP, however they (MBF) are not really saying much about their reasons for this.

For this reason alone people are swinging towards voting NO until more information is devolved.

What I am worried about is how much resources has been wasted on this, and will a NO vote just drag this on for longer?

:confused::confused:

[The Baron]

Flying Fox,

I used to think they were honourable men too. Actions however, speak louder than words, and their actions and motives remain, in the most charitable view, obscure. Indeed, there have been next to no explanatory words anyway. I will vote No and urge everyone else to do so until these "honourable gentlemen" put their case to the fund members

[Levelflt]

The fact is it is OUR fund, if we ask questions of our trustees they must be answered.

[EXEK1996]

Vote NO!

O'Neill and Charlsworth both honourable?

I was involved in an industrial issue in 1987.

If this is the same M. Charlsworth involved then (I know it is) , the word honourable does not come to mind.

I too have contacted the MBF to have questions answered and guess what not even an email or a phone call back.

Also, I agree that some trustees are being kept in the dark by O'Neill. [U]However it is incumbent on these trustees to bring O'Neill and Charlsworth to account.

One can only speculate what these pair and a few others are up to. Vote NO and bring them to account and get our questions answered.

Many thanks to Paul Makin (who I have never met or ever spoken to) for his posts

[Windshear]

Fine wine, great meal O'Neil ........ Vote YES :ok::ok:

[ozbiggles]

one line with a vote yes recommendation.
Who are you windshear, the MBF information and customer relation officer?

[paul makin]

There are complex issues at play here. It is proving difficult for some members to understand the significance.

To simplify the current stuation lets analyse the most significant part of Capt O’Neils letter of the 30th March.

Capt O’Neil claims that “This change will not alter how the Fund is managed and CONTROLLED. The Directors of Austair are the same nine individuals who are currently trustees of the fund.”

This is simply and entirely not true.

Proposed rule 14 states:

(a)……………..the Trustee of the Fund is Austair Pilots M.B.F. Nominee Company……………………..(b) The Trustee through its directors…………SHALL CONTROL THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND ……………………Currently the Fund is controlled by AAPMBF members through their ELECTED representatives, the Trustees. Austair however is controlled by the Directors of Austair. It is proposed that CONTROL of the Fund shall be handed to the Directors of Austair.

The latest documents lodged with ASIC in respect of the directorship of Austair reveal that:

AS OF 1st APRIL 2010 ( the day after Capt O’Neils letter) the directors include two gentlemen who are NOT elected Trustees and more importantly two of OUR elected Trustees have NOT been registered as Directors of Austair. This is not merely a function of a lazy ASIC, as they processed other Austair documentation lodged on 23rd of March and 1st of April.

Capt O’Neil's statement is simply not true.

Capt O’Neil states that the Directors of Austair will be elected by YOU.
That cannot happen. We are not members of Austair.

The Memorandum of Association of Austair clearly states at 5 (b) that:

(Austair) “limits to not more than Fifty the number of its members ………..”
The Articles of Association of Austair states that:

“…………the Directors shall have the power at any time and from time to time to appoint ANY person to be a Director………………”

Capt O’Neil's statement is simply not true.

Capt O’Neil's letter does not stand up to scrutiny. Whether this is by sinister design or by lack of understanding, or some other reason, I do not know, but it is a matter that clearly needs to be addressed. The stakes in this are too high to allow any question of motive.

If truth, honesty, integrity and transparency are important concepts to you, vote NO and make Capt O’Neil explain himself, and the position of ALL Trustees.

Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF

[Capn Bloggs]

Paul,

In relation to Austair when you were a past Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF, could you please explain:
-what Austair was then;
-who ran it/who were it's members
-what was it responsible for and
-who elected it's members.

[Capn Bloggs]

Harry's comms skills may not be the best but a man lacking in integrity he is not.

[rmcdonal]

As explained to me by one of the Trustees.

The MBF cannot function in its current form due to changing rules with regards to Financial Services and will need a Licence (Australian Financial Service Licence=FSL (http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/ASIC.NSF/byHeadline/Do%20you%20need%20an%20AFS%20licence%3F), ) in order to continue providing these services. In the meanwhile no new members may join the fund (however members already in the fund may continue to receive its services). It was believed at one point that the MBF could get around this issue by using the AFAP however after some legal advice it turned out they could not and instead have opted to get their own FSL . The FSL is under the company name Austair which has always been a part of the MBF.
If you vote yes what will happen is this:
• The 9 Trustees voted in by the membership previously will become the directors of Austair.
• Austair will become the Trustee of the fund.
• The 9 Directors will no longer be personally responsible for a 1/9th share of the many $Millions in the MBF, instead Austair will, under the direction of the 9 directors.
• If one of the directors chooses to flee the country to some tropical island they will not be able to take several million with them :ok: (which is the case right now)
• The MBF will then have a FSL and new members will be able to join.
• You will be able to vote in the directors just as you have done in the past with the trustees.

You choose how you want to vote, and if you are unsure about how the changes will affect you then call the MBF and ask.
Please also remember that the MBF provides an important service to the aviation in Australia, it provides loss of Licence insurance to the pilot community, for several months now no new member has been able to join due to the above issue and as such there are many young (and old) pilots out there without coverage.

The above is how I understand the situation to be :confused:, If it is incorrect I do apologies however the topic very quickly becomes complicated as you may have noticed from the letters sent out.
Cheers :ok: :}

[hardNfast]

the topic very quickly becomes complicated as you may have noticed from the letters sent out.

As been stated on this forum, seems as if they need to sort themselves out and correctly notify members of what is going on before they will get a Yes vote.

I will be more than happy to vote yes if rmcdonal has posted is correct and is required for the fund to continue, but this information needs to come from the Fund.

[paul makin]

Capt. Bloggs
Firstly I did not delete a post. It has been removed by the moderators, without explanation. As this matter is of serious concern to many members I repost here with minor modifications to eliminate those parts to which the moderators may have taken exception.
Rmcdonal,
The folowing is not in accord with what you have assessed from your discussions with the fund. I urge you to follow the analysis before making up your mind.
************************************************************
The important thing here is how Austair is used. To the best of my knowledge the fundamental structure has remained unchanged in the 15 years since I was involved.

Austair is and was intended, to hold the assets but CONTROL of how those assets were applied has never been ceded to the Board of Austair. CONTROL of the application of funds has always been the province of the ELECTED Trustees of the AAPMBF.

We are being asked to change that position, but are being given no opportunity to elect the Board of Austair. Make no mistake, if this vote gets up there are NO ELECTED members in control of the AAPMBF. Trustees are eliminated and there is (currently) no such thing as a Director of AAPMBF. There is nothing to stop the Board of Austair appointing Bob Hawke or Jimmy Bowtie or Geoff Dixon as directors. The UNELECTED Directors of Austair will have full control of the funds, their disposition and the assessment and payment of member benefits. Two of our elected members will cease to hold any position and they will be ordinary members of the AAPMBF with no say in the way things are run.

I know it is a difficult concept, but despite the similarity (but not identicality) of the makeup of the Board of Directors Austair and the Board of Trustees of the AAPMBF, the standing of each is that they are separate legal entities and should be viewed individually. The current situation where the make-up of the Boards does not coincide should emphasise this.

A lot of this could be resolved by the reinstatement of the position of Director of AAPMBF. The current Trustees, either by omission or by commission have not proposed this. If by omission, the ineptitude of those preparing the submission is further revealed. If by commission, this is the most serious attack ever, on the integrity and future of the AAPMBF.

Paul Makin
Former Chairman AAPMBF

[The Bolter]

Paul

"The moves we are seeing here are , in my opinion, the precursors to the sale of the Fund to commercial interests."

Kindly name those serving Trustees who support such a "sale".

[chainsaw]

rmcdonal,

I'm not a member of the AFAP, and haven't been since I lost my medical in 1987. I got and got 5/8ths of the square root of :mad:-all help from both the AFAP and the MBF at the time, and in the end had to take legal action to get a payout.

I was treated like a criminal rmcdonal, rather than a beneficiary for the benefit that I'd paid heaps for since I joined the AFAP and started to pay for those benefits. My opinion about the then-trustees of the MBF should therefore be obvious! :mad:

You say:

If one of the directors chooses to flee the country to some tropical island they will not be able to take several million with them (which is the case right now)

If that actually IS the case then there's serious doubts in my mind about the present structure and controls of the fund that would/could allow this potential outcome.

And if there are deficiencies in the processes/controls/procedures of the management of the fund, then obviously the trustees don't know a thing about risk management, or are turning a blind-eye to it! :ugh:

And if that's the case rmcdonal, then the man on the Clapham Omnibus would probably have no other alternative but to suppport Mr Makin's case for a NO vote.

BTW Bolter.................from the way I read it, Mr Makin DIDN'T suggest that the trustees support such a ''sale''..............you only ASSUMED that he did. All he did was express an OPINION! :ugh:

Clown! :yuk:

[The Bolter]

Chainsawclown,

I realise he was expressing an opinion, what I am interested in are the facts,if any, that he used to form that opinion.

Go back to 1987 and deal with it and leave us alone, just :mad: orf.

[rmcdonal]

Chainsaw
If that actually IS the case then there's serious doubts in my mind about the present structure and controls of the fund that would/could allow this potential outcome.

And if there are deficiencies in the processes/controls/procedures of the management of the fund, then obviously the trustees don't know a thing about risk management, or are turning a blind-eye to it!

And if that's the case rmcdonal, then the man on the Clapham Omnibus would probably have no other alternative but to suppport Mr Makin's case for a NO vote.
So the trustees have found a problem and are trying to fix it and your suggestion is to vote against rather then in favour? :confused:

[maui]

Go back to 1987 and deal with it and leave us alone, just :mad: orf.


And that Mr chainsaw is from a currently serving Trustee. Gives a lot of confidence doesn't it.

Maui

[The Bolter]

Maui,

Wrong yet again.:ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

Paul,

I did not delete a post. It has been removed by the moderators, without explanation.

This is probably the reason:

http://www.pprune.org/5619893-post320.html

[paul makin]

Bolter.

As you are obviously well connected, and probably involved, could you enlighten us.

Lets hypothesise that the proposed rules are voted up:

There are no individual Trustees of the AAPMBF, they have been eliminated in the rule change of 2010 and the corporate Trustee Austair appointed in their place.

There are no Directors of AAPMBF. They were eliminated in the rule change of 2009.

Members of AAPMBF (approximately 2000 strong) are not members of Austair as the Articles of Association of that organisation limit the membership to a total of 50. (By the way who are the 50 and what are the qualifications for membership?)

Austair has no constitution.

Austair is a separate legal entity from AAPMBF

Austair has no rules allowing the participation of any other legal entity (or the members of any separate legal entity) to be involved in the appointment of Directors of Austair.

Just how is it that the members of AAPMBF can be involved or in any way guide the direction of their Fund and its finances, when they have no elected representatives, and they have no mechanism to appoint Directors or in any other way control the functioning of Austair, which is to be ceded CONTROL of the fund and its finances.

In short; how can the members of AAPMBF elect the directors of Austair?

Who, and to what roles, do the members of AAPMBF have any mechanism to elect, in any organisation, including their own AAPMBF ?

Paul Makin
Former Chairman AAPMBF

[paul makin]

Bolter

More than 4 days have now elapsed since I posed two questions of fact. Should we assume that your reluctance to answer these fundamental concepts of the current proposals, is because you have no argument with the conclusions I have proffered.

Could it be that you have now realised the enormous holes in the proposal as put, or is it that you already knew, and hoped that by ignoring the questions they might disappear. Maybe your mate meme could assist.

Let’s go a step further.

Given that all elected representatives disappear with the passage of the current vote:

Obviously Austair will incur costs in the control/administration of AAPMBF. Remember that the Directors of Austair are taking over all the functions of the previous Trustees of AAPMBF, and there are now no ELECTED members of AAPMBF or Austair.


What is there to stop those who control Austair, from awarding to Austair extravagant administrative charges against the AAPMBF for controlling the fund?

Ms Wendy Sharon Boffa is the registered Key Person on whom Austair’s Financial Services License depends. How is Ms Boffa to be employed by and reimbursed by Austair, a separate legal entity from AAPMBF.

What is there to prevent Austair from awarding it’s Directors, substantial Directors Fees? The current manager (AAPMBF) has openly stated that paid Trustees/Directors is her preferred means of Direction.

What is there to prevent Austair turning into a profit centre for it’s shareholders? All nine of them. As the only activity currently proposed for Austair is the control of AAPMBF, it is obvious where the profit would need to be derived.

Austair filed with ASIC, a reservation of a name change on 23rd March 2010, a week before Capt O’Neil sent out his flawed documents.

What is the purpose of the change of name which removes all reference to the MBF?
Why was the new name not mentioned or used in the rule change documentation?

This is without doubt either; the most inept or, alternatively the most sinister and devious rule change in the history of the AAPMBF.

It might very well be that what the majority of Trustees intended may be in our best interests, however the holes in the proposal are so large and the potential for the destruction of our fund is so strong, we cannot afford to allow this change to go through unaltered.

VOTE NO. Force the Trustees to rework, and to properly explain what it is they are trying to achieve.

Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF

[GreenerGrass]

NO vote in Paul

[Capn Bloggs]

Paul,
alternatively the most sinister and devious rule change in the history of the AAPMBF.
Your continued thinly-veiled implication that the MBF trustees are corrupt by doing this is disgusting and is doing your credibility no good. As far as witch-hunts go, yours takes the cake.

I will say it again: HO is an honourable man who is trying to do the right thing by the MBF members and return control of the fund to the members, not the AFAP. To suggest otherwise smacks of a hidden agenda by his accusers.

[clear to land]

Bloggs, it is not just Paul who has an issue here. I have submitted my queries (in writing), casting no aspersions on any individual, and received a completely unsatisfactory response. I am curious as to why you defend the indefensible ie complete and utter non-communication with a members legitimate queries. The floor is yours.......

[Tangan]

Bloggs,

You seem to be missing the point..... HO may well have honourable intentions however this misconcieved plan may just result in an outcome opposed to his intent.

Paul and others have posed a series of valid questions which highlight the risk that HO and his team are exposing the AAAMBF members to. These continue to go unanswered. The stoney silence does nothing to allay the concerns of the membership.

I will never vote for a rule change which is being forced on the members in such circumstances.

There is a real risk that members' control of the AAPMBF will be lost.

[The Baron]

Bloggs,

"hidden agenda" ?

Oh the irony! Why all the subterfuge? Why can't they satisfactorially explain what they're up to? Are these the actions of "honourable men"?
So many questions and zero answers.

[paul makin]

Bloggs

Always a good tactic. When you have no answers make it personal and deflect from the real issues.

If you would read properly what I have written, the “sinister and devious” comment applies in the alternative to an inept presentation. To put it simply, the submission is inept for all the reasons mentioned in previous posts. If it can be proved that the glaring mis-truths and holes in the proposed structure are deliberate and not because of a lack of application, THEN the only other conclusion is that they are “sinister and devious” If you can give a third (or more) explanation of how this all holds together I will be happy to hear it.

As you are well aware, (it was stated in my deleted and now modified post, which you read), it is my opinion that Harry does not understand that which he has put up or which is put up under his signature. Harry has a long and commendable history of service to the aviation community, it is a pity to see all that disappearing under the influence of some around him, who may be working to a different agenda. Unfortunately when you actively seek to run a secret society, speculation, rumour and innuendo will flourish in the absence of hard evidence.

There are currently 8 questions on the table, 2 in post #149 and 6 in post # 150. If you can secure an adequate response to those you will go a long way to resolving this vexing and serious issue. Thus far you have made no constructive contribution other than to display a commendable (but possibly misguided) loyalty to a close friend.

Paul Makin

[Capn Bloggs]

Paul,
Bloggs

Always a good tactic. When you have no answers make it personal and deflect from the real issues.

Thus far you have made no constructive contribution other than to display a commendable (but possibly misguided) loyalty to a close friend.
I started this thread. I will happily close it down if you continue in this vein.

[paul makin]

Why not just answer, or secure the answers to the questions.

Still no constructive contribution to the argument.

What are you afraid of?

Paul Makin

[The Bolter]

Paul,

Why don't you "secure the answers" for yourself and just cut the crap. It is obvious that there are no Trustees that want "to sell the Fund" and that notion of yours is typical of the garbage that comes from you. Treat us all and get a hobby.:mad:

[3 Holer]

I started this thread. I will happily close it down if you continue in this vein. Bloggsy.

That's like saying "If you don't play cricket by my rules, I'm taking my bat and ball and going home":{

[paul makin]

Bolter

As I secure the answers myself, based on the documentation and the “briefing” given to the membership at large; the answers to all the questions are “no” or “none”.
The purpose in proposing the questions was to allow those of you on the outer-inner circle or those within the inner circle, to demonstrate that I have it wrong. I would be happy to be corrected, with empirical evidence rather than vague opinions expressed in anonymity.

If Austair had a framework that allowed the AAPMBF to elect, and by that control, the Directors of Austair, and if the AAPMBF still had elected members after the vote, all would be well.

There are no rules that allow the AAPMBF members to control the representation of Austair. Any vague assertion by the rules of AAPMBF, have absolutely no effect unless there is an enabling rule within the rules or the constitution of Austair. Currently there are no such rules and Austair has no constitution.

This is all about the structure and relationship of the organisations going forward.
When voting we must look at it being in effect for a considerable time with probable changes of principal players.

Once this vote goes through, if it is in the affirmative the members of AAPMBF will not have anyone to vote for.

There will be no “real person” Trustees of AAPMBF, just a corporate Trustee.

There are no Directors of AAPMBF, and there can be no Directors of AAPMBF unless and until the rules (rules 1 and 14) define and regulate that position.

There is nothing within the established rules of Austair, to allow the membership of AAPMBF to have any say, vote, or influence over the conduct of Austair.

The restrictions that we (AAPMBF) have in place limit our current Trustees, inter alia they:

can only serve one term (conditionally) after cessation of fund membership
must rotate on three yearly cycle,
they can be removed by AGM or Special GM
must be AFAP


As proposed NONE OF THESE WILL APPLY TO DIRECTORS OF Austair.

It may be that the Directors in their enlightened benevolence will transfer the current AAPMBF restrictions to apply to Austair Directors, but they haven’t at this point in time, they only seek to transfer the CONTROL of the Fund. When or if they they do, I will be happy to consider a yes vote.

Until that time I intend to VOTE NO.

Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF.

[Slasher]

Thanks for that Scruffy.

[Whiskery]

Hey Slasher, long time no hear from.
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!:ok:

[Slasher]

Thanks Whiskery.

Scruff has made some very valid points
throughout this thread and I'll be voting NO.

[The Bolter]

Paul,

That is a load of rubbish, please keep to the facts and if you are unable to bring yourself to do that kindly add the following introduction,

"The following is a load of sh£t and as such should not be taken seriously".

[Sked]

Which part specifically is a "load of rubbish" Bolter?
Very interested observer and at this stage severely lacking information from MBF and unless persuaded otherwise will be a "NO" vote.

[The Bolter]

Sked,

All of it.:mad:

[ozbiggles]

Bolter, at least Paul raises his concern in a rational and thought out way that allows constructive debate.
I've seen more constructive arguments than you mount at my kids kindie.
Today I got the bill in the mail from the MBF and a ONE line email telling me I should just vote yes with nine names printed under it that really could have come from anywhere, maybe even from the kindie.

[The Baron]

Not all those named in the email want a Yes vote. 1 phone call after I received the email confirmed that it is far from a united front. So why the subterfuge, why the misrepresentation?

[zanzibar]

There are always two sides (sometimes more) to any argument/discussion/debate etc - and in this thread that is patently obvious. What strikes me, though, is that one side is putting forward some questions to which proper answers would help resolve a lot of the mystery about the proposal. Lacking, unfortunately, are those proper answers and instead accusations of "a load of rubbish" etc are forthcoming. I would have thought that proper rebuttal, if possible, of some of the points raised would have served the other side's argument better and give that stance some credibility.

What is being asked of the members is of significant importance and they are entitled to all the facts, and that includes proper answers to any questions that are raised. Accurate information will serve far better than any mud slinging or personal attacks.

[rmcdonal]

Perhaps these questions should be asked to the MBF, not in an open forum in hope of response (not saying don't post your Qs here, but just don't expect an answer here). I hear that no one has actually called the MBF to ask any of these questions, not even Paul M who is asking them so loudly here on PPRuNe. :hmm:

[Sked]

Well Bolter, answers my question once again. No rational, reasonable response whatsoever. I'm giving it til the end of the month for some reasonable information from MBF and or discussion here and if none it will be a "NO" for me.

[clear to land]

RM, you are incorrectly informed. If you read one of my previous posts, I contacted the MBF with questions, and received a complete non-answer in a patronising tone for my troubles. So Bolter- what aggressive response do you have for that?

[paul makin]

Rmcdonal

For what it is worth, I do not think this is the appropriate forum for these discussions. However from past experience, the office of the AAPMBF will not allow access to the members. I have sought to have the AAPMBF disseminate information, totally at my cost, only to be rebuffed. They will not grant access to the membership address list (privacy concerns), neither will they send out on my behalf, a circular.

This and similar fora are the only way to raise awareness amongst the membership. Alas the other side, our elected representatives, will not rise to the challenge and openly or directly respond to legitimate questions and concerns. Harry’s customary response to my queries is; we have considered it, thank-you for you interest.

Dissenting views are neither encouraged nor facilitated. Trustees are gagged. So much for the espoused commitment to the democratic process.

Seven questions. Zero answers. Nil official comment, just anonymous slagging.

Rmcdonal, you are obviously satisfied with the answers you have. Tell us this;
As an AAPMBF member, who will you be able to elect, in either the AAPMBF or Austair, if the rules, as proposed, are passed? Bolter will not answer, perhaps you might be able to.

(Slasher. Not scruffy or his son. I used to wear a white shirt, not blue.)

Paul Makin

[3 Holer]

..........and I think the NO's have it.:ok:

[zanzibar]

Perhaps these questions should be asked to the MBF,

rmcd - you aren't naive enough to think that the MBF aren't fully aware of this thread and the concerns and questions being raised. You'd think, then, that they would respond in some form, not necessarily in Pprune but possibly in an appropriate mail-out or emailed circular, to alleviate and answer any concerns and questions accordingly. That is sadly lacking and demonstrates an arrogance towards the membership.

The key to putting your case, any case, is effective communication. It's just not happening with the MBF.

[Hans Solo]

I've been monitoring this forum for a while now and I've got to say, the questions posed by Paul Makin are nothing short of reasonable and downright logical!!
Seriously Paul....What were you hoping to gain???......Some sort of rational answer or meaningful debate.
This is Pprune after all!!!!!!
Jocularity aside, I totally concur with Paul's concerns, and for the life of me cannot understand why the MBF are so reluctant to answer them.

I can only put it down to 2 things....

1. either they had not considered these points and are at a loss as to how to explain this oversight
OR
2. there is something going on that they do not want the members to know about.

I have been a long-time member of the MBF and support this body for the work they do, but organisations such as these have to remain answerable to their membership and to do so need to have elected representatives in control.

Unfortunately, it appears that a "yes" vote will not achieve this, so it is a "No" from me this time round.

Hans:ugh:

[chainsaw]

..........and I think the NO's have it. :ok:

Agree 3 Holer................so do a lot of other contributors to this thread too, by the looks of things.

Unfortunately, and based on his/her past track record here on this thread, The Dolter will inevitably have a churlish and aggressively offensive opposing point of view that will undoudbtedly be expressed with his/her usual spiteful 'tone and tenor' that suggests a VERY worrying lack of interpersonal skills on his/her behalf, especially if he/she is actually a practising flight crew member. :ugh:

[maui]

Nah

The Bolter has bolted. Unable to answer questions or apply rational discussion, the straw man/woman has blown off in the wind. Good ridance I say.
By the way has anyone seen or heard anything of that other stalwart Capt Bloggs?

Maui

[chainsaw]

maui......

The Bolter has bolted

Looks like it! :)

BTW, my reference to The Bolter as 'The Dolter' wasn't a typo............from the Urban Dictionary - definition of a DOLT:

- A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time. Many times they are oblivious to their own mental incapacity.

- A mental retard who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock. "Dolt" may be the most sophisticated insult in the English language.

- Dolts ... engage in stupid actions or make stupid comments.

- A very stupid person.

- A trivial inane person who tends to be elevated or promoted to a higher standing than warranted due to having ridiculous delusions of grandeur. A dolt is right at home in the political arena.

Says it all, really, don't you think? :8

Bloggs, like a good captain, appears to have gone down with the sinking ship along with The Dolter. :E

Maybe Paul Makin will get some sense for the MBF members with those two now perhaps out of the way? :D

[Capn Bloggs]

Gentlemen,

I started this thread to support the MBF trustees during the trusteeship issue. As I have stated, I am a close friend of Harry, and since the very beginning of this saga, nothing I have seen or heard from him has swayed my opinion that he and his trustees (ALL of them, as shown on that email which was mentioned a few posts back) are doing the right thing, as will come out in the wash.

To even suggest that they have some hidden agenda or are setting up the MBF to be sold or taken-over is disgusting. It is pretty obvious that some of you have never met the man, and if you knew what he has had to put up with from "the other side" over this last twelve months, you would cut him some slack. Harry has lost more integrity than some of you will ever have. I fully support him and what he and his trustees are doing with the MBF, and you will all thank them one day.

Perhaps the trustees' communication skills leave a bit to be desired but one thing is certain, if any of you expect to get answers on the Internet, especially in a place like Prune with it's current inhabitants, I think you are mistaken.

To the moderates out there, I suggest you support the trustees.

[Di_Vosh]

:ok:

added to make the minimum characters

[clear to land]

Bloggs, as you are a close friend of H.O, maybe you should be suggesting to him that answering queries of the members would be a VERY good idea. Most Australians don't respond well to being treated as if we are underlings in a dictatorship, and we should just 'do what we are told, without explanation.' As far as using Pprune- well it is a forum that is easily accessible to all (especially overseas members like myself), and I personally can't see this as being a Commercial in Confidence issue. If this is not the case, then the dissemination of the information asked for-yet denied, could be via the AFAP website, requiring Member Log-in. This would negate any perceived security issues. As a member I, like many others, cannot understand the COMPLETE LACK OF RESPONSE from the MBF, and until I receive a satisfactory response, the vote is NO!!

[3 Holer]

..........if any of you expect to get answers on the Internet, especially in a place like Prune with it's current inhabitants, I think you are mistaken.


Might be an idea for big Harry to review this line of thinking.

Based on the following:

Pprune- well it is a forum that is easily accessible to all (especially overseas members like myself), and I personally can't see this as being a Commercial in Confidence issue.

I, like many others, cannot understand the COMPLETE LACK OF RESPONSE from the MBF, and until I receive a satisfactory response, the vote is NO!!

[aussiefan]

Let me get this straight.

People ask questions to no one in particular, on a public forum, about stuff that is very important to them (so important that this is the place they choose to ask questions) and they expect a response from directors/trustees/guardians of an insurance fund.

I know Harry will not get on here to respond. I would be disappointed if he did. This is not the place.

Vote no by all means. However, if you want to get some information from the source it will not happen here.

If you had a grievance with your employer and posted here would you expect them to respond here?

If you have an issue with the way things are done and you are not getting an appropriate response from the appropriate place then there are legitimate ways to get a resolution.

[clear to land]

Aussiefan-please go back earlier in the forum, then you will see that I have stated that I have asked these questions by private email to the MBF, and received a completely unsatisfactory response. :ugh:

[zanzibar]

However, if you want to get some information from the source it will not happen here.

And that's reasonable. But it's not happening at all, anywhere.

This is not the place.


No, but circulars and emails maybe are.

Perhaps the trustees' communication skills leave a bit to be desired

An understatement - especially seeing modern day communication is SO easy.

COMPLETE LACK OF RESPONSE from the MBF

See the comments above................

[fmcinop]

The most concerning point is that not all the trustees are in agreement....WHY?

Alarm bells should be ringing loudly right about now!
The same trustees who disagree with this current issue were conveniently left out of the initial vote to have the AFAP removed as trustee....Why? Surely such a major action would at least require the entire trustee compliment to be involved in the discussion and have their say. One of the trustees in attendance abstained from the vote...again why?
In the past the Chairman has e-mail information out to the trustees who were not in attendance and then followed up with them later to find out their opinion before any decision was made. That is why they all have Telstra phone cards. This was always the case on issues of far less significance than this one.
Until this mess can be sorted out and the trustees can all be in agreement I will be voting NO.
Far too many unanswered questions. As trustees they are our elected members placed in office to represent us the members. If we ask a question it is their responsibility and duty to answer it, so why have we not received any answers?

[aussiefan]

Clear to land. You say you asked the question to the fund and did not get a response. Fair enough. Try again. If you are truly concerned that the fund is being sold off or fun into the ground or whatever go to the ombudsman.

fmcinop, same deal, if alarm bells are ringing then do something.

I am not a member of MBF, I do know some of the participants on this thread and some of them for over 30 years. Personally I would say that the MBF is doing the right thing and is getting advice from professionals. If I was concerned that my insurance fund was selling me out or doing wrong by me I would not be on a public forum expecting to get if sorted.

Ombudsman, lawyers, politicians, afap...

Got to wonder about other people who are asking questions on here, I see a point scoring exercise going on. Lots of big accusations which even if half true then surely more should be done than bring them up here??? Motive??

[paul makin]

Aussiefan.

You make the assumption that what you see here is all that is going on. It is not, but I have been cautioned by the lawyers to the fund about what I say. You will note that my posts have been sustainable analyses of what has been disseminated, and a few snippets of OPINION.

For your info the following is a cut and paste from an email to me from the Fund Manager. Note the date. That same structure applies today.



Dear Paul

Thank you for your patience with respect to your query of 16 July 2007.
After further discussions with our legal advisors on these matters the following is confirmed:
The Fund as currently structured is not subject to external regulatory or statutory oversight.


You also mis-interpret the rationale for the discourse on this far from ideal forum. The intent is not to have answers from the trustees in this arena, but to inform the membership at large, those areas that they should be concerned about, and should be asking questions about. Fortunately a significant number of our brothers are smart enough to understand that. When the office of the AAPMBF refuses to facilitate any contrary discussion on matters of importance, this is this most efficient alternative. Believe me I would rather it not be that way. However the reluctance of the incumbents to listen or to discuss leaves no choice.

Paul Makin

[aussiefan]

Financial Ombudsman Service :: List of Financial Ombudsman Service members (http://fos.org.au/centric/home_page/members/list_of_financial_ombudsman_service_members.jsp) Do a search for Australian Air Pilots Mutual Benefit Fund
Seems these guys are the ones to go to if you have an issue that is not being resolved. About 10 minutes of googling...

[paul makin]

Aussiefan.

It takes a bit more than 10 minutes of googling. But appreciate the guidance.

Paul Makin

[aussiefan]

I would actually say less, put in Insurance Ombudsman in Australian google, click on the first link, seach their members and there you are.

Let us know how you go with them. I am interested in their response.

[paul makin]

Aussiefan

1) The listed party is Austair, not AAPMBF. They are seperate legal entities.

2) Representations to the Ombudsmen relate to services, not administration.

3) Members of AAPMBF are not members of Austair and currently Austair do not provide any services to AAPMBF members that fall within the jurisdiction of the Financial Sevices Ombudsman.

There are other, more relevant bodies.

As I said. Note the date of the cut and paste, there is a whole lot more to this and it has no just sprung up in the past few months. Give us a little credit.

Besides that, if you are not a member it is none of your business.

Paul Makin

[aussiefan]

And there I was thinking this was a public forum?

I meant to call the place I found today but I am on night shifts. I do notice the same contact name as on the AFAP site? But then you must be right that they are not same.
Maybe you could add to your list of problems with the MBF that there is now another company using the same trading name.

"There are other, more relevant bodies."
I am sure there are, there seem to be a lot of people who have issues, maybe you could let them know who they can turn to for help?

[TurbTool]

Clearly there is an agenda here.

It seems apparent that the Trustees that are no longer working in the aviation industry have a different agenda to those that are.

I believe it is not appropriate for retired members, who have no material interest in the fund, to be allowed to have anything to do with it's running in an official capacity.

MBF members who are loyal members of the AFAP should be very concerned that the assets of the fund, created by AFAP members, have the potential to be taken out of their control and put out there for all and sundry.

Clearly the next step is to open up membership to non AFAP members on a commercial basis. While this may suit those who wish to enjoy the benefits of our fund it surely is not in the best interests of those of us who believe in the organisation that had the foresight to both start the fund and then protect the fund in the late 80s.

We should all be rejecting the proposed rule change and demanding the resignation of any trustee who has retired from aviation.

[spag]

According to the AFAP website, the MBF are now taking new members.

Does this mean that the majority voted YES??

[fmcinop]

No, I think it just means they have been awarded a FSL!

[rmcdonal]

It was a Yes vote. :ok:

[ozbiggles]

If that is the case it just proves how good at communication the MBF is, ie have they told their members?

[The Bolter]

The result is on their website.:ok::ok::ok: