Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by meme; 24th Aug 2009 at 16:07. Reason: formatting
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by meme; 24th Aug 2009 at 18:31. Reason: grammatical
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
Regards
Paul Makin
Last edited by paul makin; 21st Aug 2009 at 09:56.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
AFAP
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
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
Thread Starter
it was set up BY the AFAP for AFAP members.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by fmcinop; 21st Aug 2009 at 08:36.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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......
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......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Last edited by paul makin; 23rd Aug 2009 at 00:48. Reason: layout clarity and spelling
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by meme; 24th Aug 2009 at 18:49. Reason: grammar
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by paul makin; 24th Aug 2009 at 22:07. Reason: layout
Thread Starter
Paul,
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.
Oh yes there can be... You just cannot see it.
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.
So we get back to the conflict of interest issue. Simply put, in respect of the two organisations, there cannot be one.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 24th Aug 2009 at 22:49. Reason: Improve grammar.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul Makin,
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.
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.
Last edited by meme; 25th Aug 2009 at 08:28. Reason: formatting
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul Makin,
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.
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 have to wonder. You do have one devoted admirer on the thread it seems? fmcinop, be careful what you wish for.
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.
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.
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.
The matters to which Capt O’Neil refers
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.