Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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
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
Last edited by ozbiggles; 27th Aug 2009 at 06:23. Reason: spelling!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The World
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Last edited by maui; 27th Aug 2009 at 07:24.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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....
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....
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pfzs
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 .
I agree, I only wish people would also read the rules as you have done.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Remember This is your MBF
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?
HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST!
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.
Last edited by meme; 28th Aug 2009 at 13:48. Reason: spelling
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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!
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!
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?
Or did i just get that all wrong?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
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?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maui,
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
There are a lot of accusations flying.....I have seen NO proof!
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.
Last edited by meme; 29th Aug 2009 at 06:26. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.