Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maui
As I do not have the AFAP financial records of the last 20 years at hand I will not comment on that point you made.If they are as flush as you suggest I expect a reduction in the 1% subscription is just around the corner.Those who kept the AFAP going through those tough post dispute days were the "non Ansett/TAA" members who remained loyal and in fact continued to pay their full 1%.
Thank you for clearing up my membership status.
As I do not have the AFAP financial records of the last 20 years at hand I will not comment on that point you made.If they are as flush as you suggest I expect a reduction in the 1% subscription is just around the corner.Those who kept the AFAP going through those tough post dispute days were the "non Ansett/TAA" members who remained loyal and in fact continued to pay their full 1%.
Thank you for clearing up my membership status.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More of my Rant
Its very sad as in all this a vote no will not lead to any meaningful discussion.
But what it will do is to empower AFAP to further aggression against the fund, perhaps even to the point requiring the fund to further protect itself. Perhaps even forcing it into further isolation from AFAP.
The information that has been required by everybody to understand the situation has been in front of him or her all the time they just won’t look.
AFAP’s removal from the trusteeship was because executive received legal advice ??? that was contrary to the advice given at the time of the agreement in 2007. and then refusing to have tested the principles under which the trusteeship was formed.
Rather, took a precipitous action of demanding ownership of the assets and control of the board.
Such a demand means comply or face legal action.
Which could have tied up the fund in litigation probably to the point of tying up the assets of the fund until resolved, this, at a very volatile point in economic history.
You must have asked yourself this during the debate. Just what do you expect from your Board now Trustees. I myself expect them to protect my fund and follow the rules of the fund or beheld accountable personally.
The legal advice to the fund is from a top tier law firm, they wrote the rules of the trusteeship, and advised both AFAP and MBF at the time of setting up the trusteeship.
My reading of the Rules of the Fund and the philosophy behind the rules prohibit the action that AFAP demand.
They don’t just gloss over it or not mention it they actually prohibit it.
So you would have to question the competence of executive forcing the fund into this position, and then mounting an attack on the fund for defying them and there wishes. Just what did they expect? What did you expect?
What AFAP required from the fund board, would require participation from fund membership requesting a rule change, a rule change to allow AFAP to hold fund assets and control the board, and allowing the membership to vote on this expressing there wishes.
Has there been such a request????
If you personally wish AFAP to Hold the assets write to the board/trustees pointing out your wishes for review of the rules governing this. The rules were written the way they were for a specific reason, They may very well need reviewing however lets not deepen the wedge between AFAP and MBF.
Your Vote will be counted on the 8th September don't let apathy over come you.
A No Vote will give AFAP room to manoeuvre to further attack the fund.
Remember this action has not been sanctioned officially by executive there just allowing it to happen.
This is your AFAP and MBF you are an owner let your wishes be known
Its very sad as in all this a vote no will not lead to any meaningful discussion.
But what it will do is to empower AFAP to further aggression against the fund, perhaps even to the point requiring the fund to further protect itself. Perhaps even forcing it into further isolation from AFAP.
The information that has been required by everybody to understand the situation has been in front of him or her all the time they just won’t look.
AFAP’s removal from the trusteeship was because executive received legal advice ??? that was contrary to the advice given at the time of the agreement in 2007. and then refusing to have tested the principles under which the trusteeship was formed.
Rather, took a precipitous action of demanding ownership of the assets and control of the board.
Such a demand means comply or face legal action.
Which could have tied up the fund in litigation probably to the point of tying up the assets of the fund until resolved, this, at a very volatile point in economic history.
You must have asked yourself this during the debate. Just what do you expect from your Board now Trustees. I myself expect them to protect my fund and follow the rules of the fund or beheld accountable personally.
The legal advice to the fund is from a top tier law firm, they wrote the rules of the trusteeship, and advised both AFAP and MBF at the time of setting up the trusteeship.
My reading of the Rules of the Fund and the philosophy behind the rules prohibit the action that AFAP demand.
They don’t just gloss over it or not mention it they actually prohibit it.
So you would have to question the competence of executive forcing the fund into this position, and then mounting an attack on the fund for defying them and there wishes. Just what did they expect? What did you expect?
What AFAP required from the fund board, would require participation from fund membership requesting a rule change, a rule change to allow AFAP to hold fund assets and control the board, and allowing the membership to vote on this expressing there wishes.
Has there been such a request????
If you personally wish AFAP to Hold the assets write to the board/trustees pointing out your wishes for review of the rules governing this. The rules were written the way they were for a specific reason, They may very well need reviewing however lets not deepen the wedge between AFAP and MBF.
Your Vote will be counted on the 8th September don't let apathy over come you.
A No Vote will give AFAP room to manoeuvre to further attack the fund.
Remember this action has not been sanctioned officially by executive there just allowing it to happen.
This is your AFAP and MBF you are an owner let your wishes be known
Bolter
Why would you assume a reduction in the 1% would be around the corner. It has been that forever, and members obviously appreciate the value.
And anyway, as an acknowleged non-member WTF has it got to do with you what the members pay.
Maui
Why would you assume a reduction in the 1% would be around the corner. It has been that forever, and members obviously appreciate the value.
And anyway, as an acknowleged non-member WTF has it got to do with you what the members pay.
Maui
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What meme fails to inform you of, is that the responsibilities of the Trustee are determined by the Trustee Laws of the State of Victoria not the rules of the AAPMBF.
Those laws require that the Trustee have control over the adminstration of the assets held in trust.
Requirements of the law may not be opted out of by mutual consent, they are legally binding.
We (under guidance from the AAPMBF Trustees) voted to hand Trusteeship to the AFAP.
The Board of the AAPMBF failed to honour that undertaking.
The AFAP and indeed the rules of the AAPMBF ensure that day to day handling of the funds remains with the Board, but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene. Hopefully that will never be invoked.
The AFAP executive (as Trustee and under legal advice) insisted that the AAPMBF abide by the expressed wishes of it's (AAPMBF)membership. No more no less.
The AAPMBF Board decided that the interests of the members were best served by transferring the Trusteeship. The reasons for that decision in 2007 have not altered.
Where do the AAPMBF Board intend to take us now. Two years ago they told us that remaining with the old structure was not an option, we neeeded another option. Nothing has changed. We still need another option.
Are we to appoint another Trustee, or are we to register under the Financial Services Provisions? What are the ramifications of each of the options. We have not been told.
We now have a notifcation of a Special Meeting. Noticeably absent from the list of items to be discussed is, where do we go from here?
The meeting has been organised on a Friday evening of the AFL finals series. There will be no seats into Melbourne and no accomodation in Melbourne. The members who called for the special meeting are largely Brisbane based. Am I alone in thinking that just possibly, this is a setup.
Demorcracy is dead in this organisation. The immediate past chairman put a ban on any Trustee talking to me (some of whom I have known for in excess of 30 years). Ironically the current chairman and a few other trustees choose to ignore that direction. But the point is that any claims to democracy are mere lip service.
Gents, answer the questions fully, openly and honestly, and I may be inclined to give you my vote.
Until you do, I intend to vote NO.
Those laws require that the Trustee have control over the adminstration of the assets held in trust.
Requirements of the law may not be opted out of by mutual consent, they are legally binding.
We (under guidance from the AAPMBF Trustees) voted to hand Trusteeship to the AFAP.
The Board of the AAPMBF failed to honour that undertaking.
The AFAP and indeed the rules of the AAPMBF ensure that day to day handling of the funds remains with the Board, but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene. Hopefully that will never be invoked.
The AFAP executive (as Trustee and under legal advice) insisted that the AAPMBF abide by the expressed wishes of it's (AAPMBF)membership. No more no less.
The AAPMBF Board decided that the interests of the members were best served by transferring the Trusteeship. The reasons for that decision in 2007 have not altered.
Where do the AAPMBF Board intend to take us now. Two years ago they told us that remaining with the old structure was not an option, we neeeded another option. Nothing has changed. We still need another option.
Are we to appoint another Trustee, or are we to register under the Financial Services Provisions? What are the ramifications of each of the options. We have not been told.
We now have a notifcation of a Special Meeting. Noticeably absent from the list of items to be discussed is, where do we go from here?
The meeting has been organised on a Friday evening of the AFL finals series. There will be no seats into Melbourne and no accomodation in Melbourne. The members who called for the special meeting are largely Brisbane based. Am I alone in thinking that just possibly, this is a setup.
Demorcracy is dead in this organisation. The immediate past chairman put a ban on any Trustee talking to me (some of whom I have known for in excess of 30 years). Ironically the current chairman and a few other trustees choose to ignore that direction. But the point is that any claims to democracy are mere lip service.
Gents, answer the questions fully, openly and honestly, and I may be inclined to give you my vote.
Until you do, I intend to vote NO.
Thread Starter
Paul,
The REAL irony is that the AFAP, as trustee, sat on it's hands from 07 to 09until it allegedly said that it wanted control of the assets of the MBF (I wonder who put it up to that idea) and the MBF board swiftly took over the trusteeship to protect your interests. The AFAP then squealed like a stuck pig.
Regarding your other comments/questions, have you actually asked the MBF why the special meeting has been called and why the timing? Have you asked what the MBF is doing about the FSR compliance? Things may well have changed in two years and what was undesirable then (as opposed to "not an option") may well have become desirable (with the AFAP carrying on like it is) and do-able.
I think you will find that the MBF board got the fright of it's life with the recent antics of the AFAP; your "hopefully never be invoked" was a clear and present danger and the MBF board re-took the trusteeship to protect the member's interests. Like their great handling of the MBF over the past few years, they would not have done so lightly and as a knee-jerk reaction.
Maui,
Since the AFAP cannot do what the MBF has done ie increase member benefit payouts (solely because of good management, I add), the least it could do is lower the premiums. Then I might have some spare money to invest in Babcock and Brown.
The REAL irony is that the AFAP, as trustee, sat on it's hands from 07 to 09until it allegedly said that it wanted control of the assets of the MBF (I wonder who put it up to that idea) and the MBF board swiftly took over the trusteeship to protect your interests. The AFAP then squealed like a stuck pig.
Regarding your other comments/questions, have you actually asked the MBF why the special meeting has been called and why the timing? Have you asked what the MBF is doing about the FSR compliance? Things may well have changed in two years and what was undesirable then (as opposed to "not an option") may well have become desirable (with the AFAP carrying on like it is) and do-able.
The AFAP and indeed the rules of the AAPMBF ensure that day to day handling of the funds remains with the Board, but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene. Hopefully that will never be invoked.
Maui,
Since the AFAP cannot do what the MBF has done ie increase member benefit payouts (solely because of good management, I add), the least it could do is lower the premiums. Then I might have some spare money to invest in Babcock and Brown.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul,
Interesting, For the sake of clarification let's go back to when the AFAP was Trustee. Tell me who exactly within the AFAP could invoke this right to intervene given that Rule 14(c)2nd para. specifically states;
[ No other board or decision –making organ of the AFAP may perform any functions or duties of the Trustee of the Fund] ?
The AFAP and indeed the rules of the AAPMBF ensure that day to day handling of the funds remains with the Board, but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene. Hopefully that will never be invoked.
[ No other board or decision –making organ of the AFAP may perform any functions or duties of the Trustee of the Fund] ?
Last edited by meme; 30th Aug 2009 at 16:23. Reason: format
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Bloggs
This matter was subject of discussion at Executive/Convention 12 months ago. The AAPMBF was represented by the then chairman Capt Williams. As there was disagreement as to the legal standing of each of the parties, it was decided that the two organisations would confer with a mutually agreed legal council, to determine the EXACT nature of the respective, legal, roles and responsibilities. It was also determined that because of the conflicting opinions at that point, the legal consultant should be a fresh party, i.e someone who had not previously been involved in the writing of rules or the giving of advice to either party.
Capt Williams on behalf of his Board agreed to that arrangement. Capt O,Neil replaced Capt Williams as chairman at the subsequent meeting of the AAPMBF Board.
Despite several attempts to do so, to date the AFAP has been unable to arrange that joint consultation due to a lack of co-operation of the AAPMBF Board. AFAP have since sought and recieved alternative legal advice.
No sitting on hands.
With regard to your questions about the Special Meeting. That is a meeting called at the request of a group of members concened by the actions of the AAPMBF Board, and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22.
meme
You make two fundemental errors.
The first is failure to reconise that FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES are separate from RESPONSIBILITIES AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.
The second error is the assumption that the rules of the AFAP and the rules of the AAPMBF are the only sets of rules in play here.
Functions and Duties can and are set by the organisational rules. Trustee Responsibilities and Legal Obligations are enshrined in the LAW.
Law trumps rules everytime.
Paul Makin
The REAL irony is that the AFAP, as trustee, sat on it's hands from 07 to 09until it allegedly said that it wanted control of the assets of the MBF
Capt Williams on behalf of his Board agreed to that arrangement. Capt O,Neil replaced Capt Williams as chairman at the subsequent meeting of the AAPMBF Board.
Despite several attempts to do so, to date the AFAP has been unable to arrange that joint consultation due to a lack of co-operation of the AAPMBF Board. AFAP have since sought and recieved alternative legal advice.
No sitting on hands.
With regard to your questions about the Special Meeting. That is a meeting called at the request of a group of members concened by the actions of the AAPMBF Board, and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22.
meme
Interesting, For the sake of clarification let's go back to when the AFAP was Trustee. Tell me who exactly within the AFAP could invoke this right to intervene given that Rule 14(c)2nd para. specifically states;
[ No other board or decision –making organ of the AFAP may perform any functions or duties of the Trustee of the Fund] ?
[ No other board or decision –making organ of the AFAP may perform any functions or duties of the Trustee of the Fund] ?
The first is failure to reconise that FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES are separate from RESPONSIBILITIES AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.
The second error is the assumption that the rules of the AFAP and the rules of the AAPMBF are the only sets of rules in play here.
Functions and Duties can and are set by the organisational rules. Trustee Responsibilities and Legal Obligations are enshrined in the LAW.
Law trumps rules everytime.
Paul Makin
Last edited by paul makin; 30th Aug 2009 at 23:56.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Paul,
I simply asked you "who within the AFAP could invoke this 'right to intervene'?".
Your answer did not address the question at all but rather waffled on about how law trumps rules etc.
Look at the question.
.
Paul,
I simply asked you "who within the AFAP could invoke this 'right to intervene'?".
Your answer did not address the question at all but rather waffled on about how law trumps rules etc.
Look at the question.
.
Last edited by meme; 31st Aug 2009 at 12:06. Reason: format
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further response to Paul Makin,
So Paul in #65 you contradict the legal opinion obtained by the Fund prior to the 2007 rule change, in order that we may have some credence in your words, would you tell us exactly what qualifications you hold in this area??(Or are you just passing on what you have heard around the traps??)
As for the real concern,you hit the nail on the head with this "but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene".So Paul can you remember any past AFAP President who was not a Fund member??Would you care to tell us how many current AFAP members are not Fund members??It would be preposterous to allow those non Fund members to "intervene" under any circumstances and that is why the AFAP is NO LONGER THE TRUSTEE.
You mention democracy and it is indeed dead in the AFAP at the moment.Paul you might like to take us all to the Executve that debated and approved the present actions of the AFAP.Exactly Paul that has not occured to date,the AFAP membership have had no say as this action has been taken unilaterally.
So Paul in #65 you contradict the legal opinion obtained by the Fund prior to the 2007 rule change, in order that we may have some credence in your words, would you tell us exactly what qualifications you hold in this area??(Or are you just passing on what you have heard around the traps??)
As for the real concern,you hit the nail on the head with this "but the Trustee retains the legal responsibility and therefore the right to intervene".So Paul can you remember any past AFAP President who was not a Fund member??Would you care to tell us how many current AFAP members are not Fund members??It would be preposterous to allow those non Fund members to "intervene" under any circumstances and that is why the AFAP is NO LONGER THE TRUSTEE.
You mention democracy and it is indeed dead in the AFAP at the moment.Paul you might like to take us all to the Executve that debated and approved the present actions of the AFAP.Exactly Paul that has not occured to date,the AFAP membership have had no say as this action has been taken unilaterally.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
meme and Bolter
I will combine the response as the questions/comments are similar in nature.
The persons/entity that would invoke the rights of the Trustee, would be the same persons/entity that the AAPMBF Trustees, presumably under legal guidance, deemed to be responsible and appropriate persons to hold the position of Trustee.
They are the same persons/entity that in the past have held as Trustee in excess of $300 million of members personal funds invested in the AFAP-ADF. I haven’t heard any complaints about their activities there.
They would be the same persons/entity that the then chairman of the AAPMBF, Capt Williams, sought Trusteeship for just a couple of years ago. Of course he would have had to resign his AAPMBF chairmanship had he been successful, wouldn’t he?
They would be the same persons/entity that Capt Brownscombe sought Trusteeship for last year, or was it the year before? Of course he would have had to resign as AAPMBF Trustee had he been successful, wouldn’t he?
They would be the same persons/entity that Capt Charlesworth held principal office for, until he resigned that office in 2001. Now refresh my memory, when was Capt Charlesworth elected as a Trustee of the AAPMBF?
Yes there has been at least one AFAP President who was not a member of AAPMBF. How is this relevant, and if by some convoluted means you can make it relevant, this is not a new concept. As a concept it was present when the AAPMBF Board in conjunction with it’s legal advisers deemed the AFAP the Trustee of choice.
As two prestigious law firms, Slater and Gordon, and Price Waterhouse Coopers disagree with the legal opinions touted by the AAPMBF Board, one must surely ask how valid is the opinion that we have been told the Board has, or does it even exist?
When doing a Cat 3B autoland we are comfortable that our aircraft, with triple redundancy are smart enough to ignore an out of tune component, why do our Board have trouble with this concept?
Too many questions and not enough answers.
I intend to vote NO.
Paul Makin
I will combine the response as the questions/comments are similar in nature.
The persons/entity that would invoke the rights of the Trustee, would be the same persons/entity that the AAPMBF Trustees, presumably under legal guidance, deemed to be responsible and appropriate persons to hold the position of Trustee.
They are the same persons/entity that in the past have held as Trustee in excess of $300 million of members personal funds invested in the AFAP-ADF. I haven’t heard any complaints about their activities there.
They would be the same persons/entity that the then chairman of the AAPMBF, Capt Williams, sought Trusteeship for just a couple of years ago. Of course he would have had to resign his AAPMBF chairmanship had he been successful, wouldn’t he?
They would be the same persons/entity that Capt Brownscombe sought Trusteeship for last year, or was it the year before? Of course he would have had to resign as AAPMBF Trustee had he been successful, wouldn’t he?
They would be the same persons/entity that Capt Charlesworth held principal office for, until he resigned that office in 2001. Now refresh my memory, when was Capt Charlesworth elected as a Trustee of the AAPMBF?
Yes there has been at least one AFAP President who was not a member of AAPMBF. How is this relevant, and if by some convoluted means you can make it relevant, this is not a new concept. As a concept it was present when the AAPMBF Board in conjunction with it’s legal advisers deemed the AFAP the Trustee of choice.
As two prestigious law firms, Slater and Gordon, and Price Waterhouse Coopers disagree with the legal opinions touted by the AAPMBF Board, one must surely ask how valid is the opinion that we have been told the Board has, or does it even exist?
When doing a Cat 3B autoland we are comfortable that our aircraft, with triple redundancy are smart enough to ignore an out of tune component, why do our Board have trouble with this concept?
Too many questions and not enough answers.
I intend to vote NO.
Paul Makin
Thread Starter
Paul,
At least Mike, at the first mention of Conflict of Interest, resigned his AFAP officer role immediately, unlike some.
The trusteeship issue is dead. Unless the MBF members change the rules, the AFAP won't ever be the trustee again (just like the last couple of decades except for the last couple of years).
Given the nature of the rule changes put before you (no-brainers, IMO), you are voting NO to teach the MBF a lesson, plain and simple. That's not going to achieve much, is it? Apart from perhaps resulting in the eventual removal of the current MBF trustees...
They would be the same persons/entity that Capt Charlesworth held principal office for, until he resigned that office in 2001. Now refresh my memory, when was Capt Charlesworth elected as a Trustee of the AAPMBF?
The trusteeship issue is dead. Unless the MBF members change the rules, the AFAP won't ever be the trustee again (just like the last couple of decades except for the last couple of years).
Given the nature of the rule changes put before you (no-brainers, IMO), you are voting NO to teach the MBF a lesson, plain and simple. That's not going to achieve much, is it? Apart from perhaps resulting in the eventual removal of the current MBF trustees...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul
You stated on another site that you voted No for the 2007 rule change as there were two many unanswered questions.
Well it didn't work out so where to from here.
The Fund is now in the same position as it was prior to the rule change.
There are many trustee and custodial arrangements around. I think the advice given to the MBF should have been tested by AFAP between there legal advisers.
I doubt that the MBF Board/Trustees would do anything else other than follow this advice and act in other than the best interest of the fund.
but thats history now.
It would appear there has been some agitation for some time from sources outside AFAP executive or the MBF Board/Trustees.
Perhaps this Agitation has resulted in this mess.
Its time we showed support for the MBF Trustees/Board
You stated on another site that you voted No for the 2007 rule change as there were two many unanswered questions.
Well it didn't work out so where to from here.
The Fund is now in the same position as it was prior to the rule change.
There are many trustee and custodial arrangements around. I think the advice given to the MBF should have been tested by AFAP between there legal advisers.
I doubt that the MBF Board/Trustees would do anything else other than follow this advice and act in other than the best interest of the fund.
but thats history now.
It would appear there has been some agitation for some time from sources outside AFAP executive or the MBF Board/Trustees.
Perhaps this Agitation has resulted in this mess.
Its time we showed support for the MBF Trustees/Board
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul,
Your responses appear to be getting more and more personal in nature amplifying the apparent bitterness you hold towards to current MBF Board, with perhaps the exception of the 'dual trustee'.
You have sufficiently demonstrated your belief that the ultimate control and title of the MBF Funds would have been handed over to the Union had the MBF Board complied with the Union's wishes.
Fancy that, all our assets handed over to an organisation that could, within their rules, have a majority of non MBF members serving as Principal Officers, not to mention the Executive.
This has only served to highlight the very issues that have caused grave concern amongst the MBF membership and has further substantiated the move the MBF Board took in reclaiming trusteeship of the organisation they serve.
Now, to return to the central issue;
The MBF Board’s recommendation to vote YES on the proposed Rule changes designed to remove the above loophole along with the well demonstrated potential conflict of issue, is not only appropriate but absolutely necessary if the MBF is to maintain its autonomy.
Paul, you really do seem to have lost all objectivity in this apparent personal vendetta. I think it’s time for you to get over it and move on.
Your responses appear to be getting more and more personal in nature amplifying the apparent bitterness you hold towards to current MBF Board, with perhaps the exception of the 'dual trustee'.
You have sufficiently demonstrated your belief that the ultimate control and title of the MBF Funds would have been handed over to the Union had the MBF Board complied with the Union's wishes.
Fancy that, all our assets handed over to an organisation that could, within their rules, have a majority of non MBF members serving as Principal Officers, not to mention the Executive.
This has only served to highlight the very issues that have caused grave concern amongst the MBF membership and has further substantiated the move the MBF Board took in reclaiming trusteeship of the organisation they serve.
Now, to return to the central issue;
The MBF Board’s recommendation to vote YES on the proposed Rule changes designed to remove the above loophole along with the well demonstrated potential conflict of issue, is not only appropriate but absolutely necessary if the MBF is to maintain its autonomy.
Paul, you really do seem to have lost all objectivity in this apparent personal vendetta. I think it’s time for you to get over it and move on.
Last edited by meme; 1st Sep 2009 at 09:05. Reason: format
Meme
I actually enjoy hearing BOTH sides of this story.
I add a lot of cred as well as to people who are willing to put their real name to their posts.
We are seeing what happens right now when two sides want you to hear only their side of the story.
I actually enjoy hearing BOTH sides of this story.
I add a lot of cred as well as to people who are willing to put their real name to their posts.
We are seeing what happens right now when two sides want you to hear only their side of the story.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fancy that, all our assets handed over to an organisation that could, within their rules, have a majority of non MBF members serving as Principal Officers, not to mention the Executive."
Funny, but last time I checked at least 3 of the current Trustees are not current Financial MBF members either. So the difference would be?
Funny, but last time I checked at least 3 of the current Trustees are not current Financial MBF members either. So the difference would be?
Bloggs
Let me see if I have got this right. Charlesworth as a Principal Officer of the AFAP became aware of some AFAP activity that would be detrimental to the membership of the AAPMBF. As he has a duty of care to the members of the AAPMBF he felt he could not support the AFAP. He therefore took a moral stand and resigned his position with the AFAP.
If those are the circumstances to which you refer, wouldn't it then be Charlesworths responsibility to report to the AAPMBFmembership, how the AFAP was acting to their collective detriment.
Given that this offence occured in or before 2001, why are we only just hearing about it. And what was it that the AFAP was up to.
Maui
At least Mike, at the first mention of Conflict of Interest, resigned his AFAP officer role immediately, unlike some.
If those are the circumstances to which you refer, wouldn't it then be Charlesworths responsibility to report to the AAPMBFmembership, how the AFAP was acting to their collective detriment.
Given that this offence occured in or before 2001, why are we only just hearing about it. And what was it that the AFAP was up to.
Maui
Thread Starter
Maui,
Who said that? I didn't and Mike didn't. He merely felt, since the conflict of interest issue was raised, that the best thing to do was to leave his executive position with the AFAP. There was no suggestion at all that he "couldn't support the AFAP". In fact, he's been an AFAP stalwart for many many years.
he felt he could not support the AFAP.
Bloggs
You're saying then that he could support the AFAP, but he resigned anyway?
If that is the case, given that the nature of the organisations is such that there is no financial profit motive, one can only deduce that it was a procedural matter that would adversely impact on the AAPMBF members. As those guys are also AFAP members wouldn't it be then, in his view, that the AFAP was plotting against a large proportion of it's own members.
As a Principal Officer, if he felt that was the csae, he should surely have notified the membership of what was going on. He did not.
As a Trustee of the AAPMBF, if he felt that was the case, he should surely have notified the membership of what was going on. He did not.
Perhaps the key to this is that; having in 2001 given thumbs down, in 2007 when the structure was to be changed he gave the big bad AFAP the thumbs up as Trustee. Now in 2009 they are bad again, thumbs down.
Talk about an old woman, I just wish he would make up his mind.
If he felt strongly that he sould not be involved in whatever it was that got up his nose he could have recused himself from those deliberations rather than resigning.
If this is the case it sounds more like a petulant dummy spit to me, rather than an exercise in propriety.
Maui
You're saying then that he could support the AFAP, but he resigned anyway?
If that is the case, given that the nature of the organisations is such that there is no financial profit motive, one can only deduce that it was a procedural matter that would adversely impact on the AAPMBF members. As those guys are also AFAP members wouldn't it be then, in his view, that the AFAP was plotting against a large proportion of it's own members.
As a Principal Officer, if he felt that was the csae, he should surely have notified the membership of what was going on. He did not.
As a Trustee of the AAPMBF, if he felt that was the case, he should surely have notified the membership of what was going on. He did not.
Perhaps the key to this is that; having in 2001 given thumbs down, in 2007 when the structure was to be changed he gave the big bad AFAP the thumbs up as Trustee. Now in 2009 they are bad again, thumbs down.
Talk about an old woman, I just wish he would make up his mind.
If he felt strongly that he sould not be involved in whatever it was that got up his nose he could have recused himself from those deliberations rather than resigning.
If this is the case it sounds more like a petulant dummy spit to me, rather than an exercise in propriety.
Maui
Last edited by maui; 2nd Sep 2009 at 07:14.