Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bolter
As I secure the answers myself, based on the documentation and the “briefing” given to the membership at large; the answers to all the questions are “no” or “none”.
The purpose in proposing the questions was to allow those of you on the outer-inner circle or those within the inner circle, to demonstrate that I have it wrong. I would be happy to be corrected, with empirical evidence rather than vague opinions expressed in anonymity.
If Austair had a framework that allowed the AAPMBF to elect, and by that control, the Directors of Austair, and if the AAPMBF still had elected members after the vote, all would be well.
There are no rules that allow the AAPMBF members to control the representation of Austair. Any vague assertion by the rules of AAPMBF, have absolutely no effect unless there is an enabling rule within the rules or the constitution of Austair. Currently there are no such rules and Austair has no constitution.
This is all about the structure and relationship of the organisations going forward.
When voting we must look at it being in effect for a considerable time with probable changes of principal players.
Once this vote goes through, if it is in the affirmative the members of AAPMBF will not have anyone to vote for.
There will be no “real person” Trustees of AAPMBF, just a corporate Trustee.
There are no Directors of AAPMBF, and there can be no Directors of AAPMBF unless and until the rules (rules 1 and 14) define and regulate that position.
There is nothing within the established rules of Austair, to allow the membership of AAPMBF to have any say, vote, or influence over the conduct of Austair.
The restrictions that we (AAPMBF) have in place limit our current Trustees, inter alia they:
can only serve one term (conditionally) after cessation of fund membership
must rotate on three yearly cycle,
they can be removed by AGM or Special GM
must be AFAP
As proposed NONE OF THESE WILL APPLY TO DIRECTORS OF Austair.
It may be that the Directors in their enlightened benevolence will transfer the current AAPMBF restrictions to apply to Austair Directors, but they haven’t at this point in time, they only seek to transfer the CONTROL of the Fund. When or if they they do, I will be happy to consider a yes vote.
Until that time I intend to VOTE NO.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF.
As I secure the answers myself, based on the documentation and the “briefing” given to the membership at large; the answers to all the questions are “no” or “none”.
The purpose in proposing the questions was to allow those of you on the outer-inner circle or those within the inner circle, to demonstrate that I have it wrong. I would be happy to be corrected, with empirical evidence rather than vague opinions expressed in anonymity.
If Austair had a framework that allowed the AAPMBF to elect, and by that control, the Directors of Austair, and if the AAPMBF still had elected members after the vote, all would be well.
There are no rules that allow the AAPMBF members to control the representation of Austair. Any vague assertion by the rules of AAPMBF, have absolutely no effect unless there is an enabling rule within the rules or the constitution of Austair. Currently there are no such rules and Austair has no constitution.
This is all about the structure and relationship of the organisations going forward.
When voting we must look at it being in effect for a considerable time with probable changes of principal players.
Once this vote goes through, if it is in the affirmative the members of AAPMBF will not have anyone to vote for.
There will be no “real person” Trustees of AAPMBF, just a corporate Trustee.
There are no Directors of AAPMBF, and there can be no Directors of AAPMBF unless and until the rules (rules 1 and 14) define and regulate that position.
There is nothing within the established rules of Austair, to allow the membership of AAPMBF to have any say, vote, or influence over the conduct of Austair.
The restrictions that we (AAPMBF) have in place limit our current Trustees, inter alia they:
can only serve one term (conditionally) after cessation of fund membership
must rotate on three yearly cycle,
they can be removed by AGM or Special GM
must be AFAP
As proposed NONE OF THESE WILL APPLY TO DIRECTORS OF Austair.
It may be that the Directors in their enlightened benevolence will transfer the current AAPMBF restrictions to apply to Austair Directors, but they haven’t at this point in time, they only seek to transfer the CONTROL of the Fund. When or if they they do, I will be happy to consider a yes vote.
Until that time I intend to VOTE NO.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul,
That is a load of rubbish, please keep to the facts and if you are unable to bring yourself to do that kindly add the following introduction,
"The following is a load of shŁt and as such should not be taken seriously".
That is a load of rubbish, please keep to the facts and if you are unable to bring yourself to do that kindly add the following introduction,
"The following is a load of shŁt and as such should not be taken seriously".
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melb, Oz.
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which part specifically is a "load of rubbish" Bolter?
Very interested observer and at this stage severely lacking information from MBF and unless persuaded otherwise will be a "NO" vote.
Very interested observer and at this stage severely lacking information from MBF and unless persuaded otherwise will be a "NO" vote.
Bolter, at least Paul raises his concern in a rational and thought out way that allows constructive debate.
I've seen more constructive arguments than you mount at my kids kindie.
Today I got the bill in the mail from the MBF and a ONE line email telling me I should just vote yes with nine names printed under it that really could have come from anywhere, maybe even from the kindie.
I've seen more constructive arguments than you mount at my kids kindie.
Today I got the bill in the mail from the MBF and a ONE line email telling me I should just vote yes with nine names printed under it that really could have come from anywhere, maybe even from the kindie.
Not all those named in the email want a Yes vote. 1 phone call after I received the email confirmed that it is far from a united front. So why the subterfuge, why the misrepresentation?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are always two sides (sometimes more) to any argument/discussion/debate etc - and in this thread that is patently obvious. What strikes me, though, is that one side is putting forward some questions to which proper answers would help resolve a lot of the mystery about the proposal. Lacking, unfortunately, are those proper answers and instead accusations of "a load of rubbish" etc are forthcoming. I would have thought that proper rebuttal, if possible, of some of the points raised would have served the other side's argument better and give that stance some credibility.
What is being asked of the members is of significant importance and they are entitled to all the facts, and that includes proper answers to any questions that are raised. Accurate information will serve far better than any mud slinging or personal attacks.
What is being asked of the members is of significant importance and they are entitled to all the facts, and that includes proper answers to any questions that are raised. Accurate information will serve far better than any mud slinging or personal attacks.
Perhaps these questions should be asked to the MBF, not in an open forum in hope of response (not saying don't post your Qs here, but just don't expect an answer here). I hear that no one has actually called the MBF to ask any of these questions, not even Paul M who is asking them so loudly here on PPRuNe. 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melb, Oz.
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Bolter, answers my question once again. No rational, reasonable response whatsoever. I'm giving it til the end of the month for some reasonable information from MBF and or discussion here and if none it will be a "NO" for me.
RM, you are incorrectly informed. If you read one of my previous posts, I contacted the MBF with questions, and received a complete non-answer in a patronising tone for my troubles. So Bolter- what aggressive response do you have for that?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rmcdonal
For what it is worth, I do not think this is the appropriate forum for these discussions. However from past experience, the office of the AAPMBF will not allow access to the members. I have sought to have the AAPMBF disseminate information, totally at my cost, only to be rebuffed. They will not grant access to the membership address list (privacy concerns), neither will they send out on my behalf, a circular.
This and similar fora are the only way to raise awareness amongst the membership. Alas the other side, our elected representatives, will not rise to the challenge and openly or directly respond to legitimate questions and concerns. Harry’s customary response to my queries is; we have considered it, thank-you for you interest.
Dissenting views are neither encouraged nor facilitated. Trustees are gagged. So much for the espoused commitment to the democratic process.
Seven questions. Zero answers. Nil official comment, just anonymous slagging.
Rmcdonal, you are obviously satisfied with the answers you have. Tell us this;
As an AAPMBF member, who will you be able to elect, in either the AAPMBF or Austair, if the rules, as proposed, are passed? Bolter will not answer, perhaps you might be able to.
(Slasher. Not scruffy or his son. I used to wear a white shirt, not blue.)
Paul Makin
For what it is worth, I do not think this is the appropriate forum for these discussions. However from past experience, the office of the AAPMBF will not allow access to the members. I have sought to have the AAPMBF disseminate information, totally at my cost, only to be rebuffed. They will not grant access to the membership address list (privacy concerns), neither will they send out on my behalf, a circular.
This and similar fora are the only way to raise awareness amongst the membership. Alas the other side, our elected representatives, will not rise to the challenge and openly or directly respond to legitimate questions and concerns. Harry’s customary response to my queries is; we have considered it, thank-you for you interest.
Dissenting views are neither encouraged nor facilitated. Trustees are gagged. So much for the espoused commitment to the democratic process.
Seven questions. Zero answers. Nil official comment, just anonymous slagging.
Rmcdonal, you are obviously satisfied with the answers you have. Tell us this;
As an AAPMBF member, who will you be able to elect, in either the AAPMBF or Austair, if the rules, as proposed, are passed? Bolter will not answer, perhaps you might be able to.
(Slasher. Not scruffy or his son. I used to wear a white shirt, not blue.)
Paul Makin
Last edited by paul makin; 27th Apr 2010 at 21:11.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps these questions should be asked to the MBF,
The key to putting your case, any case, is effective communication. It's just not happening with the MBF.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been monitoring this forum for a while now and I've got to say, the questions posed by Paul Makin are nothing short of reasonable and downright logical!!
Seriously Paul....What were you hoping to gain???......Some sort of rational answer or meaningful debate.
This is Pprune after all!!!!!!
Jocularity aside, I totally concur with Paul's concerns, and for the life of me cannot understand why the MBF are so reluctant to answer them.
I can only put it down to 2 things....
1. either they had not considered these points and are at a loss as to how to explain this oversight
OR
2. there is something going on that they do not want the members to know about.
I have been a long-time member of the MBF and support this body for the work they do, but organisations such as these have to remain answerable to their membership and to do so need to have elected representatives in control.
Unfortunately, it appears that a "yes" vote will not achieve this, so it is a "No" from me this time round.
Hans
Seriously Paul....What were you hoping to gain???......Some sort of rational answer or meaningful debate.
This is Pprune after all!!!!!!
Jocularity aside, I totally concur with Paul's concerns, and for the life of me cannot understand why the MBF are so reluctant to answer them.
I can only put it down to 2 things....
1. either they had not considered these points and are at a loss as to how to explain this oversight
OR
2. there is something going on that they do not want the members to know about.
I have been a long-time member of the MBF and support this body for the work they do, but organisations such as these have to remain answerable to their membership and to do so need to have elected representatives in control.
Unfortunately, it appears that a "yes" vote will not achieve this, so it is a "No" from me this time round.
Hans
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..........and I think the NO's have it. 
Unfortunately, and based on his/her past track record here on this thread, The Dolter will inevitably have a churlish and aggressively offensive opposing point of view that will undoudbtedly be expressed with his/her usual spiteful 'tone and tenor' that suggests a VERY worrying lack of interpersonal skills on his/her behalf, especially if he/she is actually a practising flight crew member.
Nah
The Bolter has bolted. Unable to answer questions or apply rational discussion, the straw man/woman has blown off in the wind. Good ridance I say.
By the way has anyone seen or heard anything of that other stalwart Capt Bloggs?
Maui
The Bolter has bolted. Unable to answer questions or apply rational discussion, the straw man/woman has blown off in the wind. Good ridance I say.
By the way has anyone seen or heard anything of that other stalwart Capt Bloggs?
Maui
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maui......
Looks like it! 
BTW, my reference to The Bolter as 'The Dolter' wasn't a typo............from the Urban Dictionary - definition of a DOLT:
- A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time. Many times they are oblivious to their own mental incapacity.
- A mental retard who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock. "Dolt" may be the most sophisticated insult in the English language.
- Dolts ... engage in stupid actions or make stupid comments.
- A very stupid person.
- A trivial inane person who tends to be elevated or promoted to a higher standing than warranted due to having ridiculous delusions of grandeur. A dolt is right at home in the political arena.
Says it all, really, don't you think?
Bloggs, like a good captain, appears to have gone down with the sinking ship along with The Dolter.
Maybe Paul Makin will get some sense for the MBF members with those two now perhaps out of the way?
The Bolter has bolted
BTW, my reference to The Bolter as 'The Dolter' wasn't a typo............from the Urban Dictionary - definition of a DOLT:
- A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time. Many times they are oblivious to their own mental incapacity.
- A mental retard who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock. "Dolt" may be the most sophisticated insult in the English language.
- Dolts ... engage in stupid actions or make stupid comments.
- A very stupid person.
- A trivial inane person who tends to be elevated or promoted to a higher standing than warranted due to having ridiculous delusions of grandeur. A dolt is right at home in the political arena.
Says it all, really, don't you think?
Bloggs, like a good captain, appears to have gone down with the sinking ship along with The Dolter.
Maybe Paul Makin will get some sense for the MBF members with those two now perhaps out of the way?
Last edited by chainsaw; 30th Apr 2010 at 11:18.