Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not deleted by me.
Capt. Bloggs
Firstly I did not delete a post. It has been removed by the moderators, without explanation. As this matter is of serious concern to many members I repost here with minor modifications to eliminate those parts to which the moderators may have taken exception.
Rmcdonal,
The folowing is not in accord with what you have assessed from your discussions with the fund. I urge you to follow the analysis before making up your mind.
************************************************************
The important thing here is how Austair is used. To the best of my knowledge the fundamental structure has remained unchanged in the 15 years since I was involved.
Austair is and was intended, to hold the assets but CONTROL of how those assets were applied has never been ceded to the Board of Austair. CONTROL of the application of funds has always been the province of the ELECTED Trustees of the AAPMBF.
We are being asked to change that position, but are being given no opportunity to elect the Board of Austair. Make no mistake, if this vote gets up there are NO ELECTED members in control of the AAPMBF. Trustees are eliminated and there is (currently) no such thing as a Director of AAPMBF. There is nothing to stop the Board of Austair appointing Bob Hawke or Jimmy Bowtie or Geoff Dixon as directors. The UNELECTED Directors of Austair will have full control of the funds, their disposition and the assessment and payment of member benefits. Two of our elected members will cease to hold any position and they will be ordinary members of the AAPMBF with no say in the way things are run.
I know it is a difficult concept, but despite the similarity (but not identicality) of the makeup of the Board of Directors Austair and the Board of Trustees of the AAPMBF, the standing of each is that they are separate legal entities and should be viewed individually. The current situation where the make-up of the Boards does not coincide should emphasise this.
A lot of this could be resolved by the reinstatement of the position of Director of AAPMBF. The current Trustees, either by omission or by commission have not proposed this. If by omission, the ineptitude of those preparing the submission is further revealed. If by commission, this is the most serious attack ever, on the integrity and future of the AAPMBF.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman AAPMBF
Firstly I did not delete a post. It has been removed by the moderators, without explanation. As this matter is of serious concern to many members I repost here with minor modifications to eliminate those parts to which the moderators may have taken exception.
Rmcdonal,
The folowing is not in accord with what you have assessed from your discussions with the fund. I urge you to follow the analysis before making up your mind.
************************************************************
The important thing here is how Austair is used. To the best of my knowledge the fundamental structure has remained unchanged in the 15 years since I was involved.
Austair is and was intended, to hold the assets but CONTROL of how those assets were applied has never been ceded to the Board of Austair. CONTROL of the application of funds has always been the province of the ELECTED Trustees of the AAPMBF.
We are being asked to change that position, but are being given no opportunity to elect the Board of Austair. Make no mistake, if this vote gets up there are NO ELECTED members in control of the AAPMBF. Trustees are eliminated and there is (currently) no such thing as a Director of AAPMBF. There is nothing to stop the Board of Austair appointing Bob Hawke or Jimmy Bowtie or Geoff Dixon as directors. The UNELECTED Directors of Austair will have full control of the funds, their disposition and the assessment and payment of member benefits. Two of our elected members will cease to hold any position and they will be ordinary members of the AAPMBF with no say in the way things are run.
I know it is a difficult concept, but despite the similarity (but not identicality) of the makeup of the Board of Directors Austair and the Board of Trustees of the AAPMBF, the standing of each is that they are separate legal entities and should be viewed individually. The current situation where the make-up of the Boards does not coincide should emphasise this.
A lot of this could be resolved by the reinstatement of the position of Director of AAPMBF. The current Trustees, either by omission or by commission have not proposed this. If by omission, the ineptitude of those preparing the submission is further revealed. If by commission, this is the most serious attack ever, on the integrity and future of the AAPMBF.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman AAPMBF
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul
"The moves we are seeing here are , in my opinion, the precursors to the sale of the Fund to commercial interests."
Kindly name those serving Trustees who support such a "sale".
"The moves we are seeing here are , in my opinion, the precursors to the sale of the Fund to commercial interests."
Kindly name those serving Trustees who support such a "sale".
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rmcdonal,
I'm not a member of the AFAP, and haven't been since I lost my medical in 1987. I got and got 5/8ths of the square root of
-all help from both the AFAP and the MBF at the time, and in the end had to take legal action to get a payout.
I was treated like a criminal rmcdonal, rather than a beneficiary for the benefit that I'd paid heaps for since I joined the AFAP and started to pay for those benefits. My opinion about the then-trustees of the MBF should therefore be obvious!
You say:
If that actually IS the case then there's serious doubts in my mind about the present structure and controls of the fund that would/could allow this potential outcome.
And if there are deficiencies in the processes/controls/procedures of the management of the fund, then obviously the trustees don't know a thing about risk management, or are turning a blind-eye to it!
And if that's the case rmcdonal, then the man on the Clapham Omnibus would probably have no other alternative but to suppport Mr Makin's case for a NO vote.
BTW Bolter.................from the way I read it, Mr Makin DIDN'T suggest that the trustees support such a ''sale''..............you only ASSUMED that he did. All he did was express an OPINION!
Clown!
I'm not a member of the AFAP, and haven't been since I lost my medical in 1987. I got and got 5/8ths of the square root of
-all help from both the AFAP and the MBF at the time, and in the end had to take legal action to get a payout. I was treated like a criminal rmcdonal, rather than a beneficiary for the benefit that I'd paid heaps for since I joined the AFAP and started to pay for those benefits. My opinion about the then-trustees of the MBF should therefore be obvious!
You say:
If one of the directors chooses to flee the country to some tropical island they will not be able to take several million with them (which is the case right now)
And if there are deficiencies in the processes/controls/procedures of the management of the fund, then obviously the trustees don't know a thing about risk management, or are turning a blind-eye to it!
And if that's the case rmcdonal, then the man on the Clapham Omnibus would probably have no other alternative but to suppport Mr Makin's case for a NO vote.
BTW Bolter.................from the way I read it, Mr Makin DIDN'T suggest that the trustees support such a ''sale''..............you only ASSUMED that he did. All he did was express an OPINION!
Clown!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chainsawclown,
I realise he was expressing an opinion, what I am interested in are the facts,if any, that he used to form that opinion.
Go back to 1987 and deal with it and leave us alone, just orf.
I realise he was expressing an opinion, what I am interested in are the facts,if any, that he used to form that opinion.
Go back to 1987 and deal with it and leave us alone, just
orf.
Chainsaw
So the trustees have found a problem and are trying to fix it and your suggestion is to vote against rather then in favour? 
If that actually IS the case then there's serious doubts in my mind about the present structure and controls of the fund that would/could allow this potential outcome.
And if there are deficiencies in the processes/controls/procedures of the management of the fund, then obviously the trustees don't know a thing about risk management, or are turning a blind-eye to it!
And if that's the case rmcdonal, then the man on the Clapham Omnibus would probably have no other alternative but to suppport Mr Makin's case for a NO vote.
And if there are deficiencies in the processes/controls/procedures of the management of the fund, then obviously the trustees don't know a thing about risk management, or are turning a blind-eye to it!
And if that's the case rmcdonal, then the man on the Clapham Omnibus would probably have no other alternative but to suppport Mr Makin's case for a NO vote.
Thread Starter
Paul,
This is probably the reason:
http://www.pprune.org/5619893-post320.html
I did not delete a post. It has been removed by the moderators, without explanation.
http://www.pprune.org/5619893-post320.html
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bolter.
As you are obviously well connected, and probably involved, could you enlighten us.
Lets hypothesise that the proposed rules are voted up:
There are no individual Trustees of the AAPMBF, they have been eliminated in the rule change of 2010 and the corporate Trustee Austair appointed in their place.
There are no Directors of AAPMBF. They were eliminated in the rule change of 2009.
Members of AAPMBF (approximately 2000 strong) are not members of Austair as the Articles of Association of that organisation limit the membership to a total of 50. (By the way who are the 50 and what are the qualifications for membership?)
Austair has no constitution.
Austair is a separate legal entity from AAPMBF
Austair has no rules allowing the participation of any other legal entity (or the members of any separate legal entity) to be involved in the appointment of Directors of Austair.
Just how is it that the members of AAPMBF can be involved or in any way guide the direction of their Fund and its finances, when they have no elected representatives, and they have no mechanism to appoint Directors or in any other way control the functioning of Austair, which is to be ceded CONTROL of the fund and its finances.
In short; how can the members of AAPMBF elect the directors of Austair?
Who, and to what roles, do the members of AAPMBF have any mechanism to elect, in any organisation, including their own AAPMBF ?
Paul Makin
Former Chairman AAPMBF
As you are obviously well connected, and probably involved, could you enlighten us.
Lets hypothesise that the proposed rules are voted up:
There are no individual Trustees of the AAPMBF, they have been eliminated in the rule change of 2010 and the corporate Trustee Austair appointed in their place.
There are no Directors of AAPMBF. They were eliminated in the rule change of 2009.
Members of AAPMBF (approximately 2000 strong) are not members of Austair as the Articles of Association of that organisation limit the membership to a total of 50. (By the way who are the 50 and what are the qualifications for membership?)
Austair has no constitution.
Austair is a separate legal entity from AAPMBF
Austair has no rules allowing the participation of any other legal entity (or the members of any separate legal entity) to be involved in the appointment of Directors of Austair.
Just how is it that the members of AAPMBF can be involved or in any way guide the direction of their Fund and its finances, when they have no elected representatives, and they have no mechanism to appoint Directors or in any other way control the functioning of Austair, which is to be ceded CONTROL of the fund and its finances.
In short; how can the members of AAPMBF elect the directors of Austair?
Who, and to what roles, do the members of AAPMBF have any mechanism to elect, in any organisation, including their own AAPMBF ?
Paul Makin
Former Chairman AAPMBF
Last edited by paul makin; 15th Apr 2010 at 01:58.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bolter
More than 4 days have now elapsed since I posed two questions of fact. Should we assume that your reluctance to answer these fundamental concepts of the current proposals, is because you have no argument with the conclusions I have proffered.
Could it be that you have now realised the enormous holes in the proposal as put, or is it that you already knew, and hoped that by ignoring the questions they might disappear. Maybe your mate meme could assist.
Let’s go a step further.
Given that all elected representatives disappear with the passage of the current vote:
Obviously Austair will incur costs in the control/administration of AAPMBF. Remember that the Directors of Austair are taking over all the functions of the previous Trustees of AAPMBF, and there are now no ELECTED members of AAPMBF or Austair.
What is there to stop those who control Austair, from awarding to Austair extravagant administrative charges against the AAPMBF for controlling the fund?
Ms Wendy Sharon Boffa is the registered Key Person on whom Austair’s Financial Services License depends. How is Ms Boffa to be employed by and reimbursed by Austair, a separate legal entity from AAPMBF.
What is there to prevent Austair from awarding it’s Directors, substantial Directors Fees? The current manager (AAPMBF) has openly stated that paid Trustees/Directors is her preferred means of Direction.
What is there to prevent Austair turning into a profit centre for it’s shareholders? All nine of them. As the only activity currently proposed for Austair is the control of AAPMBF, it is obvious where the profit would need to be derived.
Austair filed with ASIC, a reservation of a name change on 23rd March 2010, a week before Capt O’Neil sent out his flawed documents.
What is the purpose of the change of name which removes all reference to the MBF?
Why was the new name not mentioned or used in the rule change documentation?
This is without doubt either; the most inept or, alternatively the most sinister and devious rule change in the history of the AAPMBF.
It might very well be that what the majority of Trustees intended may be in our best interests, however the holes in the proposal are so large and the potential for the destruction of our fund is so strong, we cannot afford to allow this change to go through unaltered.
VOTE NO. Force the Trustees to rework, and to properly explain what it is they are trying to achieve.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF
More than 4 days have now elapsed since I posed two questions of fact. Should we assume that your reluctance to answer these fundamental concepts of the current proposals, is because you have no argument with the conclusions I have proffered.
Could it be that you have now realised the enormous holes in the proposal as put, or is it that you already knew, and hoped that by ignoring the questions they might disappear. Maybe your mate meme could assist.
Let’s go a step further.
Given that all elected representatives disappear with the passage of the current vote:
Obviously Austair will incur costs in the control/administration of AAPMBF. Remember that the Directors of Austair are taking over all the functions of the previous Trustees of AAPMBF, and there are now no ELECTED members of AAPMBF or Austair.
What is there to stop those who control Austair, from awarding to Austair extravagant administrative charges against the AAPMBF for controlling the fund?
Ms Wendy Sharon Boffa is the registered Key Person on whom Austair’s Financial Services License depends. How is Ms Boffa to be employed by and reimbursed by Austair, a separate legal entity from AAPMBF.
What is there to prevent Austair from awarding it’s Directors, substantial Directors Fees? The current manager (AAPMBF) has openly stated that paid Trustees/Directors is her preferred means of Direction.
What is there to prevent Austair turning into a profit centre for it’s shareholders? All nine of them. As the only activity currently proposed for Austair is the control of AAPMBF, it is obvious where the profit would need to be derived.
Austair filed with ASIC, a reservation of a name change on 23rd March 2010, a week before Capt O’Neil sent out his flawed documents.
What is the purpose of the change of name which removes all reference to the MBF?
Why was the new name not mentioned or used in the rule change documentation?
This is without doubt either; the most inept or, alternatively the most sinister and devious rule change in the history of the AAPMBF.
It might very well be that what the majority of Trustees intended may be in our best interests, however the holes in the proposal are so large and the potential for the destruction of our fund is so strong, we cannot afford to allow this change to go through unaltered.
VOTE NO. Force the Trustees to rework, and to properly explain what it is they are trying to achieve.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF
Thread Starter
Paul,
Your continued thinly-veiled implication that the MBF trustees are corrupt by doing this is disgusting and is doing your credibility no good. As far as witch-hunts go, yours takes the cake.
I will say it again: HO is an honourable man who is trying to do the right thing by the MBF members and return control of the fund to the members, not the AFAP. To suggest otherwise smacks of a hidden agenda by his accusers.
alternatively the most sinister and devious rule change in the history of the AAPMBF.
I will say it again: HO is an honourable man who is trying to do the right thing by the MBF members and return control of the fund to the members, not the AFAP. To suggest otherwise smacks of a hidden agenda by his accusers.
Bloggs, it is not just Paul who has an issue here. I have submitted my queries (in writing), casting no aspersions on any individual, and received a completely unsatisfactory response. I am curious as to why you defend the indefensible ie complete and utter non-communication with a members legitimate queries. The floor is yours.......
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The World
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs,
You seem to be missing the point..... HO may well have honourable intentions however this misconcieved plan may just result in an outcome opposed to his intent.
Paul and others have posed a series of valid questions which highlight the risk that HO and his team are exposing the AAAMBF members to. These continue to go unanswered. The stoney silence does nothing to allay the concerns of the membership.
I will never vote for a rule change which is being forced on the members in such circumstances.
There is a real risk that members' control of the AAPMBF will be lost.
You seem to be missing the point..... HO may well have honourable intentions however this misconcieved plan may just result in an outcome opposed to his intent.
Paul and others have posed a series of valid questions which highlight the risk that HO and his team are exposing the AAAMBF members to. These continue to go unanswered. The stoney silence does nothing to allay the concerns of the membership.
I will never vote for a rule change which is being forced on the members in such circumstances.
There is a real risk that members' control of the AAPMBF will be lost.
Bloggs,
"hidden agenda" ?
Oh the irony! Why all the subterfuge? Why can't they satisfactorially explain what they're up to? Are these the actions of "honourable men"?
So many questions and zero answers.
"hidden agenda" ?
Oh the irony! Why all the subterfuge? Why can't they satisfactorially explain what they're up to? Are these the actions of "honourable men"?
So many questions and zero answers.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
Always a good tactic. When you have no answers make it personal and deflect from the real issues.
If you would read properly what I have written, the “sinister and devious” comment applies in the alternative to an inept presentation. To put it simply, the submission is inept for all the reasons mentioned in previous posts. If it can be proved that the glaring mis-truths and holes in the proposed structure are deliberate and not because of a lack of application, THEN the only other conclusion is that they are “sinister and devious” If you can give a third (or more) explanation of how this all holds together I will be happy to hear it.
As you are well aware, (it was stated in my deleted and now modified post, which you read), it is my opinion that Harry does not understand that which he has put up or which is put up under his signature. Harry has a long and commendable history of service to the aviation community, it is a pity to see all that disappearing under the influence of some around him, who may be working to a different agenda. Unfortunately when you actively seek to run a secret society, speculation, rumour and innuendo will flourish in the absence of hard evidence.
There are currently 8 questions on the table, 2 in post #149 and 6 in post # 150. If you can secure an adequate response to those you will go a long way to resolving this vexing and serious issue. Thus far you have made no constructive contribution other than to display a commendable (but possibly misguided) loyalty to a close friend.
Paul Makin
Always a good tactic. When you have no answers make it personal and deflect from the real issues.
If you would read properly what I have written, the “sinister and devious” comment applies in the alternative to an inept presentation. To put it simply, the submission is inept for all the reasons mentioned in previous posts. If it can be proved that the glaring mis-truths and holes in the proposed structure are deliberate and not because of a lack of application, THEN the only other conclusion is that they are “sinister and devious” If you can give a third (or more) explanation of how this all holds together I will be happy to hear it.
As you are well aware, (it was stated in my deleted and now modified post, which you read), it is my opinion that Harry does not understand that which he has put up or which is put up under his signature. Harry has a long and commendable history of service to the aviation community, it is a pity to see all that disappearing under the influence of some around him, who may be working to a different agenda. Unfortunately when you actively seek to run a secret society, speculation, rumour and innuendo will flourish in the absence of hard evidence.
There are currently 8 questions on the table, 2 in post #149 and 6 in post # 150. If you can secure an adequate response to those you will go a long way to resolving this vexing and serious issue. Thus far you have made no constructive contribution other than to display a commendable (but possibly misguided) loyalty to a close friend.
Paul Makin
Last edited by paul makin; 20th Apr 2010 at 04:29.
Thread Starter
Paul,
I started this thread. I will happily close it down if you continue in this vein.
Bloggs
Always a good tactic. When you have no answers make it personal and deflect from the real issues.
Always a good tactic. When you have no answers make it personal and deflect from the real issues.
Thus far you have made no constructive contribution other than to display a commendable (but possibly misguided) loyalty to a close friend.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul,
Why don't you "secure the answers" for yourself and just cut the crap. It is obvious that there are no Trustees that want "to sell the Fund" and that notion of yours is typical of the garbage that comes from you. Treat us all and get a hobby.
Why don't you "secure the answers" for yourself and just cut the crap. It is obvious that there are no Trustees that want "to sell the Fund" and that notion of yours is typical of the garbage that comes from you. Treat us all and get a hobby.
Whispering "T" Jet
I started this thread. I will happily close it down if you continue in this vein.
That's like saying "If you don't play cricket by my rules, I'm taking my bat and ball and going home"
