Mark Whitaker Campaign for AAPMBF Trustee

[The Kelpie]

When do the voting papers get issued?

The intention of the fund is clear, 'for pilots by pilots' time to change the dynamic and fight for a fund that offers a level of protection for the pilots of today and the future - all of them, not just multi-crew guys!! That will never happen with dinosaurs on the board.

As a ex legal eagle myself I recognised some time ago that the scheme's policy needs an overhaul in the face of constantly changing CASA policies etc. The members gave the Chairman the mandate to do so, but this never eventuated. The matter of single pilot provisions raised by Paul Makin is of particular concern as is the boards apparent continued reluctance to review and make changes where necessary.

The fund can not just be a vehicle to extract premiums from companys through the award provisions to line the pockets of a few chosen individuals, it must be a real safety net to those it was originally designed to protect!!

My vote this year will be a well considered one and you very well may get it Mark as your intentions, claim aside seem to be in the right place.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[slice]

hmmmm Wobby, you better put up or shut up! Please tell us why the rules are 'beyond' Paul Makin ? Explain in detail what about his posts make him a sciolist ? I, not being intimately familiar with the fund rules, can't be sure one way or the other, but as mentioned previously at least he puts forward an eloquent argument as opposed to the silly accusation from yourself. I don't find the term 'toxic mix' in any way outrageous if in someones' opinion that is what we have.

[clear to land]

True colours shown Wobby? I sent correspondance to the Fund Director asking about the changes required to protect single pilot ops (which is not me btw). The reply would be worthy of a Labour politician! As you appear to be knowledgeable about current fund management, and condemning of PM's rational and well put arguement, perhaps you would like to counter it in a similar vein. If you can I will certainly pay attention. If not-then I, and anyone else reading, can only come to one conclusion. Over to you.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Kelpie

The fund can not just be a vehicle to extract premiums from companys through the award provisions to line the pockets of a few chosen individuals

You know Kelpie, I had a lot of respect for you over the senate stuff, but with comments like the one above, I am now beginning to wonder why. That is in the same class as Paul's toxic mix.

As for public spats on the internet, obviously the MBF board are not into that sort of thing, and fair enough too. Perhaps if the truth was revealed to the masses the critics may have a slightly different view on the whole MBF situation. I have said before that I have the utmost respect for the MBF board members I know and some of the conspiracy theories espoused here about them and their actions are so far wide of the mark it's a joke. The incumbents have worked bloody hard to tidy the whole show up to the point of it being a first-class operation.

Originally Posted by Makin

Fortunately two members of the old guard are time expired

Old...and wise.

12 months to make a big change a rule? Are you actually aware of the process that is required to get it right?

[The Kelpie]

You know Kelpie, I had a lot of respect for you over the senate stuff, but with comments like the one above, I am now beginning to wonder why. That is in the same class as Paul's toxic mix.

Thank You Bloggs.

Unfortunately it is just a way of the world that our views will not always align and I just deal with issues as I see them based on the information I have to hand.

Cheers

The Kelpie

[Mark Whitaker]

* Capn Bloggs

Perhaps if the truth was revealed to the masses the critics may have a slightly different view on the whole MBF situation.

You have nailed the problem with the current Trustees.

Their communication skills are non existent, they have not corresponded with me and I have a claim and they do not correspond with the general membership.

That is why if I am elected I would push for a transparent, open and communicative MBF.

Your statement re-enforces the general conception, true or false, that it is a “Secret Society”.

All of the above accusations all come down to their refusal to communicate with membership.


Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Algie]

Hypothesis: Lack of transparency in the Board's deliberations?

Reality: If the Qantas Board, or Rex, or Federal Cabinet, or CASA or any other outfit which is the subject of complaint posts on Prune had the same level of access, accountability and transparency the posts on Pprune would fall by 80%

I am not a fund member, have not made a claim on the Fund, am not a secret supporter of the election of any Board member, am not standing for election and don't even live in Australia any more.....but I have had a long career with peace of mind knowing the MBF is there. I would bet my Collingwood membership that there are no secret societies involved in the MBF. No black helicopters, secret handshakes, slush funds, Area 51 or hideaways for the Second Gunman.

There is however an impressive list of member privileges and protections:

• It only takes 20 members to call for it and there has to be a Special Meeting where questions can be asked, motions put, positions spilled. The quorum for a Special meeting is only 10.
• There is an Annual General Meeting each year
• The Fund has a Financial Services Licence and is answerable to that regulator for both regular reports as well as as mandatory reporting of key events
• The Fund’s accounts are audited
• The Fund’s rules are published
• Members get to vote on every rule change
• The address and telephone number of the Fund are published
• All the board members are elected
• Member claims are reviewed every month an grievances can be taken to court or the Ombudsman

Two things will never change-and thank goodness:

1. The Board DOES NOT discuss private and confidential members medical situations in public forums
2. The MBF has only one purpose, to look after pilots and their families.

Mark-you are receiving a handsome monthly payment with no strings and for no work from the very Fund you are publicly bucketing. I don't know you but may I suggest that is beneath you. The fact that the Board has not yet decided on an outcome that suits you is not by itself prima facie evidence of collusion, conspiracy or malevolence.

I am sure you are working extremely hard to get your medical back and I am sure I join all Pruners in wishing you well

Algie

[twodogsflying]

Algie,

I am not sure where you are coming from; your first post on this thread looks like a bunch a questions from a Lawyer.

Your handle has you from Brisbane, but you no longer live in Australia.

You are not a member:

.....but I have had a long career with peace of mind knowing the MBF is there.

If you are not a member why would you use that statement and post in the way you have?

Sui Generis

[Algie]

Fairly clear-I am retired, I am not a lawyer, was a happy MBF member for many years, Brisbane is home, but I live elsewhere. I remain an ardent fan of the AFAP and the MBF.

I have simply posted some facts-from my old copy of the rulebook and yes it might be out of date-and some opinion about the board-which has Mark W has pointed out we are all entitled to.

I might note that I, like many others beaten to death by the stock market, live in retirement on (probably as I do not know the detail) a lower monthly income than Mark has from the Fund and unlike Mark I do not have years left in me to get my licence back and return to flying.

I am sure Mark is working hard to get back to the cockpit and I sincerely wish him well. Though I am no longer eligible to vote for Mark I wish him well for the elections knowing that if elected he will be duty bound to act diligently in the interests of all Fund members, not just those who are vocal or aggrieved.

Algie

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Mark Whitaker

they have not corresponded with me...

Really? You have posted here various correspondences between you and the MBF. It's just that you don't like what the MBF is saying. Are you telling us everything about the communication between you and the MBF?

I say again: Perhaps if the truth was revealed to the masses, the critics here may have a slightly different view on the whole MBF situation.

As for your AFAP point:

· Bringing the AFAP back from the cold and having a full time Trustee from the AFAP as the fund was originally set up.

The MBF is far better off with the new structure. The AFAP/MBF "old boys club" is no longer appropriate in this day and age of accountability. Serious money is involved and serious, unbiased decisions need to be made. I am a member of the AFAP but not the MBF, and I or the people repesenting me at the AFAP have no business in the affairs of the MBF. What exactly is the point of having an AFAP appointee on the MBF board if not to influence it's activities, obviously for the good of the AFAP?

At the instigation of the current board members (those old has-beens), the MBF is more transparent than ever, with all members getting to opportunity to vote via secret ballot as opposed to the previous show of hands of interested members at AGMs.

Originally Posted by Twodogs

.....but I have had a long career with peace of mind knowing the MBF is there.

If you are not a member why would you use that statement and post in the way you have?

Perhaps he's retired?

[Mark Whitaker]

Capn Bloggs,

Yes you have pulled me up with an untruth, They have corresponded with me, but I had no correspodanse as to the reason why my Capital Claim has been rejected for the passed 12 months since the 15 months clause came into effect. I only got that correspondance after starting this thread.

If you believe that acceptable fair enough, I on the other hand do not think that is acceptable. That is why I am standing as a Trustee, allowing myself to all and sundry here on Pprune.

At least here on Pprune members are getting to know me, hopefully asking themselves serious questions and then vote according to what they want there elected Trustees to do.

Your statement:

At the instigation of the current board members (those old has-beens), the MBF is more transparent than ever...

Why should I beleive all members should be asking the current Trustees:
1. Did you know of the Ombudsmans restriction of a maximum $280K enforcable payout?
2. Do some Trustees or Staff know of this restriction, if they do, why where some of the other Trustees not told?
3. If none of the Trustees or Staff know of this restriction, then that opens up a can of worms.
4. If the Restriction is known, why was the membership not told?
5. If it was known, why has Rule 13 not changed to reflect full payment if the Ombudsman finds in favour of the Member?

I have no idea what individual Trustees know or do not know, but my finding out this information having being forced down the Ombudsman road and not being informed by the Trustees or the Rules open up all of the above questions and in my opinion is not an Open and Transparent MBF.

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Wobby]

Makin,

8b has nothing to do with Whitaker at the moment, he still has years to go on monthly benefits before it is applicable. Where is the evidence to support your claim that " the board is not in agreement"? Rule 7j gives the board the vehicle to obtain another view. There is no rule that demands a unanimous decision amongst board members.
You are a pathetic individual and both the Federation and the Fund would be much better off without you.

[paul makin]

WOBBY

I do not intended not to get dragged into the purile slagging match that seems to be moving, however I cannot let your interpretations of the rules go unchallenged.

Point 1:
Rule 8 (b) states “ Any member who has been receiving benefits from the Fund may be required, at a time designated by the Trustee, prior to the date that the final benefit payments may become due, submit to an independent medical examination at the expense of the Fund for the purpose of determining………………………..”

The time is any time determined by the Trustee, prior to the date of final payment. It does not state “immediately before” “at the time of” “X months before” or anything similar.

At the time of the Trustee’s choosing an independent medical examination may be commissioned. It was and it has been carried out. The specialist opinion confirmed the previous two and they unanamously recommended medical intervention as opposed to surgical.

Point 2: Confidential source

Point 3:
Rule 7 (j) states: “ Any member making application for benefits from the Fund shall, if required by the Trustee, submit to an independent medical examination at the expense of the Fund for the purpose of ascertaining the nature and extent of the notified disability.”

“Making application”, equivalent “ At the time of application” . Where any doubt exists as to the veracity of a claim the Trustee has an obligation to seek verification prior to the commencement of payments. If they have no such doubts they are not obliged to seek that verification. This is the norm and it is the way they treated Mark’s condition. Mark was assessed as genuine and payments commenced accordingly. If they had any doubts, but failed to invoke 7(j) prior to commencing payments they would be in breach.

Point 4: Don’t know where you are coming from on that one, but decisions of the Trustee are required to be a majority of those present in most circumstances, and a majority of all the Directors in other circumstances. (refer to the secret constitution of Austair).

Paul Makin

[Wobby]

1) This rule is how to deal with a member who is approaching their final payment,that is #60 and by Marks posts he is way off that,ergo nothing to do with him at the moment.
2) Very funny
3) Do payments not normally start once the claimant produces evidence of failure? (Remembering the expiration/90 day rule).
4) Your reference to 8b and the board being not in agreement and under the rules is bollocks.

This board is oh so secretive they have been inviting members to participate in the 50 years of the fund with a feed and a bevie or two.

[paul makin]

Wobby.

The Board's decisions, including its decision to pay monthly benefits, are made under the rules read as a whole (specifically the letter and spirit of Rules 7 and 8) on medical advice.

Capt. Harget 20 October 2011.

By Capt Harget’s own words, Rule 8 has been in play. By the actions of the Trustee in calling for an independent opinion, and appointing the appropriate specialist, Rule 8(b) has been in play.

Rule 8 comes into play at any time beyond 15months and before 60 months, as deemed appropriate by the Board. There is no specified requirement to run out to 60 months.

Reference your point 3). Within the rules there are four references to ninety days. 11 (a) and 11(b) refer to notification requirements. Rules 7(f) refers to eligibility (90 days or at expiration of sick leave) and rule 7 (i) deals with recurrence of a disability. Would you clarify your point.

With regards to secrecy, and this goes to a point touched on by ALGIE:
Are you and the general membership aware that around April last year there was created, a constitution of Austair, the Trustee of our Fund.
The membership of Austair is limited to currently serving Directors.
The only business of Austair, is to administer OUR Fund, yet no member of the AAPMBF other than the Directors were involved in the preparation or drafting of that constitution.
The membership of AAPMBF were not consulted in respect of that constitution either during or after formulation.
The membership of AAPMBF had no voice, neither were they given the opportunity to vote on the adoption of that constitution yet the functioning of THEIR Fund is governed by this constitution.
Are you and the general membership aware that each Director, on appointment, is required to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Whilst this can be justified in respect of personal medical and claim information, there is absolutely no justification for the general business of the Fund to be kept secret from the membership.
Are you and the general membership aware that Rules of the Fund have been altered (omitted) without proper consultation or mandate from the membership. In Ms Boffas words a rule "simply disappeared".
Are you and the membership aware that subsequent to an unauthorised rule change, the Fund levied a group of the membership a surcharge on their premiums for three consecutive years and then when it was discovered, ceased the extraordinary levy but kept it secret from the individual members and the membership in general until discovered by one of the affected members, me. Although aware of the cicumstances the Board have failed to hold anyone to account for this questionable activity.


Yes extreme secrecy exists in what should be an open and transparent management of OUR FUND.


Paul Makin

[Mark Whitaker]

* This thread on Pprune has brought out a lot of accusations and beliefs and obviously 170 words on the nomination form is a joke.

If elected as a Trustee, I would be proposing changes to the administration and communication of the fund and try my hardest to do the following:

· I would propose a complete re-write of the rules so they flow and everyone knows where they stand and minimize interpretation. I would have the lawyers who propose the new rules give their interpretation and have the Trustees write a “Standard Operating Procedures” so members and Trustees know what will happen and when. I would not change then meaning of the rules and the original intent. These “SOP’s” would be on the members only section of the web site.
· I would have Rule 13 Changed to reflect that the full entitlement as of going to the Ombudsman is paid to the member if the ombudsman delivers in favour of the member, not the maximum $280K legal amount the ombudsman is legislated to enforce.
· If any rules "simply disappeared" I will investigate what rules "simply disappeared"and why this happened and inform all members.
· In my opinion since the AFAP was booted out of the fund the “Corporate Governance” oversight has been lost and allowed the “Secret Society” inference to gain the upper hand, in my opinion, true or false, that the general perception of the membership.
· I would have the AFAP again part of the AAPMBF with Trustee membership.
· I will investigate the Constitution of Austair and make this document available on the members only section of the web site and invite all members to read the document and submit anything they do not like and then have a vote on the “Constitution” by all members.
· In this day and age, we can fill out the Commonwealth Census is “On-Line”. I believe voting for Trustees, Rule Changes, and Constitution Changes should be “On-Line”, it would be cost effective, quicker and I am sure participation would be higher as it is an easy way to vote. Candidates would also not be restricted to 170 words, but put there case forward on the Funds Web Site in as many words they personally require for put forward their point of view, ideals and values for the fund if elected.
· I would also open communication with CASA Medical and get raw statistics from CASA as to what health problems are becoming apparent or changing and passing this info onto members.
· I would also have the Funds Medical Advisor inform the Trustees to any change to the CASA rules such as the 9min 30sec rule for the Cardiac Stress Test and keep fund members informed of these changes.
· I will have individual Trustees communicate as a mentor for members with a claim. I would have Trustees from different companies be the mentor for these members, so a Virgin Trustee will not be the mentor for a Virgin Pilot.
· I believe the current marketing of the AAPMBF product to be non-existent. When I first gained my Commercial License, Danny Murphy was my CFI and he gave me a booklet about the AFAP and MBF. This may still be happening with the AFAP but it is not happening with the AAPMBF, this is another reason why the 2 organisations should be linked again.

The current Rules state that the Annual General Meeting must be held within 15 months of the last meeting. Normally this meeting is held in December and the voting 3 weeks beforehand, so the meeting can be delayed to March 2012. As of today 7th November I have not received any notice of the meeting nor the election ballot.

I am putting myself forward as a Trustee because of the faults I have found within the current Rule set and finding out information that should have been told to all Members by the Trustees.

It is your choice to vote for me or not and if you believe that I am just doing this to get my Capital Claim paid, as I have stated before, it is currently in the hands of the Ombudsman and any vote on my Claim with me as a Trustee removes me from the vote making 1 less vote for me.

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[The Kelpie]

Voting papers received.

Not much to choose from!!!

[Mark Whitaker]

AAPMBF members, I have noticed on the ballot paper that the other candidates have included their phone numbers.

If any member wants to talk to me regarding my candidacy, feel free to call me on 0448256633

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[The Kelpie]

Vote cast!!

Good Luck Mark.

I also noticed that the other candidates Had their phone numbers at the bottom of their statement. Was this part of the word limitation?

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Mark Whitaker]

* One of the reasons I am standing for as a Trustee is the total lack of communication form the Office Manager or the Chairman.

The Trustees had their monthly meeting in Perth last Thursday as of COB today Tuesday 15th some 5 days later, I have had no communication at all from anyone in the organisation as to my monthly payment, nor my Capital Claim.

As some posters believe this is the most open and transparent Board they have seen, they must be on another planet than I am!

I cannot be the only member waiting monthly benefits or Capital Claims.

If you are having the same run around as I am please email me with your details (I don’t need specifics of your medical problems, just what feedback or lack thereof you have had from this Board or Management) and lack of communication and if I become a Trustee I will personally get in touch with each and every one of you who emails or calls me with the respect and consideration that the current Management and Chairman is not doing at the moment.

This total lack of respect for members and non-communication is what is called “Corporate Governance” and it is my opinion, this Management and Chairman has none nor have any notion of what is required of them under the Financial Services Act!

Also I had a phone call from an old friend the other day who is 43. CASA said he did not meet the standard for a class 1 and wanted him to do more liver function tests. This was 2 days before his medical expired. He convinced the Medical Section of CASA to extend his Medical for 2 months so he could have these tests conducted, which they did and his liver is OK.

CASA told him that they have picked up a number of liver problems with pilots from binge drinking spirits.

This information should be coming from the AAPMBF Medical Advisor and distributed to membership. Not by word of mouth from Pilots who have had a problem. This is what I believe we pay our membership money for, Coverage and Advice, not just silence.


[email protected]
0448256633

Regards

Mark Whitaker