AOPA the way forward, A Woomera perspective
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom
Could we water down AOPA anymore than what you purpose?
I dont think so.
Minus
Weaken structure base of a WORKING System
Increase costs of running 6 or 7 smaller companies instead of one head company.
Create factions between states
Loss of communication
Squabbles over AGMS
Members not rejoining because they dont like their state leader
How many elections do you propose, one for each state? What if he/she is doing badly, does the federal AOPA step in, do the states answer to the federal AOPA?, if so, why not just have a Federal AOPA. Bl00dy good idea Axiom!, I'm with you, lets have state specific AOPA's that answer to a Federal AOPA, then once the state run AOPA's break down, lets can them as being useless because the bl00dy Federal AOPA is telling them what to do, and lets just leave it to the Federal AOPA to run the thing, with one election, because that cuts the cost of having state run elections and everyone can be happy.
Dammit, I dont really care though! Honest, you've got to believe me!
Oh and to keep within positive postings. I love apples.
Dog
I dont think so.
Minus
Weaken structure base of a WORKING System
Increase costs of running 6 or 7 smaller companies instead of one head company.
Create factions between states
Loss of communication
Squabbles over AGMS
Members not rejoining because they dont like their state leader
How many elections do you propose, one for each state? What if he/she is doing badly, does the federal AOPA step in, do the states answer to the federal AOPA?, if so, why not just have a Federal AOPA. Bl00dy good idea Axiom!, I'm with you, lets have state specific AOPA's that answer to a Federal AOPA, then once the state run AOPA's break down, lets can them as being useless because the bl00dy Federal AOPA is telling them what to do, and lets just leave it to the Federal AOPA to run the thing, with one election, because that cuts the cost of having state run elections and everyone can be happy.
Dammit, I dont really care though! Honest, you've got to believe me!
Oh and to keep within positive postings. I love apples.
Dog
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to offend dog, bad day at the office I suspect.
1) woomera, myself, and all others agree AOPA is presently NOT working. Is the web site up and running yet?
2) I didn't propose companies only incorporated Associations, which mostly get run by the members.
3) There should be no cost increase, all are non profit making entities funding the federal executive for the day to day affairs.
4) Factions already exist, or hadn't you noticed? however if we have to have factions, why have 2 who control a 50% share of the ideologies when we can have 8 state or Territorities fighting it out and the effect would be watered down.
5) Who's squabbling over AGM's have them in Alice Springs or take turns.
6) If the members don't like the State leader, let them join another State or resign. geez I don't even know him or her yet.
7) Each State would manage it's own affairs, elections, fly in's etc. What's the problem?
8) the federal AOPA would probably only be an administrative body and magazine publisher.
9) If you really don't care (and I believe you do or you would not have responded), why bludgeon a hypothetical option that is being put forth. It may be wrong, but it deserves a better consideration than a shot from the hip.
10) Have you got an option ?
11) I'm OK with leaving things the way they are, but something is going to happen next May and you may as well be in the discussion.
12) snarek is proposing a motion right now, don't you think you should consider all options?
13) I don't like green apples, rotton apples or rotton barrels.
14) If the barrel isn't up to holding water to bring something seriously needed to Canberra, it needs fixing or replacing.
More discussion needed methinks !
1) woomera, myself, and all others agree AOPA is presently NOT working. Is the web site up and running yet?
2) I didn't propose companies only incorporated Associations, which mostly get run by the members.
3) There should be no cost increase, all are non profit making entities funding the federal executive for the day to day affairs.
4) Factions already exist, or hadn't you noticed? however if we have to have factions, why have 2 who control a 50% share of the ideologies when we can have 8 state or Territorities fighting it out and the effect would be watered down.
5) Who's squabbling over AGM's have them in Alice Springs or take turns.
6) If the members don't like the State leader, let them join another State or resign. geez I don't even know him or her yet.
7) Each State would manage it's own affairs, elections, fly in's etc. What's the problem?
8) the federal AOPA would probably only be an administrative body and magazine publisher.
9) If you really don't care (and I believe you do or you would not have responded), why bludgeon a hypothetical option that is being put forth. It may be wrong, but it deserves a better consideration than a shot from the hip.
10) Have you got an option ?
11) I'm OK with leaving things the way they are, but something is going to happen next May and you may as well be in the discussion.
12) snarek is proposing a motion right now, don't you think you should consider all options?
13) I don't like green apples, rotton apples or rotton barrels.
14) If the barrel isn't up to holding water to bring something seriously needed to Canberra, it needs fixing or replacing.
More discussion needed methinks !
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
axiom
I can't hold off with the motion, the constitution states the time limits, but I am going to ammend it to just spill Hamilton and Lyon if they refuse to stand for election.
If they stand I shall witdraw the motion, it is after all the members' association and they get who they vote for.
While I stand with Dog and his comments, how about this for a compromise. Have seven reps. One from each state. Bias the election so that the first elected shall be from that state. (ie, even if number two from bankstown gets 400 votes, number one from the NT with only 50 will get in; and yes I count the NT as a State, the people were smart enough NOT to give statehood to Stone and his cronies).
That way you get guarateed regional representation and the 'Sydney mafia' can't easilly get control. It also avoids factions as only the most popular, in each state, will get up.
Oh, I don't count the ACT as a State.
Trouble is, this is major surgery, what we need now is urgent minor surgery to cut out some cancer. I'm sure if/when Marjorie is president she will listen and put these sort of changes to the members.
AK
I can't hold off with the motion, the constitution states the time limits, but I am going to ammend it to just spill Hamilton and Lyon if they refuse to stand for election.
If they stand I shall witdraw the motion, it is after all the members' association and they get who they vote for.
While I stand with Dog and his comments, how about this for a compromise. Have seven reps. One from each state. Bias the election so that the first elected shall be from that state. (ie, even if number two from bankstown gets 400 votes, number one from the NT with only 50 will get in; and yes I count the NT as a State, the people were smart enough NOT to give statehood to Stone and his cronies).
That way you get guarateed regional representation and the 'Sydney mafia' can't easilly get control. It also avoids factions as only the most popular, in each state, will get up.
Oh, I don't count the ACT as a State.
Trouble is, this is major surgery, what we need now is urgent minor surgery to cut out some cancer. I'm sure if/when Marjorie is president she will listen and put these sort of changes to the members.
AK
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that a motion to spill all positions on the Board is now a matter of life or death for AOPA.
The members must understand the seriousness of the present situation and not be bluffed into a view that to let any of the present board members continue might or would be in the best interests of the Association – it would not.
I would also suggest that a motion to amend the constitution be also put forward and this together with any other similar motion should be considered at an EGM to be held at the time of the AGM in May. This motion should reduce the minimum number of the committee to three (3).
Whilst perhaps the suggestion of five is acceptable, that option remains under such a proposal.
A reading of the present rules would also suggest that it might be time to re-write the rules and have their acceptance also voted on at an EGM.
Certainly some of the options canvassed in previous posts, especially state representation, may be attractive and are worthy of further consideration. The difficult part in regard to some of them is to create the structure to make them work (and not depend on individuals).
The operation of AOPA now needs to be thought of in two distinct responsibilities.
One, to manager the Association,
Two, to represent the membership
Only the first one needs to be undertaken by the board. Representation etc can and should be undertaken by sub-committees that could work electronically in the background feeding the Chairman (non-sexist word) with the required information for effective lobbying.
The Chairman must be the ONLY member of the Association empowered to speak on its behalf.
There are no doubt other options, but we must look and move forward as a united group.
The members must understand the seriousness of the present situation and not be bluffed into a view that to let any of the present board members continue might or would be in the best interests of the Association – it would not.
I would also suggest that a motion to amend the constitution be also put forward and this together with any other similar motion should be considered at an EGM to be held at the time of the AGM in May. This motion should reduce the minimum number of the committee to three (3).
Whilst perhaps the suggestion of five is acceptable, that option remains under such a proposal.
A reading of the present rules would also suggest that it might be time to re-write the rules and have their acceptance also voted on at an EGM.
Certainly some of the options canvassed in previous posts, especially state representation, may be attractive and are worthy of further consideration. The difficult part in regard to some of them is to create the structure to make them work (and not depend on individuals).
The operation of AOPA now needs to be thought of in two distinct responsibilities.
One, to manager the Association,
Two, to represent the membership
Only the first one needs to be undertaken by the board. Representation etc can and should be undertaken by sub-committees that could work electronically in the background feeding the Chairman (non-sexist word) with the required information for effective lobbying.
The Chairman must be the ONLY member of the Association empowered to speak on its behalf.
There are no doubt other options, but we must look and move forward as a united group.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic
Exactly.
It is interesting and illuminating to have a troll thorugh the US AOPA site starting here is a good start.
AOPA US
390,000 members or over half the licensed pilots in the US is a prety sound constituency.
Does anyone know the number of licensed pilots in OZ?
There is no reason why AOPA Australia can't be at least the same %age ???
Exactly.
It is interesting and illuminating to have a troll thorugh the US AOPA site starting here is a good start.
AOPA US
390,000 members or over half the licensed pilots in the US is a prety sound constituency.
Does anyone know the number of licensed pilots in OZ?
There is no reason why AOPA Australia can't be at least the same %age ???
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic
We have an election coming and cannot ignore the cost of another one. If Hamilton and Lyon stand, and are reelected, what difference is there between a spill and what I propose.
If however you wish to remove an officer you have the option of sacking them in a vote of no confidence. I actually don't have the heart to do that to Hamilton, I personally feel his style has done a lot of damage to AOPA, but that doesn't mean he is vindictive, his heart is in the right place.
I would though second the motion if you move it.
A question, can someone enlighten me as to what has occurred recently in the Warbirds Board???
Woomera, just over 75,000 licenced, but mostly not active.
AK
We have an election coming and cannot ignore the cost of another one. If Hamilton and Lyon stand, and are reelected, what difference is there between a spill and what I propose.
If however you wish to remove an officer you have the option of sacking them in a vote of no confidence. I actually don't have the heart to do that to Hamilton, I personally feel his style has done a lot of damage to AOPA, but that doesn't mean he is vindictive, his heart is in the right place.
I would though second the motion if you move it.
A question, can someone enlighten me as to what has occurred recently in the Warbirds Board???
Woomera, just over 75,000 licenced, but mostly not active.
AK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
Is it possible that the proportion of "active" v "non active" is the same for both countries.??
I suspect so as the demographics and geography are similar??
Is it possible that the proportion of "active" v "non active" is the same for both countries.??
I suspect so as the demographics and geography are similar??
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
woomera;
Yes about 30K sounds right.
To all;
When 600 odd bods look at this thread and some 30 odd reply, it makes me wonder about the apathy (I know it's a curse but who cares), toward AOPA.
snarek and I will probably get p!ssed and annoying at the next AGM, but who gives a stuff?
Character assination does no good in an election campaign and I believe is totally counter productive, but here is the point.
Band aid measures are not enough to stem the flow of membership, and, this is the problem. NOT getting new members, but RETENTION of the ones we have. If we get a working cohesive body together (like what's her name Lee Curtis?), we may get moving.
I am a firm believer in a separation of the powers and a downsizing of the power base and will be putting a motion to the table along the lines of my prior posts.
ie. State run caucus with independant association status who co-ordinate policy, choose appointments, plan strategies and promulgate bizzo's for Politicians, the Regulator, the Judiciary, and the AOPA magazine and pass these on to the Federal Executive of AOPA for implementation.
The barrel is leaking, needs replacing to a certain degree, but surely needs fixing.
In the interim, the show must go on, and the crew who are in charge are just that, IN CHARGE.
Show me yours and I'll show you mine.
Yes about 30K sounds right.
To all;
When 600 odd bods look at this thread and some 30 odd reply, it makes me wonder about the apathy (I know it's a curse but who cares), toward AOPA.
snarek and I will probably get p!ssed and annoying at the next AGM, but who gives a stuff?
Character assination does no good in an election campaign and I believe is totally counter productive, but here is the point.
Band aid measures are not enough to stem the flow of membership, and, this is the problem. NOT getting new members, but RETENTION of the ones we have. If we get a working cohesive body together (like what's her name Lee Curtis?), we may get moving.
I am a firm believer in a separation of the powers and a downsizing of the power base and will be putting a motion to the table along the lines of my prior posts.
ie. State run caucus with independant association status who co-ordinate policy, choose appointments, plan strategies and promulgate bizzo's for Politicians, the Regulator, the Judiciary, and the AOPA magazine and pass these on to the Federal Executive of AOPA for implementation.
The barrel is leaking, needs replacing to a certain degree, but surely needs fixing.
In the interim, the show must go on, and the crew who are in charge are just that, IN CHARGE.
Show me yours and I'll show you mine.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
axiom
The much maligned (by you ) Democrats have a state based system to support what is effectively a national party fielding only (but not by choice) in the Senate.
It worked for a while, but only under strong leadership. When that leadership waned and the subsequent shift from the original party ideals to the left took place the system splintered.
The states each elect two national Executive reps who supposedly serve the party. They don't, they squabble over regional and parochial issues. They always have.
Their National Exectutive is an ineffective and gutless organisation unable to deal with the idiot ranting of a Senator (interestingly) from WA. So a strong personality nearly destroyed them. What is left won't win anything at the next election.
I would describe what the Democrats had as 'conditionally stable'. You, given your previous occupation, will know what this means. It takes only a little push to destabilise it and that has happened.
I don't want this to happen to AOPA.
Now there is nothing stopping you forming a local AOPA chapter. You could then even lobby for the person you wanted elected. But there isn't enough dough in the pot to fund it for one thing and even if there were, apathy would destroy it and your enthusiasm as you correctly point out with your 600/30 estimate.
But if you want to put a motion you better read the deadlines in the articles. You can't table it at the meeting.
AK
The much maligned (by you
) Democrats have a state based system to support what is effectively a national party fielding only (but not by choice) in the Senate.It worked for a while, but only under strong leadership. When that leadership waned and the subsequent shift from the original party ideals to the left took place the system splintered.
The states each elect two national Executive reps who supposedly serve the party. They don't, they squabble over regional and parochial issues. They always have.
Their National Exectutive is an ineffective and gutless organisation unable to deal with the idiot ranting of a Senator (interestingly) from WA. So a strong personality nearly destroyed them. What is left won't win anything at the next election.
I would describe what the Democrats had as 'conditionally stable'. You, given your previous occupation, will know what this means. It takes only a little push to destabilise it and that has happened.
I don't want this to happen to AOPA.
Now there is nothing stopping you forming a local AOPA chapter. You could then even lobby for the person you wanted elected. But there isn't enough dough in the pot to fund it for one thing and even if there were, apathy would destroy it and your enthusiasm as you correctly point out with your 600/30 estimate.
But if you want to put a motion you better read the deadlines in the articles. You can't table it at the meeting.
AK
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone really think that a bunch of rich airline pilots or their buddies are going to swing to the left and fractionate as did the Democrats.
Come now, if this mob and me (who can't even mention the most Tory of all Tories, (Winston Churchill), (couldn't help myself), can't run the show, and I put up a semi socialistic hypothetical, and get either positive plus or positive negative, where is the middle ground?
I don't envisage any State run Incorporated Association (they do have State Rules to abide by), being as self destructing as suggested.
If this is the case hundreds of local aero clubs, social clubs, bowling etc are doomed to failure.
Give me some middle ground to work with.
By the way, CASA have entered the pprune forums on reporting points, Merimbula gafest by Mrs axiom's little boy. A first I think.
Hope woomera can keep it alive and CASA are sincere enough to put up with us all.
Come now, if this mob and me (who can't even mention the most Tory of all Tories, (Winston Churchill), (couldn't help myself), can't run the show, and I put up a semi socialistic hypothetical, and get either positive plus or positive negative, where is the middle ground?
I don't envisage any State run Incorporated Association (they do have State Rules to abide by), being as self destructing as suggested.
If this is the case hundreds of local aero clubs, social clubs, bowling etc are doomed to failure.
Give me some middle ground to work with.
By the way, CASA have entered the pprune forums on reporting points, Merimbula gafest by Mrs axiom's little boy. A first I think.
Hope woomera can keep it alive and CASA are sincere enough to put up with us all.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
axiom
I think I gave you middle ground. There is nothing stopping you forming a WA AOPA Section and then pushing the member of your choice. But even state based organisations have problems. FNQers don't like being run from Brisbane and people in Kununurra feel closer to Darwin than Perth. So we'd still have to allow others to nominate if they wanted.
Your proposal has merits and I don't think it will be the new Board that stops you. A guy who posted here as friend of aopa tried it in the Sydney basin and couldn't get members to come to the party. So I think it is general apathy that will stop you.
But then, that's the same in small aero clubs as well. only a handful get interested and do the work, so perhaps its worth a go..
I'd like to correspond with you privately on another issue, can you e-mail me at
[email protected]
AK
I think I gave you middle ground. There is nothing stopping you forming a WA AOPA Section and then pushing the member of your choice. But even state based organisations have problems. FNQers don't like being run from Brisbane and people in Kununurra feel closer to Darwin than Perth. So we'd still have to allow others to nominate if they wanted.
Your proposal has merits and I don't think it will be the new Board that stops you. A guy who posted here as friend of aopa tried it in the Sydney basin and couldn't get members to come to the party. So I think it is general apathy that will stop you.
But then, that's the same in small aero clubs as well. only a handful get interested and do the work, so perhaps its worth a go..
I'd like to correspond with you privately on another issue, can you e-mail me at
[email protected]
AK
Last edited by snarek; 12th Mar 2003 at 03:31.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek;
Hard to get info on warbirds, mate is off the air for a while, but:
only changes to fill vacancies of retirements x2
one resignation,
Small surplus, no dissention. Why you ask ?
On other matter, email me through pprune at this stage, I have your contacts on file thanks.
Hard to get info on warbirds, mate is off the air for a while, but:
only changes to fill vacancies of retirements x2
one resignation,
Small surplus, no dissention. Why you ask ?
On other matter, email me through pprune at this stage, I have your contacts on file thanks.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sad story of the Board continues. This is not good for the Association.
Seems that one member who was very anti Hamilton at Avalon is now a supporter - was he a sleeper for the "other" side?
Why indeed should there be sides? I find all this somewhat childish.
It is about time that these grown up individuals put AOPA before their own inflated collective ego's.
Seems that one member who was very anti Hamilton at Avalon is now a supporter - was he a sleeper for the "other" side?
Why indeed should there be sides? I find all this somewhat childish.
It is about time that these grown up individuals put AOPA before their own inflated collective ego's.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic
As advised I shall be moving motions at the AGM to achieve to following.
1. Remove Hamilton and Lyon from the Board.
2. Ensure anyone who doesn't stand at the 2003 election cannot hold executive positions.
3. Stop appointments. Use countback instead.
4. Have approve/disapprove ballots where not enough members nominate.
5. Limit the Board to 5 minimum and 7 maximum.
6. Increase the quorum of the Board to 5.
7. Remove reference to Hamilton in the articles (by this I mean remove that article, it is not a disguised attack on Hamilton, I think precluding those with experience is silly).
AK
As advised I shall be moving motions at the AGM to achieve to following.
1. Remove Hamilton and Lyon from the Board.
2. Ensure anyone who doesn't stand at the 2003 election cannot hold executive positions.
3. Stop appointments. Use countback instead.
4. Have approve/disapprove ballots where not enough members nominate.
5. Limit the Board to 5 minimum and 7 maximum.
6. Increase the quorum of the Board to 5.
7. Remove reference to Hamilton in the articles (by this I mean remove that article, it is not a disguised attack on Hamilton, I think precluding those with experience is silly).
AK
Last edited by snarek; 18th Mar 2003 at 23:11.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tangled web we weave ...
If this was nominated as fiction no-one would believe it:
On 20 February 2003, AOPA's insurers declined to proceed with cover for Directors' Liability on the primary grounds of the poor financial position of the organisation.
Some of the AOPA directors are rather creative as it turns out. At a board meeting last Thursday, the majority of the Board elected to change the accounting treatment so that instead of the balance sheet showing an excess of liabilities over assets it will now show a bountiful surplus. The loss for 2002 will now be a handsome profit, thanks to this magical sleight of hand.
I am told that the prime motivation for this was to fool a prospective insurance company into thinking that all was tickity boo at AOPA. My guess is that the insurance companies are not that stupid and that when the hapless members find out about this there will be a palace revolt. No wonder there are proposed motions to dismiss directors.
It has also transpired that all along, commitee man Chris McKeown was a double agent - no wonder Kerans was confused. Chris was telling all who would listen that Hamilton and Lyon had to go and that he had told Hamilton he should resign. Behind the scenes, Chris was/is an apologist for Mr Hamilton and helping Hamilton cling on to power.
Hamilton and Lyon have refused to spill. Other board members won't work with them and as usual, the bulk of the AOPA membership are totally oblivious of the damage this is causing.
Until all this mess is resolved, AOPA is basically closed for business.
Cheers
Russell
On 20 February 2003, AOPA's insurers declined to proceed with cover for Directors' Liability on the primary grounds of the poor financial position of the organisation.
Some of the AOPA directors are rather creative as it turns out. At a board meeting last Thursday, the majority of the Board elected to change the accounting treatment so that instead of the balance sheet showing an excess of liabilities over assets it will now show a bountiful surplus. The loss for 2002 will now be a handsome profit, thanks to this magical sleight of hand.
I am told that the prime motivation for this was to fool a prospective insurance company into thinking that all was tickity boo at AOPA. My guess is that the insurance companies are not that stupid and that when the hapless members find out about this there will be a palace revolt. No wonder there are proposed motions to dismiss directors.
It has also transpired that all along, commitee man Chris McKeown was a double agent - no wonder Kerans was confused. Chris was telling all who would listen that Hamilton and Lyon had to go and that he had told Hamilton he should resign. Behind the scenes, Chris was/is an apologist for Mr Hamilton and helping Hamilton cling on to power.
Hamilton and Lyon have refused to spill. Other board members won't work with them and as usual, the bulk of the AOPA membership are totally oblivious of the damage this is causing.
Until all this mess is resolved, AOPA is basically closed for business.
Cheers
Russell
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
confused...who me?????
Yeah, well just a bit. But I'm not sure about Hamilton and Lyon standing aside or for election. Chris assures me they are, but we will see. I personally don't trust a lot I hear from that pair.
Chris as a double agent??? Dunno about that. I am certainly worried about his directional stability at the moment, but I think he genuinely sees the need for the 'old school' to go and for a fresh approach.
He certainly doesn't agree with me that the fresh approach should be Marjorie Pagani, I think he thinks it should be him. I personally think there is a little bit too much of the shoot first attitude displayed by past presidents in him for that. So I stick to my support for Marjorie.
Smoke and mirrors on the accounting, possibly, but I have paid five years and expect 5 years service (Magazine) or a refund.
In the end it is up to the members this time. My advice, get rid of the 'oldies' support Marjorie and whoever else you feel supports your point of view and your visiuon for the future of GA. I intend to renominate, but I also do not intend to serve on any Board with Hamilton, Lyon or Rudd again.
How I deal with that post election is a problem I may or may not have to face. Like I said, it is up to the members, it's their AOPA.
You standing Russell???
AK
Chris as a double agent??? Dunno about that. I am certainly worried about his directional stability at the moment, but I think he genuinely sees the need for the 'old school' to go and for a fresh approach.
He certainly doesn't agree with me that the fresh approach should be Marjorie Pagani, I think he thinks it should be him. I personally think there is a little bit too much of the shoot first attitude displayed by past presidents in him for that. So I stick to my support for Marjorie.
Smoke and mirrors on the accounting, possibly, but I have paid five years and expect 5 years service (Magazine) or a refund.
In the end it is up to the members this time. My advice, get rid of the 'oldies' support Marjorie and whoever else you feel supports your point of view and your visiuon for the future of GA. I intend to renominate, but I also do not intend to serve on any Board with Hamilton, Lyon or Rudd again.
How I deal with that post election is a problem I may or may not have to face. Like I said, it is up to the members, it's their AOPA.
You standing Russell???
AK
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr! Two posts have vanished since I was here last.
Woomera, I don't believed they crossed the line, but if you remove them it would be nice to have a one liner to say that you have and perhaps why?
One of the problems we have in dealing with this subject is the desire of some to keep it all under wraps. I don't support that view at all.
Woomera, I don't believed they crossed the line, but if you remove them it would be nice to have a one liner to say that you have and perhaps why?
One of the problems we have in dealing with this subject is the desire of some to keep it all under wraps. I don't support that view at all.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heh heh
Tridaic, look at your post. It seems to have been edited.
I smell lawyers at play.
I too believe we should be open, to be open though we risk legal threats, I personally have been threatened twice by a current long standing Board member and about a million times by a (gratefully) ex board member. So ya can't really blame Woomera.
What do you call 1000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the sea??? A good start!!!
At the end of the day it is in members' hands. My advice, support a fresh approach, a concilliatory approach, one that can bring GA together. Support Pagani.
AK
Tridaic, look at your post. It seems to have been edited.
I smell lawyers at play.
I too believe we should be open, to be open though we risk legal threats, I personally have been threatened twice by a current long standing Board member and about a million times by a (gratefully) ex board member. So ya can't really blame Woomera.
What do you call 1000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the sea??? A good start!!!
At the end of the day it is in members' hands. My advice, support a fresh approach, a concilliatory approach, one that can bring GA together. Support Pagani.
AK
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Townsville Qld.
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way many of us have had to see what goes on in AOPA was the AOPA forum. That is now closed.
Now there is only this.
The comment from Board members, ex-Board members and those close to the Board is therefore important to us. Especially if, as the moderator of this forum suggests, we are to find a way out of the troubles AOPA has found itself in over the past eight or so years.
So why can't we have free and open postings. If a post is removed, please tell us why and at whose request it was removed.
Sometimes that can tell us more about a person than the comments themselves.
Now there is only this.
The comment from Board members, ex-Board members and those close to the Board is therefore important to us. Especially if, as the moderator of this forum suggests, we are to find a way out of the troubles AOPA has found itself in over the past eight or so years.
So why can't we have free and open postings. If a post is removed, please tell us why and at whose request it was removed.
Sometimes that can tell us more about a person than the comments themselves.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why were we not surprised?
Several posts were withdrawn to Admin for review, as a result of a threat of litigation.
The threat of litigation is a well worn path taken by those who would attempt to silence debate on important and/or revealing issues, that they would rather not have exposed.
Where this involves private, personal or family issues NOT in the public domain, this "right" must be defended, however in the case of what are perceived to be "public issues", we will take a softer view.
We must and do however, take all threats of litigation seriously and will withdraw a thread for administrative review.
If WE perceive that there is no case to answer, then we will return it.
Several posts were withdrawn to Admin for review, as a result of a threat of litigation.
The threat of litigation is a well worn path taken by those who would attempt to silence debate on important and/or revealing issues, that they would rather not have exposed.
Where this involves private, personal or family issues NOT in the public domain, this "right" must be defended, however in the case of what are perceived to be "public issues", we will take a softer view.
We must and do however, take all threats of litigation seriously and will withdraw a thread for administrative review.
If WE perceive that there is no case to answer, then we will return it.