AOPA "The Election" (merged)
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cogwheel
That’s news to me and a fair number of us I suspect.
May I suggest that it is a Furphy.
I, nor would I believe, any, thinking candidate support this as a notion.
I believe that now that an election is now on foot, there should be no change to the status quo, even if this were possible within the Articles of Association which seem to say in any event that there "may not be less than 8 or more than 12 members of the Committee.
As far as I know there are currently eleven and the "Team" that has been proposed by snarek is composed of eleven. Given that, any other effort in this regard must be coming from a different direction.
There are after all 15 nominations of which we have been made aware.
Four of those will miss out, or to be mischievous, why isn't here a move to increase the comittee to 12.
I don't think so.
There has been too much damage inflicted on AOPA and its credibility by those who have in the past ruled by fiat.
Once the membership has spoken, then the new Committee may or can I guess vary the numbers by the time honoured tradition.
Insofar as what is supposed to be happening and who is supposed to be being manipulated by whom, as I simply have no direct personal knowledge of the events described, then I will remain silent on these matters until I see for myself, what the magazine and others bring to the table.
Creampuff
Thank you or your very kind words, but I'll have to take that under advisement for the moment.
brianh
I owe you an answer to your question which will be forthcoming; I've been too busy putting bread on the table for the last week to give it the attention it rightly deserves.
Other than to observe that some have already echoed my feelings that the self evidently divisive incessant shouting and vilification at and of CASA and Government, has, in the same way it works with ANYBODY at the receiving end of suchlike, disconnected AOPA from them.
axiom
Lets wait and see what the magazine brings eh?
Conspiracy theories give me a headache.
--------------------
Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.
It seems that there is now a move (by the acting/interim Chairman?) to reduce the number of vacancies available PRIOR to the election from eleven to nine.
May I suggest that it is a Furphy.
I, nor would I believe, any, thinking candidate support this as a notion.
I believe that now that an election is now on foot, there should be no change to the status quo, even if this were possible within the Articles of Association which seem to say in any event that there "may not be less than 8 or more than 12 members of the Committee.
As far as I know there are currently eleven and the "Team" that has been proposed by snarek is composed of eleven. Given that, any other effort in this regard must be coming from a different direction.
There are after all 15 nominations of which we have been made aware.
Four of those will miss out, or to be mischievous, why isn't here a move to increase the comittee to 12.
I don't think so.
There has been too much damage inflicted on AOPA and its credibility by those who have in the past ruled by fiat.
Once the membership has spoken, then the new Committee may or can I guess vary the numbers by the time honoured tradition.
Insofar as what is supposed to be happening and who is supposed to be being manipulated by whom, as I simply have no direct personal knowledge of the events described, then I will remain silent on these matters until I see for myself, what the magazine and others bring to the table.
Creampuff
Thank you or your very kind words, but I'll have to take that under advisement for the moment.
brianh
I owe you an answer to your question which will be forthcoming; I've been too busy putting bread on the table for the last week to give it the attention it rightly deserves.
Other than to observe that some have already echoed my feelings that the self evidently divisive incessant shouting and vilification at and of CASA and Government, has, in the same way it works with ANYBODY at the receiving end of suchlike, disconnected AOPA from them.
axiom
Lets wait and see what the magazine brings eh?
Conspiracy theories give me a headache.
--------------------
Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
axiom
The only reason that I have not sinbinned you is because I do not wish to derail this Thread further.
It is available to all nominators, even their doppelgangers,
to have their say, if they wish and as long as they don't descend to personal attacks.
I am puzzled that your friend Murphy and his supporters including Hamilton and the others, have not chosen to speak directly to us, so that he and they may state their case directly
The readers here, not me, will make their own judgements on their and your behaviour here .
The original will be returned in due course and merged with this one, as it contains some valuable discussion and it would not be fair to those who have contributed so to be denied the airing.
I am bound by the rules however, to apply 7 demerit points for being "abusive to mods and admins".
If you think I have got the wrong end of your stick then please feel free to email me and I'll remove them
Take this in the spirit in which it is given
It is available to all nominators, even their doppelgangers,
to have their say, if they wish and as long as they don't descend to personal attacks.I am puzzled that your friend Murphy and his supporters including Hamilton and the others, have not chosen to speak directly to us, so that he and they may state their case directly
The readers here, not me, will make their own judgements on their and your behaviour here .
The original will be returned in due course and merged with this one, as it contains some valuable discussion and it would not be fair to those who have contributed so to be denied the airing.
I am bound by the rules however, to apply 7 demerit points for being "abusive to mods and admins".
If you think I have got the wrong end of your stick then please feel free to email me and I'll remove them
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GO WOOMERA
Woomera
You have the support of the silent majority.
Unfortunately the open operation of this Forum allows sidetracking to attacking the players instead of the ball. Even the umpire it seems.
If everyone focused on the issues facing AOPA as its membership vanishes into the sunset, and had to remove their egos before entering this forum, it would be less like Parliament and its useless posturing and more like an effective think tank.
I think I'll go back to the dreamtime, it just isn't a possibility.
Cheers
You have the support of the silent majority.
Unfortunately the open operation of this Forum allows sidetracking to attacking the players instead of the ball. Even the umpire it seems.
If everyone focused on the issues facing AOPA as its membership vanishes into the sunset, and had to remove their egos before entering this forum, it would be less like Parliament and its useless posturing and more like an effective think tank.
I think I'll go back to the dreamtime, it just isn't a possibility.
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA Magazine April
Stay tuned for an interesting April Magazine which is now rolling off the presses:
You will find the (max allowed) 250 word election statements from each of the candidates.
More interesting is the "President's Report", this time authored by fill-in President, Chris McKeown. McKeown's column was the subject of a very heated Committee phone hook-up last week because of the unashamed abuse of the column for electioneering purposes. The board, backed by the Hamilton faction who supported McKeown's presidency, agreed to leave the offending article.
Apparently the piece waxes lyrical about the wonders performed by him during his directorship and urges members to return him to power. So McKeown gets his 250 words plus the incumbent's advantage of the President's column, hardly fair to the other candidates.
Personally I think this is on the nose and members would be entitled to question the propriety of this and other tactics being used to prop up the current regime.
Members should write to the Returning Officer and object.
Russell
You will find the (max allowed) 250 word election statements from each of the candidates.
More interesting is the "President's Report", this time authored by fill-in President, Chris McKeown. McKeown's column was the subject of a very heated Committee phone hook-up last week because of the unashamed abuse of the column for electioneering purposes. The board, backed by the Hamilton faction who supported McKeown's presidency, agreed to leave the offending article.
Apparently the piece waxes lyrical about the wonders performed by him during his directorship and urges members to return him to power. So McKeown gets his 250 words plus the incumbent's advantage of the President's column, hardly fair to the other candidates.
Personally I think this is on the nose and members would be entitled to question the propriety of this and other tactics being used to prop up the current regime.
Members should write to the Returning Officer and object.
Russell
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know what I heard
I heard that one of the directors had one more sausage at the last Forum in Perth.
And that because one of them wore glasses at Avalon, he/she is a crap candidate.
Oh oh oh... and that the ex pres. had too much testostorone..(ask him, he'll tell you) so he had to leave. So now we have a woman to balance it.
Oh, ... and that the accounting rules are all f*cked up at the moment. (But lets keep that between you and me eh!!)
Stop this sh!t and vote with your head, not with your mates.
Dog
Pathetic!
And that because one of them wore glasses at Avalon, he/she is a crap candidate.
Oh oh oh... and that the ex pres. had too much testostorone..(ask him, he'll tell you) so he had to leave. So now we have a woman to balance it.
Oh, ... and that the accounting rules are all f*cked up at the moment. (But lets keep that between you and me eh!!)
Stop this sh!t and vote with your head, not with your mates.
Dog
Pathetic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA MAG / AGA FORUM
Nevertheless, I agree that each candidate should get equal space and the Pres Column should be used for advice to members of matters of Pres contribution or general significance.
Of course we need to keep in mind that all this manoeuvering be it in the AOPA Mag, this Forum, email, or telephone, is only with the best interests of AOPA and its members and has nothing to do with internal politics, egos, personalities etc. (I think I'll have a little rest now, I'm even confusing myself).
State Chapters are looking better every day as a means of reducing the tension and spreading the management of AOPA.
PS Andrew tells me that new forum
http://www.aimoo.com/agaf is gaining a good mix of positive members while we await the re-emergence of the AOPA Forum. I suspect it would not do to have the AOPA Forum up and running before the election, would it!
Cheers
Of course we need to keep in mind that all this manoeuvering be it in the AOPA Mag, this Forum, email, or telephone, is only with the best interests of AOPA and its members and has nothing to do with internal politics, egos, personalities etc. (I think I'll have a little rest now, I'm even confusing myself).
State Chapters are looking better every day as a means of reducing the tension and spreading the management of AOPA.
PS Andrew tells me that new forum
http://www.aimoo.com/agaf is gaining a good mix of positive members while we await the re-emergence of the AOPA Forum. I suspect it would not do to have the AOPA Forum up and running before the election, would it!
Cheers
Creamie, m’ old mate,
This has about as much to do with the current AOPA turmoil’s as your post, but what the heck.
At the FLOT ( or FLOP, depending on your point of view) Conference, CASA canvassed the views of “industry” as to new mechanisms for setting up any flying school operation. The proposal includes greatly simplified procedures for the initial establishment of a school for GA training.
I believe it has a lot of merit.
Sadly, “senior members of the flying training industry” kiboshed the proposal, and not only from the usual and expected point of view of commercial self-interest. Their real fear was the fear of the unknown, of not having every little detail ticked off ( ie; approved) in advance by CASA, at very great cost in time and money.
Thus eliminating that standard justification/excuse: “It is/was approved by CASA”.
So much for rugged self reliance, a culture of mutual fear of self dependence would be closer to the real reason this surprising
( from CASA) proposal was rejected.
Tootle pip!!
PS
I think Axiom’s mate Bob Murphie has a proposal of great merit for the future of AOPA, and as he has tried to explain to everybody, Bob Murphie is prepared to put 12 months of his own time into setting up the state chapters, before the members at the 2004 AGM gives a final yes or no.
Get behind the Murphie idea, he needs 100 names to get it on the 2003 AGM agenda, to start working on the proposal, for final decisions by the members in 2004. AOPA has everything to gain, and nothing to loose, from the Murphie proposal. No permanent or radical changes would happen until after the 2004 AGM.
What could be more reasonable and less threatening to the power hungry than that ??
This has about as much to do with the current AOPA turmoil’s as your post, but what the heck.
At the FLOT ( or FLOP, depending on your point of view) Conference, CASA canvassed the views of “industry” as to new mechanisms for setting up any flying school operation. The proposal includes greatly simplified procedures for the initial establishment of a school for GA training.
I believe it has a lot of merit.
Sadly, “senior members of the flying training industry” kiboshed the proposal, and not only from the usual and expected point of view of commercial self-interest. Their real fear was the fear of the unknown, of not having every little detail ticked off ( ie; approved) in advance by CASA, at very great cost in time and money.
Thus eliminating that standard justification/excuse: “It is/was approved by CASA”.
So much for rugged self reliance, a culture of mutual fear of self dependence would be closer to the real reason this surprising
( from CASA) proposal was rejected.
Tootle pip!!
PS
I think Axiom’s mate Bob Murphie has a proposal of great merit for the future of AOPA, and as he has tried to explain to everybody, Bob Murphie is prepared to put 12 months of his own time into setting up the state chapters, before the members at the 2004 AGM gives a final yes or no.
Get behind the Murphie idea, he needs 100 names to get it on the 2003 AGM agenda, to start working on the proposal, for final decisions by the members in 2004. AOPA has everything to gain, and nothing to loose, from the Murphie proposal. No permanent or radical changes would happen until after the 2004 AGM.
What could be more reasonable and less threatening to the power hungry than that ??
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PERHAPS IT HAS SOME RELATIONSHIP
LeadSled
Perhaps it does have some significance - the fact that it was rejected probably means that there was not enuf info circulated first, coupled with that mindset about CASA that lingers - perhaps unfairly - "beware of Greeks bearing gifts", and as you hinted commercial concern from the big schools who don't want the low cost small operators intruding into their expensive rates.
If AOPA wishes to encourage GA and membership, we also need a discussion paper on the syllabus for the PPL and why it is absolutely outmoded, has such a focus on BAK, etc etc, thus detering some from proceeding. (A bit like the ham radio licence still needing morse - we always did it that way why shouldn't everyone else.) You could not do this to those seeking their drivers licence and it is not particularly relevant to air safety anyway.
The PPL needs more of a practical focus and less on becoming an aeronautical engineer. Some of the Navex should be on marginal days, things like "Know Your Own limitations' and Weatherwise" should be mandatory - perhaps even parts of the 17 Ways Video - as flying into IMC and stall/spins remain still big killers. And some under the cowl experience given that pilots can do certain things legally although I doubt that those learning at a GAAP school cover much of this.
Anyway, a bit of a tangent but this is the sort of thing AOPA needs to look at for the future.
The Murphie proposal, even if it cannot get up this time, needs to be canvassed and publicised over the next year to make sure it does get up then. A State Chapter arrangement also overcomes the thought of some members that AOPA exists for NSW primarily.
Cheers
Perhaps it does have some significance - the fact that it was rejected probably means that there was not enuf info circulated first, coupled with that mindset about CASA that lingers - perhaps unfairly - "beware of Greeks bearing gifts", and as you hinted commercial concern from the big schools who don't want the low cost small operators intruding into their expensive rates.
If AOPA wishes to encourage GA and membership, we also need a discussion paper on the syllabus for the PPL and why it is absolutely outmoded, has such a focus on BAK, etc etc, thus detering some from proceeding. (A bit like the ham radio licence still needing morse - we always did it that way why shouldn't everyone else.) You could not do this to those seeking their drivers licence and it is not particularly relevant to air safety anyway.
The PPL needs more of a practical focus and less on becoming an aeronautical engineer. Some of the Navex should be on marginal days, things like "Know Your Own limitations' and Weatherwise" should be mandatory - perhaps even parts of the 17 Ways Video - as flying into IMC and stall/spins remain still big killers. And some under the cowl experience given that pilots can do certain things legally although I doubt that those learning at a GAAP school cover much of this.
Anyway, a bit of a tangent but this is the sort of thing AOPA needs to look at for the future.
The Murphie proposal, even if it cannot get up this time, needs to be canvassed and publicised over the next year to make sure it does get up then. A State Chapter arrangement also overcomes the thought of some members that AOPA exists for NSW primarily.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE CONCEPT OF THE MURPHIE MOTION;
This draft apparantly will become final 21days prior to the AGM and hopefully with the support of 100 members proxies/signatures. Such are still canvassed and the format can be emailed / fax'd or posted to you if you contact Bob direct.
[email protected]
This draft apparantly will become final 21days prior to the AGM and hopefully with the support of 100 members proxies/signatures. Such are still canvassed and the format can be emailed / fax'd or posted to you if you contact Bob direct.
[email protected]
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cogwheel
old chap, it seems that I owe you an apology.
It does indeed appear that,
there are some candidates still on the board who are NOT thinking and I am told have already pushed through a motion to reduce the Board to nine AFTER the nominations closed as it became crystal clear to some that they had a REAL election on their hands after all.
The Board elects the President, so if you feel threatened, 15 nominations is threatening, as President, then why wouldn't you reduce the numbers on the Board in the hope that the top 9 elected will contain the majority you need.
Simple math will tell you that there would be a greater risk against you with a Board of 12 elected out of 15 nominations.
I do not imagine Marjorie or any in her "Team" currently on the board were a party to this.
If what is alleged is true and that this move came from and was agitated for by the "caretaker" President then we have a serious problem going down.
The lack of ethics and morality is breathtaking, it may well be a legal tactic insofar as the Board of a Company in the commercial world is concerned and therefore "legal" for the Board of AOPA to act in this manner.
But AOPA is NOT a commercial company, we are NOT talking about BS Wall Street tactics or control of corporations and assets, we are talking about representing the interests of the AOPA membership and THAT requires a higher standard of ethical conduct than is apparently being displayed.
It has also been suggested to me that there a number of the Board who have nominated, but have some Pollyanna idea dredged up from somewhere, that as they have not submitted a formal resignation from their position, if the vote goes against them that they still have a claim to their original position.
I am not a Corporate lawyer, but I would be seriously amazed that a nomination signed by the nominee and nominators does not at the same time effect your resignation.
Legal issues aside it is, in my humble opinion, a gross breach of ethics and the trust of the membership.
It gets worse, the timing of the move after nominations and that the ballot after the May edition, the last before the AGM is due out, how was the membership at large to find out, and if that is, you wanted them to. And how are they to register their feelings at the ballot box.
Let’s see if there is any announcement in the April edition shall we.
On the matter of magazine, I also understand that the Presidential Editorial was the subject of some robust debate within the Board. But again we shall see.
There, the gauntlet is now on the table and I am seriously aggrieved by the whole matter.
So who is going to be the first to tell me I'm wrong or worse, that it is OK it's just election tactics.
old chap, it seems that I owe you an apology.
It does indeed appear that,
I, nor would I believe, any, thinking candidate support this as a notion.
The Board elects the President, so if you feel threatened, 15 nominations is threatening, as President, then why wouldn't you reduce the numbers on the Board in the hope that the top 9 elected will contain the majority you need.
Simple math will tell you that there would be a greater risk against you with a Board of 12 elected out of 15 nominations.
I do not imagine Marjorie or any in her "Team" currently on the board were a party to this.
If what is alleged is true and that this move came from and was agitated for by the "caretaker" President then we have a serious problem going down.
The lack of ethics and morality is breathtaking, it may well be a legal tactic insofar as the Board of a Company in the commercial world is concerned and therefore "legal" for the Board of AOPA to act in this manner.
But AOPA is NOT a commercial company, we are NOT talking about BS Wall Street tactics or control of corporations and assets, we are talking about representing the interests of the AOPA membership and THAT requires a higher standard of ethical conduct than is apparently being displayed.
It has also been suggested to me that there a number of the Board who have nominated, but have some Pollyanna idea dredged up from somewhere, that as they have not submitted a formal resignation from their position, if the vote goes against them that they still have a claim to their original position.
I am not a Corporate lawyer, but I would be seriously amazed that a nomination signed by the nominee and nominators does not at the same time effect your resignation.
Legal issues aside it is, in my humble opinion, a gross breach of ethics and the trust of the membership.
It gets worse, the timing of the move after nominations and that the ballot after the May edition, the last before the AGM is due out, how was the membership at large to find out, and if that is, you wanted them to. And how are they to register their feelings at the ballot box.
Let’s see if there is any announcement in the April edition shall we.
On the matter of magazine, I also understand that the Presidential Editorial was the subject of some robust debate within the Board. But again we shall see.
There, the gauntlet is now on the table and I am seriously aggrieved by the whole matter.
So who is going to be the first to tell me I'm wrong or worse, that it is OK it's just election tactics.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE CONCEPT OF THE MURPHIE MOTION;
This draft will become final 21days prior to the AGM and hopefully with the support of 100 members proxies/signatures. Such are still canvassed and the format can be emailed / fax'd or posted to you if you contact Bob direct. Input and ammendments are welcomed.
[email protected]
Draft;
Joint States Standing Committee of AOPA.
The current AOPA board has been the subject of an historically volatile, emotional and sometimes disfunctional organisation that when fractionated, lacks direction and focus. Much blame gets put about and further alienates Members opinions and support.
We, the Members need a strong and functional AOPA to protect our legal rights and priveleges and provide a strong and co-ordinated lobby group to politicians, The regulator and the Judiciary.
Our Regulator needs a strong opposition to make it's own position credible.
The aim is to protect and maintain the members interests and prevent factional and ideological interferrence with the smooth running of the AOPA Board.
As AOPA belongs to the members, not a faction, a president (who's real identity should be Chairman of meetings), or any demagogue intent on using it as a political platform, it should be GIVEN BACK TO THE MEMBERS.
As such, a Joint Standing Committee of AOPA is proposed with members from all States and The Northern Territory, to form a committee with a permanent proxy base of 100 per State, and use these proxies as a tool to keep the Board in check. The relevant Articles of Association of AOPA and Corporate Law cannot prevent this being promulgated and could be a powerful arm of AOPA reprtesenting not only the States interests, but the individual members themselves. It would give the individual a voice that the Board would have ro listen to.
100 proxies are enough to call an EGM for example and can have a direct influence on policy and direction. if each State could use 100 proxies as a maximum per issue, and the States concurred, 700 proxies would surely give voice to a vote of no confidence.
Thus represented each State would represent a very significant cross section of the membershipthat has no geographic or ideological influence.
The gathering of these proxies would garner a membership drive at State level.
A steering committee should be set up from the existing membership and chair the first meeting and election of delegates. this can be done electronically, phone fax or mail and need not involve a costly and time consuming face to face meeting. Three delegates per State being envisaged with geographic diversity.
The State proxies would be left on a data base, being upgraded as memberships etc fall due. A proxy can be withdrawn or resubmitted at the members request, but it would be incumbent upon the State Chapter to maintain the 100 proxy base.
This way, all matters are thoroughly thought out, refined, checked and supported by a majority of the State/s and members before being presented to the National Body for implementation, consideration and promulgation.
Whatever the outcome of an issue, the majority would maintain a democratic resolution that should be respected by the Board.
No State would be disadvantaged with the 100 proxy rule.
Fundraising would be the responsibility of the States as would be membership drives at the local level.
The concept gives AOPA back to the Members.
The Motion as submitted to the Secretary and rejected.
'THAT AOPA ADOPT A NATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE THAT ALLOWS FOR STATE BASED CHAPTERS WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE NATIONAL BOARD IN ALL POLICY MATTERS BUT ARE ABLE TO MANAGE LOCAL ISSUES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE'
The motion requires 100 members to support it before the secretary will accept it to be put on the agenda.
This motion needs your support.
The proposer has also thrown his hat in the ring for election to the Board and this also needs your support. he has pledged 12 months of his time to the project irrespective of being elected or not. Being elected would ease the financial burden obviously.
It may be the last chance we members get.
This draft will become final 21days prior to the AGM and hopefully with the support of 100 members proxies/signatures. Such are still canvassed and the format can be emailed / fax'd or posted to you if you contact Bob direct. Input and ammendments are welcomed.
[email protected]
Draft;
Joint States Standing Committee of AOPA.
The current AOPA board has been the subject of an historically volatile, emotional and sometimes disfunctional organisation that when fractionated, lacks direction and focus. Much blame gets put about and further alienates Members opinions and support.
We, the Members need a strong and functional AOPA to protect our legal rights and priveleges and provide a strong and co-ordinated lobby group to politicians, The regulator and the Judiciary.
Our Regulator needs a strong opposition to make it's own position credible.
The aim is to protect and maintain the members interests and prevent factional and ideological interferrence with the smooth running of the AOPA Board.
As AOPA belongs to the members, not a faction, a president (who's real identity should be Chairman of meetings), or any demagogue intent on using it as a political platform, it should be GIVEN BACK TO THE MEMBERS.
As such, a Joint Standing Committee of AOPA is proposed with members from all States and The Northern Territory, to form a committee with a permanent proxy base of 100 per State, and use these proxies as a tool to keep the Board in check. The relevant Articles of Association of AOPA and Corporate Law cannot prevent this being promulgated and could be a powerful arm of AOPA reprtesenting not only the States interests, but the individual members themselves. It would give the individual a voice that the Board would have ro listen to.
100 proxies are enough to call an EGM for example and can have a direct influence on policy and direction. if each State could use 100 proxies as a maximum per issue, and the States concurred, 700 proxies would surely give voice to a vote of no confidence.
Thus represented each State would represent a very significant cross section of the membershipthat has no geographic or ideological influence.
The gathering of these proxies would garner a membership drive at State level.
A steering committee should be set up from the existing membership and chair the first meeting and election of delegates. this can be done electronically, phone fax or mail and need not involve a costly and time consuming face to face meeting. Three delegates per State being envisaged with geographic diversity.
The State proxies would be left on a data base, being upgraded as memberships etc fall due. A proxy can be withdrawn or resubmitted at the members request, but it would be incumbent upon the State Chapter to maintain the 100 proxy base.
This way, all matters are thoroughly thought out, refined, checked and supported by a majority of the State/s and members before being presented to the National Body for implementation, consideration and promulgation.
Whatever the outcome of an issue, the majority would maintain a democratic resolution that should be respected by the Board.
No State would be disadvantaged with the 100 proxy rule.
Fundraising would be the responsibility of the States as would be membership drives at the local level.
The concept gives AOPA back to the Members.
The Motion as submitted to the Secretary and rejected.
'THAT AOPA ADOPT A NATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE THAT ALLOWS FOR STATE BASED CHAPTERS WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE NATIONAL BOARD IN ALL POLICY MATTERS BUT ARE ABLE TO MANAGE LOCAL ISSUES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE'
The motion requires 100 members to support it before the secretary will accept it to be put on the agenda.
This motion needs your support.
The proposer has also thrown his hat in the ring for election to the Board and this also needs your support. he has pledged 12 months of his time to the project irrespective of being elected or not. Being elected would ease the financial burden obviously.
It may be the last chance we members get.
Gaunty,
Perhaps you should have a talk to several members of the AOPA Board, or perhaps Andrew Kerans, to determine the facts as to the source of the proposal to reduce the size of the present AOPA Board, after the AGM.
The phone numbers are all in the AOPA magazine.
I have it on quite good authority that NONE of the proposed radical changes came from any long standing member of the Board, but recent arrivals and recently resigned, and it certainly was NOT initiated by the current President.
Or in other words, credit should be as claimed in the “disappeared” section of this thread.
The thot plickans, as “they” say. But who is the plotter, and who is the plottee.
Tootle pip !!
PS: Folks, get behind the Murphie motion now, it need 100 members to put it to the '03 AGM, 100 signatures enforces the rights of members to have a motion presented as a Special Resolution for debate and vote.
Why wait for another year ???
Gaunty,
Once again, on good authority, the only proposal that will appear in the next issue of AOPA, is the proposal to reduce the total size of the AOPA Board, to one that will NOT be big enough to adequately representc all states. That is what I referred to in my previous post.
As I understand it, the present Minimum 8 --- Maximum 12 will be changed, ONLY IF THE MEMBERS approve at the AGM, to Min. 5 ---- Max. 7.
The Board sets the actual establishment from time to time, between the minimum and maximum allowed in the Articles, and for some years the establishment has been 10, so NOTHING has changed for this year's election.
It is somewhat less than obvious to me how "no change" could be some darstedly plot, if anyone on the Board wanted a change, they could have proposed a change. Did they ???? Ask !!
"I am advised" that it was changed from 8 to 10, the last change, some time late in the last century, to improve the chances of smaller states getting representation.
Did anyone propose a change from 10 this year ??? Call a few Board members, and apply a root mean square distribution to arrive at statistically probable answer.
Tootle pip !!
Perhaps you should have a talk to several members of the AOPA Board, or perhaps Andrew Kerans, to determine the facts as to the source of the proposal to reduce the size of the present AOPA Board, after the AGM.
The phone numbers are all in the AOPA magazine.
I have it on quite good authority that NONE of the proposed radical changes came from any long standing member of the Board, but recent arrivals and recently resigned, and it certainly was NOT initiated by the current President.
Or in other words, credit should be as claimed in the “disappeared” section of this thread.
The thot plickans, as “they” say. But who is the plotter, and who is the plottee.
Tootle pip !!
PS: Folks, get behind the Murphie motion now, it need 100 members to put it to the '03 AGM, 100 signatures enforces the rights of members to have a motion presented as a Special Resolution for debate and vote.
Why wait for another year ???
Gaunty,
Once again, on good authority, the only proposal that will appear in the next issue of AOPA, is the proposal to reduce the total size of the AOPA Board, to one that will NOT be big enough to adequately representc all states. That is what I referred to in my previous post.
As I understand it, the present Minimum 8 --- Maximum 12 will be changed, ONLY IF THE MEMBERS approve at the AGM, to Min. 5 ---- Max. 7.
The Board sets the actual establishment from time to time, between the minimum and maximum allowed in the Articles, and for some years the establishment has been 10, so NOTHING has changed for this year's election.
It is somewhat less than obvious to me how "no change" could be some darstedly plot, if anyone on the Board wanted a change, they could have proposed a change. Did they ???? Ask !!
"I am advised" that it was changed from 8 to 10, the last change, some time late in the last century, to improve the chances of smaller states getting representation.
Did anyone propose a change from 10 this year ??? Call a few Board members, and apply a root mean square distribution to arrive at statistically probable answer.
Tootle pip !!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Victoria
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled .. it would be nice if the present board communicated with the membership somewhat better than they do!
I sent an email to all the present board members and only three have bothered to reply to date and only one addressed the issues that I raised. Maybe this is part of the problem??
One can only hope that the rumour that the board numbers have been changed since the nominations closed is just that.. a rumour.
Like other readers, I await confirmation one way or the other.
cheers
I sent an email to all the present board members and only three have bothered to reply to date and only one addressed the issues that I raised. Maybe this is part of the problem??
One can only hope that the rumour that the board numbers have been changed since the nominations closed is just that.. a rumour.
Like other readers, I await confirmation one way or the other.
cheers
Well there goes my dreamteam – Gaunt doesn’t like McKeown. However, that’s based on Gaunt’s understanding of who’s responsible for the push to reduce the number of Board members. Perhaps he may change his mind.
I’ll say it again – 11 on a board of an organisation of this kind is in my view too many. 5 max. It’s all well and good having state ‘chapters’ or some other entrenched representation, but the fundamental problem on that front is that AOPA doesn’t know who it represents!
LeadSled – my post was centrally relevant to the point I was making in comparing and contrasting the lobbying methods and success of AOPA and the AUF.
Yours is a very telling post. It points up exactly why AOPA has alienated itself from its natural (and claimed) constituency. You simply dismiss as irrational the views of people you identify as members of the flying training industry. You think a proposal has merit, therefore their opposition is irrational. Did it ever occur to you that they might not take kindly to paying AOPA to tell them they’re irrational? Did it ever occur to you that if they were ever members of AOPA, AOPA’s job might have been to do what they want it to do? And last but not least, do you ever entertain even the remotest possibility that they might be right, and you wrong?
Woomera – Any more news as to why the previous tranche of posts was moved to admin, and when it might return?
I’ll say it again – 11 on a board of an organisation of this kind is in my view too many. 5 max. It’s all well and good having state ‘chapters’ or some other entrenched representation, but the fundamental problem on that front is that AOPA doesn’t know who it represents!
LeadSled – my post was centrally relevant to the point I was making in comparing and contrasting the lobbying methods and success of AOPA and the AUF.
Yours is a very telling post. It points up exactly why AOPA has alienated itself from its natural (and claimed) constituency. You simply dismiss as irrational the views of people you identify as members of the flying training industry. You think a proposal has merit, therefore their opposition is irrational. Did it ever occur to you that they might not take kindly to paying AOPA to tell them they’re irrational? Did it ever occur to you that if they were ever members of AOPA, AOPA’s job might have been to do what they want it to do? And last but not least, do you ever entertain even the remotest possibility that they might be right, and you wrong?
Woomera – Any more news as to why the previous tranche of posts was moved to admin, and when it might return?
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admin's out of the sack, and it's all back in black.
Agree folks, fascinating thread, and excellent use of the forum. Good debate.
Sick Squid
PPRuNe Admin
Agree folks, fascinating thread, and excellent use of the forum. Good debate.
Sick Squid
PPRuNe Admin
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
Now I’m truly confused, I see two scenarios, both, from where I sit way beyond that black stump, from apparently “reliable” sources.
If the scenario I described above is so then I do not resile from any of my comments.
But if as you say it is different, then I will have to reconsider some ideas.
The end result (a Board reduction) does not appear to be in dispute, the responsibility for it is.
I even chide our friend cogwheel for entertaining the notion of a Board number change before the election and AGM, but after the nominations close.
Then I see evidence that suggests that it has “actually” happened.
If I have maligned Mr McKeown in this regard, then he has my unreserved apology.
I will tomorrow (Sun) take up your suggestion and make some further calls.
So how and by whom is still moot then?
Indeed the “thot plickens” and I am dismayed that some feel that it is necessary to “plot” in the first place.
There is arrogance in that as a concept, which does no service to the plotters or the membership.
It promotes the belief that the membership aren’t clever enough out work out who is going to do the best job for them and that they really need “serious help” to make sure that they, the dumb membership, don’t make a silly mistake.
I have much more faith in people than that.
Reduction of the Board numbers AT the AGM is going to be a tricky job as it means two or more “hopefuls” are going to miss out and further concentrate a “power base”.
If this is to be decided by a vote of those present and proxies then that message should be got out with the April AOPA, so that voters may think more carefully on their voting intentions.
We’ll have to see what the Mag brings eh?
I do not disagree in principle on the reduction of Board numbers, as being more efficient, but I am further confused and alarmed by your reference to even lower numbers. I will come back to this subject in a moment
Mr Murphies Motion to embed “State” representation has some real merit and echoes the distant past when there was such a system.
That he has pledged 12 months of his life to promote the legitimate interests of AOPA members, would have to have the support of everyone who has interests of AOPA as their first priority.
My memory is not good enough to recall the details but I’m sure that there is someone around here who can. For reasons I can’t recall, it seems it was abandoned, became superfluous or became a nuisance during the Smith/Munro putsch.
Having said that my gut feeling is that IF the Board is properly elected in a vigorous election, which we appear to now have in spades, then there should be a natural balance of sensibilities amongst mature, responsible individuals, that would ensure the membership and their interests came first and egos dead last.
That Mr Murphies Motion is even mooted is an indictment of the past modus operandi. It is the MO, which must change.
The idea that AOPA needs another body within it to ride “shotgun” on the Board says much of a prevailing feeling, that the Board can not be trusted, is manipulative, has members who act independently of the Board, unilaterally on policy and with scant regard for the membership whom they are elected to represent.
There is some evidence that suggests that this has been so in the past and why the current robust debate and election process plays on.
At the end of the day the Board are legally responsible for the operation of AOPA. Yes, Mr Murphies proposed “outriders” would have the ability to keep em ‘honest’, but we must understand that they also have the ability to completely disrupt the operation, should, and this is more likely than not, factions fight for and gain control of the “outriders”.
Our friend Nicolo Machiavelli would think he’d died and gone to heaven if he was presented with this as an opportunity.
What are the Board, who hold the legal responsibility, to do then? I know what I’d do, pull the handles.
And whilst I agree in “principle” with a reduction in numbers, I fear it would actually have the opposite effect, by concentrating power in smaller numbers, without the “natural protection” that larger numbers bring with a diversity of opinion.
Larger numbers may be harder work in trying to “sell” an agenda or pursue a policy concept, but they are more likely to be tested for efficacy and general agreement in the heat of debate amongst larger numbers than not. The membership deserve that protection
In summary “the status quo” must prevail until after the AGM, the dust has settled, and the new “TEAM “ whoever they may be, as defined by hermeias and I'm sure Marjorie would agree, can get on with the REAL business with Government and Regulator.
Oh and one other little matter on which you may be able to instruct me.
Whilst doing a little research on the Articles, downloaded from the AOPA site, I see Article 38 (b) relating to Committee members who have a full time job blah blah blah, being ineligible for the Presidency, has an exception which specifically exempts Captain W.J.R (Bill) Hamilton from its operation, which I found curious.
Why is this so.?
Creampuff
Do not give up on your dream yet
= TRUE
And I do hear good things about Mr McKeown which is why my reaction above.
Hmm and regarding the FLOT thingy, one of the largest training organisations in Australia, RACWA, and certainly THE largest in WA are one of the few NOT affiliated with AOPA and haven’t been for some time. They were once.
Win lose or draw they are on my list, but I suspect that things will have to change dramatically to get them back.
I was given to understand that they were present at FLOT at the “express” invitation of CASA, because of their size and influence, maybe even as guests, I can’t be sure, but to ensure that there was “proper representation” of “that” part of the industry.
I could have sworn that is a role that would normally have been the natural domain of AOPA.
Now I’m off to make some telephone calls.
Now I’m truly confused, I see two scenarios, both, from where I sit way beyond that black stump, from apparently “reliable” sources.
If the scenario I described above is so then I do not resile from any of my comments.
But if as you say it is different, then I will have to reconsider some ideas.
The end result (a Board reduction) does not appear to be in dispute, the responsibility for it is.
I even chide our friend cogwheel for entertaining the notion of a Board number change before the election and AGM, but after the nominations close.
Then I see evidence that suggests that it has “actually” happened.
If I have maligned Mr McKeown in this regard, then he has my unreserved apology.
I will tomorrow (Sun) take up your suggestion and make some further calls.
So how and by whom is still moot then?
Indeed the “thot plickens” and I am dismayed that some feel that it is necessary to “plot” in the first place.
There is arrogance in that as a concept, which does no service to the plotters or the membership.
It promotes the belief that the membership aren’t clever enough out work out who is going to do the best job for them and that they really need “serious help” to make sure that they, the dumb membership, don’t make a silly mistake.
I have much more faith in people than that.
Reduction of the Board numbers AT the AGM is going to be a tricky job as it means two or more “hopefuls” are going to miss out and further concentrate a “power base”.
If this is to be decided by a vote of those present and proxies then that message should be got out with the April AOPA, so that voters may think more carefully on their voting intentions.
We’ll have to see what the Mag brings eh?
I do not disagree in principle on the reduction of Board numbers, as being more efficient, but I am further confused and alarmed by your reference to even lower numbers. I will come back to this subject in a moment
Mr Murphies Motion to embed “State” representation has some real merit and echoes the distant past when there was such a system.
That he has pledged 12 months of his life to promote the legitimate interests of AOPA members, would have to have the support of everyone who has interests of AOPA as their first priority.
My memory is not good enough to recall the details but I’m sure that there is someone around here who can. For reasons I can’t recall, it seems it was abandoned, became superfluous or became a nuisance during the Smith/Munro putsch.
Having said that my gut feeling is that IF the Board is properly elected in a vigorous election, which we appear to now have in spades, then there should be a natural balance of sensibilities amongst mature, responsible individuals, that would ensure the membership and their interests came first and egos dead last.
That Mr Murphies Motion is even mooted is an indictment of the past modus operandi. It is the MO, which must change.
The idea that AOPA needs another body within it to ride “shotgun” on the Board says much of a prevailing feeling, that the Board can not be trusted, is manipulative, has members who act independently of the Board, unilaterally on policy and with scant regard for the membership whom they are elected to represent.
There is some evidence that suggests that this has been so in the past and why the current robust debate and election process plays on.
At the end of the day the Board are legally responsible for the operation of AOPA. Yes, Mr Murphies proposed “outriders” would have the ability to keep em ‘honest’, but we must understand that they also have the ability to completely disrupt the operation, should, and this is more likely than not, factions fight for and gain control of the “outriders”.
Our friend Nicolo Machiavelli would think he’d died and gone to heaven if he was presented with this as an opportunity.
What are the Board, who hold the legal responsibility, to do then? I know what I’d do, pull the handles.
And whilst I agree in “principle” with a reduction in numbers, I fear it would actually have the opposite effect, by concentrating power in smaller numbers, without the “natural protection” that larger numbers bring with a diversity of opinion.
Larger numbers may be harder work in trying to “sell” an agenda or pursue a policy concept, but they are more likely to be tested for efficacy and general agreement in the heat of debate amongst larger numbers than not. The membership deserve that protection
In summary “the status quo” must prevail until after the AGM, the dust has settled, and the new “TEAM “ whoever they may be, as defined by hermeias and I'm sure Marjorie would agree, can get on with the REAL business with Government and Regulator.
Oh and one other little matter on which you may be able to instruct me.
Whilst doing a little research on the Articles, downloaded from the AOPA site, I see Article 38 (b) relating to Committee members who have a full time job blah blah blah, being ineligible for the Presidency, has an exception which specifically exempts Captain W.J.R (Bill) Hamilton from its operation, which I found curious.
Why is this so.?
Creampuff
Do not give up on your dream yet
the fundamental problem on that front is that AOPA doesn’t know who it represents!
And I do hear good things about Mr McKeown which is why my reaction above.
Hmm and regarding the FLOT thingy, one of the largest training organisations in Australia, RACWA, and certainly THE largest in WA are one of the few NOT affiliated with AOPA and haven’t been for some time. They were once.
Win lose or draw they are on my list, but I suspect that things will have to change dramatically to get them back.
I was given to understand that they were present at FLOT at the “express” invitation of CASA, because of their size and influence, maybe even as guests, I can’t be sure, but to ensure that there was “proper representation” of “that” part of the industry.
I could have sworn that is a role that would normally have been the natural domain of AOPA.
Now I’m off to make some telephone calls.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE TWO M'S
1. I have seen it in writing that the acting senior Board member moved for 11 to 9 and I admire Chris for taking such a step as many of us believe the Board is too big therefore more subject to friction and potential regular political paralysis. The writer is, in my opinion and despite my recent crossfire elsewhere with him/her, quite trustworthy.
2. The Murphie motion must not be discounted as just a consequence of the current circus. AOPA has and needs a national membership base and needs to have a democratic and rapid communication flow throughout. A State Chapter arrangement provides this and a social scene outside Bankstown as well. eg My aero club meets two monthly at Moorabbin and I have only missed one meeting in my life despite the drive and inhospitable Moorabbin environment.
3. Creampuff, we are probably juggling semantics. The Ombud is arbitrating in the vendetta, trying to ensure the victim does get both justice and potentially compensation. This last is probably why the men in black are in subterfuge mode.
4. What we are not seeing here are up to date policies from the nominees. Also, a team without Murph lacks a significant cornerstone. Perhaps if the policies are laid out with a scoring square beside each, we can benchmark the Board when this Forum comes alive again next election! Hopefully, in between it can be used, to quote another "to keep the barstewards honest".
Cheers, the dogs are about to drag me into the cold of Emerald Lake Park for a walk!
2. The Murphie motion must not be discounted as just a consequence of the current circus. AOPA has and needs a national membership base and needs to have a democratic and rapid communication flow throughout. A State Chapter arrangement provides this and a social scene outside Bankstown as well. eg My aero club meets two monthly at Moorabbin and I have only missed one meeting in my life despite the drive and inhospitable Moorabbin environment.
3. Creampuff, we are probably juggling semantics. The Ombud is arbitrating in the vendetta, trying to ensure the victim does get both justice and potentially compensation. This last is probably why the men in black are in subterfuge mode.
4. What we are not seeing here are up to date policies from the nominees. Also, a team without Murph lacks a significant cornerstone. Perhaps if the policies are laid out with a scoring square beside each, we can benchmark the Board when this Forum comes alive again next election! Hopefully, in between it can be used, to quote another "to keep the barstewards honest".
Cheers, the dogs are about to drag me into the cold of Emerald Lake Park for a walk!