AOPA "The Election" (merged)

[brianh]

I FEEL GOOD - THE LAST 4 POSTS

Guys
If I can again wax philosophical the previous four posts continue what I consider a positive contribution to the debate, accepting the differences in opinions rather than bulldozing the protestors.

Em, good post. We need more input from the silent majority. Peoples perceptions are true to them and the Board and Bill H need this sort of feedback to test their own values. Nevertheless, one fundamental target of the next Board should be professional help thru the "forming and storming phase" so they can then meet constructively and further the aims of GA instead of the individual ego.

Akkers, I might have to give Murph a boost re the State Chapters because they are dear to my heart but your are still ticked on my list coz you have political nous and can work in a team.

Gaunty, I'm warming to your cause. Let's forget the AUF for the minute - what are your thoughts on AOPA and ASA? Can we afford a 'split infinitive". What are your views on "reconciliation". PS If you pass that test successfully reconciliation with someone else in the west is my next likely question.

A plea to everyone to make all contributions from here on in to the election continue the positives of the past few. There is no "I" in TEAM.
Au reservoir, tanks
BJ

[paddopat]

yes they were good positive posts.

Seems even snarek and axiom have found some common ground

I read monkeyfly's post with a quizzical smirk. Mate, you have decided not to vote for the people who will engage with you here and vote for the ones who won't talk to you.

Interesting concept, I suppose then that you have already decided who to vote for and are only making mischief.

A number of people have written about relations with CASA. Well I find them to be a generally professional lot with a few VERY bad apples. Interestingly, those bad apples nearly all come from a military background. I suppose that can never be good for civillian aviation.

CASA have also ignored GA for a long time. I feel that is because GA fights amongst itself. But I also believe it is because the way AOPA has been run for the past 10 years has allowed CASA to say to Government "look, they can't be reasoned with". That is why we need change.

There is no doubting that CASA intimidate certain individuals. Even some young (and not so young) instructors at my club say "I'm not challenging that, I have to work you know". That is despicable and must be stopped. But to stop it we need a new respected AOPA, not the tired old soapbox it has become.

I see a post on merging the distinction between GA and AUF. A while ago I would have railled against that. Now I think it is a very good idea. Aviation is changing, GA must change to keep up.

AOPA sponsored clubs. Excellent!!!!!

Pat.

[monkeyfly]

paddopat,

You actually understand me quite well. The confusion you find in reading my post is what I feel in trying to decide.

I want to find 9 people I want on the board. Of the few on pprune, if they behave like this now, how are they going to behave on the board. (Sorry, past boards have given me a negative outlook).

Got the mag tonight. Only read it once, which is not enough. The first thing I notice was that most people posted their aviation experience. Don't take this personally, but I DON"T CARE how you fly an aircraft.(I actually do, just making a point)

Others have posted experience in various boards, mainly aviation based. I have the feeling that we should be looking for ideas outside the industry. The problems we faced with the regulator must have been experience by other industries?????

What do you guys and girls think??

Can the people up for election expand on there experience outside aviation???

monkey

p.s. Sorry for any confusion my various post cause. I'm searching for answers in the dark, I tend to go all over the place.

[snarek]

So Monkeyfly, you want to know me better eh???

OK, I'll bite.

My experience outside of GA.

Radio Technician. 10 Years. Central NT and Northern Qld.
Bachelor of Engineering (Radio)
Masters of Engineering (Satellite)
Currently studying (Part Time) for a PhD in Meteorology and Radio Wave Propagation.
Senior Member Intitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Published 12 Papers in Journals and Conferences.
Currently Principal Engineer, Space Systems at the ACA. Also teach part time at James Cook University.

In addition. Master SCUBA Instructor (PADI) member of Instructor Development Committee 1998.
Owned and Operated Sportsmans Dive Services, Townsville 1988 - 91, employed 10 instructors and 5 divemasters. (played a big part in cleaning up the dive industry, TOGETHER with the Qld Govt).
Commercial Diver (But I'm too old now).

I make most of my income from real estate.

I WAS a member of Labor Party and more recently the Democrats. Held official positions with Democrats. Left cos they went too far left

Have advised two Ministers and numerous 'others' on radiocomms policy.

I also own a Grumman Tiger and a 1944 Taylorcraft. I only hold a PPL.


AK

[brianh]

GOT THE MAG ALSO

Paddo,
Good point about the AOPA image with CASA. Never the less, no matter how quick AOPA changes - and my biggest experience is at the 100,000 staff plus org level so I have some feel for this - I do not believe an entrenched militaristic culture can change without external effort - for CASA a massive re-org or fragmentation, etc. I have had recent dealings with defence (I once carried a radio and rifle) and cannot believe their current (read out of the ark) personnel management style. Where did much of CASA come from??? And, even with a re-org and redundancies, our own corporate experience was that the ones who could get a job outside took the $ and ran, and the level of retained mediocrity actually went up!

Monkey.
Me too. Although the mag did bring life to me - I actually found 9 positive selections at first choice - only in pencil so far. Still nowhere near set in concrete.

Akkers
Mate, never admit Engineer qualifications. I spend my life fixing what they design. I did my post-grad at Caulfield rather than Monash - at Monash they can design screwdrivers, at Caulfield they can use them. Hell, you almost had my eraser out on your tick with that admission.

But good on you for the CV. I, like Monkey, looked for some business or similar acumen in my selections.

Also raises the point that we are judging those candidates with the intestinal fortitude to debate on this Forum - warts and all - against a small piece of print from those who do not. I'm giving you and others on this Forum a positive weighting accordingly.

NOW, THE MAGAZINE
Bill P is forthright that he did not see resolving the financial issue as a primary task. I accept his view, not mine of a President.

He makes however some more good points about the excess controls imposed by CASA.

Marjorie has well put both sides of the accrual debate.

Now, this is a worry – Chris wants to censor magazine content. He suggests complaint re the Board should be to the Board only. I know he is aiming for the positive side of life but I cannot support the stifling of genuine debate – there is always right of reply in the magazine by the Board. After all, if it is OK for the Mag to be used for fairly blatant electioneering, why not for member comment. Next, Drac gets the Blood Bank key?

And looking at the notes on the FLOT conference, plenty of CASA goodwill - sort of the SMHEA dam full of good water - but the Snowy river itself seems to be pretty dry still. A little like the Victorian road toll where the Government speed camera position (ie revenue) remains unchanged despite the facts. Can CASA ever relax the iron gauntlet and accept USA standards - or is this akin to Collingwood winning back to back Grand Finals?

Ah well, I'm off to the airport and I well take Bill Hamilton's point that - despite my upcoming medical this year - my greatest risk is not the flying but travelling there and back thru the un-medicalled motorists, without one-hundredth of the theory or prac we need to get even a PPL.

My proxy will go to Murph for obvious reasons.
Cheers

[Maxima]

Haven't got my mag yet.
Snarek;
Congratulations for posting your impressive CV.
Accomplished people like you improve the standing of the board.

Wish you wouldn't say

I only hold a PPL.

There are many PPLs who exceed the standard displayed by many CPLs and some ATPLs, particularly on the radio.


brianh;

the level of retained mediocrity actually went up!

I agree! This must be so, it is no doubt the cause of the constant frustration whenever dealing with CASA.

And yes, we need to see the rest of the candidates speak up and tell us how they are thinking (and this forum is ideal, until the AOPA forum gets going again).

I am also concerned about interference with the content of the magazine by the President. The Editor is the only person to edit the magazine: it is not the province of the President or anyone else. Hands off the mag.

Monkey;

I agree. I want to see directors who have something more to offer than just flying experience - they should also have experience in business (successful). Although aviation experience is neccesary, an extensive flying history is not and has nothing to do with running an association/company. This is what the job is about. They all have enough experience of the industry just by being pilots.

Directors should have something to contribute to AOPA, such as their individual skills, (professional, listening, lobbying and negotiating), and most importantly, the ability to analyse and debate the issues effectively. They should have the ability and inclination to take and heed advice from others when issues are outside their own field of expertise, whether that may be technical, financial, legal, insurance, employment, etc..


Long live AOPA

[snarek]

Brian

Look at the list, TECH from 79 - 89, then I went to uni. Learned how to fix em before I learned how to design em

Maxima

I am proud of my PPL. I put it there so people could se I definitely wasn't a Q-Captain. My experience of them of late has left me wondering about CRM. But I am the first to admit, my full frontal experience has been limited to two, so I will assume the others are a little more open.

AK

[axiom]

I could be wrong, but I thought Paul Scully-Power wasn't a pilot, neither is Ted Anson, (both Chairmen of the CASA Board), and Gabbi Hollows wasn't either, but on the CASA Board as well.

Regards "Q" captains, wasn't Mick Toller a Cathay chief of operations at Kowloon before he came to Oz and took up the "wizzards" job?

Since when did academic achievemic achievement rate better than common sense and idealism in the quest to get a better AOPA.

How many times has snarek said, "bloody lawyers" ?

It does not need a genius to run a company the size of AOPA, it needs "man management and certainly does not need a plethora of academics who threaten to sue at the drop of a hat.

Although not agreeing with McKeowns idea of a closed criticism forum, I DO believe that the Board needs to be more "closed shop" to prevent damaging leaks which people like axiom can, and do exploit when defending some undeserved criticism.

There have been some very cruel posts here that are not worthy of being included in rational debate, however I would rate the profiles on the nominations thus;

1) A lot of promises to work in a team environment.

2) A few resting on past achievements.

3) Some using the platform to advise indirectly, who not to vote for and emphasising the poor state of affairs but without offering an alternative.

4) Some prepared to push ahead with things that AOPA should be doing anyway.

5) Some, and understandingly, reluctant to put more than a foot in the door and remaining in the middle.

6) And, one only with a proposal to do something about the state of affairs. (Murphie), my mate.

[snarek]

Ah Axiom.

You've gone into nasty negative mode again, singing the tune of your one man band!!!!

It seems you can't, but can Murphie work as a team. Another fractured Board we don't need!!!

[Emeus]

I read the April Magazine twice, and have read all the postings again on this thread.

It's hard to comprehend how our Association could be so badly managed. Reading between the lines it is apparent that Messrs Hamilton and Lyon were the two directors mentioned who provided the obstruction to the financial reforms proposed by Russell Kelly (could you confirm this Snarek?). How anyone in their right mind could argue that liabilities shouldn't be funded is beyond comprehension, without any expert opinions to back their wacky position. Kelly was qualified in finance yet Hamilton & Lyon who I understand have no formal qualifications, did whatever they could to continue the fiscal rot.

Someone made the comment that we need to know the skills and qualifications of the nominees outside their aviation interests.

I couldn't agree more. Like it or not, AOPA is a business with around $0.7m turnover. There needs to be some people on the board who have had business experience at the board or management level, often these people will have organisational and negotiation skills that could be put to good use when dealing with CASA.

I found the self-serving articles in the Magazine from McKeown and Hamilton offensive in the extreme. Why where they allowed extra electioneering space and given advantage over the other candidates? Even more alarming is the flagged intention of Mr McKeown to censor the Magazine, a big big mistake Mr McKeown. This last happened in the days of Boyd Munro's presidency, letters I wrote were never published and any opinion or dissent was stifled.

The methodology in dealing with CASA clearly needs to be reviewed. The blustering, disorganised nonesense peddled by Mr Hamilton has been an embarrassment and it is no wonder that AOPA has been relatively ineffectual at the political level.

So I am desperately hoping (as an ageing member who would like to see AOPA's credibility and finances restored) that the rank and file members will wake up to what has been going and that the blundering incompetence represented by Hamilton, McKeown and Rudd is addressed. I can assure you that if Bill Hamilton is returned I will immediately resign my 4 year pre-paid membership.

One question that I don't believe has been answered in this Forum: Is Bob Murphie part of the Hamilton ticket?

Another question: Who is currently the Treasurer ? I have some questions on the published accounts?

[antechinus]

Code Of Conduct

I was gratified to see that the Code of Conduct was published in the Magazine. As one of the authors of the document I can tell you that the motive was to try and create an ethical platform for the directors that would have reduced the ratbagery.

As Axiom notes, one of the problems I personally experienced was the systematic leaking of confidential communications between directors to external dissidents, Mr Axiom was possibly a lucky recipient of such juicy tales. Some of the emails between directors were at times robust but nontheless private between the authorised recipients.

Unfortunately the Code meant nothing to two of the committee who openly flouted the rule and freely promulgated material when it suited them.

McKeown's grand plan to censor the Magazine (and presumably the AOPA Forum page if/when it ever returns) is an extremely misguided mistake and will drive members to pprune and other sites. Chris has lost my support, I certainly won't be voting for Hamilton or Rudd.

Russell

[snarek]

Emeus

Your assumptions are correct. In fact, if you had a mind, you could read Russell Kelly's post on Board members leaking info to a little man in WA with those thoughts in you mind and then form another opinion.

I hope the little man can't read backwards, he threatened me all the time.

AK

[axiom]

I just spent 30 minutes posting something here and my server went down and lost the lot.

Who the bloody hell is running the communications show in Aust right now snarek?

To recap;

1) Snarek. Murphie appears to be a one man band, tunnel vision, wants support for something worhtwhile but is being drawn into things thet do not concern him. He is not an accountant, Solicitor, barrister or engineer with a plethora of degrees, but he has an idea, a promise to give 12 months of his time to a positive project but is being hindered by people who want a "for us or against us" promise.

Bloody factions.

Ask not if Murphie can work with the Board (whoever they are, but can they work with him.

Can you do likewise?

Emeus;

Whatever you do, don't let anyone know who you are, because, even if they suspect, you could be hit with a warning, writ etc.

It's quiet fashionable right now I hear.

You have told us who you are for and against and quiet frankly you are becoming boring.

What do you have to offer that will fix this? Castor oil?

For info., Bob is not on anyone's ticket, but has promised to work with whoever will work with him.

If you suspect he is a Communist, Gay, a Mason, or an ultralight pilot, or anything else that offends your morals, don't vote for him, but if he gets elected and is part of the Board, can you accept the democratic voice of the members? I'm sure he will and if he goes out with a whimper, he will do exactly as gentlemen before him have done (I refer to Jim Dawson), leave quietly and with dignity

Research has told axiom today that

1) When Dick Smith ran the show, there were open committee meetings.

2) When Boyd ran the show, there were open committee meetings.

3) When Bill Hamilton ran the show, there were open committee meetings.

4) Toward the end of the Hamilton reign, new members dictated a closed shop.

Murphie advises that at the first opportunity he will lobby to have open committee meetings that will stop this rot of rumours and vindictive character assasinations that have bedevilled the show for the past year and a bit.

Can someone now tell me what is wrong with this and how this can be another attempt by axiom or Murphie to bring asunder the smooth running of AOPA?

He is still waiting for some positive indications from Ms Pagani about Incorporated Associations viz liability matters that have a fair degree of support and need airing.

Snarek, you'r in charge, fix my computer up.

[snarek]

Axiom

1,2,3,4 Bullsh!t. Chinese History!!!

If Murphy gets up he must work with the Board and the Board with him. His ideas will be listened to and voted on, not just accepted.

If he gets the majority to support them, they will be implimented, if not they won't.

I await full details, but in priciple he will have my support.

Have you run a virus check??
If not do a 'defrag' its in your system tools.

AK

[Emeus]

Boring

Axiom

One wonders about your own credentials to gratuitously act as the armchair guru throughout these postings. You have goaded others into stating their credentials, what are yours?

I find your pontifications boring, your sanctimonious piffle irrelevant and your apologies for the Hamilton regime sickening.
Reading your posts you have offered nothing to the debate except thinly disquised support for those who have brought AOPA to its knees.

[axiom]

Oh dear oh me;

I have one very real and tangible credential. I am an AOPA member and as such a voter who would like to see as much discussion on matters as seriously relevant as you deem them to be.

One thing I cannot abide is the nauseating continum of abuse being directed to some who have chosen not to run to the lawyers over remarks such as yours.

There are always two sides to a story and you are expousing your own theories that denigrate and attempt to belittle some who represent the other 50% of the spectrum and the opinions.

To give you a point to ponder;

Listening to both sides of the accountancy debate, it appears that either column could be used in the matter of up front membership dues.

You could get opinion after opinion, as I have from local governments, (rates paid in advance) and you will get differing messages.

Magazine subscriptions, insurance, and union dues being some of note.

If I grant Russel Kelly the benefit, AOPA is insolvent and if I grant Lyon the benefit AOPA is not insolvent.

I then ask two things,

1) Why is Russel so set upon reform of the accountancy proceedures if it spells certain death for AOPA.

2) If AOPA can be made solvent by utilising the funds in year one instead of factoring it over the term of the subscription, then surely this is better for the members in so much as they will get at least a magazine for their troubles and AOPA can get on with the job of being AOPA. (which I would imagine requires next years finances getting up and running).

What AOPA needs is input that will give a positive lean on this problem and I have suggested the State Chapters. Has anyone else any ideas?

If you have already made up your mind regarding who you are supporting Emeus, why don't you simply support them and give them a chance of winning? The way you are going with your abuse of the opposition it is doing their cause no good.

Remember there are a lot who believe you are wrong, but this would never have entered your grey matter would it?

[antechinus]

Axiom:

Some relevant points:

I have not claimed that AOPA is insolvent, rather AOPA has the potential to become insolvent if its financial behaviour does not change.

Secondly, my understanding is that Mr Lyon does not have the qualifications to say whether AOPA is solvent or not solvent.

Thirdly, at no time has any written expert opinion been obtained by the AOPA board that refutes my position in relation to the funding of liabilities.

Fourthly, if AOPA's financial position is so wonderful, why is it that even after tarting up the Balance Sheet AOPA still cannot get Directors' Indemnity insurance?

Fifthly, you may care to ask Bill Hamilton why, in the early days of his reign as president it was OK to fund the liabilities in the Balance Sheet, yet when the money was blown he reverted to wiping out the debt. Seems to me like expediency comes before principle!

Emeus:

Don't despair. My guess is that you reflect the views of a large number of the silent majority. Don't be intimidated by anyone here and please have your say. If the Hamilton operatives manage to regain control there will almost certainly be an EGM.

[cogwheel]

Priorities..!

This discussion continues to be most robust and this is a good thing for the Association and the membership. There will always be the sniping at those that you don't agree with for whatever reason and it should (so long it is done above the belt) be accepted for what it is and hope that it may benefit all.

The Acting President, has in the magazine, suggested what some might view as an attempt on censorship and I don't believe this is acceptable in any shape or form. All the issues must be made available to the membership by whatever means. (Censorship and single issue crusades do not enhance the associations ability to do business). When this occurs we will benefit from whatever debate that might follow.

There is certainly merit in having a "code of conduct" within the Board. If you don't like it then don't become a board member. The leaking of information of late has been well below the belt and not necessarily in the best interests of AOPA. There are very few items that should be discussed "in camera" on the board and as a result the deliberations of the board should be open for all members to see... (on the web page?) and to attend as observers.

Well then what are the priorities of the new Board?

Firstly the future of AOPA must be the #1 priority of the new board. The management of the association, the development of a sound business plan and a workable budget must come first and foremost.

What next? Well a compressive marketing plan to sell the Association to the existing membership, then to other potential members within the industry.

Regain the respectability and credibility. A team effort behind a new leader. No more single issue crusades – the board are there for the greater good of the membership, not their own pet projects. All policy must have the majority support of the Board. The Chairman must be the sole public voice of the Association – no more unauthorised comments from the side!

Work hard at re-establishing workable relationships with those whom AOPA must deal with. No more shooting from the hip or walking in with guns blazing. The positive achievements that are available come from responsible representation and good negotiation skills. Use them.

Enhance the area representation around the country. (Not against the Murphy proposal, but it needs further review and discussion) Provide feedback and facilitate good communication in both directions. (often the members don't know what is going on – because they are not told)

A complete rewrite of the rules including Board size etc needs to be undertaken.



If the new board do not go down these or very similar lines then it is inevitable that the membership will again question what is going on and an EGM could well be on the cards. What would happen then is anyone's guess, but it is possible a new election might result.

There is no way I for one want to see a return to the dictatorships of the past few years and I am sure that I am not alone. As said previously we have seen AOPA lose over half it's membership and many hundreds of thousands of dollars since the Patroni days. Those that had a part in that do not deserve another go.

[axiom]

Antechinas;

points taken and I will ask of those you mentioned to respond.

Your advice to Emeus needs a bit of tarting up. If you read his (or her), past post, you may well tell me who is trying to intimidate whom/

Cogwheel;

It's amazing how we are so much in agreement on a lot of things and I guess one could work with you on matters of reform. It is healthy to have an opposition however and one would expect all involved would give and take in the same spirit.

What I can't live with is an obvious platform of "HATE" which is spilling from some sectors and is totally counterproductive to their own agendas and the good of AOPA.

Clearly hate messages should be treated with the contempt they deserve. I have never experienced hate and find it most distressing. I am sure others sitting on the fence seeand feel the same way.

Look at my recent posts on open Board meetings, I thought I would relay what a few of us agreed was a good idea. Instead of support we got a job given us to re investigate the history of the Board and if and when I get a response from Messrs, Smith, Munro and Hamilton I can only pass that on. Somehow I doubt even facts would be dismissed.

Look also at Murphie's proposal of State Chapters. His idea is to review, discuss, debate the matter over a 12 month period before attempting an implementation.

His idea is a simple management decision and if you read the resolution, you will see it requires NO ammendments to the articles of association and even if it was deemed to be needed, it would not happen before 12 months time.

All he wants is to get someone to ratify the State representatives we now have into a workable committee.

THE MOTION/ RESOLUTION again.

'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'

[gaunty]

axiom

I've been busy earning shekels and have to rush off now to do so again.

But I will be back tonight to continue this, but I can't let this one go without comment.

'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'

I will support a form of the first bit

'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 definitely not the second bit in its present form.

BUT ARE ABLE TO MANAGE LOCAL ISSUES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE

That is exactly the problem we have had, everybody off doing their own thing in the NAME of AOPA.

Think about it.

Having lobbed that one into the bunker I'm off to pay the bills.

cogwheel

Exactly my thoughts, you haven't hacked into my computer perchance.

There are a number of other things I want to see on the list too, but they'll have to wait till later today.

Still haven't got my mag yet, the Camel train apparently got bogged in all this rain we have been having over in the West.