AOPA "The Election" (merged)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty;
Exactly the sort of feed back Murphie has been trying to get, but again I say, we have 12 months to ratify all these things before putting it up as a final. It just needs a decision for the Board, whoever they may be, to get it rolling.
One thing any Board should be wary of however is the feeling the members will get of a Board cementing it's power base at their cost.
The members need and should have more power in the decision making processes and they can get this as a committee of say 7 States of 3 representatives each and each weilding a 100 proxy stick. the "mouthpiece" still comes from head office.
Antechinas;
I was told to refer you to the auditors ascent to the current accounting decisions and I guess this was by way of explaination of having an independent opinion.
Snarek;
Further to your assertion that open Committee/ Board meetings were bullsh!t and Chinese history, I have been assured by several sources that indeed this was the fact of the matter and you may find reference to same by participants at Narrogin AGM and Committee meeting thereafter, meetings at the Cambridge Hotel in Sydney and at the Hangar at Bankstown.
Indeed one member from Victoria came to just about all such meetings and sometimes up to 15 members sat in.
This sort of disinformation is what you have been accusing the Hamilton camp of being up to.
I am still awaiting replies from Principals at the meetings.
Thanks for running up my phone bill and costing me about 5 hours of time.
Exactly the sort of feed back Murphie has been trying to get, but again I say, we have 12 months to ratify all these things before putting it up as a final. It just needs a decision for the Board, whoever they may be, to get it rolling.
One thing any Board should be wary of however is the feeling the members will get of a Board cementing it's power base at their cost.
The members need and should have more power in the decision making processes and they can get this as a committee of say 7 States of 3 representatives each and each weilding a 100 proxy stick. the "mouthpiece" still comes from head office.
Antechinas;
I was told to refer you to the auditors ascent to the current accounting decisions and I guess this was by way of explaination of having an independent opinion.
Snarek;
Further to your assertion that open Committee/ Board meetings were bullsh!t and Chinese history, I have been assured by several sources that indeed this was the fact of the matter and you may find reference to same by participants at Narrogin AGM and Committee meeting thereafter, meetings at the Cambridge Hotel in Sydney and at the Hangar at Bankstown.
Indeed one member from Victoria came to just about all such meetings and sometimes up to 15 members sat in.
This sort of disinformation is what you have been accusing the Hamilton camp of being up to.
I am still awaiting replies from Principals at the meetings.
Thanks for running up my phone bill and costing me about 5 hours of time.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom;
In response to your post lastnight:
One man band? Tunnel vision? Not what we want. Not a team player. Maybe a more suitable role for him could be found by Saddam. DICTATOR. Fit in with me, or else.
Promise 12 months? Big deal - so do they all. They are all in there to give 12 months of their time, but to many positive projects, not just one.
"For us or aginst us"? Try "WITH US".
I'm with Emeus.
Who is this bloke? The centre of the universe? Sorry mate, but he is going to have to work with others.
He has not attracted my vote.
In response to your post lastnight:
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.
Promise 12 months? Big deal - so do they all. They are all in there to give 12 months of their time, but to many positive projects, not just one.
"For us or aginst us"? Try "WITH US".
I'm with Emeus.
Ask not if Murphie can work with the Board (whoever they are, but can they work with him.
He has not attracted my vote.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auditors
Axiom
It is interesting to note that the auditors declined the invitation to put their advice in writing. Wonder why that would be?
I never claimed that my position was definitive, indeed I asked the board a number of times to get independent expert advice but this was denied.
In my opinion, the verbal briefing from AOPA's ex auditors was neither independent nor do I believe that even the auditor would claim expertise in this very specialised field.
So the challenge is still there for Messrs Hamilton, Lyon, McKeown & Rudd to come up with the goods but they have been consistantly unable to find an expert who will agree with them.
My guess is that if the new board is not under Bill Hamilton's control the liability funding issue will be quickly sort out.
Russell
It is interesting to note that the auditors declined the invitation to put their advice in writing. Wonder why that would be?
I never claimed that my position was definitive, indeed I asked the board a number of times to get independent expert advice but this was denied.
In my opinion, the verbal briefing from AOPA's ex auditors was neither independent nor do I believe that even the auditor would claim expertise in this very specialised field.
So the challenge is still there for Messrs Hamilton, Lyon, McKeown & Rudd to come up with the goods but they have been consistantly unable to find an expert who will agree with them.
My guess is that if the new board is not under Bill Hamilton's control the liability funding issue will be quickly sort out.
Russell
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russel:
My apologies,I thought you were in charge of finances then. If this occurred post your resignation, I should be asking the question to the next treasurer.
Maxima;
I believe Murphie is waiting for Marjorie Pagani's address to the nation on pprune before he throws his hat into anyone's ring.
I can't for the life of me imagine he would support someone who has threatened him with legal consequences for another party's political comment.
Nor can I fathom why he would give anyone support who has some sort of a "hate' orientated agenda to rid AOPA of so called Demons.
Murphie is not the centre of the universe, but he is nearer the centre of rational debate in this matter than you are Mate !
I don't think I like you.
My apologies,I thought you were in charge of finances then. If this occurred post your resignation, I should be asking the question to the next treasurer.
Maxima;
I believe Murphie is waiting for Marjorie Pagani's address to the nation on pprune before he throws his hat into anyone's ring.
I can't for the life of me imagine he would support someone who has threatened him with legal consequences for another party's political comment.
Nor can I fathom why he would give anyone support who has some sort of a "hate' orientated agenda to rid AOPA of so called Demons.
Murphie is not the centre of the universe, but he is nearer the centre of rational debate in this matter than you are Mate !
I don't think I like you.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Townsville, Qld, Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom and AOPA Members
I apologise if some of you have seen the start of this post earlier. I pressed the ‘fire’ button accidentally, then deleted the post, then lost it – so here goes again! I have just returned from travelling for work, and caught up with the posts. I had wanted to avoid wasting time with issues not concerned with furthering AOPA’s strengths, but the misinformation posted by Mr Murphie (through his “mate” Axiom), has to be addressed. I have invited Mr Murphie to come onto Prune and ‘come clean’ on the information (or bits of it) which he has posted (through Axiom), but he has declined. I advised him that I would publish this information if he did not inform readers of the true position. This material is not confidential, because Murphie has e-mailed it to a large number of people, including Tony Mitchell and Bill Hamilton, as well as a larger group. Axiom says that Murphie has been unfairly treated, and says that I have (for no apparent reason) threatened him with legal action. Murphie posted a copy of an e-mail, and alleged it was this that caused the offence. He knows that to be untrue. So, for the record, and I apologise for boring you with this, I shall set out below the course of correspondence. It is too lengthy to reproduce in full, but for those of you interested, you can e-mail me and, after verification of your AOPA membership, I will be happy to send you the totality of the correspondence, with the omission of the defamatory comments, and of the portions which identify Axiom.
21/3/03 – Mr Murphie complained that ex directors were soliciting proxies. He threatened legal action – this was the start of his ‘campaign’ – which was followed by many other threats of legal action against AOPA, the Board and previous directors. By the way, I had nothing to do with this lot – it was a matter for the editor of the magazine.:
Mr Murphie wrote: “I also have a platform and WILL ACTIVELY SEEK REDRESS if I am not allowed equal and unfettered access to the magazine ABOVE AND BEYONE MY 250 WORD (approx) profile. I also have a motion to put to the table which will arrive within the specified time frame but DO NOT WANT IT ‘WHITEANTED’ BY OPEN DISCUSSION IN THE INTERIM.”
22/3/03 – Mr Murhie wrote “The motions should all be tabled at the meeting AND NOT AIRED FIRST”.
23/3/03 – Mr Murphie wrote, re his ‘motion, “I did not seek endorsement from the Board, simply an acknowledgement of and an acceptance of the motion in principle. The motion was open for ammendment and discussion. Further I have been advised that the motion will not be accepted and I should rely upon 249NI (Membership rights) for redress…..unless I get a positive response from the board that my motion will be tabled, (when complete) I INTEND TO TAKE THE MATTER UP WITH THE ANTI DISCRIMINATION BOARD AND WILL PROSECUTE THE MATTER to it’s fullest for redress of the wrong done to me and my supporters. I INTEND TO HOLD ALL BOARD MEMBERS BOTH PRESENT AND IMMEDIATELY PAST TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS INJUSTICE…..I am not asking for anyone to support my motion, simply to have it tabled….If you thought the past disenfranchised Board Members were a force to be reckoned with you have not met Bob Murphie. Ask Mick Toller how far this person is prepared to take matters…”
Unfortunately Mr Murphie did not understand the process by which members’ resolutions must be brought, and seemed to be of the opinion that all he had to do was demand that his motion be tabled at the AGM, without complying with the rules applicable to all members. His anger was, in part, due to my response to him, in my capacity as public officer of the company, which I had written on 23/3/03:
Dear Mr Murphie,
I regret to advise you that your member's motion does not accord either with the company's Articles of Association, nor the relevant sections of the Corporations Law, and as such, I am not in a position to "table" your motion as requested. May I respectfully suggest that you take legal advice as to the necessity to comply with the requirements applicable to members' motions to be "tabled" at an Annual General Meeting of the company. Any "anti-discrimination board" action you may contemplate taking is, of course, a matter for you, however, I advise that your motion is being treated in like manner as others which I have received from members, and which, likewise, have not complied with the relevant Articles and statutes.
Would you be kind enough to advise me as to source of your "advice" that the motion would not be accepted by the Board, and that you should rely upon "section 291 N1".
Should you have any further enquiries in respect of these matters, please address them to me.
Yours faithfully,
Marjorie Pagani
Secretary AOPA.
Mr Murphie then, he said, took advice, but still did not accept that he had to comply with the same rules as other members. He wrote, on 1/4/03:
“Madam,
I would like to put on record my dismay, as a member, to your cavalier attitude, toward my contemplation of taking legal action through the Anti Discrimination Board to my previous attempt to solicit feed back from a draft idea from the Board, which, you unilaterally rejected as a final motion. I believe the members would like to see the Board act in a more professional manner when their organisation is in any way threatened by legal action.
The following "MOTION" does not impinge on any of your aforementioned compliance requirements with the relevant Articles and statutes, nor does it require any ammendments to the Articles of Association.
THE MOTION:
"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".
Please table it and include it in your May edition of the AOPA magazine which I expect WILL be distributed on time.”
Mr Murphie’s opinion was that his motion STILL did not have to comply with the requirements for the tabling of motions at an AGM, as did all other members’.
Again, I responded and tried to explain the position to Mr Murphie: On 3/4/03 I wrote (deleting references to Mr Murphie’s Prune identity):
Dear Mr Murphie,
Thank you for your correspondence. The issue I had raised with you (and with other members in respect of their proposed resolutions) was to effect that you not only require the notice period, but 100 members to support the motion, or 5% of the voters, which is the lesser, and those members' names have to be published within the required notice time. The same applied to every other member. Unfortunately you seem to have taken the view that these are my own requirements - they are not - they are the requirements of the corporations law. As secretary I have the unhappy task of advising the members of this.
Further, you may be surprised to learn that it was I, alone amongst the board, who has been canvassing similar resolutions to the ones you proposed in respect of incorporating the association as an association which is State-based, and I support the next board discussing these. I had asked Ron Lawford to look at the possible advantages to us, and he has been working on this. I did this months prior to your resolution being received.
Additionally, you may also be surprised to learn that I put a motion to the board similar to that of yours in respect of elections, but it was rejected by the board. You said you had the support of 50% of the board. I can inform you that not one single director notified me of any support at all for any of your resolutions. They were similar to matters I have raised and hoped to have put before the members at the AGM, but I have not been supported in these. As a matter of interest, my election reform resolutions were vehemently rejected by Bill Hamilton. I had proposed that the members be asked to vote on these matters - Hamilton rejected each and every resolution aimed at reforming the election process.
I had also advised that the number of vacancies at this election should be 11, according to the maximum number available in the constitution. I conferred with Chris McKeown, who said he agreed with my interpretation of the Articles. Then, after the nominations had closed, Chris called a meeting of the board and agitated for a reduction of the board to 9. I strongly opposed the board taking this unilateral action, as I was of the view, firstly, that the change in board numbers should be made only by the members at the AGM, and secondly, that it was wrong for us to reduce the number of vacancies AFTER we had called for nominations, and closed the nominations. The board rejected my proposals, and accepted Chris' reduction. As a consequence, there are now only nine vacancies. I do not support this action, without it first having been put before the members at the AGM.
Yours sincerely,
Marjorie Pagani.
(I have run out of my word allowance, and so shall finish this in the next post (I hear you breathe a sigh of relief!).
(Post continued)
6/4/03 – Mr Murphie then sent correspondence to non board members, which contained material suggestive of my having acted improperly (when read in light of his earlier accusations). The following response from me was to THIS course of conduct, and not to the innocuous letter Axiom has published, and referred to as the offending letter. That allegation was false and misleading, as Axiom (and his “mate” Mr Murphie well knew):
6/4/03 -Dear Mr Murphie,
I have been forwarded a copy of your e-mail to Mr [recipient deleted]. I put you on notice that I shall not tolerate any defamatory comments, or false accusations, in respect of your resolutions, and my involvement in them. I also advise you that I am intending to publish on PPruNe, a response to your posts under the name of [identity deleted], to effect that you have been well advised as to why your resolutions could not be tabled. I would have thought you would be gentleman enough to admit you were wrong in your accusations about my role in your resolutions, when you well know that you have not complied with commonwealth laws (not imposed by me). You also well know that I, and other members, were not able to get resolutions put forward by the board (including reform of the elections, as you also wanted - and canned by Hamilton) for the same reasons. I, and others, did not have the time to get the necessary 100 names, and then to have them confirmed by AOPA as current and valid members, and then pay the cost of printing, enveloping and mailing them to over 4,000.00 members (as is also a requirement under the corporations law, given that the notices have been published already), so that they all get them at least 21 days before the meeting. My estimate for that is about $3,000.00, which I could not afford, and so my own resolutions, which were rejected by the board and which included election reforms, have not been put up either.
You also know that I support the concept of incorporating as an association under State laws, and have been researching this for some time prior to your resolutions. You also know that neither Bill Hamilton, nor any other director, gave me any indication of support for your resolutions. I have not been attacked by the other members who were unable to comply with the law - only you. Why do you persist in this, knowing that I am merely carrying out my role as company secretary, and knowing that your resolutions were not supported by any other member of the board? And why do you continue with this attack, not having the courage to admit who you are on Prune, when you know the fault is not mine?
I am prepared to await your response, and your own retraction on Prune, prior to publishing these matters, including the advices I have given to you. Neither I, nor you, nor any of the other members who wanted private members' resolutions put up at the meeting, are beyond the law. I cannot change commonwealth legislation for your benefit.
What I shall not do, is to allow you to defame me in this fashion, by references to "white-anting" or any other pejorative comments, blaming me for matters over which I have no control. You said you had taken legal advice, pursuant to my suggestion, but you still seem to maintain that all you need is 21 days notice. I note on Prune you are now saying your "mate" Murphy is going to get the 100 signatures - that indicates to me that you received my advices. However, you chose not to publish this fact.
If you comply with the signatures, the verification by AOPA, and pre-pay the costs of mailing as required, within time to have the resolutions reach the members by the 21 day period, then of course they will be put to the AGM - that is the law. Please understand, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to your proposals, which are similar to my own ideas, but I cannot break the law for one member.
Marjorie Pagani.
The warning to him came as a consequence of Mr Murphie’s series of letters, including letters to non-board members, making false allegations as to my conduct as the public officer of the company. The letter he published on this site (and which he said was the one which caused me offence) is NOT the one I responded to, and he knows that. I have receipts for the e-mails sent to me by Mr Murhpie. I gave Mr Murhpie the opportunity, through his "mate" Axiom", to retract these allegations that I have "unilaterally" refused to table his motion, as he well knew that he had not complied with the requirements that all other members have to comply with.
Mr Murhpie declined to accept the opportunity to retract, but instead published small portions of his correspondence, which bore no resemblance to the offending letter he sent. Nor did he publish all of his threats of legal action again AOPA, the Board, myself, and past Board members, but instead chose to allege that it was I who was threatening legal action, for no apparent reason.
7/4/03 - Mr Murphie then issued me with a warning that he had sent my reply to " his solicitor and axiom, who I am sure will forward to the pprune moderator for comment", and that my "address to pprune should be likewise circumspect".
In short - private members' resolutions must comply with the corporations laws - those which did not, including mine, have not been tabled. Only those adopted by a majority of the board have been tabled. That is the rule. I have welcomed the opportunity to discuss proposed amendments to the constitution at the first board meeting after the election (assuming I am returned). I advised Mr Murphie of this. These should be compiled and put to an EGM. I would like to see the entire constitution re-written and modernised, and all ambiguous and outdated provisions removed. I support the board size being changed, but only by the members in general meeting - and not by a present committee trying to dictate to a future board. I cannot accept that is proper. If it were so, then it would be possible for the current board to reduce the board size immediately after the close of the vote, and before ratification of the board at the AGM!
Mr Murhpie had proposed a reduction in the board size to 3-5; I supported a reduction to 5-7. Neither proposal was accepted by the board to be put to the members at the AGM. I do not support an attempt at a current board reducing the size of a future board, particularly AFTER the close of nominations. Only the members should have the power to do that.
The previous board was 9; the board before that was 9 - in accordance with a resolution by that board. The current board had NEVER passed a resolution defining the number on the board. Hamilton McKeown and Lyon say the current board was ten. How could that be? It started off as 9; it never rose to 10; it was reduced to 8 by the resignation of Russell Kelly, but was then restored to 9 by the appointment of Ron Lawford. It was then reduced again (by default) to 8 after the resignation of Andrew Kerans; and reduced to 7 after the resignation of Bill Pike. If the current board had resolved to make the current board 10 (and there are no minutes to support this), then why hasn't the current board replaced the directors back to 10? That is the only proper thing to do if there had been the number they allege. Indeed, it is odd that Hamilton (through his “mate” LeadSled) forcefully presents to you that all the previous boards have been 10, when he it was he who moved to reduce the board to 9 in January 2001.
The reality is that, in light of there having been no resolution by this board to reduce the number available in the constitution (maximum of 12), then that is the number which should have been made available for the elections (less Lyon's position). It would then have been up to the next board to decide on any reduction (if insufficient members nominated), or in the case where there were resignations. This board cannot fetter the operation of the next board - although that is what has happened. I fully support a smaller board - BUT ONLY where the members vote for it, or only in the case where the CURRENT board decides not to replace directors, down to the constitutional limit set by the members.
I now hope to get back to the CASA issues I am working on. I shall set out my thoughts on the ways which I think can strengthen the membership, and power, of AOPA tomorrow as soon as time permits.
Marjorie.
I apologise if some of you have seen the start of this post earlier. I pressed the ‘fire’ button accidentally, then deleted the post, then lost it – so here goes again! I have just returned from travelling for work, and caught up with the posts. I had wanted to avoid wasting time with issues not concerned with furthering AOPA’s strengths, but the misinformation posted by Mr Murphie (through his “mate” Axiom), has to be addressed. I have invited Mr Murphie to come onto Prune and ‘come clean’ on the information (or bits of it) which he has posted (through Axiom), but he has declined. I advised him that I would publish this information if he did not inform readers of the true position. This material is not confidential, because Murphie has e-mailed it to a large number of people, including Tony Mitchell and Bill Hamilton, as well as a larger group. Axiom says that Murphie has been unfairly treated, and says that I have (for no apparent reason) threatened him with legal action. Murphie posted a copy of an e-mail, and alleged it was this that caused the offence. He knows that to be untrue. So, for the record, and I apologise for boring you with this, I shall set out below the course of correspondence. It is too lengthy to reproduce in full, but for those of you interested, you can e-mail me and, after verification of your AOPA membership, I will be happy to send you the totality of the correspondence, with the omission of the defamatory comments, and of the portions which identify Axiom.
21/3/03 – Mr Murphie complained that ex directors were soliciting proxies. He threatened legal action – this was the start of his ‘campaign’ – which was followed by many other threats of legal action against AOPA, the Board and previous directors. By the way, I had nothing to do with this lot – it was a matter for the editor of the magazine.:
Mr Murphie wrote: “I also have a platform and WILL ACTIVELY SEEK REDRESS if I am not allowed equal and unfettered access to the magazine ABOVE AND BEYONE MY 250 WORD (approx) profile. I also have a motion to put to the table which will arrive within the specified time frame but DO NOT WANT IT ‘WHITEANTED’ BY OPEN DISCUSSION IN THE INTERIM.”
22/3/03 – Mr Murhie wrote “The motions should all be tabled at the meeting AND NOT AIRED FIRST”.
23/3/03 – Mr Murphie wrote, re his ‘motion, “I did not seek endorsement from the Board, simply an acknowledgement of and an acceptance of the motion in principle. The motion was open for ammendment and discussion. Further I have been advised that the motion will not be accepted and I should rely upon 249NI (Membership rights) for redress…..unless I get a positive response from the board that my motion will be tabled, (when complete) I INTEND TO TAKE THE MATTER UP WITH THE ANTI DISCRIMINATION BOARD AND WILL PROSECUTE THE MATTER to it’s fullest for redress of the wrong done to me and my supporters. I INTEND TO HOLD ALL BOARD MEMBERS BOTH PRESENT AND IMMEDIATELY PAST TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS INJUSTICE…..I am not asking for anyone to support my motion, simply to have it tabled….If you thought the past disenfranchised Board Members were a force to be reckoned with you have not met Bob Murphie. Ask Mick Toller how far this person is prepared to take matters…”
Unfortunately Mr Murphie did not understand the process by which members’ resolutions must be brought, and seemed to be of the opinion that all he had to do was demand that his motion be tabled at the AGM, without complying with the rules applicable to all members. His anger was, in part, due to my response to him, in my capacity as public officer of the company, which I had written on 23/3/03:
Dear Mr Murphie,
I regret to advise you that your member's motion does not accord either with the company's Articles of Association, nor the relevant sections of the Corporations Law, and as such, I am not in a position to "table" your motion as requested. May I respectfully suggest that you take legal advice as to the necessity to comply with the requirements applicable to members' motions to be "tabled" at an Annual General Meeting of the company. Any "anti-discrimination board" action you may contemplate taking is, of course, a matter for you, however, I advise that your motion is being treated in like manner as others which I have received from members, and which, likewise, have not complied with the relevant Articles and statutes.
Would you be kind enough to advise me as to source of your "advice" that the motion would not be accepted by the Board, and that you should rely upon "section 291 N1".
Should you have any further enquiries in respect of these matters, please address them to me.
Yours faithfully,
Marjorie Pagani
Secretary AOPA.
Mr Murphie then, he said, took advice, but still did not accept that he had to comply with the same rules as other members. He wrote, on 1/4/03:
“Madam,
I would like to put on record my dismay, as a member, to your cavalier attitude, toward my contemplation of taking legal action through the Anti Discrimination Board to my previous attempt to solicit feed back from a draft idea from the Board, which, you unilaterally rejected as a final motion. I believe the members would like to see the Board act in a more professional manner when their organisation is in any way threatened by legal action.
The following "MOTION" does not impinge on any of your aforementioned compliance requirements with the relevant Articles and statutes, nor does it require any ammendments to the Articles of Association.
THE MOTION:
"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".
Please table it and include it in your May edition of the AOPA magazine which I expect WILL be distributed on time.”
Mr Murphie’s opinion was that his motion STILL did not have to comply with the requirements for the tabling of motions at an AGM, as did all other members’.
Again, I responded and tried to explain the position to Mr Murphie: On 3/4/03 I wrote (deleting references to Mr Murphie’s Prune identity):
Dear Mr Murphie,
Thank you for your correspondence. The issue I had raised with you (and with other members in respect of their proposed resolutions) was to effect that you not only require the notice period, but 100 members to support the motion, or 5% of the voters, which is the lesser, and those members' names have to be published within the required notice time. The same applied to every other member. Unfortunately you seem to have taken the view that these are my own requirements - they are not - they are the requirements of the corporations law. As secretary I have the unhappy task of advising the members of this.
Further, you may be surprised to learn that it was I, alone amongst the board, who has been canvassing similar resolutions to the ones you proposed in respect of incorporating the association as an association which is State-based, and I support the next board discussing these. I had asked Ron Lawford to look at the possible advantages to us, and he has been working on this. I did this months prior to your resolution being received.
Additionally, you may also be surprised to learn that I put a motion to the board similar to that of yours in respect of elections, but it was rejected by the board. You said you had the support of 50% of the board. I can inform you that not one single director notified me of any support at all for any of your resolutions. They were similar to matters I have raised and hoped to have put before the members at the AGM, but I have not been supported in these. As a matter of interest, my election reform resolutions were vehemently rejected by Bill Hamilton. I had proposed that the members be asked to vote on these matters - Hamilton rejected each and every resolution aimed at reforming the election process.
I had also advised that the number of vacancies at this election should be 11, according to the maximum number available in the constitution. I conferred with Chris McKeown, who said he agreed with my interpretation of the Articles. Then, after the nominations had closed, Chris called a meeting of the board and agitated for a reduction of the board to 9. I strongly opposed the board taking this unilateral action, as I was of the view, firstly, that the change in board numbers should be made only by the members at the AGM, and secondly, that it was wrong for us to reduce the number of vacancies AFTER we had called for nominations, and closed the nominations. The board rejected my proposals, and accepted Chris' reduction. As a consequence, there are now only nine vacancies. I do not support this action, without it first having been put before the members at the AGM.
Yours sincerely,
Marjorie Pagani.
(I have run out of my word allowance, and so shall finish this in the next post (I hear you breathe a sigh of relief!).
(Post continued)
6/4/03 – Mr Murphie then sent correspondence to non board members, which contained material suggestive of my having acted improperly (when read in light of his earlier accusations). The following response from me was to THIS course of conduct, and not to the innocuous letter Axiom has published, and referred to as the offending letter. That allegation was false and misleading, as Axiom (and his “mate” Mr Murphie well knew):
6/4/03 -Dear Mr Murphie,
I have been forwarded a copy of your e-mail to Mr [recipient deleted]. I put you on notice that I shall not tolerate any defamatory comments, or false accusations, in respect of your resolutions, and my involvement in them. I also advise you that I am intending to publish on PPruNe, a response to your posts under the name of [identity deleted], to effect that you have been well advised as to why your resolutions could not be tabled. I would have thought you would be gentleman enough to admit you were wrong in your accusations about my role in your resolutions, when you well know that you have not complied with commonwealth laws (not imposed by me). You also well know that I, and other members, were not able to get resolutions put forward by the board (including reform of the elections, as you also wanted - and canned by Hamilton) for the same reasons. I, and others, did not have the time to get the necessary 100 names, and then to have them confirmed by AOPA as current and valid members, and then pay the cost of printing, enveloping and mailing them to over 4,000.00 members (as is also a requirement under the corporations law, given that the notices have been published already), so that they all get them at least 21 days before the meeting. My estimate for that is about $3,000.00, which I could not afford, and so my own resolutions, which were rejected by the board and which included election reforms, have not been put up either.
You also know that I support the concept of incorporating as an association under State laws, and have been researching this for some time prior to your resolutions. You also know that neither Bill Hamilton, nor any other director, gave me any indication of support for your resolutions. I have not been attacked by the other members who were unable to comply with the law - only you. Why do you persist in this, knowing that I am merely carrying out my role as company secretary, and knowing that your resolutions were not supported by any other member of the board? And why do you continue with this attack, not having the courage to admit who you are on Prune, when you know the fault is not mine?
I am prepared to await your response, and your own retraction on Prune, prior to publishing these matters, including the advices I have given to you. Neither I, nor you, nor any of the other members who wanted private members' resolutions put up at the meeting, are beyond the law. I cannot change commonwealth legislation for your benefit.
What I shall not do, is to allow you to defame me in this fashion, by references to "white-anting" or any other pejorative comments, blaming me for matters over which I have no control. You said you had taken legal advice, pursuant to my suggestion, but you still seem to maintain that all you need is 21 days notice. I note on Prune you are now saying your "mate" Murphy is going to get the 100 signatures - that indicates to me that you received my advices. However, you chose not to publish this fact.
If you comply with the signatures, the verification by AOPA, and pre-pay the costs of mailing as required, within time to have the resolutions reach the members by the 21 day period, then of course they will be put to the AGM - that is the law. Please understand, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to your proposals, which are similar to my own ideas, but I cannot break the law for one member.
Marjorie Pagani.
The warning to him came as a consequence of Mr Murphie’s series of letters, including letters to non-board members, making false allegations as to my conduct as the public officer of the company. The letter he published on this site (and which he said was the one which caused me offence) is NOT the one I responded to, and he knows that. I have receipts for the e-mails sent to me by Mr Murhpie. I gave Mr Murhpie the opportunity, through his "mate" Axiom", to retract these allegations that I have "unilaterally" refused to table his motion, as he well knew that he had not complied with the requirements that all other members have to comply with.
Mr Murhpie declined to accept the opportunity to retract, but instead published small portions of his correspondence, which bore no resemblance to the offending letter he sent. Nor did he publish all of his threats of legal action again AOPA, the Board, myself, and past Board members, but instead chose to allege that it was I who was threatening legal action, for no apparent reason.
7/4/03 - Mr Murphie then issued me with a warning that he had sent my reply to " his solicitor and axiom, who I am sure will forward to the pprune moderator for comment", and that my "address to pprune should be likewise circumspect".
In short - private members' resolutions must comply with the corporations laws - those which did not, including mine, have not been tabled. Only those adopted by a majority of the board have been tabled. That is the rule. I have welcomed the opportunity to discuss proposed amendments to the constitution at the first board meeting after the election (assuming I am returned). I advised Mr Murphie of this. These should be compiled and put to an EGM. I would like to see the entire constitution re-written and modernised, and all ambiguous and outdated provisions removed. I support the board size being changed, but only by the members in general meeting - and not by a present committee trying to dictate to a future board. I cannot accept that is proper. If it were so, then it would be possible for the current board to reduce the board size immediately after the close of the vote, and before ratification of the board at the AGM!
Mr Murhpie had proposed a reduction in the board size to 3-5; I supported a reduction to 5-7. Neither proposal was accepted by the board to be put to the members at the AGM. I do not support an attempt at a current board reducing the size of a future board, particularly AFTER the close of nominations. Only the members should have the power to do that.
The previous board was 9; the board before that was 9 - in accordance with a resolution by that board. The current board had NEVER passed a resolution defining the number on the board. Hamilton McKeown and Lyon say the current board was ten. How could that be? It started off as 9; it never rose to 10; it was reduced to 8 by the resignation of Russell Kelly, but was then restored to 9 by the appointment of Ron Lawford. It was then reduced again (by default) to 8 after the resignation of Andrew Kerans; and reduced to 7 after the resignation of Bill Pike. If the current board had resolved to make the current board 10 (and there are no minutes to support this), then why hasn't the current board replaced the directors back to 10? That is the only proper thing to do if there had been the number they allege. Indeed, it is odd that Hamilton (through his “mate” LeadSled) forcefully presents to you that all the previous boards have been 10, when he it was he who moved to reduce the board to 9 in January 2001.
The reality is that, in light of there having been no resolution by this board to reduce the number available in the constitution (maximum of 12), then that is the number which should have been made available for the elections (less Lyon's position). It would then have been up to the next board to decide on any reduction (if insufficient members nominated), or in the case where there were resignations. This board cannot fetter the operation of the next board - although that is what has happened. I fully support a smaller board - BUT ONLY where the members vote for it, or only in the case where the CURRENT board decides not to replace directors, down to the constitutional limit set by the members.
I now hope to get back to the CASA issues I am working on. I shall set out my thoughts on the ways which I think can strengthen the membership, and power, of AOPA tomorrow as soon as time permits.
Marjorie.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marjorie
Thanks for that, there are many of us here who have been trying very hard to get axiom to tell his mate Murphie to get with the programme, it's not personal, just the same procedure that every one of us has to follow.
axiom
Having read through Marjorie’s response and reread, from the beginning, your posts throughout this thread, it would be very easy to convince myself that recently someone has appeared in the background feeding your mate Murphie, the bullets, to fire at those who would otherwise be supporters of his beloved Motion.
Murphies' writing style, or your translation of it to us, has changed and become quite dramatically different from that of being "artless", IMHO Murphies genuine persona, to "disingenuous" which IMHO is NOT in his style or in his character.
There is an alter ego at work somewhere in the background, it may be a result of the translation process from Murphie through axiom, but the evidence suggests that there are actually more than just the two of you at work.
Whatever is going on does Murphie no good service at all.
May I suggest, that you strongly counsel Murphie, as a good mate should, to be very wary of those who would attempt to manipulate him for their own political purposes.
Or at the very least have him say in his own words, or 'Murphiespeak', what they think he should say.
Further, it should be pointed out to Murphie that whilst his commitment is valued, it is only so valued, when the 'genuine' Murphie speaks and not when he is being led to create mischief by others as well as being marginalised.
Can you help us out here and ask the "old" Murphie to come back,
we did like him so, or, have I got it completely upside down again. 
You can also tell him from me, that I have now had done with the Murphie Motion as a subject, as I suspect has every one else.
He should console himself, that it will be dealt with in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time and place.
In any event further discussion of this particular subject will fall on ears now deaf to it, because there are many others equally important, to be dealt with.
What else does Murphie have to bring to the table.?
Thanks for that, there are many of us here who have been trying very hard to get axiom to tell his mate Murphie to get with the programme, it's not personal, just the same procedure that every one of us has to follow.
axiom
Having read through Marjorie’s response and reread, from the beginning, your posts throughout this thread, it would be very easy to convince myself that recently someone has appeared in the background feeding your mate Murphie, the bullets, to fire at those who would otherwise be supporters of his beloved Motion.
Murphies' writing style, or your translation of it to us, has changed and become quite dramatically different from that of being "artless", IMHO Murphies genuine persona, to "disingenuous" which IMHO is NOT in his style or in his character.
There is an alter ego at work somewhere in the background, it may be a result of the translation process from Murphie through axiom, but the evidence suggests that there are actually more than just the two of you at work.
Whatever is going on does Murphie no good service at all.
May I suggest, that you strongly counsel Murphie, as a good mate should, to be very wary of those who would attempt to manipulate him for their own political purposes.
Or at the very least have him say in his own words, or 'Murphiespeak', what they think he should say.
Further, it should be pointed out to Murphie that whilst his commitment is valued, it is only so valued, when the 'genuine' Murphie speaks and not when he is being led to create mischief by others as well as being marginalised.
Can you help us out here and ask the "old" Murphie to come back,
we did like him so, or, have I got it completely upside down again. You can also tell him from me, that I have now had done with the Murphie Motion as a subject, as I suspect has every one else.
He should console himself, that it will be dealt with in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time and place.
In any event further discussion of this particular subject will fall on ears now deaf to it, because there are many others equally important, to be dealt with.
What else does Murphie have to bring to the table.?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA members are indebted to Marjorie for this thorough revelation of the antics of Mr Murphie and his "mate" Mr Axiom.
The explanation needed to be detailed to expose the duplicities and sleight of hand of Murphie/Axiom.
Axiom's credibility has been blown out of the water & it will be interesting to see how he attempts to recover from his poor conjuring act.
I'm sorry that Marjorie needs to waste so much time with people like Murphie who doesn't seem to comprehend even the basic precepts associated with placing resolutions before the members.
Mr Murphie has shown his true colours, I can't imagine why any one could possibily contemplate his particpiation on the AOPA committee.
Russell
The explanation needed to be detailed to expose the duplicities and sleight of hand of Murphie/Axiom.
Axiom's credibility has been blown out of the water & it will be interesting to see how he attempts to recover from his poor conjuring act.
I'm sorry that Marjorie needs to waste so much time with people like Murphie who doesn't seem to comprehend even the basic precepts associated with placing resolutions before the members.
Mr Murphie has shown his true colours, I can't imagine why any one could possibily contemplate his particpiation on the AOPA committee.
Russell
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DON'T FORGET THE FOREST
As every one runs around with chainsaws on this Forum, trying to cut down the other trees, let us not lose sight of the Forest.
The "Murphie Motion" is a step forward for AOPA; more fully utilising the skill of our human resources. Forget Murph and his supporters, I as a member want to see AOPA proceed down that track.
The last two pages have dipped again into personalities and denigration. I thought Ax's 6 points were good; Coggie posted more good stuff; and Em needs to keep it coming as it is good member feedback. The accrual debate is best summed up by Marjorie in the current Mag. I am reminded that the then Pres was quite forthright that he would not divert from important business to get into this issue, yet it seems to have been the catalyst to the current situation. As a member, no matter how AOPA manages it and no matter what the legal situation. I firmly believe AOPA must partition long-term subs income toward the years it will be needed.
This Forum must not slip into the Australian ethos of making State and Federal political selections based on rhetoric, peoples shapes and sizes, etc. Policies is what its all about and they seem to be getting lost in the personal crossfires - although that is of course often a cunning politician ploy for avoiding the real issues.
I worry a little about throwing defamation warnings about when the debate gets a bit personal, and it was pleasing to see the (albeit) long explanation from Marjorie. Since humour only laughs false gods off their pedestals, can I add that I "writ" a Wild West song - perhaps more correctly a song for a wild man from the west - to be sung by Johnny Crash at the opening of the AGM. It was titled .... A girl named "sue". I hope the new Board can operate without every heated debate ending in more threats against each other as in the past, or this whole spill has been wasted.
Let us keep the policies coming onto this Forum. That's what I as a member want to vote on.
Cheers
The "Murphie Motion" is a step forward for AOPA; more fully utilising the skill of our human resources. Forget Murph and his supporters, I as a member want to see AOPA proceed down that track.
The last two pages have dipped again into personalities and denigration. I thought Ax's 6 points were good; Coggie posted more good stuff; and Em needs to keep it coming as it is good member feedback. The accrual debate is best summed up by Marjorie in the current Mag. I am reminded that the then Pres was quite forthright that he would not divert from important business to get into this issue, yet it seems to have been the catalyst to the current situation. As a member, no matter how AOPA manages it and no matter what the legal situation. I firmly believe AOPA must partition long-term subs income toward the years it will be needed.
This Forum must not slip into the Australian ethos of making State and Federal political selections based on rhetoric, peoples shapes and sizes, etc. Policies is what its all about and they seem to be getting lost in the personal crossfires - although that is of course often a cunning politician ploy for avoiding the real issues.
I worry a little about throwing defamation warnings about when the debate gets a bit personal, and it was pleasing to see the (albeit) long explanation from Marjorie. Since humour only laughs false gods off their pedestals, can I add that I "writ" a Wild West song - perhaps more correctly a song for a wild man from the west - to be sung by Johnny Crash at the opening of the AGM. It was titled .... A girl named "sue". I hope the new Board can operate without every heated debate ending in more threats against each other as in the past, or this whole spill has been wasted.
Let us keep the policies coming onto this Forum. That's what I as a member want to vote on.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand Murphie has registered on Pprune to give voice to his own personality. I believe that it serves no purpose to answer an address like Ms pagani's simply because whatever is said in defence, it would be used against the poster by her supporters to again gain favour at the expense of the other candidates.
Murphie would by now fully understand where his support is coming from and his detractors can be measured by the amount of noise coming from a few sources which mainly are disenfranchised, disillusioned, and mainly nasty resignees.
I note that Russel has admitted to and marjorie accepting help from him after his resignation and one wonders where the alleged confidentiality breakdown came from.
To put things in perspective, I and many others saw little to be concerned about with AOPA until the resignations of Messrs, Kelly and Kerans.
From that moment on things started (especially on this post) getting nasty toward the persons opposite to the abovementioned resignees.
Axiom tried to give some balance to the arguements and, as things proved correctly, coveted the anonominity that Pprune gave its posters regarding a possible attack on one at a legal level.
Whatever Murphie's correspondence to Ms Pagani, it pales into insignificance when you see day after day, misinformation like the open committee meetings denial from Andrew who was a Board member and had more idea than the rest of us of it's accuracy or not.
I would say of the confidentiality aspect, axiom has said he was sad that even he had been privy to this sort of thing and the Board should close ranks.
Such is impossible right now with leaks on both sides and matters of robust political discussion being the subject of legal threats.
As said before, if Murphie is rolled at the election, I am sure he will accept the defeat gracefully (as I imagine would Hamilton Rudd and anyone else of unsatisfactory acceptance to this noisy forum), and fade away quietly for the good of the Association. (taking example from my mate Jim Dawson).
I would not accept this same group making so much noise to do likewise, I am sure they will be around for a while on the sidelines.
Or will they?
Murphie would by now fully understand where his support is coming from and his detractors can be measured by the amount of noise coming from a few sources which mainly are disenfranchised, disillusioned, and mainly nasty resignees.
I note that Russel has admitted to and marjorie accepting help from him after his resignation and one wonders where the alleged confidentiality breakdown came from.
To put things in perspective, I and many others saw little to be concerned about with AOPA until the resignations of Messrs, Kelly and Kerans.
From that moment on things started (especially on this post) getting nasty toward the persons opposite to the abovementioned resignees.
Axiom tried to give some balance to the arguements and, as things proved correctly, coveted the anonominity that Pprune gave its posters regarding a possible attack on one at a legal level.
Whatever Murphie's correspondence to Ms Pagani, it pales into insignificance when you see day after day, misinformation like the open committee meetings denial from Andrew who was a Board member and had more idea than the rest of us of it's accuracy or not.
I would say of the confidentiality aspect, axiom has said he was sad that even he had been privy to this sort of thing and the Board should close ranks.
Such is impossible right now with leaks on both sides and matters of robust political discussion being the subject of legal threats.
As said before, if Murphie is rolled at the election, I am sure he will accept the defeat gracefully (as I imagine would Hamilton Rudd and anyone else of unsatisfactory acceptance to this noisy forum), and fade away quietly for the good of the Association. (taking example from my mate Jim Dawson).
I would not accept this same group making so much noise to do likewise, I am sure they will be around for a while on the sidelines.
Or will they?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom
You need to be a little more careful with the detail:
Quote
___________________________________________________
I note that Russel has admitted to and marjorie accepting help from him after his resignation and one wonders where the alleged confidentiality breakdown came from.
___________________________________________________
Where is that admission? I DID say that I had co-authorerd the Code of Conduct, that was done in October last year well before my resignation.
Your smoke screen fails to address the issues raised in Marjorie's posting. Do you deny what she has said?
Ask your mate Bill Hamilton why he deliberately leaked a continuum of confidential board emails. He does have an explanation which is better coming from him.
I think you are right about one thing Axiom, most AOPA members would have now locked in their vote. There is not a lot of future in this bickering. I intend to go away flying for the next 10 days and enjoy what I thought we were all here for.
Russell
You need to be a little more careful with the detail:
Quote
___________________________________________________
I note that Russel has admitted to and marjorie accepting help from him after his resignation and one wonders where the alleged confidentiality breakdown came from.
___________________________________________________
Where is that admission? I DID say that I had co-authorerd the Code of Conduct, that was done in October last year well before my resignation.
Your smoke screen fails to address the issues raised in Marjorie's posting. Do you deny what she has said?
Ask your mate Bill Hamilton why he deliberately leaked a continuum of confidential board emails. He does have an explanation which is better coming from him.
I think you are right about one thing Axiom, most AOPA members would have now locked in their vote. There is not a lot of future in this bickering. I intend to go away flying for the next 10 days and enjoy what I thought we were all here for.
Russell
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'osama' Bob-Murphie
Still in favour of 'civil disobedience' scud ?? 
I still think your 'motion' is a good one, and will support it. Pity you didn't vote for Marjorie or Gaunty. I think their skills and acumen are what you will need to build a workable solution around the basic idea.
I'm afraid though that (as 'elected' by you) Board will be fractuous. I certainly couldn't work with Hamilton, Lyon or Rudd again and would never support any of them for executive positions.
I still think your 'motion' is a good one, and will support it. Pity you didn't vote for Marjorie or Gaunty. I think their skills and acumen are what you will need to build a workable solution around the basic idea.
I'm afraid though that (as 'elected' by you) Board will be fractuous. I certainly couldn't work with Hamilton, Lyon or Rudd again and would never support any of them for executive positions.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Murphie;
Are you sure?
Snarek #1? Better check that with your disciple axiom: I thought he wasn't talking to Snarek.
What about Gaunty, he has said some kind things about you here - ask your mate axiom.
Don't you like women? 4 nominated, and you didn't even pick one. You prefer boys, do you?
Pike last? Come on...
And who were the next 2 (who should also be here)
Are you sure?
Snarek #1? Better check that with your disciple axiom: I thought he wasn't talking to Snarek.
What about Gaunty, he has said some kind things about you here - ask your mate axiom.
Don't you like women? 4 nominated, and you didn't even pick one. You prefer boys, do you?
Pike last? Come on...
And who were the next 2 (who should also be here)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud
I gotta agree with Maxima a bit here. Problem with AOPA in my view has been too much chest beating and d!ck duelling between Jumbo Pilots, millionaires and boy lawyers over the past few years.
And it just hasn't worked. If anything, things are worse.
Women negotiate differently, and they provide balance. That's why the AWPA (with 600 members) are today more effective than AOPA with 4600!!! They also work together, 600 members is about 50% of all licenced women. If AOPA could do that we'd have about 35,000 members!!!!
So, if you haven't posted that, how about a little change???
Please (did I say that??? )
I gotta agree with Maxima a bit here. Problem with AOPA in my view has been too much chest beating and d!ck duelling between Jumbo Pilots, millionaires and boy lawyers over the past few years.
And it just hasn't worked. If anything, things are worse.
Women negotiate differently, and they provide balance. That's why the AWPA (with 600 members) are today more effective than AOPA with 4600!!! They also work together, 600 members is about 50% of all licenced women. If AOPA could do that we'd have about 35,000 members!!!!
So, if you haven't posted that, how about a little change???
Please (did I say that???
)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
constructive debate
There has been some very costructive debate on here recently. Congratulations to those Board members and candidates who openly depated with members.
For that reason my vote goes to Kerans, Pagani, Murphy.
From experience to Lawford, Kennedy, Errey
and also from experience NOT to Hamilton, Pike, Rudd.
The rest, I don't know them. Random probably.
Pat
For that reason my vote goes to Kerans, Pagani, Murphy.
From experience to Lawford, Kennedy, Errey
and also from experience NOT to Hamilton, Pike, Rudd.
The rest, I don't know them. Random probably.
Pat
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AND TALKING OF DICK DUELING ....
Very topical issue.
I see the latest from ASA today is an urgent one re Class E airspace indicating a risk scenario coz CASA has bypassed the ARG - let me quote one part direct:
"The document was written by CASA to undermine and frustrate the proper and safe introduction of Minister John Anderson’s National Airspace System (NAS). The Minister had given CASA clear instructions that all NAS educational material was to be discussed with the ARG. This instruction was ignored by CASA."
Those supporting the gentle touch approach to the Regulator can ignore the above because it is obvious that a Regulator with safety and cooperation at heart could not really do this so it must be a fiction! It originates with Dick Smith so it must be the result of the Dick Dueling mentioned by an earlier poster rather than a Regulator that believes it is above the rules of the common man? Sig Heil!
Ackers - good point about the female negotiating style. It is generally accepted that they negotiate more for "win, win" results than we macho hunter-killers. I have several ladies on my how to vote card.
PS I take your earlier point re your pre-engineer reality experience. I have concluded that you were not the Engineer Officer who we convinced on exercises that out the back of the troposcatter shelter equipment there was a gigacycle to ride to the Officers Mess.
Murph
My proxy and motion support is in the mail. I might need your help soon, I am about to be sued also, for injuries sustained by a westerner who fell off his chair laughing at the appropriateness of my proposed opening anthem.
Cheers
I see the latest from ASA today is an urgent one re Class E airspace indicating a risk scenario coz CASA has bypassed the ARG - let me quote one part direct:
"The document was written by CASA to undermine and frustrate the proper and safe introduction of Minister John Anderson’s National Airspace System (NAS). The Minister had given CASA clear instructions that all NAS educational material was to be discussed with the ARG. This instruction was ignored by CASA."
Those supporting the gentle touch approach to the Regulator can ignore the above because it is obvious that a Regulator with safety and cooperation at heart could not really do this so it must be a fiction! It originates with Dick Smith so it must be the result of the Dick Dueling mentioned by an earlier poster rather than a Regulator that believes it is above the rules of the common man? Sig Heil!
Ackers - good point about the female negotiating style. It is generally accepted that they negotiate more for "win, win" results than we macho hunter-killers. I have several ladies on my how to vote card.
PS I take your earlier point re your pre-engineer reality experience. I have concluded that you were not the Engineer Officer who we convinced on exercises that out the back of the troposcatter shelter equipment there was a gigacycle to ride to the Officers Mess.
Murph
My proxy and motion support is in the mail. I might need your help soon, I am about to be sued also, for injuries sustained by a westerner who fell off his chair laughing at the appropriateness of my proposed opening anthem.
Cheers