AOPA "The Election" (merged)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom
I tried to be a Senate. But you either agree with the egos or you get told to "F%$k off".
Nah, we need a new breed.
Public disobedience has its place. But only as one weapon in an arsenal.
Should I call you 'Osama Bin Axiom"
AK
I tried to be a Senate. But you either agree with the egos or you get told to "F%$k off".
Nah, we need a new breed.
Public disobedience has its place. But only as one weapon in an arsenal.
Should I call you 'Osama Bin Axiom"
AK
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek and the small rodent,
I'm still wating to hear what you have done for AOPA other than resign. The rodent couldn't even get the numbers in the righ column.
My hope is that the majority of members will see that you are blind guides.
I'm still wating to hear what you have done for AOPA other than resign. The rodent couldn't even get the numbers in the righ column.
My hope is that the majority of members will see that you are blind guides.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes me think I'm falling into one of those damned if you do damned if you don't traps.
I get the idea no matter what I sat it won't be good enough for Bart, but, from an instant recollection here goes.
1. Part 47. Me, Boyd and Jane Errey killed it while Hamilton supported it.
2. Helped Bart Beech get rid of aircraft radio licence fees.
3. Wrote our (AOPA) submission to GBRMPA to minimise their efforts to stop us flying around Hinchinbrooke Island (Hamilton didn't support me doing this, he wanted to attack, attack, attack. Bit like the Iraqis really).
4. Dared to question Boyd and Dick. I get along with both fine now. No need to attack, attack, attack.
5. Peronally, at my own expense wrote to every federal pollie in the country. Awareness helps!!!
6. Talked to Toller and helped Pike get the extension on flight manuals.
7. Fixed flight manual problems for some members.
8. Manned the AOPA stall at Avalon and the CASA seminar in Canberra.
9. Lobbied pollies (the right way, no attack, attack, attack).
10. Lobbied Toller,( the right way, no attack, attack, attack).
And I'm currently working on an AOPA Type Owners Proficency Course (Grummans actually) to get insurance premuim discounts and increase saftey.
Oh, and I've served on the boards of three aero clubs as well as AOPA.
What about you oh Bart!!!
Bugga all I suspect.
I get the idea no matter what I sat it won't be good enough for Bart, but, from an instant recollection here goes.
1. Part 47. Me, Boyd and Jane Errey killed it while Hamilton supported it.
2. Helped Bart Beech get rid of aircraft radio licence fees.
3. Wrote our (AOPA) submission to GBRMPA to minimise their efforts to stop us flying around Hinchinbrooke Island (Hamilton didn't support me doing this, he wanted to attack, attack, attack. Bit like the Iraqis really).
4. Dared to question Boyd and Dick. I get along with both fine now. No need to attack, attack, attack.
5. Peronally, at my own expense wrote to every federal pollie in the country. Awareness helps!!!
6. Talked to Toller and helped Pike get the extension on flight manuals.
7. Fixed flight manual problems for some members.
8. Manned the AOPA stall at Avalon and the CASA seminar in Canberra.
9. Lobbied pollies (the right way, no attack, attack, attack).
10. Lobbied Toller,( the right way, no attack, attack, attack).
And I'm currently working on an AOPA Type Owners Proficency Course (Grummans actually) to get insurance premuim discounts and increase saftey.
Oh, and I've served on the boards of three aero clubs as well as AOPA.
What about you oh Bart!!!
Bugga all I suspect.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"teams"
I see no one has responded to my comment re 'team aopa'.
Is that because there is no team ?.
Anyway, who gave Marjorie Pagani the right to associate individuals with one group or another ?.
Are all those listed in the original 'post' included in the Pagani/Kerans 'team' ?.
Is that because there is no team ?.
Anyway, who gave Marjorie Pagani the right to associate individuals with one group or another ?.
Are all those listed in the original 'post' included in the Pagani/Kerans 'team' ?.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
russell kelly & andrew kerans and others - about the number on the 'board' .......
read the 'constitution', that is 'the articles of association' ..... it is up to the board to decide its size, within set limits.
it has been 10 for some time now, so why should that number be increased.
by the way .... when was a recommendation put to the 'board' to change the number anyway ?
so on what basis does the number of members of the 'board' change, or doesn't this suit your convienence ?
also .... why didn't I 'stand down' ..... beacuse i didn't have to & i chose not to !!!!
john lyon
read the 'constitution', that is 'the articles of association' ..... it is up to the board to decide its size, within set limits.
it has been 10 for some time now, so why should that number be increased.
by the way .... when was a recommendation put to the 'board' to change the number anyway ?
so on what basis does the number of members of the 'board' change, or doesn't this suit your convienence ?
also .... why didn't I 'stand down' ..... beacuse i didn't have to & i chose not to !!!!
john lyon
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
distractions and missinformation
John Lyon.
Read the articles. Only a dimwit could interpret them to mean this Board can control the size of the next. How do you interpret them???
You can't, and many of us out here in 'member land' won't let you. Remember two things Mr Lyon, singly and severally liable and 'no directors insurance'.
So, before you try to manipulate the outcome of the next election by thinking you can control how many get elected, get some advice!!!! AOPA is not an aero club, it is a vital part of the regulatory process and protection for members. It is my view you are not up to that task.
In my view that attempted manipulation is dishonest, corrupt and probably illegal.
What will suit me is if the members decide how many should be on the Board by way of the articles. It isn't up to you to try and dictate it. If that can't change (because you, the Board, (well McKeown, Hamilton and Lyon anyway) told Richard Rudd not to support the motion because I put it), it is up to the next Board to decide how big it is, it certainly isn't up to you.
As for you showing some honour and standing, I never expected it. You stood before in a contested election and were soundly defeated. If you stood now you would be defeated again, I am sure of that. It is my view that you add no value whatsoever to AOPA and should stand aside. It is also my view that you are only in AOPA to further your own interests.
If the new Board deides to change its numbers I fully expect that you, as the only 'unelected' member, will be the first to go.
And, in my view, not too soon either!!!
Hermias. In answer to your 'sponsored' question.
Yes it is a team. Yes we all gave Pagani permission to call it a team, and yes we will all work together for the members, just for a change.
AK
Read the articles. Only a dimwit could interpret them to mean this Board can control the size of the next. How do you interpret them???
You can't, and many of us out here in 'member land' won't let you. Remember two things Mr Lyon, singly and severally liable and 'no directors insurance'.
So, before you try to manipulate the outcome of the next election by thinking you can control how many get elected, get some advice!!!! AOPA is not an aero club, it is a vital part of the regulatory process and protection for members. It is my view you are not up to that task.
In my view that attempted manipulation is dishonest, corrupt and probably illegal.
What will suit me is if the members decide how many should be on the Board by way of the articles. It isn't up to you to try and dictate it. If that can't change (because you, the Board, (well McKeown, Hamilton and Lyon anyway) told Richard Rudd not to support the motion because I put it), it is up to the next Board to decide how big it is, it certainly isn't up to you.
As for you showing some honour and standing, I never expected it. You stood before in a contested election and were soundly defeated. If you stood now you would be defeated again, I am sure of that. It is my view that you add no value whatsoever to AOPA and should stand aside. It is also my view that you are only in AOPA to further your own interests.
If the new Board deides to change its numbers I fully expect that you, as the only 'unelected' member, will be the first to go.
And, in my view, not too soon either!!!
Hermias. In answer to your 'sponsored' question.
Yes it is a team. Yes we all gave Pagani permission to call it a team, and yes we will all work together for the members, just for a change.
AK
John Lyons
Whilst it is good to see Lyons out of the bunker, it is now obvious that he has little or perhaps no idea of what it is all about.
Do tell us John what you have done whilst on the Board and why it is below you to put yourself before the members (like the others that "didn't have to"), even if you don't have to. And who will you be supporting or not supporting?
Do tell us John what you have done whilst on the Board and why it is below you to put yourself before the members (like the others that "didn't have to"), even if you don't have to. And who will you be supporting or not supporting?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of the Bunker!
G'day John
Nice to see you out of your bunker.
I don't believe that anyone is disputing whether the board can decide on the number of directors, merely that the board only
decided to reduce the number AFTER nominations had closed.
Not very transparent and some folks of the suspicious kind might wonder if the board had something else in mind.
I note your reluctance to put yourself before the membership but as I also understand it, you have not actually been voted in, you are there because the number of vacancies equalled the number of nominations. All the more reason to let the members decide. But you are correct, the Constitution did not require you to spill.
Russell
Snarek,
You seem to be going for Mr Lyon's jugular.
The reason why John didn't spill is clear: It is one guaranteed vote for Bill Hamilton in the new executive.
Russell
Nice to see you out of your bunker.
I don't believe that anyone is disputing whether the board can decide on the number of directors, merely that the board only
decided to reduce the number AFTER nominations had closed.
Not very transparent and some folks of the suspicious kind might wonder if the board had something else in mind.
I note your reluctance to put yourself before the membership but as I also understand it, you have not actually been voted in, you are there because the number of vacancies equalled the number of nominations. All the more reason to let the members decide. But you are correct, the Constitution did not require you to spill.
Russell
Snarek,
You seem to be going for Mr Lyon's jugular.
The reason why John didn't spill is clear: It is one guaranteed vote for Bill Hamilton in the new executive.
Russell
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only hope that most members don't read Pprune. (No offence Woomera). The calibre of postings from all Directors leaves a lot to be desired. Not only are the postings immature, and becomming a little boring. (I got dizzy going round and round so many times), but they serve no purpose bar to get a gripe of ones chest. Surely the Directors need to put up a list of achievements, but also a list of goals that need to be addressed. (Leaving room for issues that arise as time goes on.) Task directors with jobs and make sure they do it.
Perhaps a list of members wants, then poll it, then act on it. Sure it takes a little longer, (possibly a week if a pattern is formed), but members know they are being heard, and also actioned on. Directors need the lead tightened and have the stick thrown in the right direction, not allowed to piss over each others territory, smell their as$es and bark at shadows.
Dog.
(No pun intended)
Perhaps a list of members wants, then poll it, then act on it. Sure it takes a little longer, (possibly a week if a pattern is formed), but members know they are being heard, and also actioned on. Directors need the lead tightened and have the stick thrown in the right direction, not allowed to piss over each others territory, smell their as$es and bark at shadows.
Dog.
(No pun intended)
Folks,
To clear the air a little, now that it is becoming clear, there are two issues being mixed up by Andrew, so let’s un-mix them.
Firstly, it would seem that Andrew/Marjorie ( they seem to be both claiming proprietorship, to the exclusion of the other, so you work it out) have proposed a number of items of special business for the AGM. These proposals include an item to amend the articles, which currently authorises a minimum of eight (8) members and a maximum of twelve (12) members on the Board.
It is proposed, as far as I can determine, that the new numbers be five (5) and seven (7). The members will decide this, nobody else, certainly not the Board. Note who has proposed this change, get the facts straight. Gaunty, please note !!
It will be up to the incoming Board to decide, for some future election, say 2004, what the numbers will be on the Board, and hence the numbers up for grabs, regardless of whether the proposal for amending the Articles gets up. All the amendment to the Articles will do is determine the minimum and the maximum, within which the Board will set the actual number.
Secondly, the vacancies this year. For some years, the establishment has been 10, look at last years elections, and the numbers. And the year before etc. There is no change for this election. The number on the Board will be 10, and there are 9 vacancies.
So, it seems that we have all these allegations of conspiracy by somebody to change the numbers on the Board from 10, very cunningly to 10, and after the nominations closed, yet!! My goodness me, the perfidy, the scheming, when will such underhand tactics ever end.
And finally, this Hamilton bloke must be a great puppet master, seeing that the day to day business, finances etc of AOPA have been run by the (recently resigned) President and (recently resigned) Treasurer(s) for the last two years, the normal state of affairs in the management/administration of AOPA.
While Hamilton got on with the business of being Technical Director.
So who is really directly responsible for the present administrative/financial situation ???
Tootle pip !!
PS And a third issue. If you are an AOPA member reading this, get behind Bob Murphie, it's his blood, sweat and tears that he is volunteering to try and get State Chapters off the ground. Bob's proposals were never even presented to the Board for their consideration, but Andrew's were ????
PS1 Dogwhatever, ---- If only !!
To clear the air a little, now that it is becoming clear, there are two issues being mixed up by Andrew, so let’s un-mix them.
Firstly, it would seem that Andrew/Marjorie ( they seem to be both claiming proprietorship, to the exclusion of the other, so you work it out) have proposed a number of items of special business for the AGM. These proposals include an item to amend the articles, which currently authorises a minimum of eight (8) members and a maximum of twelve (12) members on the Board.
It is proposed, as far as I can determine, that the new numbers be five (5) and seven (7). The members will decide this, nobody else, certainly not the Board. Note who has proposed this change, get the facts straight. Gaunty, please note !!
It will be up to the incoming Board to decide, for some future election, say 2004, what the numbers will be on the Board, and hence the numbers up for grabs, regardless of whether the proposal for amending the Articles gets up. All the amendment to the Articles will do is determine the minimum and the maximum, within which the Board will set the actual number.
Secondly, the vacancies this year. For some years, the establishment has been 10, look at last years elections, and the numbers. And the year before etc. There is no change for this election. The number on the Board will be 10, and there are 9 vacancies.
So, it seems that we have all these allegations of conspiracy by somebody to change the numbers on the Board from 10, very cunningly to 10, and after the nominations closed, yet!! My goodness me, the perfidy, the scheming, when will such underhand tactics ever end.
And finally, this Hamilton bloke must be a great puppet master, seeing that the day to day business, finances etc of AOPA have been run by the (recently resigned) President and (recently resigned) Treasurer(s) for the last two years, the normal state of affairs in the management/administration of AOPA.
While Hamilton got on with the business of being Technical Director.
So who is really directly responsible for the present administrative/financial situation ???
Tootle pip !!
PS And a third issue. If you are an AOPA member reading this, get behind Bob Murphie, it's his blood, sweat and tears that he is volunteering to try and get State Chapters off the ground. Bob's proposals were never even presented to the Board for their consideration, but Andrew's were ????
PS1 Dogwhatever, ---- If only !!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyons out of the bunker!
Of course the round of ack-ack that he just got may well seal him back in the bunker. Is he really a Hamilton supporter?
I look forward to some positive comment on what he has accomplished whilst on the board.
dog - it is going round in circles because there is no leader of the pack I think you could give them a list of things to do and they could not even agree how to start, let alone achieve anything. If they had, it would be done by now! A good reason for some new faces.
I look forward to some positive comment on what he has accomplished whilst on the board.
dog - it is going round in circles because there is no leader of the pack I think you could give them a list of things to do and they could not even agree how to start, let alone achieve anything. If they had, it would be done by now! A good reason for some new faces.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill Hamilton just getting on with the job. What job???
Please correct me if my memory serves me badly, but....
Upsetting the Minister and thus castrating AOPA?????
Attacking the people in the CASA organisation rather than the poor state of governance???
Making comments about REX???
Writing huge illegible 'reports' quoting his own view and then sending them to all and sundry as if they are fact.
Making nasty comments about Ministerial Advisors because they didn't adopt his point of view.
Supporting Ferrier's (lawyer friendly?) push for compulsory insurance.
Causing, it seems, the resignation of just about everyone else on the Board except his own pet supporters.
As a puppet master, it is lucky Hamilton's puppets only need one string each!!!! (and still we get a tangle).
If I recall Merimbula correctly, he even fell out with his old
ally Boyd Munro.
Pat
Please correct me if my memory serves me badly, but....
Upsetting the Minister and thus castrating AOPA?????
Attacking the people in the CASA organisation rather than the poor state of governance???
Making comments about REX???
Writing huge illegible 'reports' quoting his own view and then sending them to all and sundry as if they are fact.
Making nasty comments about Ministerial Advisors because they didn't adopt his point of view.
Supporting Ferrier's (lawyer friendly?) push for compulsory insurance.
Causing, it seems, the resignation of just about everyone else on the Board except his own pet supporters.
As a puppet master, it is lucky Hamilton's puppets only need one string each!!!! (and still we get a tangle).
If I recall Merimbula correctly, he even fell out with his old
ally Boyd Munro.
Pat
Vote Hamilton last
leadsled: Is dear old Bill standing behind you telling you what to say??
He has knocked down more walls then he has built and I believe he has been involved or presided over the worst period in the Associations history. Look at the membership levels and financial situation.
He is a one man band that AOPA cannot afford that no board has been able to control to date. Why would it change now?
And you want to support him to stay there and continue the destruction.
Lets have some reasons, if you think he is that jolly good !
He has knocked down more walls then he has built and I believe he has been involved or presided over the worst period in the Associations history. Look at the membership levels and financial situation.
He is a one man band that AOPA cannot afford that no board has been able to control to date. Why would it change now?
And you want to support him to stay there and continue the destruction.
Lets have some reasons, if you think he is that jolly good !
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
Very clever.
You say, they both have proposed a number of items, OK, cant argue with that, as a statement that is likely to be = TRUE.
We know now that there were several items proposed and that one of them was the reduction in Board Members, the principle of which I support and there seems to be little disagreement generally.
It is the manner of its implementation, which is controversial.
But which items were proposed by whom?
Perhaps, before the nominations were called, an agreement was reached that there would be a "full" Board of 12 elected followed by a reduction at some time in the future. The incumbent Secretary would have held responsibility for this to be implemented as part of their duties
Certainly, when I was considering nomination and made enquiries in this regard I was told that this was so and I had and still have no reservations about the propriety and truth of that advice which was supported from other sources as well.
Perhaps I need to get my hearing checked mrs gaunty has been complaining about it lately.
Perhaps this "agreement” was changed when the number and quality of the nominations of the candidates was revealed and as I have suggested elsewhere in this thread that the ground needed to be shifted, even unto 10.
If so, why?
I don’t see it amended in the Articles anywhere beyond, that it can be between 8 and 12, but is really 10.
It is clear to me that Article 33 (a) needs some serious amendment.
Might I suggest that until the articles are changed then the outgoing Board should and could NOT unilaterally DECIDE that the next election will only provide for "X" number of seats, other than the maximum provided for in the Articles. Neither More nor Less.
Might I suggest that neither should the outgoing Board have ANY jurisdiction in that matter whatsoever in regard to the number of seats in an election, lest they leave themselves open to accusations of manipulation.
“Hey we're tight lets just sit”, OR, “hey we need to dilute something here lets expand”.
As at the date of the AGM they cease to be so and the NEW Board duly elected can then do what it likes.
What as you imply about the 10 might have been by "tradition", may have "legal" effect whilst the articles are written as they are, but they do not have the ethical or moral base that is required of this form of Association.
I have not had the time to properly follow it up, but the form of incorporation of AOPA does seem incongruent with its purpose and membership as an Association.
I understand that this is already being investigated and may be the correct vehicle for the Murphy Motion, with the principle of which I and others also agree.
If I understand the difference correctly then trying to run an "Association" along "Company" lines will and has inevitably brought us to this point. But that is for another day.
I do believe however that the current form of incorporation will make it more difficult than it seems.
But I digress;
Did they BOTH propose the reduction of the Board numbers, if so then why the ruction, if NOT then WHO did.
Your statement above is a little disingenuous in that it implies that they BOTH did.
Now a simple soul like me is having a little trouble working out why I should support Mr McKeown as President when he needs a fourth party, maybe or maybe not, via a third party;
If he becomes so easily confused and “mixed up”, about matters of this importance, then he should for our sakes reconsider his position and candidature, if not, then there is indeed mischief in the making.
Unless there is some safe ground in the middle there somewhere, then you can’t have it both ways. I’m not used to working in quicksand and refuse to do so.
We do not have an AOPA forum in which to discuss these issues, directly, PPRuNe has made this forum available to the members for this purpose, Mr Mc Keown like Ms Pagani, has the same access, to personally "clear the air" should his or her actions be misinterpreted.
He should use it, I for one am very keen to be fully informed directly.
Oh and I couldn’t fit it in the 250 word profile but any one who wants to call me can do so on ;
Mobile 0417958312. If I’m busy leave a message and I promise to return your call.
And whilst I am at it.
Very clever again.
You should indeed get behind Murphie, as you should get behind anyone who volunteers to support your interests in this way.
But you should also be very careful of the rhetoric and throwaway lines such as those "embedded" in the above.
Sounds like a conspiracy against Bob by someone in the inner sanctum hey?
Again more than a little disingenuous;
I understand and I am sure it can be confirmed, the simple fact is, that Bobs proposals and Notice of Motion did not meet the requirements of the Companies Code, under which AOPA is administered and which provide the backbone of equality and equity for ALL the members EQUALLY, for it to be accepted in time for the last meeting.
Neither I, nor you, nor any of the other members who want private members' resolutions put up at a meeting, are beyond the law.
The Secretary cannot change Commonwealth Legislation nor break the law for your or my benefit, notwithstanding that the Secretary may totally agree with and support your motion.
Look at it this way, if a motion got up "illegally" as a resolution, with which you disagreed strongly, then it would be a relatively simple matter to have it disposed of, but it would be a superb waste of everyone’s time, no sense in that, for anyone. Agreed!
Worse, the motion may have had some REAL merit within it SOMEWHERE but needed discussion and with revision may turn out to be very useful, but it and its supporters will forever be tainted by the illegal process. No sense in that either.
Murphies Motion can and is still being pursued and will I am sure be presented in legal form at the appropriate time
Unless this process is administered without fear or favour, then LeadSleds innuendo that there is some favouritism or conspiracy will become fact.
There are rules of procedure set up to protect EVERYONE and if they are not used scrupulously and impartially then why bother.
Murphie seems to be of the opinion that he is for some reason being obstructed in his earnest endeavours for AOPA.
Axiom can assure Bob that this can not be so, maybe it has been the way in the past and I don't mean the recent past, but it is certainly not going to be the way of the future if I have anything to do with it.
Bob can also console himself with the thought that whilst he may not have got the "process" right in the first place, few do including me, the first time round, he has enjoyed the benefits of the old campaign maxim that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. At the very least everyone here, now knows about Bob.
axiom
Old chap, I wasn't asking for your profile, I can get that off PPRuNe, it was your mate Murphies, I was after, he wants us to follow him into the Valley of the shadow of ….. blah blah blah but he’s being a bit coy about his background.
C’mon then, lets see it
Firstly, it would seem that Andrew/Marjorie (they seem to be both claiming proprietorship, to the exclusion of the other, so you work it out) have proposed a number of items of special business for the AGM. These proposals include an item to amend the articles, which currently authorises a minimum of eight (8) members and a maximum of twelve (12) members on the Board.
You say, they both have proposed a number of items, OK, cant argue with that, as a statement that is likely to be = TRUE.
We know now that there were several items proposed and that one of them was the reduction in Board Members, the principle of which I support and there seems to be little disagreement generally.
It is the manner of its implementation, which is controversial.
But which items were proposed by whom?
Perhaps, before the nominations were called, an agreement was reached that there would be a "full" Board of 12 elected followed by a reduction at some time in the future. The incumbent Secretary would have held responsibility for this to be implemented as part of their duties
Certainly, when I was considering nomination and made enquiries in this regard I was told that this was so and I had and still have no reservations about the propriety and truth of that advice which was supported from other sources as well.
Perhaps I need to get my hearing checked mrs gaunty has been complaining about it lately.
Perhaps this "agreement” was changed when the number and quality of the nominations of the candidates was revealed and as I have suggested elsewhere in this thread that the ground needed to be shifted, even unto 10.
If so, why?
I don’t see it amended in the Articles anywhere beyond, that it can be between 8 and 12, but is really 10.
It is clear to me that Article 33 (a) needs some serious amendment.
Might I suggest that until the articles are changed then the outgoing Board should and could NOT unilaterally DECIDE that the next election will only provide for "X" number of seats, other than the maximum provided for in the Articles. Neither More nor Less.
Might I suggest that neither should the outgoing Board have ANY jurisdiction in that matter whatsoever in regard to the number of seats in an election, lest they leave themselves open to accusations of manipulation.
“Hey we're tight lets just sit”, OR, “hey we need to dilute something here lets expand”.
As at the date of the AGM they cease to be so and the NEW Board duly elected can then do what it likes.
What as you imply about the 10 might have been by "tradition", may have "legal" effect whilst the articles are written as they are, but they do not have the ethical or moral base that is required of this form of Association.
I have not had the time to properly follow it up, but the form of incorporation of AOPA does seem incongruent with its purpose and membership as an Association.
I understand that this is already being investigated and may be the correct vehicle for the Murphy Motion, with the principle of which I and others also agree.
If I understand the difference correctly then trying to run an "Association" along "Company" lines will and has inevitably brought us to this point. But that is for another day.
I do believe however that the current form of incorporation will make it more difficult than it seems.
But I digress;
Did they BOTH propose the reduction of the Board numbers, if so then why the ruction, if NOT then WHO did.
Your statement above is a little disingenuous in that it implies that they BOTH did.
(they seem to be both claiming proprietorship, to the exclusion of the other, so you work it out)
To clear the air a little, now that it is becoming clear, there are two issues being mixed up by Andrew, so let’s un-mix them.
Unless there is some safe ground in the middle there somewhere, then you can’t have it both ways. I’m not used to working in quicksand and refuse to do so.
We do not have an AOPA forum in which to discuss these issues, directly, PPRuNe has made this forum available to the members for this purpose, Mr Mc Keown like Ms Pagani, has the same access, to personally "clear the air" should his or her actions be misinterpreted.
He should use it, I for one am very keen to be fully informed directly.
Oh and I couldn’t fit it in the 250 word profile but any one who wants to call me can do so on ;
Mobile 0417958312. If I’m busy leave a message and I promise to return your call.
And whilst I am at it.
If you are an AOPA member reading this, get behind Bob Murphie, it's his blood, sweat and tears that he is volunteering to try and get State Chapters off the ground. Bob's proposals were never even presented to the Board for their consideration, but Andrew's were ????
You should indeed get behind Murphie, as you should get behind anyone who volunteers to support your interests in this way.
But you should also be very careful of the rhetoric and throwaway lines such as those "embedded" in the above.
Bob's proposals were never even presented to the Board for their consideration, but Andrew's were ????
Again more than a little disingenuous;
I understand and I am sure it can be confirmed, the simple fact is, that Bobs proposals and Notice of Motion did not meet the requirements of the Companies Code, under which AOPA is administered and which provide the backbone of equality and equity for ALL the members EQUALLY, for it to be accepted in time for the last meeting.
Neither I, nor you, nor any of the other members who want private members' resolutions put up at a meeting, are beyond the law.
The Secretary cannot change Commonwealth Legislation nor break the law for your or my benefit, notwithstanding that the Secretary may totally agree with and support your motion.
Look at it this way, if a motion got up "illegally" as a resolution, with which you disagreed strongly, then it would be a relatively simple matter to have it disposed of, but it would be a superb waste of everyone’s time, no sense in that, for anyone. Agreed!
Worse, the motion may have had some REAL merit within it SOMEWHERE but needed discussion and with revision may turn out to be very useful, but it and its supporters will forever be tainted by the illegal process. No sense in that either.
Murphies Motion can and is still being pursued and will I am sure be presented in legal form at the appropriate time
Unless this process is administered without fear or favour, then LeadSleds innuendo that there is some favouritism or conspiracy will become fact.
There are rules of procedure set up to protect EVERYONE and if they are not used scrupulously and impartially then why bother.
Murphie seems to be of the opinion that he is for some reason being obstructed in his earnest endeavours for AOPA.
Axiom can assure Bob that this can not be so, maybe it has been the way in the past and I don't mean the recent past, but it is certainly not going to be the way of the future if I have anything to do with it.
Bob can also console himself with the thought that whilst he may not have got the "process" right in the first place, few do including me, the first time round, he has enjoyed the benefits of the old campaign maxim that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. At the very least everyone here, now knows about Bob.
axiom
Old chap, I wasn't asking for your profile, I can get that off PPRuNe, it was your mate Murphies, I was after, he wants us to follow him into the Valley of the shadow of ….. blah blah blah but he’s being a bit coy about his background.
C’mon then, lets see it
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't get it, do they? - these directors (dictators) who dictate that the next board shall be ten.
The articles say there shall be twelve.
The articles allow a lessor number if the board agrees, but that provision was obviously made for a board to be able to control itself, not future boards.
The articles of association can only be changed by the members, not the board. The present board can change the number of directors in the present board, but can not interfere with future boards.
Why do they think that articles of association exist?
Hamilton states "For some years, the establishment has been 10, look at last years elections, and the numbers. And the year before etc. There is no change for this election. The number on the Board will be 10, and there are 9 vacancies."
So what? That does not set a precedent. There have been 10 only because there were only 10 nominees. If he wanted the board to remain at 10, why didn't he get the articles changed to 10. He didn't have a problem getting the articles changed for his self-serving purpose of allowing himself to be President. Why was that neccesary? Pike didn't have to have "special approval," although employed in identical circumstances.
No doubt the board should be reduced in size, but by the resolution of the members, not the board.
Of course the members need to be more involved - this is what the resolutions at the AGM are all about. That is where the resolution to reduce the board must be made, not by the board itself, nor by the dictatorial interim and unelected president.
I thought a lawyer would have understood this.
This current board can elect to operate with less than twelve, and as few as seven, which they are down to now. They will collapse with the next resignation unless they can find someone to jump in to fill the void. (Murphie, this may be your 10 minutes of fame - 10 minutes because others may jump out if you jump in.)
LeadSled says "It will be up to the incoming Board to decide, for some future election, say 2004, what the numbers will be on the Board, and hence the numbers up for grabs, regardless of whether the proposal for amending the Articles gets up."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It will be up to the members.
Murphie wants to see the power go back to the members, but he is aligned with those who doing their best to have all control in the President's hands.
Murphie wants people in each state representing AOPA. This process has already been commenced, with the introduction of 'Area Representatives'. Murphie could make himself useful by becoming a Rep and encouraging others to do likewise. I believe Ron Lawford had already been tasked with investigating the benefits of using State bodies, but am not sure whether he has finished that yet. Ron was an Area Rep himself before being appointed to the board. Area Reps were an excellent idea and should be promoted. By the way, whose idea was it?
The articles say there shall be twelve.
The articles allow a lessor number if the board agrees, but that provision was obviously made for a board to be able to control itself, not future boards.
The articles of association can only be changed by the members, not the board. The present board can change the number of directors in the present board, but can not interfere with future boards.
Why do they think that articles of association exist?
Hamilton states "For some years, the establishment has been 10, look at last years elections, and the numbers. And the year before etc. There is no change for this election. The number on the Board will be 10, and there are 9 vacancies."
So what? That does not set a precedent. There have been 10 only because there were only 10 nominees. If he wanted the board to remain at 10, why didn't he get the articles changed to 10. He didn't have a problem getting the articles changed for his self-serving purpose of allowing himself to be President. Why was that neccesary? Pike didn't have to have "special approval," although employed in identical circumstances.
No doubt the board should be reduced in size, but by the resolution of the members, not the board.
Of course the members need to be more involved - this is what the resolutions at the AGM are all about. That is where the resolution to reduce the board must be made, not by the board itself, nor by the dictatorial interim and unelected president.
I thought a lawyer would have understood this.
This current board can elect to operate with less than twelve, and as few as seven, which they are down to now. They will collapse with the next resignation unless they can find someone to jump in to fill the void. (Murphie, this may be your 10 minutes of fame - 10 minutes because others may jump out if you jump in.)
LeadSled says "It will be up to the incoming Board to decide, for some future election, say 2004, what the numbers will be on the Board, and hence the numbers up for grabs, regardless of whether the proposal for amending the Articles gets up."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It will be up to the members.
Murphie wants to see the power go back to the members, but he is aligned with those who doing their best to have all control in the President's hands.
Murphie wants people in each state representing AOPA. This process has already been commenced, with the introduction of 'Area Representatives'. Murphie could make himself useful by becoming a Rep and encouraging others to do likewise. I believe Ron Lawford had already been tasked with investigating the benefits of using State bodies, but am not sure whether he has finished that yet. Ron was an Area Rep himself before being appointed to the board. Area Reps were an excellent idea and should be promoted. By the way, whose idea was it?
Last edited by Maxima; 8th Apr 2003 at 12:04.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Gaunty,
If I had read your post before I pressed the "Submit" button, I could have saved all that writing.
Glad to see we are thinking the same way. Surely we couldn't both be wrong, so they must!
If I had read your post before I pressed the "Submit" button, I could have saved all that writing.
Glad to see we are thinking the same way. Surely we couldn't both be wrong, so they must!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty;
I believe Murphie's profile will be out in the AOPA magazine so no need to post here. I am sure he will OK woomera to print it with the others that none of us have seen yet.
Maxima;
Murphie emailed 4 of the area reps seeking input to his proposal and the correspondence was subsequently directed to the Secretary who promptly put him on notice of legal action for some sort of gross indecency.
I believe the offending email to the reps has been reprinted a day or two ago.
Ron Lawford who was canvassed replied to Murphie on March 25th saying " Bob, The idea seems to have merit. it could go to the Board for consideration. There does seem to be a problem with putting it to the AGM directly". Further, he (Ron), emailed the Secretary saying, "I think this could be flagged to the AGM as a proposal the Board will consider over the next 12 months".
Now Hamilton is openly supporting the concept, it is a lousy idea.
Bugga it all, if you blokes can't see any merit in the idea, tell Murphie and let him ammend, alter, reincarnate or dispense with the whole idea. He has been actively canvassing input for over a month now on various forums and only because someone you don't like supports him, lets sink the project.
Some of you blokes make me sick !
I believe Murphie's profile will be out in the AOPA magazine so no need to post here. I am sure he will OK woomera to print it with the others that none of us have seen yet.
Maxima;
Murphie emailed 4 of the area reps seeking input to his proposal and the correspondence was subsequently directed to the Secretary who promptly put him on notice of legal action for some sort of gross indecency.
I believe the offending email to the reps has been reprinted a day or two ago.
Ron Lawford who was canvassed replied to Murphie on March 25th saying " Bob, The idea seems to have merit. it could go to the Board for consideration. There does seem to be a problem with putting it to the AGM directly". Further, he (Ron), emailed the Secretary saying, "I think this could be flagged to the AGM as a proposal the Board will consider over the next 12 months".
Now Hamilton is openly supporting the concept, it is a lousy idea.
Bugga it all, if you blokes can't see any merit in the idea, tell Murphie and let him ammend, alter, reincarnate or dispense with the whole idea. He has been actively canvassing input for over a month now on various forums and only because someone you don't like supports him, lets sink the project.
Some of you blokes make me sick !