AOPA election results
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where was AOPA
Actually Brian, getting a disallowance motion up (and we, or rather Marjorie, did!!!)
Now, how about you all ring your State (non-liberal) Senator and demand he/she support the motion. QUICKLY (please).
Gee, it seems action works better than millions of faxes
As for AW, I don't know, but I will ask.
Creamie
Sorry mate, but that 'policy' wasn't. It was a motion, put up for me, by Marjorie (because I believe in it) but rejected by the previous board, therefore it didn't go to the AGM.
I believe Chris voted against it. Ironic isn't it
AK
Now, how about you all ring your State (non-liberal) Senator and demand he/she support the motion. QUICKLY (please).
Gee, it seems action works better than millions of faxes
As for AW, I don't know, but I will ask.
Creamie
Sorry mate, but that 'policy' wasn't. It was a motion, put up for me, by Marjorie (because I believe in it) but rejected by the previous board, therefore it didn't go to the AGM.
I believe Chris voted against it. Ironic isn't it
AK
Last edited by snarek; 23rd Sep 2003 at 13:15.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BREAKTHROUGH - WELL DONE AOPA
Full marks to AOPA when they get it right (well, nearly there).
In a new spirit of AOPA Board (or several members thereof) maturity in dealing with criticism as legitimate rather than an excuse to bully, censor, or ban – several banned members have been readmitted to the AOPA Forum. While this may seem a magnanimous gesture, keep in mind that is only so if the members were banned for legitimate reasons.
It is a good two edged sword as the reinstatement is a reminder to ALL AOPA Forum posters to keep it neat and constructive. No doubt critics will argue that some postings are negative – and that is the right of the critics. I too may not agree with every post but I do agree with the right of posters to be heard. Hopefully, the latitude extended by AOPA Forum moderators will now parallel the well-regarded moderation of our Woomeri colleagues on this forum.
I did say we are nearly there. There still remain the comments circulated in writing about one Forum-banned AOPA member by an AOPA Board member attempting to legitimise the ban. I have seen these comments and find them both unsustainable and objectionable.
As no retraction is yet forthcoming, it seems we on this forum may soon be treated to the opportunity to view the offending comments and the response to them. While this will make for an interesting and enlightening debate it is hardly likely to enhance the overall image of AOPA and its Board behaviour – or do these comments represent an individual rather than the Board?
I therefore call upon the AOPA Board, in the interests of harmony in GA, to ensure the comments are retracted so the dirty washing does not get hung out in public and the good work undone. Then we can get back to our pursuit of significant GA issues.
Full marks to Andrew Kerans for his very hard work to ensure a conciliatory result.
Regards
Brian H
In a new spirit of AOPA Board (or several members thereof) maturity in dealing with criticism as legitimate rather than an excuse to bully, censor, or ban – several banned members have been readmitted to the AOPA Forum. While this may seem a magnanimous gesture, keep in mind that is only so if the members were banned for legitimate reasons.
It is a good two edged sword as the reinstatement is a reminder to ALL AOPA Forum posters to keep it neat and constructive. No doubt critics will argue that some postings are negative – and that is the right of the critics. I too may not agree with every post but I do agree with the right of posters to be heard. Hopefully, the latitude extended by AOPA Forum moderators will now parallel the well-regarded moderation of our Woomeri colleagues on this forum.
I did say we are nearly there. There still remain the comments circulated in writing about one Forum-banned AOPA member by an AOPA Board member attempting to legitimise the ban. I have seen these comments and find them both unsustainable and objectionable.
As no retraction is yet forthcoming, it seems we on this forum may soon be treated to the opportunity to view the offending comments and the response to them. While this will make for an interesting and enlightening debate it is hardly likely to enhance the overall image of AOPA and its Board behaviour – or do these comments represent an individual rather than the Board?
I therefore call upon the AOPA Board, in the interests of harmony in GA, to ensure the comments are retracted so the dirty washing does not get hung out in public and the good work undone. Then we can get back to our pursuit of significant GA issues.
Full marks to Andrew Kerans for his very hard work to ensure a conciliatory result.
Regards
Brian H
Y'know ... if as much effort was contributed to building AOPA as is expended on knocking the organisation, infighting, back stabbing etc etc., it may, just may, be an organisation worth joining.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian H
Just so that there is no misunderstanding, following the usual sweetness and light from a member there, I have just a moment ago, emailed Andrew Wetzel requesting him to remove me from the Members list and to dissociate myself completely and absolutely from the AGACF.
It is much too dangerous in there and frankly I have too much to do in my own life than worry about what liabilities I am exposed to by the behaviour of certain poster there.
And I do not include Wetzel, Murphie or yourself in that.
It would be my suggestion to any others who are registered there, to seek their own advice on their personal liabilities, given the way the site is administered.
I'm no lawyer and it is possible that I'm wrong, but my own experience tells me that they are tap dancing on real thin ice.
That the site boasts around 460 members but only gets regular posts from the same half a dozen or so, speaks volumes.
Just so that there is no misunderstanding, following the usual sweetness and light from a member there, I have just a moment ago, emailed Andrew Wetzel requesting him to remove me from the Members list and to dissociate myself completely and absolutely from the AGACF.
It is much too dangerous in there and frankly I have too much to do in my own life than worry about what liabilities I am exposed to by the behaviour of certain poster there.
And I do not include Wetzel, Murphie or yourself in that.
It would be my suggestion to any others who are registered there, to seek their own advice on their personal liabilities, given the way the site is administered.
I'm no lawyer and it is possible that I'm wrong, but my own experience tells me that they are tap dancing on real thin ice.
That the site boasts around 460 members but only gets regular posts from the same half a dozen or so, speaks volumes.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BACK TO BUSINESS
Torres
You are a very forgiving person, one hopes this comes thru to your own life not just the christians thrown to the lions.
If Ms Pagani wishes to write incorrect public statements about others - in this case Andrew W - it is NOT dnigrating AOPA to ask that those statements be withdrawn.
The vendetta seems to be at agaf and Andrew W who is only a player on it, not at AOPA.
I think these are a couple of Ms Pagani pre-election quotes off PP - correct me if I am wrong. I take no responsibility for those who read these quotes having a heart attack or falling over and damaging themselves laughing at the hype versus the actual result: -
1. We cannot promise to be all things to all people, but we are all prepared to give it our best shot, and to listen to the membership.
2. We invite your responses.
Sorry to be slow back to the keyboard, I needed a little lie down to recover.
Now - and remember that if Ms Pagani's 5 incorrect comments are published I get the last laugh - again correct me if I'm wrong but I think Andrew's request for a retraction is also summed up by a Gaunty PP pre-election quote, viz: -
I agree but if somebody draws a sword on you, you have to, at the very least, unsheathe yours.
now, turning to Gaunty,
GARRY
I appreciate your advice re agaf, and will take it on board. I also applaud your honesty in noting the legal qualities of my postings.
When I did my media training they taught us many techniques including the "smokescreen". In that regard, I appreciate your advice re agaf but this current theme is about the retraction of incorrect publicly published material (I won't say defamatory although I have a personal opinion) by an AOPA Director about Andrew W.
Torres has a point implicit in his posting - perhaps unintentional but I suggest that the readers of this forum will have a field day of negativity about AOPA when they see what a legally qualified person has written unsubstantiated about Andrew W.
In terms of liabilities I suggest you and the AOPA Board members consider your own liabilities - not just in legal terms but in ethical and moral terms with the AOPA membership - if you as a group are seen to continue to endorse what Ms Pagani wrote.
Get the retraction sorted out, please, and lets get back on the GA trail in harmony.
Cheers
Brian H
You are a very forgiving person, one hopes this comes thru to your own life not just the christians thrown to the lions.
If Ms Pagani wishes to write incorrect public statements about others - in this case Andrew W - it is NOT dnigrating AOPA to ask that those statements be withdrawn.
The vendetta seems to be at agaf and Andrew W who is only a player on it, not at AOPA.
I think these are a couple of Ms Pagani pre-election quotes off PP - correct me if I am wrong. I take no responsibility for those who read these quotes having a heart attack or falling over and damaging themselves laughing at the hype versus the actual result: -
1. We cannot promise to be all things to all people, but we are all prepared to give it our best shot, and to listen to the membership.
2. We invite your responses.
Sorry to be slow back to the keyboard, I needed a little lie down to recover.
Now - and remember that if Ms Pagani's 5 incorrect comments are published I get the last laugh - again correct me if I'm wrong but I think Andrew's request for a retraction is also summed up by a Gaunty PP pre-election quote, viz: -
I agree but if somebody draws a sword on you, you have to, at the very least, unsheathe yours.
now, turning to Gaunty,
GARRY
I appreciate your advice re agaf, and will take it on board. I also applaud your honesty in noting the legal qualities of my postings.
When I did my media training they taught us many techniques including the "smokescreen". In that regard, I appreciate your advice re agaf but this current theme is about the retraction of incorrect publicly published material (I won't say defamatory although I have a personal opinion) by an AOPA Director about Andrew W.
Torres has a point implicit in his posting - perhaps unintentional but I suggest that the readers of this forum will have a field day of negativity about AOPA when they see what a legally qualified person has written unsubstantiated about Andrew W.
In terms of liabilities I suggest you and the AOPA Board members consider your own liabilities - not just in legal terms but in ethical and moral terms with the AOPA membership - if you as a group are seen to continue to endorse what Ms Pagani wrote.
Get the retraction sorted out, please, and lets get back on the GA trail in harmony.
Cheers
Brian H
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brianh
I'm not sure we are even on the same planet here on the AGACF.
As for smokescreens
You have got the Andrew thing completely a&se about, and I don't intend to debate it with you here. There is no vendetta.
We do listen to the membership, daily, but neither can we allow the AOPA Forum to expose AOPA to potential litigation, nor do we respond to threats of "exposure" unless we "do" certain things. Wrong tactic, expose away.
BTW its Gary with one r, freudian slip perhaps there, as the rr is the same spelling insistently used by another, who sits on a Board but refuses point blank to accept any work.
Bart Ifonly you got your facts right occasionally.
It would also help if you offered to help AOPA instead of taking cheap shots at it.
That way I might have the time to add things to the VPs page in ADDITION to the Directors Diary in the mag, amongst the submissions on 5 major NPRMs closing at the end of Sept, attending meetings all over the country on your behalf and spending 4 or 5 hours a day, dealing with the day to day stuff, restaffing and getting the office functional again, as well as making a fist of the day job which finances the ability to do the preceding.
I'm not complaining for one moment and having had many similar senior unpaid community service positions before, knew exactly what I was getting myself in for.
Just for the record, the fact you are able to indulge yourself here is also the result of many more hours of my time, moderating what is clearly the premier aviation site in Dunnunda and the world.
Wetzels site has the potential but needs to root out the same negative crap that we have had to here. Otherwise it is just a brave experiment, PPRuNes been there done that. Most people want to have a nice, even robust chat about whatever, without continuous negative denigration from the same boring single issue lot accompanied by the same boring serial legal threats if they lose the argument.
Dunnunda is only still here because some others and myself who through the quality of the moderating, were able to convince Danny, against the worst record of bannings and legal threats of any Forum on PPRuNe, that we were sufficiently good lion tamers to be able to keep it upright and out of court.
Should he lose faith in that as a fact, or the merry band who keep it up, decide it is too hard, its gone.
PPRuNe is not and never was promoted as a democracy and so called "free speech" is only free around here when it follows the rules, our rules, the "rights" of PPRuNers are whatever Danny and the moderators decide they are. It's worked pretty well so far.
So there, you can chase me and PPRune around to your hearts content until we get sick of it.
So forgive me if I am deaf to your bullsh!t.
I'll wait patiently to see what sort of smarta&rse retort you have to make this time, but if you really cared and really think we are making such an unholy stuff up with AOPA, then get yourself together, nominate and tell the members why they should vote for you at the next election.
In other words put up or shut up.
I'm not sure we are even on the same planet here on the AGACF.
As for smokescreens
You have got the Andrew thing completely a&se about, and I don't intend to debate it with you here. There is no vendetta.
We do listen to the membership, daily, but neither can we allow the AOPA Forum to expose AOPA to potential litigation, nor do we respond to threats of "exposure" unless we "do" certain things. Wrong tactic, expose away.
BTW its Gary with one r, freudian slip perhaps there, as the rr is the same spelling insistently used by another, who sits on a Board but refuses point blank to accept any work.
Bart Ifonly you got your facts right occasionally.
It would also help if you offered to help AOPA instead of taking cheap shots at it.
That way I might have the time to add things to the VPs page in ADDITION to the Directors Diary in the mag, amongst the submissions on 5 major NPRMs closing at the end of Sept, attending meetings all over the country on your behalf and spending 4 or 5 hours a day, dealing with the day to day stuff, restaffing and getting the office functional again, as well as making a fist of the day job which finances the ability to do the preceding.
I'm not complaining for one moment and having had many similar senior unpaid community service positions before, knew exactly what I was getting myself in for.
Just for the record, the fact you are able to indulge yourself here is also the result of many more hours of my time, moderating what is clearly the premier aviation site in Dunnunda and the world.
Wetzels site has the potential but needs to root out the same negative crap that we have had to here. Otherwise it is just a brave experiment, PPRuNes been there done that. Most people want to have a nice, even robust chat about whatever, without continuous negative denigration from the same boring single issue lot accompanied by the same boring serial legal threats if they lose the argument.
Dunnunda is only still here because some others and myself who through the quality of the moderating, were able to convince Danny, against the worst record of bannings and legal threats of any Forum on PPRuNe, that we were sufficiently good lion tamers to be able to keep it upright and out of court.
Should he lose faith in that as a fact, or the merry band who keep it up, decide it is too hard, its gone.
PPRuNe is not and never was promoted as a democracy and so called "free speech" is only free around here when it follows the rules, our rules, the "rights" of PPRuNers are whatever Danny and the moderators decide they are. It's worked pretty well so far.
So there, you can chase me and PPRune around to your hearts content until we get sick of it.
So forgive me if I am deaf to your bullsh!t.
I'll wait patiently to see what sort of smarta&rse retort you have to make this time, but if you really cared and really think we are making such an unholy stuff up with AOPA, then get yourself together, nominate and tell the members why they should vote for you at the next election.
In other words put up or shut up.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems we have to talk here then Gary where you are safe from "that person" who is barred from Pprune. As you can see from the previous posts on AGACF, I am my own person and not a manipulated by anyone.
I will play the game until the closet rabble come out to play, then, to quote your words, "I'm off".
Lets get to the positives. The murphie State Chapters, although you claim to support the idea never got off the ground. however nobody else seems to want to take the matter on board. He was going to give it 12 months of his time and present the findings to the 2004 AGM, hopefully for implementation into the Constitution.
You must agree that the chronic infighting at AOPA has been going on for years and this seems to me at least to be a way of giving the show back to the members and keep the sh!tfights at a local, not federal and public level.
Never looked like having a chance, simply because he chose not to be part of a "ticket" that went out of it's way to name, vilify and ridicule. Even old axiom copped it.
If you are going to maintain the "family" membership, it needs to be put into the constitution because I can find no mention of it anywhere. the nearest is with article 18 that was amended at the narromine AGM but did not adress that issue. You could interpret "The annual subscription payable by members of the association shall be as the association in general meeting shall from time to time prescribe", to mean that a discount was offered to families, but I still fail to see how this confers multiple voting rights. There is the matter of "the association in general meeting".
If the last board got it wrong, you should amend the constitution now so there is no ambiguity regarding non natural persons.
Your quote, "The members at the AGM were pretty clear about how they wanted the accounts handled, watch the tape"
On the 15th June this year, I asked for the minutes. Still don't have them. Anyway, of 4600 odd members only some 800 bothered to vote and of that lot only about 10% of them turned up to the meeting. Hardly a consensus when you take out "rent a crowd" waving clipboards around.
I was told the most dangerous thing in the Army was an officer with a compass, the same goes for accountants with clipboards at AGM's.
Therefor it is still one of the outstanding questions yet unanswered, where are the pre paid subs going? and if in the debit column, is AOPA solvent?
One woulkd hardly think such a question was gathering evidence for a "top 5 legal team". Don't forget, we members are also shareholders and do have certain rights to be informed if things are going pear shaped.
If things are hunky dory, why not tell us so with a quarterly financial statement? Surely this would quieten the rabble?
I'm sorry you chose to opt out of the AGACF, I thought you were thicker in the skin department. Andrew's motives are honourable and we, the GA community are duty bound to support him. I certainly can see no way of being in trouble if you simply tell the truth and sign your name to it. Something that we are not given the benefit of knowing who our accusers are on this forum when they choose to denigrate, defame, and vilify in the name of freedom of free speech.
I have a great dossier here of examples if you need reminding.
About the next meeting? I don't know?
Ax.
I will play the game until the closet rabble come out to play, then, to quote your words, "I'm off".
Lets get to the positives. The murphie State Chapters, although you claim to support the idea never got off the ground. however nobody else seems to want to take the matter on board. He was going to give it 12 months of his time and present the findings to the 2004 AGM, hopefully for implementation into the Constitution.
You must agree that the chronic infighting at AOPA has been going on for years and this seems to me at least to be a way of giving the show back to the members and keep the sh!tfights at a local, not federal and public level.
Never looked like having a chance, simply because he chose not to be part of a "ticket" that went out of it's way to name, vilify and ridicule. Even old axiom copped it.
If you are going to maintain the "family" membership, it needs to be put into the constitution because I can find no mention of it anywhere. the nearest is with article 18 that was amended at the narromine AGM but did not adress that issue. You could interpret "The annual subscription payable by members of the association shall be as the association in general meeting shall from time to time prescribe", to mean that a discount was offered to families, but I still fail to see how this confers multiple voting rights. There is the matter of "the association in general meeting".
If the last board got it wrong, you should amend the constitution now so there is no ambiguity regarding non natural persons.
Your quote, "The members at the AGM were pretty clear about how they wanted the accounts handled, watch the tape"
On the 15th June this year, I asked for the minutes. Still don't have them. Anyway, of 4600 odd members only some 800 bothered to vote and of that lot only about 10% of them turned up to the meeting. Hardly a consensus when you take out "rent a crowd" waving clipboards around.
I was told the most dangerous thing in the Army was an officer with a compass, the same goes for accountants with clipboards at AGM's.
Therefor it is still one of the outstanding questions yet unanswered, where are the pre paid subs going? and if in the debit column, is AOPA solvent?
One woulkd hardly think such a question was gathering evidence for a "top 5 legal team". Don't forget, we members are also shareholders and do have certain rights to be informed if things are going pear shaped.
If things are hunky dory, why not tell us so with a quarterly financial statement? Surely this would quieten the rabble?
I'm sorry you chose to opt out of the AGACF, I thought you were thicker in the skin department. Andrew's motives are honourable and we, the GA community are duty bound to support him. I certainly can see no way of being in trouble if you simply tell the truth and sign your name to it. Something that we are not given the benefit of knowing who our accusers are on this forum when they choose to denigrate, defame, and vilify in the name of freedom of free speech.
I have a great dossier here of examples if you need reminding.
About the next meeting? I don't know?
Ax.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps more of an assumption than an assertion. However, it does need clarification and perhaps you are qualified to produce the answer.
It is not a Club, nor a business. It is an association for aircraft pilots and owners and I believe it is a public company.
There is an elected Board of Directors who's responsibility one would imagine would be to look after the interests of it's members who have paid subscriptions to be part of same.
It makes no profits and income is expended proportionaly to achieve this outcome.
the income comes from subscriptions and advertising in the magazine plus merchandise. the bulk via subscriptions from people who want their particular niche of aviation protected so they can enjoy the fruits of their labour.
I feel like a shareholder, have the right to vote as would a shareholder and I guess if it looks, sounds and feels like a duck it is one?
Have I got it wrong ?
It is not a Club, nor a business. It is an association for aircraft pilots and owners and I believe it is a public company.
There is an elected Board of Directors who's responsibility one would imagine would be to look after the interests of it's members who have paid subscriptions to be part of same.
It makes no profits and income is expended proportionaly to achieve this outcome.
the income comes from subscriptions and advertising in the magazine plus merchandise. the bulk via subscriptions from people who want their particular niche of aviation protected so they can enjoy the fruits of their labour.
I feel like a shareholder, have the right to vote as would a shareholder and I guess if it looks, sounds and feels like a duck it is one?
Have I got it wrong ?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
axiom
I gotta go to the day job but just a few quickies.
I did not opt out of AGACF because of Andrew, it was because they allow the likes of you know who, to range free and wide with his vitriolic bull**** and if the posters are indeed responsible jointly and severally as they maintain, my "top 5" legals (his term including "dossier" not yours) have a problem with that. And I'm talking real advice here. He was banned here and will remain so for the same reasons.
AOPA is actually an incorporated company, I don't know about the shareholders routine but I do know that the Directors are liable in the same way. They are elected and are responsible for running the comany according to the codes and the wishes of the members expressed at an AGM or other properly consituted meeting.
Those "rent a crowd" in the tent were all financial members and would not have been there otherwise. I do think they would be kind to those who referred to them as such
All electors received the voting material and had the chance to vote as they had the opportunity to attend.
Same as council elections most don't bother and we can't make em.
If it wasn't for the fact that we have compulsory voting for Government the stats would be the same. It certanly is similar in the US where they don't.
Your membership gives you the right to vote at an AGM or other properly constituted meeting, no more no less.
If you don't think that we haven't given it back to the members then I don't know whether we are on the same planet.
And I think you are being a bit disingenuous about "old axiom" copping it. No one here believes for one moment that all of his posts during that time were written by the "old axiom" that we had come to know and love.
Talk to you soon.
I gotta go to the day job but just a few quickies.
I did not opt out of AGACF because of Andrew, it was because they allow the likes of you know who, to range free and wide with his vitriolic bull**** and if the posters are indeed responsible jointly and severally as they maintain, my "top 5" legals (his term including "dossier" not yours) have a problem with that. And I'm talking real advice here. He was banned here and will remain so for the same reasons.
AOPA is actually an incorporated company, I don't know about the shareholders routine but I do know that the Directors are liable in the same way. They are elected and are responsible for running the comany according to the codes and the wishes of the members expressed at an AGM or other properly consituted meeting.
Those "rent a crowd" in the tent were all financial members and would not have been there otherwise. I do think they would be kind to those who referred to them as such
All electors received the voting material and had the chance to vote as they had the opportunity to attend.
Same as council elections most don't bother and we can't make em.
If it wasn't for the fact that we have compulsory voting for Government the stats would be the same. It certanly is similar in the US where they don't.
Your membership gives you the right to vote at an AGM or other properly constituted meeting, no more no less.
If you don't think that we haven't given it back to the members then I don't know whether we are on the same planet.
And I think you are being a bit disingenuous about "old axiom" copping it. No one here believes for one moment that all of his posts during that time were written by the "old axiom" that we had come to know and love.
Talk to you soon.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE ALL NEW "AOIPA BOARD GAME"
Gaunty
Yesterday was a long day but at least the Tomahawk fired up late arvo after helping fix a few earth problems. My apology for the extra "R" - 'twas a slip and may well have been freudian as there are probably times we would love to kick each others "R"s.
Point of order. If it was/is not a vendetta re Andrew, when may we expect to see the retraction? Please apply some pressure to close off that unseemly situation - surely the other AOPA Board members have the voting power to restore order? Although, I guess they first have to know - and last advice I had was that what Andrew W sent to the AOPA office had not got to all Board members - any comment?
In the meantime, a little dark humour follows: -
The “conspiracy / search for the guilty” mindset postulates that any criticism of AOPA is destructive. This is patently incorrect. It denigrates, for example, the similar rights of the electorate to have their elected politicians carry out election promises.
So, I have thrown out the Monopoly board and designed a new game to prove this hypothesis. Welcome to the “AOPA board” game – a sort of cross between “Who wants to be In Charge Round Here” and “Terminator IV”. Our pieces consist of two key ones – “The Man Who Would Be King” and “The Wicked Queen”. We can only move forward when we get a “Fact” but are allowed “Hints”.
We open the game with a look at a posting by Kris Lovell about the wonders of today’s AOPA.
Ok – my move. I throw a “Hint” that this writing is most unlike Kris and has more the appearance of someone with a legal background.
Now, someone else's move. Using my “Hint” they pass the throw to Gaunty, looking for a “Fact”. You do this by asking a question: -
“Gary, did TMWWBK or TWQ apply pressure – jointly or severally - to have Kris post this message on PP”?
Then Gary’s move – he answers either Y or N. If he answers Y he probably scores ten out of ten for truth and zero out of ten for behaviour. If he answers N, he probably scores zero out of ten for both. Then, he passes the question to TWW for the next answer. Same scoring method.
No doubt we could always strengthen the game by asking Kris to adjudicate the answers – but we don’t need to, do we? We already suspect the truth of the matter. It wasn’t someone ANTI AOPA who kicked off the latest two rounds – it seems to be at least one if not more actual AOPA Board members. That puts a different slant on who is throwing the hand grenades, doesn’t it? Then we move off to round two – the attack on Andrew W, and away we go again.
So, these vendettas that do not exist nevertheless seem to have occurred at least twice. The game ends when we all realise that the Pp postings about AOPA are NOT a one-sided anti-AOPA campaign but a genuine attempt to have the AOPA Board pull in the wildcards and get on with the business of GA. Time the game went in to recess but that is not going to occur while BOTH sides want to keep playing!
Cheers
Brian H
Yesterday was a long day but at least the Tomahawk fired up late arvo after helping fix a few earth problems. My apology for the extra "R" - 'twas a slip and may well have been freudian as there are probably times we would love to kick each others "R"s.
Point of order. If it was/is not a vendetta re Andrew, when may we expect to see the retraction? Please apply some pressure to close off that unseemly situation - surely the other AOPA Board members have the voting power to restore order? Although, I guess they first have to know - and last advice I had was that what Andrew W sent to the AOPA office had not got to all Board members - any comment?
In the meantime, a little dark humour follows: -
The “conspiracy / search for the guilty” mindset postulates that any criticism of AOPA is destructive. This is patently incorrect. It denigrates, for example, the similar rights of the electorate to have their elected politicians carry out election promises.
So, I have thrown out the Monopoly board and designed a new game to prove this hypothesis. Welcome to the “AOPA board” game – a sort of cross between “Who wants to be In Charge Round Here” and “Terminator IV”. Our pieces consist of two key ones – “The Man Who Would Be King” and “The Wicked Queen”. We can only move forward when we get a “Fact” but are allowed “Hints”.
We open the game with a look at a posting by Kris Lovell about the wonders of today’s AOPA.
Ok – my move. I throw a “Hint” that this writing is most unlike Kris and has more the appearance of someone with a legal background.
Now, someone else's move. Using my “Hint” they pass the throw to Gaunty, looking for a “Fact”. You do this by asking a question: -
“Gary, did TMWWBK or TWQ apply pressure – jointly or severally - to have Kris post this message on PP”?
Then Gary’s move – he answers either Y or N. If he answers Y he probably scores ten out of ten for truth and zero out of ten for behaviour. If he answers N, he probably scores zero out of ten for both. Then, he passes the question to TWW for the next answer. Same scoring method.
No doubt we could always strengthen the game by asking Kris to adjudicate the answers – but we don’t need to, do we? We already suspect the truth of the matter. It wasn’t someone ANTI AOPA who kicked off the latest two rounds – it seems to be at least one if not more actual AOPA Board members. That puts a different slant on who is throwing the hand grenades, doesn’t it? Then we move off to round two – the attack on Andrew W, and away we go again.
So, these vendettas that do not exist nevertheless seem to have occurred at least twice. The game ends when we all realise that the Pp postings about AOPA are NOT a one-sided anti-AOPA campaign but a genuine attempt to have the AOPA Board pull in the wildcards and get on with the business of GA. Time the game went in to recess but that is not going to occur while BOTH sides want to keep playing!
Cheers
Brian H
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS - CREAMY
Creamy
Ignoring the point of law re "shareholders" I still think Ax does have a fair call if we change it to "Stakeholders". I consider myself one as I have a 5 year membership (no comment re my sanity will be accepted) AND email redirecting for 5 years.
No matter what the vagaries of the membership stakeholding, I can claim a definite contractual agreement re the email forwarding.
The last Board, in deliberating the accrual method, expressed moe concern at their legal exposure to bankruptcy than the fate of the members in such a circumstance. One hopes that this Board will rise above that.
For the cash versus accrual debaters, I am not going back to the accrual argument except to say that I will do the GST return late tomorrow and pay via the $ I have wisely accrued away in the past 3 months.
PS for the Board
Back to the vendetta that wasn't. Actually, if the treatment they received was not a vendetta, then I am glad for the sake of AW and KL that it didn't escalate to vendetta level.
I am advised that business at AOPA has reached a hiatus due to the absence of Ms Pagani on hols. I have no argument with people taking hols but I must say that leaves the retraction to Andrew W up in the air. I am told that, gentleman that he is, he has extended his 48 hour deadline until 48 hours after the return of Ms Pagani. Unfortunately, this means those keen to see the two famous emails published on this Forum will have to wait.
Brian H
Ignoring the point of law re "shareholders" I still think Ax does have a fair call if we change it to "Stakeholders". I consider myself one as I have a 5 year membership (no comment re my sanity will be accepted) AND email redirecting for 5 years.
No matter what the vagaries of the membership stakeholding, I can claim a definite contractual agreement re the email forwarding.
The last Board, in deliberating the accrual method, expressed moe concern at their legal exposure to bankruptcy than the fate of the members in such a circumstance. One hopes that this Board will rise above that.
For the cash versus accrual debaters, I am not going back to the accrual argument except to say that I will do the GST return late tomorrow and pay via the $ I have wisely accrued away in the past 3 months.
PS for the Board
Back to the vendetta that wasn't. Actually, if the treatment they received was not a vendetta, then I am glad for the sake of AW and KL that it didn't escalate to vendetta level.
I am advised that business at AOPA has reached a hiatus due to the absence of Ms Pagani on hols. I have no argument with people taking hols but I must say that leaves the retraction to Andrew W up in the air. I am told that, gentleman that he is, he has extended his 48 hour deadline until 48 hours after the return of Ms Pagani. Unfortunately, this means those keen to see the two famous emails published on this Forum will have to wait.
Brian H
Ax
I don’t know whether the members of AOPA are its shareholders or not. That’s why I’d like to find out, before acting on the basis of the bare assertion alone. The same with the bare assertion about the application and effect of the new accounting standard to memberships paid in advance.
My guess is that given AOPA’s age, the national nature of its activities, and its name (or more specifically, the absence of “Pty Ltd” or “Limited” in its name), it was originally registered as a company limited by guarantee and granted a licence to be registered without the addition of the word “Limited” to its name.
When you joined AOPA, were you issued with a share or shares?
Which public companies require their shareholders to pay a membership fee each year?
The duck that you see has, apparently, the feathers, beak and feet of a public company. The duck that I see, has the feathers, beak and feet of an old not-for-profit incorporated association. There may be some similarities (such as the ones alluded to by Gaunty), but there are also some important differences. Speaking of which…
BrianH
Shareholder and stakeholder are not the same thing. As a consequence of being a shareholder, a shareholder has recognised and enforceable legal rights; no recognised or enforceable legal rights flow from being a “stakeholder”, although the ostensibly important title “stakeholder” makes people feel warm and fuzzy and forget they have no recognised or enforceable legal rights. Then we have people called “members”….
Let’s start from the start: what do you say AOPA is legally obliged to provide a member in return for her membership fee, paid in advance or otherwise?
There is a correct answer to that question.
I’m not interested in your views on what you think would be good idea, or be a “fair call”, or be politically acceptable or unacceptable to the members, or any other “should” statement. I’m interested in what “is”.
I don’t know whether the members of AOPA are its shareholders or not. That’s why I’d like to find out, before acting on the basis of the bare assertion alone. The same with the bare assertion about the application and effect of the new accounting standard to memberships paid in advance.
My guess is that given AOPA’s age, the national nature of its activities, and its name (or more specifically, the absence of “Pty Ltd” or “Limited” in its name), it was originally registered as a company limited by guarantee and granted a licence to be registered without the addition of the word “Limited” to its name.
When you joined AOPA, were you issued with a share or shares?
Which public companies require their shareholders to pay a membership fee each year?
The duck that you see has, apparently, the feathers, beak and feet of a public company. The duck that I see, has the feathers, beak and feet of an old not-for-profit incorporated association. There may be some similarities (such as the ones alluded to by Gaunty), but there are also some important differences. Speaking of which…
BrianH
Shareholder and stakeholder are not the same thing. As a consequence of being a shareholder, a shareholder has recognised and enforceable legal rights; no recognised or enforceable legal rights flow from being a “stakeholder”, although the ostensibly important title “stakeholder” makes people feel warm and fuzzy and forget they have no recognised or enforceable legal rights. Then we have people called “members”….
Let’s start from the start: what do you say AOPA is legally obliged to provide a member in return for her membership fee, paid in advance or otherwise?
There is a correct answer to that question.
I’m not interested in your views on what you think would be good idea, or be a “fair call”, or be politically acceptable or unacceptable to the members, or any other “should” statement. I’m interested in what “is”.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brianh
Sorry but it is business as usual whilst one of us is on hols.
As far as AW is concerned very sporting I'm sure but, as I said before we do not respond to threats of "exposure" unless we "do" certain things. Marjorie will deal with it when she returns.
Oh and BTW have a look at the current Australian Aviation if you still think we are on the wrong track.
And the Oct AOPA mag for some interesting comments about a recent CASA case.
Sorry but it is business as usual whilst one of us is on hols.
As far as AW is concerned very sporting I'm sure but, as I said before we do not respond to threats of "exposure" unless we "do" certain things. Marjorie will deal with it when she returns.
Oh and BTW have a look at the current Australian Aviation if you still think we are on the wrong track.
And the Oct AOPA mag for some interesting comments about a recent CASA case.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gary;
The Murphie concerns have not been addressed, and, while waiting for the independant arbiter to say something, one would have expected such outrageous hide to be at least denied or make an effort to legally indemnify AOPA for the members sake.
There was nothing defamatory in the wording that I could see and it seemed to be a very real attempt to get some people to realise that corporate governance is not about running things with an iron rule.
A lot of people don't like being lied to and then treated with contempt when they front the situation with the players.
Have a look at the handout given to all at the AGM at Murray Bridge just minutes before the meeting started.
Remember, the minutes of the Narromine AGM were first on the agenda and Marjorie had them with her. Forget about where they should have been, the fact was that the meeting could have started because the minutes were there all the time.
Have a look at the handout carefully (they were the missing minutes and the articles of association), very top in small print.
To Ms Jane Errey Date 23/05/2003 Time 5.30: 42 PM.
This is the evening before the AGM on 24th May 2003. Jane was there (and in the hours leading up to the AGM).
I believe Chris would have adjourned the meeting for a reasonable time to allow the incoming board time to get their act together.
This act caused a lot of inconvenience, and the members present were lied to, simply to hold events up until Marjorie arrived.
I'm sorry if this causes you some pain, being brought out into the open, but it is only one of a lot of things that make members "hackles" rise.
I believe that this matter was not part of the complaint that went away, however it could do with an answer seeing as things are "proceeding normally" whilst marjorie is on holidays.
Surely you as VP have the authority to answer this revelation and if need be, apologise to the members.
I and a lot of others will understand if you remove this post. I hope you are made of sterner stuff.
Ax.
The Murphie concerns have not been addressed, and, while waiting for the independant arbiter to say something, one would have expected such outrageous hide to be at least denied or make an effort to legally indemnify AOPA for the members sake.
There was nothing defamatory in the wording that I could see and it seemed to be a very real attempt to get some people to realise that corporate governance is not about running things with an iron rule.
A lot of people don't like being lied to and then treated with contempt when they front the situation with the players.
Have a look at the handout given to all at the AGM at Murray Bridge just minutes before the meeting started.
Remember, the minutes of the Narromine AGM were first on the agenda and Marjorie had them with her. Forget about where they should have been, the fact was that the meeting could have started because the minutes were there all the time.
Have a look at the handout carefully (they were the missing minutes and the articles of association), very top in small print.
To Ms Jane Errey Date 23/05/2003 Time 5.30: 42 PM.
This is the evening before the AGM on 24th May 2003. Jane was there (and in the hours leading up to the AGM).
I believe Chris would have adjourned the meeting for a reasonable time to allow the incoming board time to get their act together.
This act caused a lot of inconvenience, and the members present were lied to, simply to hold events up until Marjorie arrived.
I'm sorry if this causes you some pain, being brought out into the open, but it is only one of a lot of things that make members "hackles" rise.
I believe that this matter was not part of the complaint that went away, however it could do with an answer seeing as things are "proceeding normally" whilst marjorie is on holidays.
Surely you as VP have the authority to answer this revelation and if need be, apologise to the members.
I and a lot of others will understand if you remove this post. I hope you are made of sterner stuff.
Ax.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIT CONTRADICTORY GARY
Gary
Does that make twice you have said "business as usual (for AOPA) while MP is on holidays"???? And the delegations are in place.
Then you tell us that MP will deal with the AW situation when she returns.
This raises a most interesting query.
If the Board is really delegated to deal with matters in the absence of Ms Pagani, what is to stop the Board resolving the matter NOW?
Or, are you saying the Board is only in housekeeper mode while "She Who Must Be Obeyed" is away?
Conversely, if the Board is leaving it for "Marjorie to deal with it when she returns" can we deduce that the Board is walking away from her rash and unfounded literary effort?
I must add it puts a very sour taste in my mouth to see you try to portray Andrew W as one "imposing a threat of exposure unless we do certain things". Good media stuff, unspoilt by fact to try and raise a sympathy vote. What next mate - an impassioned plea to release the Bali bomber?
Andrew W is an AOPA member - does this quote bring back any memories to you "... to steal Clintons simple but brilliant membership focus IT'S ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP STUPID". Now who, I wonder, was tongue in cheek when he wrote that?
Of course, the above query presumes that the Board has access to the matter anyway and I note my earlier question re that has NOT been answered. Has the censor also penetrated the Board corro circulation process?
On a different subject, I was not going to comment on any recent CASA cases but yes, it was interesting to note AOPA jumping into the Horsham case after the execution (ah, i can feel Creamy rubbing his hands with joy!).
CREAMY
Forget Horsham, back to membership my astute colleague.
I don't actually have any precedent on hand re membership rights with advance subscriptions but I think I agree with your hypothesis that such rights would be equivalent to the square root of minus one.
What can you trot out to enlighten us?
But the email forwarding is a separate exercise. Unlike the membership, it is a separate and defined contractual situation and has the three parts of the contract in place as it is paid for separately.
Cheers
Brian H
Does that make twice you have said "business as usual (for AOPA) while MP is on holidays"???? And the delegations are in place.
Then you tell us that MP will deal with the AW situation when she returns.
This raises a most interesting query.
If the Board is really delegated to deal with matters in the absence of Ms Pagani, what is to stop the Board resolving the matter NOW?
Or, are you saying the Board is only in housekeeper mode while "She Who Must Be Obeyed" is away?
Conversely, if the Board is leaving it for "Marjorie to deal with it when she returns" can we deduce that the Board is walking away from her rash and unfounded literary effort?
I must add it puts a very sour taste in my mouth to see you try to portray Andrew W as one "imposing a threat of exposure unless we do certain things". Good media stuff, unspoilt by fact to try and raise a sympathy vote. What next mate - an impassioned plea to release the Bali bomber?
Andrew W is an AOPA member - does this quote bring back any memories to you "... to steal Clintons simple but brilliant membership focus IT'S ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP STUPID". Now who, I wonder, was tongue in cheek when he wrote that?
Of course, the above query presumes that the Board has access to the matter anyway and I note my earlier question re that has NOT been answered. Has the censor also penetrated the Board corro circulation process?
On a different subject, I was not going to comment on any recent CASA cases but yes, it was interesting to note AOPA jumping into the Horsham case after the execution (ah, i can feel Creamy rubbing his hands with joy!).
CREAMY
Forget Horsham, back to membership my astute colleague.
I don't actually have any precedent on hand re membership rights with advance subscriptions but I think I agree with your hypothesis that such rights would be equivalent to the square root of minus one.
What can you trot out to enlighten us?
But the email forwarding is a separate exercise. Unlike the membership, it is a separate and defined contractual situation and has the three parts of the contract in place as it is paid for separately.
Cheers
Brian H
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong as usual Axiom
Axiom
Your twisting of reality never ceases to amaze me.
Before the meeting began Chris McKeown was advised (by me) that Jane had the minutes of the previous meeting. She and another lady wanted to go and copy them, but were not prepared to miss any part of the AGM for that purpose (especially as it was not a 'duty' of either of them). Fair call I say. Chris was not prepared to wait and so the minutes were not copied until the adjournment was carried. At that time Jane and the other lady drove into town and made copies for everyone so we could continue as soon as the other Board members arrived.
Simple really. But of course there is always a conspiracy somewhere, eh???
I actually think you are peeved because your sloppy attempts at getting the numbers (which your bitter little crowd of 3 obvoiusly didn't have anyway) didn't work. My observations only of course!!!
AK
Your twisting of reality never ceases to amaze me.
Before the meeting began Chris McKeown was advised (by me) that Jane had the minutes of the previous meeting. She and another lady wanted to go and copy them, but were not prepared to miss any part of the AGM for that purpose (especially as it was not a 'duty' of either of them). Fair call I say. Chris was not prepared to wait and so the minutes were not copied until the adjournment was carried. At that time Jane and the other lady drove into town and made copies for everyone so we could continue as soon as the other Board members arrived.
Simple really. But of course there is always a conspiracy somewhere, eh???
I actually think you are peeved because your sloppy attempts at getting the numbers (which your bitter little crowd of 3 obvoiusly didn't have anyway) didn't work. My observations only of course!!!
AK