AOPA in trouble??
 

www.aopa.com.au

reports on the aopa web site forum say that the treasurer has resigned - does this mean there is division within the board and what is the real financial position

does anyone know

:( :(

I have just received a pdf document from the ex-treasurer, Russell Kelly, fully detailing the circumstances.

Very briefly, Russell feels that the accounting method used on the balance sheet (and in practice) should make provision for, and recognise, future liablities, especially with respect to 2/3/4 year memberships paid in advance.

He is seriously concerned about the solvency/insolvency of AOPA with respect to this.

He was unable to reach agreement with all board members over this and felt it necessary to resign.

Oh Dear; :rolleyes:

M.D.: Is that file being emailed to all AOPA members or is it on the AOPA web?.

I am an AOPA member myself, and if the basics are as you say then R.K. is right.

If AOPA is to be run as a serious business then such provisions need to be allowed for.

To fill the vacancy the AOPA board can always take on one of EMRON's ex-accountants who specialise in creative accounting.

Rich Fine Green,
I have no idea. I would doubt very much that AOPA would post it on their site, because, in parts, it is very critical.
I don't know whether Russell intends to post it on a website anywhere, but I'll ask him.

Russell's words to me were "Feel free to pass it on", so if you'd like to see it, drop me a personal email and I'll forward it.

Dunno what's going on in there, but I'd really like to know, especially as I have been persuaded to part with the readies to join "the cause".

I'm a rejoined member, but can't seem to get any response to my emails about how to login to our forum so that I may participate, in so far as the moderators will allow.

If a "Treasurer" resigns for other than, he's had enough, or to take another office, it's a pretty loud "heads up."


snarek, ulm, Bill Pike et al where are you??

Mooney Driver
Would appreciate a copy, if you are able, thanks.

Heh heh.

Well gaunty, since it was me what made you see the light perhaps i should explain.

There was a disagreement as to how multiple year memberships should be treated, as a liability or not. Russell Kelly was Treasurer and he chose to treat them as a liability, ie fund them from within the budget.

Russell did have the support of the majority of the Board, but not all. He took into account his own liability as Treasurer and Secretary and the fact that two of the Board had voiced discontent with his accounting practises and chose to resign.

As I have said on the AOPA forum, Russell always has and always will have my support and friendship. He did a wonderful job for AOPA and we need him back. That said I hope he renominates at the next AGM so we can put the current Board differences behind us.

Regardless of Russell's resignation, current Board practise is to account for long term membership payments. Should that change then I would need to reconsider my position.

So, all you PPRuNers who are members, please talk to Russell, find out from him why he resigned, bear this in mind and vote at the next elections and attend the AGM.

AK

Thanks

Kris from the office has very kindly "set me up" :D and even took the time to let me know.

Apparently there is a bit of a backlog due to some staff shortages and the Christmas break.

I thought about paying a multiple membership for the obvious reasons of cost, but honestly didn't feel all that comfortable with it, given the current circumstances.

I will however, when I can be assured that AOPA is very firmly back in the hands of it's natural constituency and not driven from behind the scenes by high profile dabblers with personal, single issues or political motives.

I look forward to contributing, although so far I have an open mind, I will be interested to see how the "active" moderating that takes place there as against the "passive" moderating here stacks up against the "censorship" issues described by Woomera.

It looks like they need the help of people like Tony Mitchell and Boyd Munroe to get them back on track? :) :) :)

The issue is about whether AOPA needs to fund future membership liabilities – ie the 3,4 and 5 year membership. Several directors want to put the whole 5 year income into the month it is received and then spend it. A bit like what HIH did.
Why does this matter? Well using their ingenious accounting method makes the AOPA books look respectable when the actual situation is that AOPA’s finance are fairly sick
and need a concerted effort by all board members to fix up the problems.

I was the only accountant on the board and whilst I had the valued support of some board members, including Andrew Kerans, I was facing a daily smear campaign regarding the veracity of the financial reports. Who would want to continue as Treasurer under these circumstances?

There are some bizarre defences running around like AOPA has always been broke so what’s the problem, and the best of all – when a member pays 5 years in advance there is no obligation to provide any services whatsoever for the 5 years!

This nonsense is a typical foible of voluntary organisations. AOPA members need to elect board members who have had some modicum of experience in the corporate world or at the very least, understand how to read a balance sheet and elementary financial reporting.

I have pestered the board to obtain an independent expert opinion but the two directors concerned have fought against this.

Notwithstanding this AOPA needs to be viable and strong and the support of GA. Otherwise what else do we have?

So the past 18 months on the AOPA board hasn’t been the most pleasant experience & I am happy to be out of it. I am busy fighting an expected demonisation campaign and will probably set up a web site to deal with these issues.

Cheers

Russell Kelly (ex Treasurer AOPA)

:eek: :eek:

Geeeeeezzz Outback pilot, I hope that last post of yours was meant to be a joke!!!!!!

:eek: :eek:

Chuck

ulm, you have to look on the bright side of life. :D :D :D :rolleyes: :p

In his coming letter to members perhaps Russell Kelly could let us know who the board members were, so we can take that into account next time we vote. AOPA has a very peculiar electioneering campaign. We hear what Licences and hours candidates have. We hear what else they do outside AOPA, but we hear little of what they propose to do once on the board. After they get elected we get told what they can't do.

Can't do, or not allowed to do??? :D

Most of them are actually mere PPLs (like most AOPA members) but the combined ego of the Jumbo drivers swamps debate.

But then, you voted for them (or not, by not nominating and running against them).

But the loudest Jumbo driver isn't up for reelection, so not much the members can do about that, except perhaps call an EGM ... now there's a thought :)

Hey Russell Kelly, you know the ropes, call an EGM!!!

Chuck

An EGM would be very disruptive.

However a current director can call a General Meeting and the meeting can resolve to call a fresh election.

Easier still, why don’t the board just agree to a spill and make all positions vacant? All directors would have to agree though. I can’t imagine why any director should object unless they are afraid of facing the members.

Russell

To ulm and snarek; or am I talking to the same guy.

Seems there is a lot of negative talk and a small bit of the positive.

Who is the "most senior" pilot in question?

Who is "whiteanting" the whole show?

Why can't you guy's get a positive thread going about AOPA ? or is your life (plural perhaps), so taken up with doing something on pprune that your own website won't allow you?

There is life without Kelly believe it or not, and the whole concept of a complete fracture of AOPA as a result is just too silly for words.

Would Bill P and Bill H (who seem to be the most sane, by their silence), please speak up or do "us" members have to go through another s**t fight which will have the pre determined outcome of F**k**g the whole show.

Struth !!!!!!!! :mad: :mad:

AOPA in trouble?

Again or still.

As has been mentioned
'PPL's with 747 egos - claiming to represent all of GA'

Not getting my $, again.

Axiom

At least snarek identifies himself as an AOPA Board member. You could try the same honesty.

Same guy, how presumptuous of you to even assume that all pilots are male. Typical of the problems facing AOPA (and people like Kerans and Kelly) in our industry.

The problems facing AOPA are very real, I know that having sat through what i thought was a one hour bullsh!t, bluff and bluster lecture on why AOPA Oz sued AOPA US at the Narromine AGM. Now having a bit of background on it helped me to decide when I was hearing reality and when I was hearing a Chinese version of history to protect an ego that I think is so big it has become unstable.

Axiom dear Girl, I think it is time you and your mate resigned and left AOPA to those who have a little sanity left and a lot less of an agenda.

Arghhh

Copping it from both sides now.

Axiom, your assumption about ULM in this case is incorrect. Think a bit deeper, c'mon mate, try, I'm sure you can.

Hurlingham.

Only two of nine Board members are or were 747 Captains. Regardless of what this qualification makes you feel, six of the others are PPLs and there is one CPL.

Again, regardless of your opinion on ATPLs running AOPA, AOPA is the members. If you won't be a member (and the other PPL members think the same) then the CPLs and above will elect CPLs and above to the Board and drive the PPL out of the sky.

Now, more on '747 Captains', despite the fact that most people are aware that I have differences of opinion with Bill Pike, he has NEVER in all my time on the Board even suggested AOPA take up a QF, RPT or commercial issue. He has doggedly persued the interests of the PPL in areas such as landing fees, over-regulation, flight manuals etc.

So, while I see your point, be careful not to confuse the person with their job, you can be right, but you can be wrong.

AK

AOPA members suffer the same problems as do shareholders of listed public companies.

How can members possibly know which directors are competent, pulling their weight and making a positive contribution to the organisation? Are some directors past their ‘use-by’ date? In my experience of company boards, only fellow directors or senior management will ever get to find out. This leaves the members in blissful ignorance.

In AOPA’s case I’m sure all directors are well-meaning and passionate about the cause (otherwise why would they put themselves through purgatory?) and I am proud to have participated with some clever, dedicated and professional aviators. Notwithstanding this, there are serious divisions within the board that go well beyond normal robust debate and
this must leave its mark on AOPA effectiveness.

I should add that criticism of Bill Pike and Bill Hamilton solely because of their present and past employment at QF is unfounded. During my time on the board there was never any instance where either did anything but work tirelessly towards the betterment of GA.

AOPA is pivotal in protecting GA and members need to take a greater interest in the election process, including enhanced scrutiny of candidates. To those who argue that members get the board they deserve I would say that we deserve better.

A vigorously contested election for a completely new board would be the best outcome.

Russell

OK Russell

Since you think AOPA needs a whole new Board then that means all of them must stand aside at the next election.

Now only Kerans, Kennedy and Rudd actually must (although the costitution says 'half' the Board must stand aside and I believe Mr Pike did at the last election to make up the full half.)

So assuming Hamilton stands this time to make up the half (as he is Senior VP and Pike set the precident last time), how to you propose getting the rest to stand aside should they choose not to???

Chuck