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

If you lose Hamilton you can kiss AOPA good bye. :D :D :D

Slow airplane pilot

you left out 'don't' and 'soon'. :D :D

Bill Hamilton responds.
 

Bill Hamilton rang me this morning after having failed to get a post put on this thread through Danny , He asked me to do so and I quote; (obviously He's not registered), (and Axiom isn't him).

From Bill Hamilton,
Vice President and Technical Director,
AOPA of Australia.

In view of the fact that I have been named on this thread, I would offer the following.

Firstly, AOPA is solvent and will remain so, with prudent and sensible management. The Board of AOPA is a sensible and prudent group of people.

Shortly after the Mobil fuel crisis, AOPA finances reached an all time low, as a result of heavy expenditure on the resulting problems of members and non members, alike.

Since that time, significant and at times painful cost cutting has enabled a slow but steady improvement in the AOPA financial situation, despite a further fall in membership in line with the reductions in General Aviation activity. Show me anywhere in GA where things are not tight. AOPA is no exception.

Quiet simply AOPA is paying it's bills on time, and with the support of its members, will continue to do so. AOPA will continue to provide all its traditional services to members.

No member of the AOPA board has questioned, let alone sought to reverse the current accounting standard, since the Board decision to adopt the present standard. No member of the Board wants to "spend it", all the money at once. Indeed it was during my time as President that some of the most significant cuts were made, to ensure the continued solvency of AOPA.

There has not been, nor will there be any smear campaign as has been suggested herein.

Nor do I personally intend to respond to the rather scurrilous and defamatory comments in some of these posts.

My only interest is that AOPA should continue to fulfill its Charter, in the interests of all its members, and I will be happy to be judged by the members at large on the results we achieve.

Yours sincerely,
Bill Hamilton.



Having passed this on, may I say that it is the anonymity of pprune that makes this website unique and I have no intention of identifying myself to any person with a good or bad vested interest in AOPA (except the obvious who know me).

I do not post anything on the AOPA website simply because it is people of dubious intent who have turned the site into an ambulance chaser's dream.

If I have got Andrew and ulm mistaken, I apologise.

Finally, I say again, There is life after Kelly, and in my humble opinion, it seems like his resignations (s), are egocentric and self serving.

It would be interesting to draw up two overlapping graphs to see where the membership peaks and these sh*t fights historically occur.

People in aviation today cannot afford not to be members of AOPA and it is blokes like Bill Hamilton, who's tireless work help make a team that make things happen.

Get off their backs !!!!!

Yes well.

From the posts here and discussions with AOPA members as recently as last night I believe the debate is whether AOPA needs some new blood and whether Mr hamilton should consider his options.

The simple solution seems to be for Bill to stand at the next election. (remember, there was no election last time). If re-elected (in a contested election) then that is the members will and I will immediately pull my head in.

Chuck

I'll ask for a comment. Watch this space :)

Lunch time now, and boy has this been active this morning!!!

Anyway, I have no problems with what Bill Hamilton has posted, I just don't agree with all of it.

But Axiom, that bit about Kelly. Nasty and below the belt. Worse though, totally untrue. No one on the Board is "self serving" and you know that. Not even the people I disagree with are "self serving" (at least as far as I can tell), you wouldn't do this to serve yourself.

Egotistical, possibly, it takes strong people and Russell is by far not the worst in big ego stakes on this Board. Big egos can be useful in this sort of game, look at the Treasuruer (of the Govt) for instance. You get big egos in any union or political party and I think you are incredibly niave to think that it should somehow be any different in AOPA.

Perhaps we need someone with less of an ego to bring us all together, and Marjorie Pagani would be perfect. She seems to me to have what it takes to get all the egos working to the same goal (if not perhaps agreeing on exactly how to get there :D )

Russell worked his guts out for AOPA, but did not receive full support from all the directors, yourself and one other. That is why he left. It had little to do with ego. Having spoken with Russell I am confident he will renomonate for the Board at the next election and he will have my full and absolute support.

I note also that Bill has agreed to be 'judged' by the members. It was a pity there was no election last year because there were insufficient nominations. It seems we have all now agreed that we should all stand at the next election, hopefully a contested one, so that the members can judge us all properly. Then they too will have no reason for criticism.

I think you should a) Come clean about who you are, and b) Apologise to Russell.

Andrew Kerans

I have to say Mr Hamilton is an asset to AOPA along with the others and its members. It is just a pity they have not learnt to agree to disagree on certain issues and move forward. :cool:

It would have been nice to see a lot of these issues resolved on the AOPA forum or person to person instead of spiting the dummy on pprune. :mad:

I guess it is free of censorship here to a degree. :D

Piper Arrow.

(I once overtook a 200 hp Arrow in my 180 HP fixed gear, fixed pitch Grumman :D )

The AOPA forum is essentially un-edited unless you defame someone. if you, in my view, defame someone I send it to one of our two lawyers for opinion. If they say OK it gets posted, otherwise it is returned or edited.

Just the same as any other forum, except you cant hide your identity.

You want to post this stuff there, go for it. There already is a thread.

AK

Let’s keep out the character assassination, there is no place for that.

Just a point of correction re Bill Hamilton’s proxy posting:

AOPA did not fund future liabilities during the period 1997 thru 2001. Had it done so, in my opinion, it would have been bankrupted. So Bill, why your change your position on this?

I am a little confused about your post, Andrew. Are you implying that Bill H won’t be part of a spill ?

Irrespective of the mud-slinging on this Forum, members have no way to make up their own minds about which directors are performing. And what happens if the membership democratically elects the same people back?

Russell

snarek, why don't you go and work things out together as mature board members for the good of it’s members. Please put your differences away and get on with the job that you have been elected to do.

If we do not get this situation fixed fast you will not have any members and we will all go and join the AUF as they have one fixed purpose and vision for their members.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Russell,

I don't know. Bill previously declined to stand but seems to have agreed to stand in the post above.

Mooney Operator,

I am sure Russell shares my sympathy on your choice of aircraft. That aside, you must therefore know Russell. Put you question to him, I'm sure he can enlighten you.

AK

Andrew, Mooney operators are always right!

The options are simple I reckon. The board should try
and resolve their differences amicably and as mature adults.
If this fails, there is no option other the whole board to
support a spill and for the members to have their say.

Why not give the first option another try?

Russell

Russell

We have a spare wing spar at Yarrawonga if you'd like to try installing one in a Mooney. :D

Bin reading these posts and I had a thought (yes, it did hurt).

There have been transitions in AOPA.

There were the Patroni years. AOPA was big, quietly powerful and influential (and flush).

Then came Dick Smith. There was a different AOPA. I can't whinge, I got caught up in the excitement for change and supported it. Stuff seemed to happen and they were heady days.

Then came the Munro years. You were there in the thick of it. I was threatened with writs and had a Ministerial lodged against me. (Boyd has since apologised and I enjoy a reasonable relationship with him now).

I did not agree with Boyd's way, I found it destructive and threatening and I feel it did more damage to GA than it did good. I actually then ran for the Board on an "I hate Boyd" platform. The final count saw me un-elected.

Bill H took over from Boyd. Bill and I had an interesting relationship. he certainly didn't agree with my decision to ask the Democrats to disallow part 47. Interestingly I worked very well with Boyd Munro to achieve that.

I was astounded at some of the financial decisions made in those days and to this day don't understand some of the reasoning behind them, despite convoluted and confusing explanations from many of those involved at the time.

I found almost everything that Tony Mitchell had to say on GA disagreeable.

So, I didn't put myself forward for the Board to merely follow along with the way AOPA was run in those days. And I won't simply go along with it now.

I agree that the best way forward is for a complete Board election at the next AGM (AOPA simply cannot afford and really doesn't need an EGM unless some members of the Board decide not to voluntarilly put themselves before the members).

AK

Andrew & Russell,

That is great to hear "The board should try and resolve their differences amicably and as mature adults ".

AOPA is a great organisation and it is worth the effort in keeping it going in spite of all the differences and different opinions.

(Andrew did you overtake that Piper Arrow on final? What does the Grumman do flapless landings?) ::eek:

:D :D :D

Piper

No, going up the Araluen, and the Arrow pilot (who was renting and was a friend) admitted he was going 'flat chat'.

Read the last (or the one before) issue of US Flying. Roy lopresti did the same thing :D :D

(and they are half the price at 100 hourly)

But at least Arrows have wing spars ;)

AK

Russell;

I'm sorry I brought the character part in to play, but really, AOPA needs strong cohesive leadership at Board level for it's survival and pissing off right now is not what is needed.

I have had a gutfull of these episodes over the years and it always ends the same way;

1) Lack of members.

2) Lack of cash.

3) Lack of credibility.

4) Loss a decent and hardworking heirachy.

5) Appeasement to CASA who are strengthened by it.

6) An increase of membership fees.

7) A decrease in the ability of AOPA to protect it's members.

8) A feeling of apathetic deja vu by the members.

9) New brooms who sweep the place clean before the next s**t fight.

I know a committee designed the camel when it was envisaged a horse was the order of the day (I think the same mob designed the Lada Niva), but aviation is too serious a business to be left in charge of pissants.

The problem as I see it is that we need a cohesive Board and if it cannot cohese (?) then it is unfunctionable.

I thought we had such a board, I was there at the last AGM, I didn't see a problem with the voting (or lack thereof because of non nominations),

If your principles dictate you take the action you did Russell, I can only commend you and if you are serious, stand at the next elections, throw the challenge out to all and sundry and make the organisation stronger, not weaker for your actions.

Andrew, please read the apology above, and, no I won't come clean about who I am.

I am me, an AOPA member and will be easy to find when our organisation membership drops down to you and me, which seems likely the way things are going.

Why don't you just get on with the job you were elected to do and leave the publicity to the heirachy.

Hello all.

I am a new member here (I have been lurking for a while though), I have been an AOPA member for over 20 years.

Can somebody tell me what is going on??? It seems AOPA committees haven't been able to get on since about 1994???

Pat

AOPA
 

Hello all,

TO ALL AOPA MEMBERS, HEADS UP. I have seen many a time people getting involved in dissagreements between two or more people. YOU WILL NEVER GET THE FULL PICTURE. This is the case even if you hear both sides of the story. Get two eye-witness reports on a car crash and you get 3 stories. Is Russel correct. Most likely yes and no. Are the two board member who ??(was it disagree, ask for more information, suggest another option) correct. Most likely yes and no.

Most likely, based on times this has happen in other organisations, there is a conflict of personalities.

IS THE REMAINING BOARD MATURE ENOUGH TO MOVE AHEAD???

Also I aggree with the suggest to list the board members experience outside aviation altogether. AOPA is a political organistion. We need experience with a wide range of backgrounds.

My (reasonably well) educated guess:

2 'factions'.

Loosely aligned: Kelly, Kerans and McKeown. A distant hanger on here, Kennedy.

Strongly aligned (but in opposition to the above): Hamilton, Lyon and Rudd.

And;

Not aligned at all: Pagani.

Unable to make it work: Pike. (although differing significantly from what I am told, my gut feeling is that Pike supports Hamilton).

One other interesting aside, it seems Hamilton seeks significant counsel from previous Board members, possibly Mitchell and Ferrier (instigator of an attempt to make us all pay compulsory third party, possibly wrongly accused because perhaps it might not have been a bad thing after all, but then, perhaps not).

Chuck

Good point Mr/Ms Monkey.

Our local bush pub is up for sale. A local wants to buy it, he says he knows how to pull (and consume) a beer. What else could there be to it?

AOPA board members similarly need more than a just a pilots licence. Hopefully a range of complimentary skills (particularly commercial) where there is some mutual respect.

Russell