So, what happened at the AOPA AGM?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, what happened at the AOPA AGM?
Could someone who attended the AOPA AGM please tell me what happened and can we look forward to a progressive AOPA now?
BSB
BSB
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RUMOUR MOVES FASTER
BSB
Good call.
Rumour always faster, latest is a proposed $100 "donation levy".
I don't think that can be true as if only 800 voted, then not that many would put in $100, so it would be an unworkable strategy.
Anyway, it has gone very quiet since the meeting Thurs night. Nothing on the AOPA Forum when I looked earlier but to be fair if they have all been closeted for the weekend they will need to catch up.
Cheers
Good call.
Rumour always faster, latest is a proposed $100 "donation levy".
I don't think that can be true as if only 800 voted, then not that many would put in $100, so it would be an unworkable strategy.
Anyway, it has gone very quiet since the meeting Thurs night. Nothing on the AOPA Forum when I looked earlier but to be fair if they have all been closeted for the weekend they will need to catch up.
Cheers
AGM
well done to the new board and new pres
meeting was delayed due to weather and a number of attendees still on their way at 1100. president chris did not want to delay, but members present supported same and meeting started at 1330.
obvious that the chair had little idea of meeting procedure and even refused to take a motion of no confidence in the chair from the floor as he attempted to continue to chair the meeting after the results of the election were announced, the usual time that a change over is effected. it went to a show of hands and he stood aside (obviously very reluctant to let it go) for the remainder of the meeting.
dear old bill h was silent for the day and did not attend (boycotted?) the dinner and was I am told silent at the board meeting held after the agm. He seems still to have some supporters but it really is time for him to stand aside and give aopa the fighting chance that it now needs. there is no place for the "old guard" now.
it is clear the new board have some very real talent and it will be interesting to see how they proceed from now. as was said at the agm, if they get it wrong there may not be another agm.
we certainly need more members and everyone should now push for others they know to sign up. the call for a levy was certainly supported by the floor at the agm, but i would not think that it will occur without some form of "return" to the members that make such a dig in their pockets. With a responsible board now in place, I am sure they can be trusted to do the "right thing" and the right sales pitch just may see a good return
what the agm did show, is the need to have the rules rewritten
time for us all to pull together and make it work
meeting was delayed due to weather and a number of attendees still on their way at 1100. president chris did not want to delay, but members present supported same and meeting started at 1330.
obvious that the chair had little idea of meeting procedure and even refused to take a motion of no confidence in the chair from the floor as he attempted to continue to chair the meeting after the results of the election were announced, the usual time that a change over is effected. it went to a show of hands and he stood aside (obviously very reluctant to let it go) for the remainder of the meeting.
dear old bill h was silent for the day and did not attend (boycotted?) the dinner and was I am told silent at the board meeting held after the agm. He seems still to have some supporters but it really is time for him to stand aside and give aopa the fighting chance that it now needs. there is no place for the "old guard" now.
it is clear the new board have some very real talent and it will be interesting to see how they proceed from now. as was said at the agm, if they get it wrong there may not be another agm.
we certainly need more members and everyone should now push for others they know to sign up. the call for a levy was certainly supported by the floor at the agm, but i would not think that it will occur without some form of "return" to the members that make such a dig in their pockets. With a responsible board now in place, I am sure they can be trusted to do the "right thing" and the right sales pitch just may see a good return
what the agm did show, is the need to have the rules rewritten
time for us all to pull together and make it work
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see AOPA’s plan of attack over the next few weeks. I am still contemplating on renewing my membership, which is due in June. It will all depend on what happens over the next month or two.
It will all depend on what happens over the next month or two.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I DOUBT THE DONATION SIZE
Akkers
My worry is that if only around 800 bothered to vote, then donations are only likely from anyone that keen.
Then divide that sector into those who are concerned, those who only voted coz they do their duty at election time, those who voted coz they had a barrow or hate to push, and those who are already so involved that they do not see why they should fork out $100 when the silent apathetic majority is reaping the benefits, and I feel 200 might be a working number.
200 x 100 = $20K - not much chop.
Time will tell.
Good luck to the new Board. Can I draw their attention to another thread on this forum re Bacchus Marsh and if anyone has material to assist I can give them contact details if they email me on my normal email or via the AOPA site.
Cheers
My worry is that if only around 800 bothered to vote, then donations are only likely from anyone that keen.
Then divide that sector into those who are concerned, those who only voted coz they do their duty at election time, those who voted coz they had a barrow or hate to push, and those who are already so involved that they do not see why they should fork out $100 when the silent apathetic majority is reaping the benefits, and I feel 200 might be a working number.
200 x 100 = $20K - not much chop.
Time will tell.
Good luck to the new Board. Can I draw their attention to another thread on this forum re Bacchus Marsh and if anyone has material to assist I can give them contact details if they email me on my normal email or via the AOPA site.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps our new encumbants would like to savour the moment while I try to explain a few facts to the likes of bonez.
"poor old Bill", or his so called cronies had no intention of challenging the election outcomes, and the meeting would have gone ahead with as much speed as necessary to effect a dignified handover.
They did have cause however.
I believe that a challenge could very well take place given the disgusting scenes at the meeting and the conduct of the election.
Chris McKeown was the person in charge of the meeting and the verbal and intimidating intervention by a few, (who reminded me of a pack of dogs fighting over a carcass), demanding the microphone with chants of "vacate the chair", admissions of "we've already had a committee meeting and Marjorie is President", (Bill Hamilton wasn't there and neither was John Lyon, some committee meeting).
If you doubt the right of McKeown to chair the meeting, I quote froim AOPA's Articles of Association.
Article 37: A retiring member of the committee shall vacate office at the conclusion of the meeting at which he retires.
We move on to the rights of the elected members.
Both Kerans and Errey had joined AOPA on the family membership offer. A half price affair if you like and covered by the Articles under Article 18: The subscription payable by members shall be as the Association in general meeting shall from time to time prescribe,.
Article 5: lists those entitled to be members and the family membership pertains to (in this case), Non natural persons including both incorporated and unincorporated bodies may be members under class (a) above (owners of aircraft), and any such member must appoint a nominee who may receive membership benefits and exercise voting and other rights.
This would no doubt also include affilliated aero clubs and does not confer multiple voting rights on the whole organisation.
Kerans and Errey were entitled to one vote and only one was entitled to be nominated for election.
To further reinforce the articles intention, Article 7, (a), (b), and (c), stipulates that associate members must pay the full membership fees at the time, but are not entitled to vote.
Article 36: No person shall be elected unless financial at the time of his election.
A moot point here, but this team paid the full membership after the election but before the meeting. Guilt perhaps.
More.
The minutes of the meeting (in accordance with the code) shall be kept at the registered office of the Company.
These minutes were never returned by Marjorie and in fact they were not readily available for perusal until someone found a copy just before the meeting. The books were in transit and were not available when the meetring commenced at 1100, and subsequently adjourned to allow for her late arrival.
The AOPA staff were present, with everything they had to conduct the meeting, but things were held up because weather postponed some attendees.
The election was conducted in a most spiteful manner and the meeting descended into a shambles.
When I walked out in disgust, one well known Pprune postee with a vested interest in Hamilton's demise, yelled out "good riddance" and then supported a quest to beg $100 donations to prop the place up. Did it not enter your head that my walking out was possibly a lost subscription plus $100 ? or are some members more important than others.
On matters financial, where you put the pre paid subscriptions will be law come 1st July and they are in the credit column, not the debit column as your experts assert. A cash accounting system where you put the income into credit column on the day it is received will prove the folly of your misdirected attempts to financially cripple AOPA.
There are matters here that need addressing and had it not been for the conduct at the meeting, I doubt anyone would have taken matters further simply because it would be seen as poor losers.
The undignified and cruel eviction of Chris McKeown was the deciding factor for me to bring these matters up.
Fall on your sword Andrew, its the only noble thing to do and apologise to Chris while you are at it.
"poor old Bill", or his so called cronies had no intention of challenging the election outcomes, and the meeting would have gone ahead with as much speed as necessary to effect a dignified handover.
They did have cause however.
I believe that a challenge could very well take place given the disgusting scenes at the meeting and the conduct of the election.
Chris McKeown was the person in charge of the meeting and the verbal and intimidating intervention by a few, (who reminded me of a pack of dogs fighting over a carcass), demanding the microphone with chants of "vacate the chair", admissions of "we've already had a committee meeting and Marjorie is President", (Bill Hamilton wasn't there and neither was John Lyon, some committee meeting).
If you doubt the right of McKeown to chair the meeting, I quote froim AOPA's Articles of Association.
Article 37: A retiring member of the committee shall vacate office at the conclusion of the meeting at which he retires.
We move on to the rights of the elected members.
Both Kerans and Errey had joined AOPA on the family membership offer. A half price affair if you like and covered by the Articles under Article 18: The subscription payable by members shall be as the Association in general meeting shall from time to time prescribe,.
Article 5: lists those entitled to be members and the family membership pertains to (in this case), Non natural persons including both incorporated and unincorporated bodies may be members under class (a) above (owners of aircraft), and any such member must appoint a nominee who may receive membership benefits and exercise voting and other rights.
This would no doubt also include affilliated aero clubs and does not confer multiple voting rights on the whole organisation.
Kerans and Errey were entitled to one vote and only one was entitled to be nominated for election.
To further reinforce the articles intention, Article 7, (a), (b), and (c), stipulates that associate members must pay the full membership fees at the time, but are not entitled to vote.
Article 36: No person shall be elected unless financial at the time of his election.
A moot point here, but this team paid the full membership after the election but before the meeting. Guilt perhaps.
More.
The minutes of the meeting (in accordance with the code) shall be kept at the registered office of the Company.
These minutes were never returned by Marjorie and in fact they were not readily available for perusal until someone found a copy just before the meeting. The books were in transit and were not available when the meetring commenced at 1100, and subsequently adjourned to allow for her late arrival.
The AOPA staff were present, with everything they had to conduct the meeting, but things were held up because weather postponed some attendees.
The election was conducted in a most spiteful manner and the meeting descended into a shambles.
When I walked out in disgust, one well known Pprune postee with a vested interest in Hamilton's demise, yelled out "good riddance" and then supported a quest to beg $100 donations to prop the place up. Did it not enter your head that my walking out was possibly a lost subscription plus $100 ? or are some members more important than others.
On matters financial, where you put the pre paid subscriptions will be law come 1st July and they are in the credit column, not the debit column as your experts assert. A cash accounting system where you put the income into credit column on the day it is received will prove the folly of your misdirected attempts to financially cripple AOPA.
There are matters here that need addressing and had it not been for the conduct at the meeting, I doubt anyone would have taken matters further simply because it would be seen as poor losers.
The undignified and cruel eviction of Chris McKeown was the deciding factor for me to bring these matters up.
Fall on your sword Andrew, its the only noble thing to do and apologise to Chris while you are at it.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It reminds me a bit like the “Dad’s Army” show, but much worse as it isn’t funny. It was a pretty disgusting way to treat previous board members, without any dignity shown. 
It is helped me and others make up our mind’s to go with “AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA” and I would encourage all other’s too, to do the same. http://www.airsafety.com.au/ PHONE: 08 8357 9596
It is helped me and others make up our mind’s to go with “AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA” and I would encourage all other’s too, to do the same. http://www.airsafety.com.au/ PHONE: 08 8357 9596
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek,
Could you please explain and expand on the :
"AOPA isn't financially flush for a number of reasons including an (Ill advised???) legal battle with AOPA US...."
What, exactly, is the nature of this legal battle with AOPA USA? What is (are) the issue(s)?
Why, exactly, is there a need for a legal battle with AOPA USA?
In what way is this legal battle with AOPA USA of benefit to the members of AOPA Australia?
Why is AOPA Australia apparently working against AOPA USA?
Does AOPA Australia consider itself to be more or less effective as a lobbyist and advocate for workable and reasonable flying regulations for its members than is AOPA USA?
Would the members of AOPA Australia benefit if AOPA Australia chose to work with AOPA USA rather than against it?
Could you please explain and expand on the :
"AOPA isn't financially flush for a number of reasons including an (Ill advised???) legal battle with AOPA US...."
What, exactly, is the nature of this legal battle with AOPA USA? What is (are) the issue(s)?
Why, exactly, is there a need for a legal battle with AOPA USA?
In what way is this legal battle with AOPA USA of benefit to the members of AOPA Australia?
Why is AOPA Australia apparently working against AOPA USA?
Does AOPA Australia consider itself to be more or less effective as a lobbyist and advocate for workable and reasonable flying regulations for its members than is AOPA USA?
Would the members of AOPA Australia benefit if AOPA Australia chose to work with AOPA USA rather than against it?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'M A TAD CONCERNED
Akkers
Not fair for all to pick on you personally - at least you are providing comment and good on yer for that, mate.
I'm worried about the finances. Before the AGM we were told all was rosy, forget all this accounting b...sht, AOPA is solvent and strong. Now we are hearing a tad different tale.
The feedback I have heard on the AGM is not really positive about behaviour and team spirit. Murph has reinforced what I heard. OK, I was not there so cannot be specific - but, there is a message here for the new Board in getting the group act together and NOT having a repeat of this sort of thing at Board meetings. The Election/AGM was meant to end all that crap.
Drover
Well done on ASA. I am in both and they currently offer different approaches. However, I strongly support ASA and its rightful place as a representative of aircraft owners and pilots.
cheers
Not fair for all to pick on you personally - at least you are providing comment and good on yer for that, mate.
I'm worried about the finances. Before the AGM we were told all was rosy, forget all this accounting b...sht, AOPA is solvent and strong. Now we are hearing a tad different tale.
The feedback I have heard on the AGM is not really positive about behaviour and team spirit. Murph has reinforced what I heard. OK, I was not there so cannot be specific - but, there is a message here for the new Board in getting the group act together and NOT having a repeat of this sort of thing at Board meetings. The Election/AGM was meant to end all that crap.
Drover
Well done on ASA. I am in both and they currently offer different approaches. However, I strongly support ASA and its rightful place as a representative of aircraft owners and pilots.
cheers
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK_116.80
Does AOPA Australia consider itself to be more or less effective as a lobbyist and advocate for workable and reasonable flying regulations for its members than is AOPA USA?
Bart
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sour Grapes
To the B Team who were soundly defeated:
The members have voted for a new fresh team. Why not let them get on with it?
To: Mr BIK:
Something like $0.75m was squandered between 1997 and 2001. It has been stated by the then President, Mr Bill Hamilton, that $250,000 was spent on the legal action initiated against AOPA USA. It is hard to tell whether this amount is correct because the actual amount was never disclosed to members in the accounts. Indeed, the membership was kept in the dark during the proceedings, fearing a backlash from the members.
There has been very little information given to members for such a large amount of expenditure and back in those days there was no disclosure of itemised expenditure.
Bill Hamilton was asked at the Narromine AGM in 2002 to account for the large outlay - the Minutes recorded -
Several questions from the floor pertained to the spending of $250,000 on litigation against AOPA USA. Since this did not relate to the current Board, Mr Bill Hamilton who was President at the time of the legal action, gave an explanation as to the circumstances of the action. He said that AOPA ‘won’ the action and was awarded costs but the net cost of legal fees was around $250,000
There is considerable conjecture as to whether AOPA actually 'won' anything and Bill's explanation of the events. Given that a lot of AOPA's legal expenses were pro bono it is difficult to understand how we won, yet forked out $250k.
My understanding is that AOPA USA counterclaimed and that their legal costs were picked up by their insurance company. AOPA USA's cost were apparently in the order of A$500k.
One of the explanations given for going after AOPA USA was that they were recuiting members in Australia and AOPA saw this as a threat. AOPA USA then countered by claiming that they owned the intellectual property in the AOPA name and trade marks.
AOPA took out an injuction stopping the AOPA USA from signing up members in Australia but this was later withdrawn and the matter was settled out of court.
A very stupid and fruitless exercise I would say.
There were a number of other legal actions against AOPA that were not disclosed to members.
Where the rest of the $$$ went, that's another story.
Russell
The members have voted for a new fresh team. Why not let them get on with it?
To: Mr BIK:
Something like $0.75m was squandered between 1997 and 2001. It has been stated by the then President, Mr Bill Hamilton, that $250,000 was spent on the legal action initiated against AOPA USA. It is hard to tell whether this amount is correct because the actual amount was never disclosed to members in the accounts. Indeed, the membership was kept in the dark during the proceedings, fearing a backlash from the members.
There has been very little information given to members for such a large amount of expenditure and back in those days there was no disclosure of itemised expenditure.
Bill Hamilton was asked at the Narromine AGM in 2002 to account for the large outlay - the Minutes recorded -
Several questions from the floor pertained to the spending of $250,000 on litigation against AOPA USA. Since this did not relate to the current Board, Mr Bill Hamilton who was President at the time of the legal action, gave an explanation as to the circumstances of the action. He said that AOPA ‘won’ the action and was awarded costs but the net cost of legal fees was around $250,000
There is considerable conjecture as to whether AOPA actually 'won' anything and Bill's explanation of the events. Given that a lot of AOPA's legal expenses were pro bono it is difficult to understand how we won, yet forked out $250k.
My understanding is that AOPA USA counterclaimed and that their legal costs were picked up by their insurance company. AOPA USA's cost were apparently in the order of A$500k.
One of the explanations given for going after AOPA USA was that they were recuiting members in Australia and AOPA saw this as a threat. AOPA USA then countered by claiming that they owned the intellectual property in the AOPA name and trade marks.
AOPA took out an injuction stopping the AOPA USA from signing up members in Australia but this was later withdrawn and the matter was settled out of court.
A very stupid and fruitless exercise I would say.
There were a number of other legal actions against AOPA that were not disclosed to members.
Where the rest of the $$$ went, that's another story.
Russell
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Aussie AOPA did some market research before their stupid battle with USA AOPA, they would have realised that a lot of USA AOPA members in Australia were also at the same time - members of Aussie AOPA.
Overall, the net loss of members, if any would have been quite low.
How many new members will it take to make up 250K loss of funds?. (that's what's admitted to anyway!)
Take away cost of admin. & the magazine, about 5000 new members will be needed to make up the overall shortfall.
As for the $750K that was tied up during the action, think of the huge amount of good the funds could have contributed to AOPA during the last few years.
Overall, the net loss of members, if any would have been quite low.
How many new members will it take to make up 250K loss of funds?. (that's what's admitted to anyway!)
Take away cost of admin. & the magazine, about 5000 new members will be needed to make up the overall shortfall.
As for the $750K that was tied up during the action, think of the huge amount of good the funds could have contributed to AOPA during the last few years.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek,
I’m sorry. I understood from your first post (which now seems to have disappeared ) that there was some current and ongoing legal battle with AOPA USA. I wondered if it might be some new incarnation of the legal proceedings from a few years ago that was dragging on and on (as these things tend to do).
From your subsequent post (which also seems to have disappeared ) I now understand that you were speaking in the past tense, and were referring to the AOPA v AOPA legal ardgy-bargy non-sense that was concluded (at great expense) several years ago.
I know that you weren’t involved in all that stuff.
My concern was that this non-sense might be ongoing. It is now clear that it is not.
I, and I’m sure many others, appreciate the time you spend to keep us informed.
I’m sorry. I understood from your first post (which now seems to have disappeared
) that there was some current and ongoing legal battle with AOPA USA. I wondered if it might be some new incarnation of the legal proceedings from a few years ago that was dragging on and on (as these things tend to do).From your subsequent post (which also seems to have disappeared
) I now understand that you were speaking in the past tense, and were referring to the AOPA v AOPA legal ardgy-bargy non-sense that was concluded (at great expense) several years ago.I know that you weren’t involved in all that stuff.
My concern was that this non-sense might be ongoing. It is now clear that it is not.
I, and I’m sure many others, appreciate the time you spend to keep us informed.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is hard to believe that we have stooped that low to degrade people here on the forum.
The same board members who where against degrading one another in on the AOPA forum last year, are the ones doing it here on pprune.
I have to be honest, I have never heard AOPA member Bill H degrade anyone on this forum, as the other past and present board members do. (I thought this would have all changed with a new board, but no, here we go again.) . I hope you all have a good think of what you’re doing; I would hang my head in disgust.
It is ludicrous that you expect us members to pay into an organisation who’s board members past and present tear each other down. Can’t you see that you’re tearing the organisation apart? There is no need to air your dirty washing in public.
It would be nice see you all have the face and the guts to get on the phone TONIGHT and apologise to one another. (be a leader who has courage to be a team player and put a stop to it, please!.)
The same board members who where against degrading one another in on the AOPA forum last year, are the ones doing it here on pprune.
I have to be honest, I have never heard AOPA member Bill H degrade anyone on this forum, as the other past and present board members do. (I thought this would have all changed with a new board, but no, here we go again.) . I hope you all have a good think of what you’re doing; I would hang my head in disgust.
It is ludicrous that you expect us members to pay into an organisation who’s board members past and present tear each other down. Can’t you see that you’re tearing the organisation apart? There is no need to air your dirty washing in public.
It would be nice see you all have the face and the guts to get on the phone TONIGHT and apologise to one another. (be a leader who has courage to be a team player and put a stop to it, please!.)
