In a statement today, the AFA said it had found more than 100 of the 230 forms received could not be accepted – for a range of reasons – pushing the number of valid forms beneath the 5 per cent threshold required to request an EGM.
The association found that 50 of the forms were duplicates; 25 forms were provided by people who were not AFA members; and 28 forms could not be verified since they incorrectly identified the member.
“The AFA has notified Mr Mark Dunsford who provided the forms calling for the EGM that less than 5 per cent of the voting members of the AFA are represented and, accordingly, the AFA cannot take his special resolution to change the AFA Constitution to the membership as yet,” the statement said.
“The AFA is telephoning 24 members where forms have been received in their name but the details provided are insufficient to identify whether the member completed the form.
“The AFA will help them complete the form if that was their intention,” the statement said.
AFA national president Deborah Kent said the association’s board appreciates the right of members to call an EGM within the confines of good governance under the Corporations Act and will facilitate the putting of the resolution if and when the requisite 5 per cent of voting members is reached.
The FPA and AFA have wittingly or unwittingly always supported their sponsors over their members. Hardly seems any point in being a member of a “member association” if the member’s wellbeing is put last.
If the AFA Board was fair dinkum they would have the meeting, anyway, to put the LIF to the vote of MEMBERS like they should have done in the first place, but they don’t want THEIR members to have a SAY – Unacceptable isn’t it!
If you want to bring democracy back to the AFA then email afaresolution@gmail.com, ask for a form and let’s get those last 20 votes to have a meeting.
(Although the AFA Bi-Laws clearly state 5% or 100 votes. Brad Fox has even stated in the press that only 100 votes is all that is needed. There are 100 votes, so the EGM should go ahead – unless the AFA Board have something to cover up! A Board that ignores the association’s own laws and ignores their MEMBERS, is a Board not worth having)
What the voting process has exposed so far is that:
The AFA Board is prepared to ignore the Associations own Bi-Laws
The AFA Board have changed member’s numbers without advising them
The AFA Board have classified members with over-due fees as “non-membersâ€
Brad Fox has stated in the Press that only 100 votes are needed for the EGM and he has subsequently admitted in the press that over 100 eligible votes have been received.
The AFA Board steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the LIF will make Banks/Insurance companies richer and will give them an unfair competitive advantage over non-aligned advisers (AFA Members)
THE AFA Board refuses to demonstrate one benefit for CONSUMERS in the LIF that they whole-heartedly support!
I, in fact had incorrect information as I was eluding to the point in the OLD constitution whereas only 100 members needed to force an EGM.
aahh correct, thank you Geoff for the update, I was in fact reading the previous version, in that case I will shut up lol.
Indeed especially when handing out insults…oh to be so brave.
Nothing like debating on the issues. Typical of those who don’t have enough faith in their own arguments simply resort to name calling in the hope that other non thinkers will follow their view.
You need to check your facts, Stephen… I’m not sure how old the constitution document that you’re reading is, but it was changed from 100 votes to 5% a while ago, just as the article says
Photocopied, duplicate forms submitted!!! This speaks to the ethics of some people behind the movement. I would not want this group representing my professional future. Disgraceful!
Stephen, I didn’t question the constitution requirements, my comment was around the validity of the ‘forms’. In your opinion should duplicates & non-AFA member forms be accepted?
If you read the constitution of the AFA, then you will realise that only 100 members who are entitled to vote are required to force an EGM.
And yet people are following this guy! Muppets!
Well, Great Advice Advocate certainly seems to support the AFA from his comments. Nice to put a name to the pseudonym.
Oh please Don, after all the LICG press & emails, Mr Dunsford submitted 230 ‘forms’ calling for an EGM, of which at least 75+ is not valid. Far cry from the 2,600+ LICG supporters, consisting of a large number of claimed AFA members. The numbers don’t stack up, the support doesn’t stack up. What does that tell you? And now you think a petition to have a vote of no confidence in the board of directors is a good idea? ODL.
50 forms out of the 230 were duplicates? I have no words…….
Come on Roger! Anomalies? Duplicates? Non-members? If they were all completed correctly the EGM would go ahead. Nothing to do with the AFA hiding, they’re just following the rules and validating the ‘forms’.
You literally could not make this up. No confidence in the AFA board or should I say FSC board.
Seriously my view is clear Mark Dunsford will make sure these “anomalies” are corrected and the AFA have to abide by the genuine desire of it’s members and agree to an EGM. AFA what are you trying to hide from?
the next petition coming will be a no confidence form for the board of directors so I think that the board should take the initiative and realize it is a matter of time before the numbers are clarified for the AFA to stop backing the LIF which is what this is about.
You couldn’t make this up.