In an email to ifa, Mr Dunsford said that according to the AFA’s by-laws, the board must call an EGM if it is validly requested by a group of members with at least 5 per cent of the votes that may be cast at the EGM or by at least 100 members who are entitled to vote at the EGM.
A letter from AFA chief executive Brad Fox to Mr Dunsford stated that 127 of the 225 forms received have been validated.
Mr Dunsford noted in an email that this number is more than the 100 required to call an EGM.
ifa reported yesterday that 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.
Surely common sense should have prevailed. If there is this much discontent, clearly by quite a number of AFA members, then there is a problem. The only professional and logical thing to do would be to either call an EGM as requested by Mr Dunsford, or else call one themselves to get the issues out in the open and sorted out as best as possible.
If I had this number of malcontents in my client base, openly wanting to meet and voice an opinion, I would be grabbing the opportunity to actually listen to what they have to say and work our way through as it means they still wish to work out the way forward together.
This tactic is small minded politicising at it’s worst. It shows a huge disparity between the upper echelons of the AFA and not only their members opinions but even their willingness to listen and work with members through some very complex problems that has the potential to affect businesses, livelihoods and financial futures.
Tell me honestly, if the AFA employees and board members had a perceived direct severe threat to their own financial well being & families lifestyle, wouldn’t they wish to be heard and taken into account?
And I am not even a member of this group but can see the ludicrousness of how it is being handled.
Mr Dunsford said that according to the AFA’s by-laws, the board must call an EGM if it is validly requested by a group of members with at least 5 per cent of the votes that may be cast at the EGM or by at least 100 members who are entitled to vote at the EGM.
A letter from AFA chief executive Brad Fox to Mr Dunsford stated that 127 of the 225 forms received have been validated.
Embarrassing as it may be regarding the duplication of forms, I dont believe Mark Dunsford is responsible for ensuring each form is from a valid AFA member, as how would he know these details?
Regardless, it appears that the required 100 members target has been met as confirmed by Brad Fox in his letter to Mark Dunsford, unless the AFA by-law referred to is incorrect.
If the by-law is correct then the AFA should call an EGM and go to a vote.
The problem with this industry is that no one cares less until it affects their own situation or their income. The traditional risk adviser will be phased out over the next 3 years if you believe the long term view is to go to a level 20/20. The bulk of financial planners don’t really care as if they do decide to provide risk advice long term they will just charge upfront fees, ongoing review fees and claims advice fees. Many financial planners will say so what.
The problem is that the very people that this legislation is supposed to help (the average client) will end up paying more for insurance advice, ongoing reviews and claims help and less of them will receive advice due to cost.
Thousands of risk advisers will go out of business, and hundred of thousands of clients will be left on their own to access advice.
I would suggest that Mark may not be experienced at calling EGM’s whilst also suffering usual time pressure of trying to run his business. I believe his argument is sound and reasons are just and kudos to him for anteing up.
Whilst obviously what is required from a process perspective for him to present that argument in this format needs work…this will probably have its day for members to judge…..then that will be the democratic answer…why is that so scary?
But what about the duplicates Robert? In what plebiscite is the submission of duplicate forms OK?
Given that Mark has gone to the effort to go this far I am sure he will make any necessary changes to see what needs to be done to get the 100 forms required. This can be dealt with in the forum where the AFA memebrship will be heard and provide the “final”” answer.
Interestingly one AFA adviser has spoke about the fact his form got rejected because his membership number was incorrect notwithstanding it was the same one issued on his certificate by the AFA….sounds a bit bizarre.
….But there were 50 forms that were duplicates, 25 from non members and 28 forms that didn’t identify the member and hence were invalid. All of these forms passed through Mr Dunsford who then submitted them as supportive of an EGM. Wait, I’ll say it again- he submitted 230 forms, of which 50 forms that were duplicates, 25 from non members and 28 forms that didn’t adequately identify the member,(nearly 50% invalid) and there are still the tribe of anonymous keyboard warriors that defend this and say the AFA is delaying the process? My brain can’t comprehend this. Surely Mr Dunsford would want to ensure the efficacy of the final submission before making it? Embarrassing for the AFA Leadership, “Reality Check”? Can’t see it, seems like a comedy of errors to me.
If there are 100 forms for required for an EGM then lets do it- Proponents will need to ensure they are a little more effective in their voting and proxy completion in order to effect the change they seek !
Embarrassing by validating the ‘forms’? If we have a political election, everyone’s vote is validated and the ones that aren’t are not counted. Same issue with the EGM ‘forms’! How hard is that to understand? And I heard, no actually read that the AFA phoned members and followed them up so their forms could be validated with the correct info. Just terrible behaviour! Stop the AFA bashing, it’s petty and confirms Mr Hills need to pen his open letter.
This could not be more embarrassing for the AFA leadership to be acting in this way. Just hold the EGM and have a member vote on the subject which should have been done in the first place.
I hear that some members called were told that their membership numbers had changed and then advised that this meant their forms were invalid. Petty excuses and delay tactics.
Melinda, didn’t Mr Dunsford email IFA this time? Isn’t that what I just read above? So not ok for AFA but ok for Mr Dunsford and LICG to play this out in the media? Correct me if I am wrong.
I find it very disappointing also that this is being played out via the media. Surely the AFA could have consulted the LICG in mature fashion, when they could have been told privately that they have misread their own bylaws by the LICG, instead of having it out in the media that the Association I have supported and appreciated for a long time have got it wrong again.
If there is any discrepancy then I am sure that Mark Dunsford will remedy at his earliest convenience.
Please AFA- why do you think it is necessary for the AFA to feed the industry media on what is a pure legal and technical requirements. By all means check, but do not use the requirement of checking member validity as some sort of tactic to discredit those who seek the EGM. The clear inference is that LICG members could not run a chook raffle, and therefore should not be trusted. Very petty !!!