Jump to content

  • Podcast:  

  • Podcast: 2022 Season Review & Trade Wrap 

Constitutional Review



Recommended Posts


Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, old dee said:

Got mine Monday George. I have not been onto the site to read. What’s your view?

We don't know what is being proposed yet.  It all seems a bit rushed considering changes were mooted at least 12 months ago.

And considering it hasn't been updated for 15 years, this is a good time to get it right and bring it into the 21st century.

Edited by george_on_the_outer
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Once again for those who may not have got the email.....

This is consultation?  It is the only opportunity that the 66,000 members will have to voice their thoughts.

You get less than 48 hours to register ( democracy in action?):

 

 

 

virtual town Hall.png

Edited by george_on_the_outer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Righto. What am I missing here... ?

The premise of this review is desire to allow electronic voting to reduce costly postal elections  -  fair enough

But also to increase requirements for Board nominations to have 20 members signatures, rather than 2.

How many times has the election process been overwhelmed with candidates? And given the low cost online voting amendment - why would it matter?

Additionally, the formalisation of the requirement of a nominations committee, is there something I'm missing here? Is the current committee lacking some sort of legitimacy? Will formalisation of requirement for this committee allow for Board to give committee stronger charter??

Seems to me these 2 elements are designed to increase the power of the incumbent Board to choose new board members. The way the Board campaigned against that member (Peter Lawrence??) last election made me feel quite unneasy. Is this an effort to make the Board more of a closed shop than it currently is?

As for the consultation process, the online forum is faux consultation, questions easily managed and controlled and a mute function...

Someone slap me down if I'm wrong, but I get uneasy when I see a solution searching for a problem... ?

  • Like 4
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Righto. What am I missing here... ?

The premise of this review is desire to allow electronic voting to reduce costly postal elections  -  fair enough

But also to increase requirements for Board nominations to have 20 members signatures, rather than 2.

How many times has the election process been overwhelmed with candidates? And given the low cost online voting amendment - why would it matter?

Additionally, the formalisation of the requirement of a nominations committee, is there something I'm missing here? Is the current committee lacking some sort of legitimacy? Will formalisation of requirement for this committee allow for Board to give committee stronger charter??

Seems to me these 2 elements are designed to increase the power of the incumbent Board to choose new board members. The way the Board campaigned against that member (Peter Lawrence??) last election made me feel quite unneasy. Is this an effort to make the Board more of a closed shop than it currently is?

As for the consultation process, the online forum is faux consultation, questions easily managed and controlled and a mute function...

Someone slap me down if I'm wrong, but I get uneasy when I see a solution searching for a problem... ?

I actually suggested this exact thing in the survey.

Board nominees should have unfair impediments to election removed (such as the board endorsing certain candidates on club paid for literature - eg  if Kate Roffey wants to write to members recommending people vote for certain candidates then she's pays for it, not the MFC). It should also more widely advertise their nomination process (eg notice should be given to members and the election process transparent) and not prevent candidates from promoting themselves including on sites such as Demonland.

But the flipside to this is in order to prevent frivolous nominations that cost the club money, we should insist that board nominees actually have some support before they nominate. If a serious board contender can't even muster 20 nominations then how do they expect to be elected? 

 

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Big Col said:

I actually suggested this exact thing in the survey.

Board nominees should have unfair impediments to election removed (such as the board endorsing certain candidates on club paid for literature - eg  if Kate Roffey wants to write to members recommending people vote for certain candidates then she's pays for it, not the MFC). It should also more widely advertise their nomination process (eg notice should be given to members and the election process transparent) and not prevent candidates from promoting themselves including on sites such as Demonland.

But the flipside to this is in order to prevent frivolous nominations that cost the club money, we should insist that board nominees actually have some support before they nominate. If a serious board contender can't even muster 20 nominations then how do they expect to be elected? 

 

I tend to agree

But we don't have a frivolous candidate problem now... so why do we need a solution?

And what's the downside even if we did when voting is electronic and low cost? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

I tend to agree

But we don't have a frivolous candidate problem now... so why do we need a solution?

And what's the downside even if we did when voting is electronic and low cost? 

I think it's about modernising our constitution.
I don't think we need to wait for 'bad' things to happen before we take measures to address potential 'bad' things. The 20 member nomination requirement shouldn't be a problem for genuine nominees when it's also accompanied with other open democratic processes like allowing canvassing of votes (and before that nominations). It's the other 'open democratic' processes that may encourage frivolous nominations.

Having said that, I would be disappointed if the club chooses to enact this nomination proposal without the quid pro quo of opening up the rest of the process. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Big Col said:

I think it's about modernising our constitution.
I don't think we need to wait for 'bad' things to happen before we take measures to address potential 'bad' things. The 20 member nomination requirement shouldn't be a problem for genuine nominees when it's also accompanied with other open democratic processes like allowing canvassing of votes (and before that nominations). It's the other 'open democratic' processes that may encourage frivolous nominations.

Having said that, I would be disappointed if the club chooses to enact this nomination proposal without the quid pro quo of opening up the rest of the process. 

That's my whole point

The 20 vs 2 may be a small (but I think unnecessary) change, but then the nominations committee seems to only close the process more. There's nothing in here about opening the democratic processes, and the incumbent Board has no interest in doing so

Hence my objection to the recommendations, as solutions looking for a problem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it likely to be an all or nothing vote on the changes, or would we be able to vote on each of the proposed changes?

The last time we did a constitutional change at our local sports club, each clause was able to be discussed on its merit, but I’m not sure if that applies here ( or would be practical)

75% is a very high bar needed to ratify changes and if they are all lumped together I can’t see any of the changes getting up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 7/23/2022 at 10:47 PM, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Clunky web page to register and ask questions

Have a feeling my questions will have failed to be received...

I had one question which only arose on the night.  I lodged it, and it was answered completely and to my satisfaction.

Genuine consultation, and well done Melbourne Football club!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you got your question answered @Deeoldfart, but plenty of people didn't get their answered. 

Why?..Because WE decided that many questions were of a similar nature.

Minimal female Representation?  WE decided that it wasn't necessary, and WE would hate to deny a suitably qualified candidate.  What there aren't suitably qualified female candidates in 66,000 members?  How about THE MEMBERS deciding if they want this or not?

WE decided not to separate the clauses.  WE decided it would be all or nothing.  How about THE MEMBERS deciding what they like or don't?  It isn't all that hard to achieve.  ( Tick the box you approve of). After all they manage to fill out a Senate ticket with dozens of candidates.

You can put in further questions.....( except the Board is meeting this week to approve OUR proposals, 21 days later there is a vote). So in essence no further input will be possible. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I'm glad you got your question answered @Deeoldfart, but plenty of people didn't get their answered. 

Why?..Because WE decided that many questions were of a similar nature.

Minimal female Representation?  WE decided that it wasn't necessary, and WE would hate to deny a suitably qualified candidate.  What there aren't suitably qualified female candidates in 66,000 members?  How about THE MEMBERS deciding if they want this or not?

WE decided not to separate the clauses.  WE decided it would be all or nothing.  How about THE MEMBERS deciding what they like or don't?  It isn't all that hard to achieve.  ( Tick the box you approve of). After all they manage to fill out a Senate ticket with dozens of candidates.

You can put in further questions.....( except the Board is meeting this week to approve OUR proposals, 21 days later there is a vote). So in essence no further input will be possible. 

We have Daisy and Kate Roffey in prominent positions. I will be very surprised if any other club has half that talent.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If l wished to run for a director’s position l would be unable to find 20 members to support my nomination.And l have been a supporter for 6 decades.l know only 3 members.So having to get 20 signatures is a real impediment to run for the board - another blight on democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I'm glad you got your question answered @Deeoldfart, but plenty of people didn't get their answered. 

Why?..Because WE decided that many questions were of a similar nature.

Minimal female Representation?  WE decided that it wasn't necessary, and WE would hate to deny a suitably qualified candidate.  What there aren't suitably qualified female candidates in 66,000 members?  How about THE MEMBERS deciding if they want this or not?

WE decided not to separate the clauses.  WE decided it would be all or nothing.  How about THE MEMBERS deciding what they like or don't?  It isn't all that hard to achieve.  ( Tick the box you approve of). After all they manage to fill out a Senate ticket with dozens of candidates.

You can put in further questions.....( except the Board is meeting this week to approve OUR proposals, 21 days later there is a vote). So in essence no further input will be possible. 

I won’ be getting into a slanging match over this @george_on_the_outer, but the “WE” you emphasised above, were members of the Constitutional Review Working Group (CRWG) and not the MFC Board.  What else do you expect them to call themselves (?), or are you questioning the independence of the review (?)

If participants in last night’s meeting didn’t like or understand the responses from the CRWG, or had further questions, there was opportunity at the end of the meeting to seek clarification, ask additional questions, or express concerns.  Very few took up that option, unless you are suggesting that the Working Group were ‘selective’ and only addressed the issues that were palatable them.  I sincerely hope that wasn’t the case.

The CRWG spent months consulting with members in arriving at the recommendations, but I take your point about “tick the box you approve of” would have been a different, and possibly even better way of garnering a wider cross section of members’ views.  I imagine ‘cost’ might have been a consideration here, and perhaps also concerns about potential ‘donkey’ votes.

In any event, I hope that a large % of Members who had a genuine interest in the topic, would have joined the meeting last night. 

Yes, I’m gullible and maybe a little too easily satisfied, but I don’t believe that the outcome of the meeting was a fait accompli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    GRAND NEW FLAG by Meggs

    Daisy was at pains to tell everyone who asked that the grand final story was NOT the Daisy Pearce story.  She wanted people to focus on the Melbourne Football Club, our wonderful players and non-playing teammates, her legacy buddy head coach Mick Stinear, the assistant coaches, the Club volunteers, the Board, the administrators, #DeeArmy, all supporters, in fact anyone who bleeds for the red and the blue.  But it is also a bit about the pioneer, role model, mother who is Daisy Pearce

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    EYES ON THE PRIZE by Meggs

    The Stinear/Pearce partnership has evolved over the 7 AFLW seasons and they have built a team with talented, committed footballers who play for each other and execute a highly entertaining brand of footy. On Sunday can a premiership be added to this legacy? This may well be the last time we see Daisy in the mighty red and blue as she contemplates her start date for a coaching role ‘Down at Kardinia Park’.  Last week’s sensational sealer in the Prelim showed everybody that Daisy could s

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    DAISY’S DEMON DRIVE by Meggs

    On a blustery Saturday afternoon when the conditions affected marking skills and the ball bounced unpredictably, the Mighty Dees stuck fat against a determined Kangaroos outfit to break away with two final quarter goals to none to win AFLW Preliminary Final 2 by 17 points — an all-time high winning margin between these two teams.  From the outset it was a fiercely fought contest with Melbourne unable to find the ball in space. North really amped up their one-percenters an

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    NOT A MOMENT TO MISS by Meggs

    The AFLW Season 7 fixture was carefully crafted to purposely handicap the better teams and give the expansion and developing sides an easier draw.  Nonetheless, this weekend’s Preliminary Finals will showcase the Lions, Demons, Crows and Roos, teams widely accepted as the best 4 in the competition.   In Friday night’s Prelim 1 the minor premiers, Brisbane, will start warm favourites at home against Adelaide.   On Saturday afternoon at Ikon Park, Prelim 2 between Melbourne and North is

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    STICK TO YOUR GUNS by Meggs

    The Dees convincingly overcome the fast-starting reigning-premiers Adelaide to win by 21 points in a fiery Qualifying Final match at Ikon Park on Friday evening.     In that first quarter Adelaide jumped out of the blocks kicking their first goal inside 20 seconds finishing with 3 goals to nil. All was quiet at Ikon Park.     Melbourne, having easily outplayed lesser opponents over the past six weeks took time to ratchet up their intensity.  But, by mid to late first quarter, the Dees be

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    HEAVYWEIGHTS by Meggs

    AFLW heavyweights Melbourne and Adelaide kick off the AFLW Season 7 Final Series with a massive Qualifying Final clash at Ikon Park this Friday night at 7:10pm.  The game promises to be a cracker.   Last season’s Grand Final combatants last met in Round 1where Melbourne came away with a strong 18-point victory at Glenelg Oval. The Dees will be hoping to replicate the result and move directly to the Preliminary Final.    While Adelaide may not have been as intimidating this season as in p

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    MISSED IT BY THAT MUCH by Meggs

    Congratulations to Daisy’s Dees on a huge 78-point one-sided win against West Coast in challenging windy and wet conditions at Casey Fields.     The banner celebrating Sarah Lampard’s 50 games was a victim of the wind, but nonetheless Lampy received a warm round of applause from the parochial crowd in attendance.   Melbourne has the double-chance and is excited about its chances in the Season 7 AFLW finals. If this means the Grand Final is played at Metricon and the Demond make it, then

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    LIVE IN THE MOMENT by Meggs

    The final home and away match of Season 7, sees the mighty Dees at Fortress Casey hosting the 16th placed West Coast.     A win assures the Dees of a Top-2 finish, with the ultimate placings dependent upon the previous night’s result between Brisbane and Collingwood and the relative percentages.   As our match is anticipated to be one-sided, interest may turn to monitoring the live ladder to see whether or not Melbourne has secured the minor premiership.     The Demons (Lions and Cro

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    BOMBED by Whispering Jack

    Melbourne has all but assured itself of a top two finish to the (second) 2022 AFLW season after crushing Essendon by 41 points on Sunday. It now holds a four point lead over third placed Adelaide along with a handy percentage advantage with one round remaining before the finals. The Demons opened kicking with the advantage of the squally wind that often prevails at Casey Fields and for the third week in a row, they kept their opponents scoreless in the opening term. Speedster Alyssa Ba

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...