Constitutional Review

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

The board haven't obtained data through appropriate means and they aren't the club.

Their job is to oversee the club.

I would think it appropriate that they allow the club to facilitate a flow of information to members when important issues come to a vote.

That would seem good governance.

What do they have to hide?

Wouldn't it be better if the arguments of the different cases were fairly put before us members so as we can make an informed decision?

Yes, the club has collected the data, not Lawrence.

Glad you've seen the light there.

There's plenty of means for a member to raise issues, they shouldn't have free access to the club's data to share any and all of their ideas.

[rjay 24,928]

15 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Yes, the club has collected the data, not Lawrence.

Glad you've seen the light there.

There's plenty of means for a member to raise issues, they shouldn't have free access to the club's data to share any and all of their ideas.

and not the board...

About time you've finally awoken from your slumber old son.

I can't see why on such an important issue we are not given a range of views.

Why do we get spoon fed what the board want us to vote for.

Do they think their case is not strong enough to mount a solid argument?

Or do they think we are too stupid to make the right call?

Edited October 21, 2022 by rjay

[Lord Nev 13,512]

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

and not the board...

About time you've finally awoken from your slumber old son.

I can't see why on such an important issue we are not given a range of views.

Why do we get spoon fed what the board want us to vote for.

Perhaps you can ask your mate on the board.

Do they think their case is not strong enough to mount a solid argument?

Or do they think we are too stupid to make the right call?

The board.... of the club.

Come on mate.

"Why do we get spoon fed what the board want us to vote for." Read that again. Focus on the second last word.

if you want a range of views, go to an AGM, go to this meeting, contact the club, heck you might even want to start your own website using some kind of 'Dee' pun... No one is stopping you.

Not sure what 'argument' you're looking for? Plenty of info out there from the club about the proposed changes.

I don't have any mates on the board.

[rjay 24,928]

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

go to an AGM

You're not that stupid 'Nev'...you know full well that AGM's are stage managed.

[No10 461]

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

and not the board...

About time you've finally awoken from your slumber old son.

I can't see why on such an important issue we are not given a range of views.

Why do we get spoon fed what the board want us to vote for.

Perhaps you can ask your mate on the board.

Do they think their case is not strong enough to mount a solid argument?

Or do they think we are too stupid to make the right call?

Agree with this. Can’t follow where @Lord Nev is going except that he’s upset about the powers Lawrence has taken.

Perhaps the issue is who should have access to wide communications with members. Which would indeed be a constitutional issue.

Should there be a level of support that triggers access to the wider membership via the club?

Is this already the case somehow? Esp as digital communication becomes more powerful, voting online -

2% of members sign a petition. Preferable to the legal avenue.

[rjay 24,928]

6 minutes ago, No10 said:

Agree with this. Can’t follow where @Lord Nev is going except that he’s upset about the powers Lawrence has taken.

Perhaps the issue is who should have access to wide communications with members. Which would indeed be a constitutional issue.

Should there be a level of support that triggers access to the wider membership via the club?

Is this already the case somehow? Esp as digital communication becomes more powerful, voting online -

2% of members sign a petition. Preferable to the legal avenue.

I like your thinking on this 'No10'...

[rjay 24,928]

10 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

 

Can't remember but were you a Schwab supporter in your previous Demonland incarnation?

Edited October 21, 2022 by george_on_the_outer

[deeboy 40]

I don't post often at all, but this warrants a rare post. This whole effort to scupper the vote on the special resolution is absolutely non-sensical.

What the opposition fail to properly grasp is that the alternative constitution being put forward by them is not actually an alternative. It isn't part of the vote. All that will be achieved by getting people to vote against the special resolution is that the current, outdated version will be retained. Even the opposition don't like the current constitution, so they are shooting themselves in the foot and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[No10 461]

4 hours ago, rjay said:

I like your thinking on this 'No10'...

It should be called the Demonland amendment - how the rabble can speak to the masses.

Already sounding like a bad idea…

[Deemania since 56 6,639]

4 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

My 'agenda' is how Lawrence has gone about all this.

I had absolutely no problem with his 'Deemocracy' stuff, him being able to throw up suggestions etc, go for it, by all reports he's paid his dues as a member  and more than has the right to have a say. But using (frankly; outdated) regulations to obtain personal addresses is a massive concern for me and has totally put me off side.

I would have been far more concerned had the board just handed over all the collected data to some random supporter who has made no mention of how they will use the data, how they will store it and how accessible it will be. Going by his twitter and website he doesn't seem the most technology savvy person.

Golly! Our own rather large 'Trump-style conspiracy' unfolding before our eyes that may well put the now extensive membership of the 'party' at some extended, widespread compromise for the absolute benefit of a unitary interest.

I do not wish to have my own, sacred confidentiality compromised and feel disappointedly and fearfully sure that this rampant individual is data mining against the will of the majority for such gain - and that represents a threat to all so effected, to the status quo itself, and to the confidential trusts of those democratic assurances that usually, and respectively, permeate and rotate closely within the dignities of organisational memberships, let alone the conceded violation of any primacy of personal choice and personal, individual permissions otherwise known as consent. Where could this all end; what rights do we have to stop the alarm bells from this invasive and now legally condoned stroll through the Valley of Death?

What really is disappointing and upsetting at the personal level is that to avoid the compromise and its abundantly negative ramifications that are on the potential horizon, I feel that I must disassociate with due haste from membership of the MFC, relying instead on the public nature of broadcasters, media and personally solicited conversations, and already upheld confidentialities where personal choice and any related personal permissions regain paramount importance as critical essences of democratic principles and practice. 

 

 

[grazman 7,436]

3 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Golly! Our own rather large 'Trump-style conspiracy' unfolding before our eyes that may well put the now extensive membership of the 'party' at some extended, widespread compromise for the absolute benefit of a unitary interest.

I do not wish to have my own, sacred confidentiality compromised and feel disappointedly and fearfully sure that this rampant individual is data mining against the will of the majority for such gain - and that represents a threat to all so effected, to the status quo itself, and to the confidential trusts of those democratic assurances that usually, and respectively, permeate and rotate closely within the dignities of organisational memberships, let alone the conceded violation of any primacy of personal choice and personal, individual permissions otherwise known as consent. Where could this all end; what rights do we have to stop the alarm bells from this invasive and now legally condoned stroll through the Valley of Death?

What really is disappointing and upsetting at the personal level is that to avoid the compromise and its abundantly negative ramifications that are on the potential horizon, I feel that I must disassociate with due haste from membership of the MFC, relying instead on the public nature of broadcasters, media and personally solicited conversations, and already upheld confidentialities where personal choice and any related personal permissions regain paramount importance as critical essences of democratic principles and practice. 

 

 

I fear your intended audience might not 'get it'!

[grazman 7,436]

As a member of the club I have concerns that off the back of our recent premiership that the current board seem to want to consolidate/entrench the status quo of the board composition.  I understand that disunity and fractured boards can be inhibitors to success, but I also think that subservience and groupthink can lead to a lack of accountability and complacency that results in worse outcomes.  The President of the club isn't a dictatorship and nor should they automatically  get the board that they want - it's supposed to be a democratic election and the board should represent the diversity of views of the members.  It's communist democracy if there are only the same number of candidates as there are vacancies on the board.  

I think that some of the proposed changes are unnecessary (see above) and I also think that the club has missed opportunities to really reform the constitution.  

Edited October 21, 2022 by grazman

[Roger Mellie 4,025]

21 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Knock yourself out

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=4530

You're too kind Doc!

At great risk of dying of boredom, I did just that.

But first, some amusing observation/asides:

1) At Collingwood you can still serve as a director after having served a prison sentence (must have run out of law abiding options)

2) St Kilda either doesn't have a constitution or didn't provide it.

3) Bulldogs refer to clauses in the constitution that aren't there - lol

4) Not sure how Jeff Kennet is still President under their constitution

For some info relevant to the MFC, I scanned the constitutions of Victorian clubs only - it's just too dull to go through the rest. I can offer the following observations, which must be qualified by the fact that I just scanned the dreary documents, so may have missed stuff:

1) Vic clubs require nomination of candidates by 2 or 3 members

2) 2 (North and Geelong) of the Vic clubs require candidates to supply a profile with a word limit for their election campaign. For others, there is no reference.

3) Collingwood is the only other club yet to make provision for electronic media. Their constitution is the next oldest to ours.

4) Some clubs expressly forbid direct marketing by candidates, most don't mention it.

5) The presidential term varies widely amongst clubs so I haven't detailed it. If one day, I'm forced to choose between re-watching the Dees lose a game by 100 points or comparing presidential terms between clubs, i might just look into it more closely, but again, it's that dull.

Having now looked at them all, my opinion (only) is they need to ditch the increase in the number of members needed for nomination and need to fairly disseminate information/profiles of ALL election candidates to members. This should be reasonably cost effective with electronic media. One club (can't remember which) has provision for members to request ballots and voter information by mail if they don't have internet.

I haven't gone into all the proposed changes but to me, there's an element of self preservation over procedural fairness in some of them. For the record, I don't know any of the current board members or Peter Lawrence.

Please excuse me while I regain my sanity.

[DeeSpencer 25,710]

6 hours ago, deeboy said:

I don't post often at all, but this warrants a rare post. This whole effort to scupper the vote on the special resolution is absolutely non-sensical.

What the opposition fail to properly grasp is that the alternative constitution being put forward by them is not actually an alternative. It isn't part of the vote. All that will be achieved by getting people to vote against the special resolution is that the current, outdated version will be retained. Even the opposition don't like the current constitution, so they are shooting themselves in the foot and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If they gather enough votes to block the changes they can then negotiate with the board for their amendments to be included. From there they would then instruct their proxies to vote yes to the proposed changes.

Whether that’s worth the hassle when the board and their positions are broadly aligned on the need for change is a whole different question, but it makes sense.

[Slartibartfast 17,279]

I'm sorry if this has already been raised but I'd like to make a couple of points.

The first is the only thing that has been released as a result of yesterday's court decision is email addresses.  There is no personal information along with the addresses, no DOB and no credit card information.  It seems to me that this is just the same as a residential address, in fact I'd rather a person only get my email address rather than my personal address.  And if you don't want emails either block them or delete them.

Secondly this could all have been avoided by the club just sending out the emails on Deemocracy's behalf.  No court case, no privacy issues, no angst and they would have acted responsibly and in the best interest of members.  Instead, they've cost us tens of thousands of dollars because they didn't want a member telling other members what an alternate constitution would look like.

Wow, all this over a constitution.  The core changes that Deemocracy wants seem sensible to me.  Why the Club refused to consult with Deemocracy and discuss this in a sensible way seems very odd to me.

Personally I don't give a damn about the constitution, I just want to win footy games, but the Board just seem to be acting as a select group of entitled elites who merely say "my way of the highway".  I've no confidence in them.

[Demon Disciple 12,127]

16 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Personally I don't give a damn about the constitution, I just want to win footy games, but the Board just seem to be acting as a select group of entitled elites who merely say "my way of the highway".  I've no confidence in them.

This is more or less my gripe with the current board at the moment. They’re not listening, they’re dictating.

[whatwhat say what 22,757]

from a friend: 

So looks like this Deemocracy group have already broken the Spam Act 2003 by not including adequate contact details in their email to members.

They've put in MCG but unless they have an office space there and can accept mail, they've done it wrong

report them here: https://www.acma.gov.au/avoid-sending-spam

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 minute ago, whatwhat say what said:

from a friend: 

So looks like this Deemocracy group have already broken the Spam Act 2003 by not including adequate contact details in their email to members.

They've put in MCG but unless they have an office space there and can accept mail, they've done it wrong

report them here: https://www.acma.gov.au/avoid-sending-spam

they did provide an unsubscribe option but

[Lefty 412]

I’ve never voted (or sent a proxy) in any MFC Board election but this whole kerfuffle by the member has backfired and I’ve given the President my proxy. 

[ucanchoose 1,816]

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

they did provide an unsubscribe option but

Which I quickly did. And emailed my displeasure at their email, which was just whiney nonsense 

Edited October 21, 2022 by ucanchoose

[whatwhat say what 22,757]

32 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

they did provide an unsubscribe option but

that's not a contact and far from sufficient 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

41 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

from a friend: 

So looks like this Deemocracy group have already broken the Spam Act 2003 by not including adequate contact details in their email to members.

They've put in MCG but unless they have an office space there and can accept mail, they've done it wrong

report them here: https://www.acma.gov.au/avoid-sending-spam

Surely not... the bloke who doesn't know how to upload a twitter pic, build an email list and has the worst website you've ever seen in your life isn't totally up on technology? Oh well, I'm sure all our personal details are totally safe with him....

[Palace Dees 2,330]

Went looking for the email this morning.  Couldn't see it. Checked the Junk folder....there it is!

No further action required.

[low flying Robbo 979]

45 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

from a friend: 

So looks like this Deemocracy group have already broken the Spam Act 2003 by not including adequate contact details in their email to members.

They've put in MCG but unless they have an office space there and can accept mail, they've done it wrong

report them here: https://www.acma.gov.au/avoid-sending-spam

I did notice that when reading the email this morning.

[Sideshow Bob 2,386]

I hit the unsubscribe button and the bottom.

It takes you to a reason for unsubscribe page. There is an other option.

 

You then have 100 words to tell them how you feel! They will know how I feel 🤣