Constitutional Review

[Lord Nev 13,512]

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Suggest you go and read up up and how it works in the real world

Or you could answer the question...

How about you provide some examples where incumbent boards have sent out materials from the challengers to their members/shareholders? I'd be interested to see the 'real world' examples.

[Clintosaurus 7,852]

21 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Or you could answer the question...

How about you provide some examples where incumbent boards have sent out materials from the challengers to their members/shareholders? I'd be interested to see the 'real world' examples.

Couldn't imagine the Goanna or Gerry Harvey doing it, or any board Stephen Mayne has run for.

[Spaghetti 264]

33 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Outstanding post

Haven't seen the judgement yet pontificating on what it said

Emails were certainly around when the Corporations Act 2001 was drafted.

I don't need to see the judgement. There is no other way a judge could interpret those provisions to say the club is required to hand over an email address. 

2001 is the year of this act. The same or similar provisions appeared in predeccesor state Acts. I guarantee those were drafted well before emails existed. 

Likewise, the existence and use of emails (by some of the population at least) doesn't change the high likelihood that parliament did not intend, at that time, for email addresses to form part of the member register.

[rjay 24,993]

9 hours ago, rpfc said:

Hang on, this blokes bringing ‘accountability’? Could have fooled me. He has little substantive difference to what the current board are putting up for the alteration of the constitution. He also can’t help himself from muckraking in that stilted ‘conversation with a Dees supporter’.

The club says it had a consultative process and other than telling that story and being less guarded (although when former Presidents are suing you I can understand) it’s fine.

I like the preamble, I don’t like overwrought rules in constitutions or strategies. 

This bloke has failed once more most likely. 

Let’s move on.

I'm not saying he or anyone else has.

...but if you are calling for accountability on the home base proposal (as the poster I was answering was) then it doesn't make sense to give those who are not providing the answers any extra power.

[praha 11,240]

The whole Deemorcracy thing just stinks of 1990s boardroom mudslinging. The way some coiterie members carry on, their bitterness towards the current board is pathetic. 

If after and during decades of off field instability we haven't managed to establish a home base, maybe the answer is to ride the horse for a bit after we've just won a [censored] flag and back them in for more than a few years. Mind you Pert and Co. have only been at this for a few years now. It's not an overnight thing. 

I would strongly encourage members to ignore this as best they can and back in the current board and their proposed changes. They have big boy visions and have the history and success to back it up. We really don't need to return to the old days of classic Melbourne boardroom fights. Even if this guy had some good ideas and alternatives, you would have to be absolutely crazy to remove a board reeling off the success that this current board is experiencing during its tenure. It would be Norm Smith Sacked in nature. 

[rpfc 28,542]

8 hours ago, rjay said:

I'm not saying he or anyone else has.

...but if you are calling for accountability on the home base proposal (as the poster I was answering was) then it doesn't make sense to give those who are not providing the answers any extra power.

That’s what I am alluding to - what further power have they consolidated? The need of 20 members to nominate a Director? That is such an easy mark for someone who would be a chance to get actually on the board. The term limits? 

If ‘the masses’ are so upset about the home base issue - then this mob is on borrowed time and nothing will save them…

But I would wager the bull of the 66k care more about flags then centralised co-location of admin and footy depts.

[BDA 22,759]

Changing the threshold from 2 to 20 members to support nominations is not anti-democratic or somehow makes it easier for the incumbent board to entrench their position. I could rustle up 20 members signatures in 24 hours. Easy. If a candidate can’t do that much then they should not be running in the first place.

And despite my frustration at the lack of progress on the home base front the reality is I won’t create waves if we’re winning on field. That’s the most important thing. No one should be rocking the boat if it jeopardises that. I think Peter Lawrence has good intentions, (but totally misguided) and he’s finding out now that pushing an agenda at the wrong time without a clear appetite for change is not going to win much support

[Dee*ceiving 1,674]

23 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

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.

 

Your argument is somewhat reasonable but not considerate of what damage can be done by hackers with your email address. 

Email addresses are commonly used to log into a range of online services. Some are very secure with two factor authentication and warnings if people try to use it to log into those services. Many however do not, and, if you're like me, and many other people yoy probably won't remember all the things you've signed up for, purchased online or left other personal details.

A poorly secured online platform can allow hackers access with an email address in short time & they know where to look.   

[Slartibartfast 17,336]

16 minutes ago, Dee*ceiving said:

 

A poorly secured online platform can allow hackers access with an email address in short time & they know where to look.   

If all the hacker has is an email address what can he do with it beyond sending you emails? He doesn’t have bank details or other identification information. 
 

Im not suggesting I want my email address available to everyone but it just doesn’t seem high risk as is the case with the recent Optus and Medibank data breaches. But I’m by no means an expert in this area. 

[Ugottobekidding 1,188]

Storm in a teacup. Everyone is getting upset over a few email addresses. You have probably signed up to so many things that they are already compromised.

[george_on_the_outer 7,611]

and by providing your information to the Club and the AFL you have agreed to this under the AFL and Club privacy policy:

You agree to the disclosure and use of such personal information in accordance with this Privacy
Policy, and consent to its disclosure overseas and its use by third parties, including our service
providers, in the USA, Gibraltar, China and such other countries in which those parties or their
computer systems may be located from time to time, where it may be used solely for the purposes
described in this Privacy Policy, without us being responsible for such use (or for any
breach).

....and people are worried about just an email address?

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

22 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Why should it be up to the board to facilitate the contrary views of one member? What guarantee is there that this doesn't become a regular thing whenever a member disagrees with the board? This is a horrible precedent, even more so at a time where we really need stability. I was ambivalent to Lawrence before this but now I think he's a troublemaker and doesn't truly have the best interests of the club at heart.

Because we are a member based club not a privately owned franchise

[rjay 24,993]

2 hours ago, BDA said:

Changing the threshold from 2 to 20 members to support nominations is not anti-democratic or somehow makes it easier for the incumbent board to entrench their position. I could rustle up 20 members signatures in 24 hours. Easy. If a candidate can’t do that much then they should not be running in the first place.

And despite my frustration at the lack of progress on the home base front the reality is I won’t create waves if we’re winning on field. That’s the most important thing. No one should be rocking the boat if it jeopardises that. I think Peter Lawrence has good intentions, (but totally misguided) and he’s finding out now that pushing an agenda at the wrong time without a clear appetite for change is not going to win much support

Firstly, I agree that on field performance is the most important thing.

Also that Peter Lawrence's approach was misguided.

...but why would the board want to change the threshold from 2 to 20? just doesn't make sense...

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

If ‘the masses’ are so upset about the home base issue - then this mob is on borrowed time and nothing will save them…

 

I don't think it's that easy...

The last time we had to do this the AFL & AD had to get involved.

Thanks goodness they did.

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because we are a member based club not a privately owned franchise

That doesn't answer the questions at all.

Being a member based club doesn't mean the private data and contacting capabilities the club has collected are at the disposal of every member whenever they want.

There's plenty of ways for members to raise issues already.

And being a member based club doesn't mean the people who have been voted in to run the club have to use the club's official means of contact to enable the destabilization of the club.

Maybe if Lawrence had a clue how to use technology properly, how to get his case across effectively, how to garner support of members and how to have positive impact without this kind of disruption then he wouldn't need to hijack the club's communication systems.

[Its Time for Another 4,225]

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

 

2 hours ago, BDA said:

And despite my frustration at the lack of progress on the home base front the reality is I won’t create waves if we’re winning on field. 

I'm sure the Bord are more frustrated than the rest of us on the lack of a resolution of the facilities. I can't believe people are suggesting the Board should be sacked because of it. What do they think another Board is going to achieve if it is going to be in the MCG precinct. It's been explained how difficult it is compared to any other Club because we don't have the land and have to get public land off multiple public bodies. If it's ever going to be in this precinct we are never going to have a better team than the current President who ran the body we have to convince and a CEO who was successful in getting facilities up at Olympic Park. We aren't going to get anyone else with the contacts and experience than those two. I'm guessing the Coonwealth games has set it back a few years. So what? We sack the Board. The Board has its hands tied behind its back in communicating exactly what's going on because it is dealing with Govt etc and any comments could politically jeopardise the whole thing. It would be ludicrous to sack this Board because of this. 
I see Lawrence has mentioned this frustration with the Board in trying to drum up support for himself which  just reinforces to me why he shouldn't be anywhere near the Board. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Its Time for Another

[Lord Nev 13,512]

52 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

and by providing your information to the Club and the AFL you have agreed to this under the AFL and Club privacy policy:

You agree to the disclosure and use of such personal information in accordance with this Privacy
Policy, and consent to its disclosure overseas and its use by third parties, including our service
providers, in the USA, Gibraltar, China and such other countries in which those parties or their
computer systems may be located from time to time, where it may be used solely for the purposes
described in this Privacy Policy, without us being responsible for such use (or for any
breach).

....and people are worried about just an email address?

Yes, privacy and data is a massive issue and only getting bigger.

The difference here is people are aware and agreeing to what happens with their data and it's going to reasonably secure systems, rather than going to a private citizen who is clearly clueless with technology.

Optus and Medibank are possibly going to cop huge fines, Cambridge Analytica doesn't exist anymore, what exactly are the repercussions for Lawrence should he not handle our data properly? What systems does he have in place to store it and protect it? How exactly is he going to 'destroy' the digital data?

[tincan 171]

Are we paying his court costs, given that the court awarded in his favour?

These guys must have some serious money behind him. Postage and printing alone would be $100k... Costs to go to Supreme Court could be that again. That is dedication!

[BDA 22,759]

49 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

 

I'm sure the Bord are more frustrated than the rest of us on the lack of a resolution of the facilities. I can't believe people are suggesting the Board should be sacked because of it. What do they think another Board is going to achieve if it is going to be in the MCG precinct. It's been explained how difficult it is compared to any other Club because we don't have the land and have to get public land off multiple public bodies. If it's ever going to be in this precinct we are never going to have a better team than the current President who ran the body we have to convince and a CEO who was successful in getting facilities up at Olympic Park. We aren't going to get anyone else with the contacts and experience than those two. I'm guessing the Coonwealth games has set it back a few years. So what? We sack the Board. The Board has its hands tied behind its back in communicating exactly what's going on because it is dealing with Govt etc and any comments could politically jeopardise the whole thing. It would be ludicrous to sack this Board because of this. 
I see Lawrence has mentioned this frustration with the Board in trying to drum up support for himself which  just reinforces to me why he shouldn't be anywhere near the Board. 

I agree with you but this board and its predecessor have been a long time now trying to progress the MGC precinct option.  Maybe it’s viable but maybe it’s a dead end and we’ve wasted more time money and energy on a lost cause.

I would like to know where we’re at with it all. The board telling us it can’t comment because of the politics involved may be true but is also self serving. Could be a convenient cover story. I don’t know. I’m just frustrated and if someone stepped forward with an alternative plan I would definitely listen.

 

[BDA 22,759]

58 minutes ago, rjay said:

Firstly, I agree that on field performance is the most important thing.

Also that Peter Lawrence's approach was misguided.

...but why would the board want to change the threshold from 2 to 20? just doesn't make sense...

I don't think it's that easy...

The last time we had to do this the AFL & AD had to get involved.

Thanks goodness they did.

 

I reckon they’ve done it to weed out the time wasters. What do you reckon? I really don’t think it makes it harder for genuine candidates 

[Guest]

I’m not au fait with most of this, but having read all that I’ve received I have this question: So, “the member” was given our postal addresses, then sent us his printed matter (in which I found no fewer than six typos, just saying’). Then he applies for, and is given access to our email addresses with the stipulation that after Wednesday’s SGM all such email addresses must be destroyed.

My question is: why would he so desperately want our email addresses, to the point of taking the matter to Court, if it was just to reiterate what was in the snail mail AND if he’s been ordered to destroy the info on Wednesday?

[rjay 24,993]

41 minutes ago, BDA said:

I reckon they’ve done it to weed out the time wasters. What do you reckon? I really don’t think it makes it harder for genuine candidates 

I don't think there has been a run of candidates has there? either genuine or time wasters.

Reminds me a bit of 'The West Wing' in the first season where legislating against flag burning became a big issue.

Bartlett said something along the lines of 'Have I missed something here or has there been a spate of flag burning recently'...

In the constitutional changes put forward the only thing that made any sense to me was being able to vote electronically, thus saving a lot of time, energy and money.

[dees189227 12,394]

Just noticed one of there emails went straight to my junk inbox. Think I'll just leave it there. 

[Guest]

I just heard that the ‘vote’ is extremely close.

So no matter which way you’re leaning, if you care about the result, best make sure you’ve lodged yours. 👍🏽

[dees189227 12,394]

Apart from Peter, who else is part of this deemocracy board?

[daisycutter 29,624]

3 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Apart from Peter, who else is part of this deemocracy board?

from their web page. no names. not even peter lawrence is mentioned! not even any email addresses, lol.

Quote

ABOUT US

We are a group of strongly committed MFC members.

Our main passion is of course the football itself, but we also have a keen eye for the governance of our Club.