Constitutional Review

[Fritta and Turner 4,421]

If the No vote gets up what happens to changes to the Constitution?

[mauriesy 7,298]

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

the major reason for a constitution change was to allow for electronic voting and thus save the club a lot of money and make voting easier for all members

the other changes are really all minor to the current status quo

25% no is all it takes to scupper this and we continue with a medieval costly postal voting system

focus on the big issue, folks

Some might say that the board control is a bigger issue that voting systems. Yes, of course we need electronic voting, but if the board is trying to slip through controls that make the club less democratic we may need to question the process.

Seems to me there's a lot of aspersions being cast here about Lawrence and Deemocracy's motives. For all I know their motives might be perfectly reasonable. I fear somewhat for a club with a McGuire or Kennett-style dominance where they can never be voted out or removed because they control board membership so tightly the members are basically disenfranchised.

I guess we'll see if more than 25% of the members think board control is more important than voting methods.

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 minute ago, Jontee said:

If the No vote gets up what happens to changes to the Constitution?

if the no vote exceeds 25% then the motion to change the constitution fails

(the no vote doesn't have to win in order to "win" if you get the gist - lol)

[Fritta and Turner 4,421]

So if the No vote succeeds we have gone through all this kerfuffle and $$$$$ for nothing.  Voting No doesn't get the No constitution up.  And I can go back to calling Kate Roffey Chairman?

This is so far from our core business of kicking it through the big sticks and will not do anything to improve our accuracy in front of goal.

 

[mauriesy 7,298]

18 minutes ago, Jontee said:

This is so far from our core business of kicking it through the big sticks and will not do anything to improve our accuracy in front of goal.

You still need good governance in any organisation. It's not open slather any longer just to win games of football.

[Fritta and Turner 4,421]

41 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

You still need good governance in any organisation. It's not open slather any longer just to win games of football.

Agree, so for good governance which is the appropriate way to vote

[Clintosaurus 7,849]

2 hours ago, No10 said:

Most likely Lew would be supplied their registry - same as the MFC have to do, now including emails.

It’s odd a member going to such lengths of the courts. Then not accept the club offer to send out the information, avoiding the obvious backlash. Then send the proposal without any personal details. People are strange.

Solomon Lew would be an outlier, given his shareholding in Myer an threats to launch a takeover. Best for the Myer board to appease him. Others, not so much...

[daisycutter 29,616]

tomorrow (tues) is last chance to register your proxy

can do it online

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

You did mate, because that was not what the discussion was which I highlighted above.

The discussion was about the board sending those grievances on behalf of non-board members. I asked for examples of that and you moved the goal posts to 'members raise grievances all the time'.

No, what I initially said was members raise grievances all the time as part of their participation in the democratic process. Eg a member is standing for election to the board they will use it to raise grievances as well as running their own campaign/agenda.

You may have interpreted this differently but that was the intent of my comment.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Dr. Gonzo

[Tim 3,423]

On 10/23/2022 at 8:12 AM, 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.

That’s a fair point of itself, and if someone were seriously trying to get onto the board I don’t doubt that they would be able to rustle up the requisite number. I think the point of concern is that the practice in similar professional member-based sporting clubs (MCC, VRC, other AFL clubs) is either 2 or 3, so why is our board seeking to wind it out to 20 from the current 2?

It smacks of trying to build a bigger moat around themselves, consistent with other recent behaviours they have shown. Also reminds me of immediately pre-COVID where the club once a year or so encouraged fans to come down to open training sessions; it was amazing to see an area roped off next to the players area for “Board Members”. Very clubby, and not in a good way!

Edited October 24, 2022 by Tim

[rjay 24,929]

1 hour ago, Tim said:

Also reminds me of immediately pre-COVID where the club once a year or so encouraged fans to come down to open training sessions; it was amazing to see an area roped off next to the players area for “Board Members”. Very clubby, and not in a good way!

I hated this 'Tim'..it was a rubbish and elitist idea.

I hope they've done away with it.

[Ugottobekidding 1,187]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I hated this 'Tim'..it was a rubbish and elitist idea.

I hope they've done away with it.

The board think we are dimwits that need to be educated on ways of the world.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Ugottobekidding

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I hated this 'Tim'..it was a rubbish and elitist idea.

I hope they've done away with it.

what a strange thing to do

[BDA 22,755]

5 hours ago, Tim said:

it was amazing to see an area roped off next to the players area for “Board Members”. Very clubby, and not in a good way!

i agree. that is BS behaviour

[titan_uranus 25,020]

12 hours ago, Supermercado said:

We're filling in off-season brawling about whose ideas are better, but this isn't a vote on which constitution to adopt, it's whether to accept the board's proposed changes. If 25.01% of people vote against adopting the amendments on offer then nothing is altered.

If that does happen, what do Deemocracy propose to do next? For right or wrong, the board isn't going to put the alternative to a member vote, so where does a no vote sub-75% yes vote leave us other than continuing the brawl into 2023 with no change at all.

This is a point that I think Deemocracy have quite cleverly concealed through the use of their own model Constitution.

This is not a vote between the Club’s proposed changes and Deemocracy’s. It’s a vote between making the Club’s proposed changes or making no changes at all. 

If the 75% threshold isn’t reached, the motion fails and no changes are made. We are then back at square 1. 

It is implicit in their position that Deemocracy would prefer that than to have the Club’s changes go through. Of all the changes, the only one of major difference is the 20 member support for nominations. Holding up the entire Constitutional reform over that is, in my view, dangerous. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,777]

30 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

This is a point that I think Deemocracy have quite cleverly concealed through the use of their own model Constitution.

This is not a vote between the Club’s proposed changes and Deemocracy’s. It’s a vote between making the Club’s proposed changes or making no changes at all. 

If the 75% threshold isn’t reached, the motion fails and no changes are made. We are then back at square 1. 

It is implicit in their position that Deemocracy would prefer that than to have the Club’s changes go through. Of all the changes, the only one of major difference is the 20 member support for nominations. Holding up the entire Constitutional reform over that is, in my view, dangerous. 

There's nothing cleverly concealed, the point of their alternative ideas are simply to promote debate

It's putting an alternative idea forward. Just like an Opposition would put an alternative policy position to a Government in parliament (where the alternative policy is not going to be voted on - the minor parties take this to the extreme to highlight their agendas)

The Nominations obiection is clear, and obvious...

[rpfc 28,441]

25 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 

Well, the club evidently sees the broad swathe of apathy for this type of admin an impact to actually getting ‘Yes’ over the line. 

Of all the hills to die on in the march of ‘Deemocracy’ an extra three years for the Prez and the dislike of a preamble as a means of conveying enforceless platitudes about our place in the game…

What a waste of time and money if this doesn’t get up.

I have voted Proxy yes and it was easy. 

Go and do that and wait for the hill that’s worth it.

[daisycutter 29,616]

24 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

There's nothing cleverly concealed, the point of their alternative ideas are simply to promote debate

It's putting an alternative idea forward. Just like an Opposition would put an alternative policy position to a Government in parliament (where the alternative policy is not going to be voted on - the minor parties take this to the extreme to highlight their agendas)

The Nominations obiection is clear, and obvious...

poor analogy.........there is no voted in opposition. furthermore the so-called deemocracy group are all anonymous and just claim to be mfc members. their web site doesn't even have lawrence's name, nor does it provide any phone or email addresses/

[Supreme_Demon 3,863]

I voted "No" to the limited changes in favour of the Deemocracy group.

I believe the entire MFC constitution needs to be overhauled.

People may disagree with how I voted but everyone has their own views.

I hope that the MFC board and Deemocracy group can eventually come to an amicable resolution.

I am sure these problems can be resolved if both parties sat down amd worked it all out peacefully.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Supreme_Demon

[Cyclops 511]

7 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Well, the club evidently sees the broad swathe of apathy for this type of admin an impact to actually getting ‘Yes’ over the line. 

Of all the hills to die on in the march of ‘Deemocracy’ an extra three years for the Prez and the dislike of a preamble as a means of conveying enforceless platitudes about our place in the game…

What a waste of time and money if this doesn’t get up.

I have voted Proxy yes and it was easy. 

Go and do that and wait for the hill that’s worth it.

This further information from MFC regarding the election of directors is a deliberate misconception. The initial period on the board of new the director(s) is by direct placement.

When an election is held then the new board member(s) are on the ballot and supported by the board members not up for re-election.  Albeit these elections are indeed rare.

[Its Time for Another 4,223]

2 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

There's nothing cleverly concealed, the point of their alternative ideas are simply to promote debate

It's putting an alternative idea forward. Just like an Opposition would put an alternative policy position to a Government in parliament (where the alternative policy is not going to be voted on - the minor parties take this to the extreme to highlight their agendas)

The Nominations obiection is clear, and obvious...

Out of interest are you one of the members of Deemocracy referred to in their email. 

[GM11 776]

15 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

Out of interest are you one of the members of Deemocracy referred to in their email. 

Or is there only one member?

[titan_uranus 25,020]

3 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

There's nothing cleverly concealed, the point of their alternative ideas are simply to promote debate

It's putting an alternative idea forward. Just like an Opposition would put an alternative policy position to a Government in parliament (where the alternative policy is not going to be voted on - the minor parties take this to the extreme to highlight their agendas)

The Nominations obiection is clear, and obvious...

No it’s not, and this is my precise point. Deemocracy present themselves and their proposed constitution as an alternative but this is not a vote between alternatives. This is a yes/no vote for what the Club is proposing and if you vote no, we get nothing. We don’t necessarily get anything, let alone everything, Deemocracy is asking for (although if the vote fails you would imagine at least something Deemocracy is seeking would ultimately make it in).

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,777]

5 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

Out of interest are you one of the members of Deemocracy referred to in their email. 

Nope

Made my concern clear on page 1 of this thread, well before they organised