Constitutional Review

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,648]

13 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Genuinely interested if others agree?

I tipped 83% yesterday above, but also thought they'd get more votes in total

I would say 16% is a significant number against, as I'd expect this type of vote would typically have low participation and very high support and sail through as a formality (like 98%)

621 out of 45,000 eligible voting members is hardly significant.  It's about 1% of the membership.

 

I also wonder how many of those 621 voted no because they incorrectly thought they would be voting between the proposal put forward by the working party, and the proposal put forward by Deemocracy, not realising the vote would actually be between the working proposal and the status quo.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Katrina Dee Fan

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,648]

10 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

66k was the mens team membership. Did any stand alone members of our womens team also get a vote on our amended constitution I wonder? 

Not true, AFLW members are included in the total member count. AFLW members have voting rights.

https://membership.melbournefc.com.au/membership/aflw-access

Edited October 26, 2022 by Katrina Dee Fan

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

I was at the meeting last night.  I thought it interesting that one conspicuous absence was Peter Lawrence.....

He had a reason for not attending. Whether or not it was a valid reason is another matter entirely. I’d rather not expand, not publicly anyways. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

This is a good question. I’m thinking the answer is no. I’ve bought AFLW membership for my sons and the only one who received emails is the one who also has membership for the men’s. 

 

2 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Of the two who have only AFLW membership, one is over 18 and the other is 17. But neither received anything.

edit: my eldest just told me he has since changed his email and that’s why he wouldn’t have received anything. Mystery solved. 🙂

 

58 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

AFLW members have voting rights.

Hey Kat, the above explains my confusion about AFLW-only voting rights. It also explains how the mystery was solved. 🙂

[daisycutter 29,613]

11 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

He had a reason for not attending. Whether or not it was a valid reason is another matter entirely. I’d rather not expand, not publicly anyways. 

did someone else who attended tell you that, wcw?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

did someone else who attended tell you that, wcw?

Yes. And it’s someone who would know. 

[daisycutter 29,613]

10 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Yes. And it’s someone who would know. 

a name beginning g?

[Guest]

Just now, daisycutter said:

a name beginning g?

No. Are we gonna go through the entire alphabet, Daise? Coz if we are, I need to cancel a couple of appointments.🤣

[daisycutter 29,613]

1 minute ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

No. Are we gonna go through the entire alphabet, Daise? Coz if we are, I need to cancel a couple of appointments.🤣

hey wcw, you could start a cryptic riddle. could keep us amused in the off season ☺️

not really that interested though in who told you, more interested in why peter lawrence didn't attend

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

hey wcw, you could start a cryptic riddle. could keep us amused in the off season ☺️

not really that interested though in who told you, more interested in why peter lawrence didn't attend

Not a good idea, Demonstone would have it cracked within seconds. 

[BDA 22,743]

I doubt we'll hear much more from Peter Lawrence. He hasn't endeared himself to the broader membership and in my view has shown poor judgement in how he has gone about his nomination for a directorship last year and this constitutional review. I think his intentions are good, if misguided, but he can't be the figurehead for any future member led initiative. He's tainted

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,648]

15 minutes ago, BDA said:

I doubt we'll hear much more from Peter Lawrence. He hasn't endeared himself to the broader membership and in my view has shown poor judgement in how he has gone about his nomination for a directorship last year and this constitutional review. I think his intentions are good, if misguided, but he can't be the figurehead for any future member led initiative. He's tainted

I tend to agree.  I don't think Peter Lawrence had any ill-intent, but I think his actions have alienated himself now from the rest of the voting members of the club.  There's no doubting his passion for the club. But there's so much anger that's been generated from the last week. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

On 10/25/2022 at 5:51 PM, Its Time for Another said:

Dr G normally love your work. But this is not your finest. I'll tell you a cautionary tale. I got my email address hacked a couple of years ago. The hackers used my email address to send out automated emails to 30,000 plus addresses every hour all over the world.

That sounds extremely stressful and hopefully you were able to sort things out in the end albeit with a few extra grey hairs and hours of lost productivity.

Were the hackers able to get into your email account (ie were they able to circumvent the password) or was just having your email address enough to do the damage?

[McQueen 17,864]

I received the letter from Deemocracy in the mail yesterday. 😂😂

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

Up front.  I know and like Peter Lawrence and whilst I understand why people have the views they have I think they are very misguided.

Peter asked me to respond if his nonattendance last night was raised on Demonland so I'm not breaking any confidences in passing on this information.  Peter's daughter is a humanitarian worker in Africa and a trip to see his daughter was planned long before the date for the meeting last night was set.  Hence he couldn't attend.

Further, I think that some of the commentary here is wrong.  Many believe that the challenge to the constitutional changes recommended by the Board was part of a plan to get on the Board.  It wasn't.  My understanding is he doesn't intend to stand for the Board again.  Secondly many are blaming him for the costs incurred by the Club in challenging his right to have email addresses.  Well, the Supreme Court found the Club was wrong in denying him the addresses and that he should have been supplied with them in the first instance.  Further Peter offered the Club the opportunity to send his correspondence to members directly to ensure he wouldn't have access to the email addresses but they declined. In effect, the Club is responsible for Peter being able to access your email addresses and the cost of the Court case were the decision of the Club.

Daisy made a comment earlier that "it's a strange hill to die on".  If you think about it that just shows he has the Club's best interest at heart because this was not the hill to die on if he wanted a spot on the Board or push an agenda beyond the constitution.  He wanted us to have a modern and fair constitution and was denied the opportunity to present his ideas to the members.

All he did was fight for a chance to present ideas to the membership.  The Club fought him at every turn.  Their attitude is inexplicable.  

 

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Slartibartfast

[poita 3,902]

15 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Not even 4,000 people voted. Surprising considering the amount of debate that’s been had. 

I suspect that, like most clubs, we have a lot of phantom members. That would explain the difference between member numbers and attendances. 

Beyond that, most people genuinely don't care.

[titan_uranus 24,995]

8 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Up front.  I know and like Peter Lawrence and whilst I understand why people have the views they have I think they are very misguided.

Peter asked me to respond if his nonattendance last night was raised on Demonland so I'm not breaking any confidences in passing on this information.  Peter's daughter is a humanitarian worker in Africa and a trip to see his daughter was planned long before the date for the meeting last night was set.  Hence he couldn't attend.

Further, I think that some of the commentary here is wrong.  Many believe that the challenge to the constitutional changes recommended by the Board was part of a plan to get on the Board.  It wasn't.  My understanding is he doesn't intend to stand for the Board again.  Secondly many are blaming him for the costs incurred by the Club in challenging his right to have email addresses.  Well, the Supreme Court found the Club was wrong in denying him the addresses and that he should have been supplied with them in the first instance.  Further Peter offered the Club the opportunity to send his correspondence to members directly to ensure he wouldn't have access to the email addresses but they declined. In effect, the Club is responsible for Peter being able to access your email addresses and the cost of the Court case were the decision of the Club.

Daisy made a comment earlier that "it's a strange hill to die on".  If you think about it that just shows he has the Club's best interest at heart because this was not the hill to die on if he wanted a spot on the Board or push an agenda beyond the constitution.  He wanted us to have a modern and fair constitution and was denied the opportunity to present his ideas to the members.

All he did was fight for a chance to present ideas to the membership.  The Club fought him at every turn.  Their attitude is inexplicable.  

Whilst I agree with you that some of the anti-Lawrence views on here are misguided (principally, comments on the privacy issues have been been overblown IMO), I also think that those who, like you, are aligned with Lawrence are misguided to an extent in your perception of the dispute.

Do you really think it is "inexplicable" that a company might, at first instance, seek to resists handing out its members' personal information to a member who is known to be an agitator and who seeks to obtain that information to mass communicate with members who, according to the Club at least, don't want to receive the communication?

You've leaned heavily on the Supreme Court outcome in Lawrence's favour, and clearly it suggests the law was on his side on the issue. However I've not seen any written reasons from the judge explaining the outcome, or declaring any particular orders. All I've seen is what was reported by Peter Ryan from The Age. What we know from his tweets and articles is that, at the first hearing on Wednesday, the issue was described as a "test case", and that a decision wasn't made on the spot. If the issue was as clear-cut as your post implies and Lawrence would want to argue, wouldn't the judge have made relevant orders on the spot at the first hearing? On the contrary, if it was actually described as a "test case" that would suggest there was some sort of arguable/unclear legal point. I wouldn't know either way as I'm not a company lawyer nor have I seen the judge's reasons; if there are written reasons and they're available to be shared, I'd love to see them.

But I hardly consider it "inexplicable" that the Club took the position it took. And at the end of the day, the Deemocracy position was emailed to 40,000+ members prior to the SGM and posted to many thousands prior to the SGM as well. 

[Gouga 566]

39 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Up front.  I know and like Peter Lawrence and whilst I understand why people have the views they have I think they are very misguided.

Peter asked me to respond if his nonattendance last night was raised on Demonland so I'm not breaking any confidences in passing on this information.  Peter's daughter is a humanitarian worker in Africa and a trip to see his daughter was planned long before the date for the meeting last night was set.  Hence he couldn't attend.

Further, I think that some of the commentary here is wrong.  Many believe that the challenge to the constitutional changes recommended by the Board was part of a plan to get on the Board.  It wasn't.  My understanding is he doesn't intend to stand for the Board again.  Secondly many are blaming him for the costs incurred by the Club in challenging his right to have email addresses.  Well, the Supreme Court found the Club was wrong in denying him the addresses and that he should have been supplied with them in the first instance.  Further Peter offered the Club the opportunity to send his correspondence to members directly to ensure he wouldn't have access to the email addresses but they declined. In effect, the Club is responsible for Peter being able to access your email addresses and the cost of the Court case were the decision of the Club.

Daisy made a comment earlier that "it's a strange hill to die on".  If you think about it that just shows he has the Club's best interest at heart because this was not the hill to die on if he wanted a spot on the Board or push an agenda beyond the constitution.  He wanted us to have a modern and fair constitution and was denied the opportunity to present his ideas to the members.

All he did was fight for a chance to present ideas to the membership.  The Club fought him at every turn.  Their attitude is inexplicable.  

 

 

I agree with many that the club did the right thing challenging the request. The club also did the right thing not favouring one member's request to send materials. No issues here. You say peter wanted a fair constitution? I choose to belive he wants to stick it to the current board. His stupid "conversation" in the flyer mentioned items that had nothing to do with the constitution (e.g. home base, defamation proceedings). He has an agenda beyond the constitution...

Edited October 27, 2022 by Gouga

[Lord Nev 13,512]

33 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

He wanted us to have a modern and fair constitution and was denied the opportunity to present his ideas to the members.

I'm sure he's a great bloke, just going by his passion and financial contributions that we know of he comes across as a genuine and valuable supporter.

But I don't agree with the above at all. He wasn't 'denied' anything other than having the club facilitate his communication for him. He has social media, he has a website, he seems to have considerable financial means - and members already knew plenty about him and 'Deemocracy' even before he got our contact details.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

22 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Do you really think it is "inexplicable" that a company might, at first instance, seek to resists handing out its members' personal information to a member who is known to be an agitator and who seeks to obtain that information to mass communicate with members who, according to the Club at least, don't want to receive the communication?

I don't want to debate all this because people have their views now and nothing I say will change those but standing for the Board is not "agitating".  Secondly he didn't want the addresses, he want to give you ideas for amendments to the constitution and the Club stopped him doing that by refusing to send out his email to members.

Anyway, we differ.  I'd suggest you contact Peter, his email is in the public domain and he'll give you his telephone number and you can talk to him.  Then you can decide if he's an agitator.  

 

 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Anyway, we differ.  I'd suggest you contact Peter, his email is in the public domain and he'll give you his telephone number and you can talk to him.  Then you can decide if he's an agitator.  

With respect Slart, I’ve read here on DL and heard elsewhere that emails to Peter weren’t answered. I’m guessing that might be because they weren’t exactly complimentary. However, I emailed him to point out the typos in his printed material (and in a small part for sh*its n giggles) and despite it being 10pm he replied in 17 minutes. He was most pleasant indeed but maybe he only replies to emails that are benign so to speak. 

[rjay 24,917]

39 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I'm sure he's a great bloke, just going by his passion and financial contributions that we know of he comes across as a genuine and valuable supporter.

But I don't agree with the above at all. He wasn't 'denied' anything other than having the club facilitate his communication for him. He has social media, he has a website, he seems to have considerable financial means - and members already knew plenty about him and 'Deemocracy' even before he got our contact details.

The whole thing would have been easier with less pain and cost if the club had facilitated his communication to members.

It was the right thing to do.

[mo64 5,874]

3 minutes ago, rjay said:

The whole thing would have been easier with less pain and cost if the club had facilitated his communication to members.

It was the right thing to do.

In your opinion. Should the club have also communicated his points that were non-related to the constitutional change?

No organisation on this planet would bow down to an aggrieved member, and do as you say.

[rjay 24,917]

27 minutes ago, mo64 said:

aggrieved member,

?

[Lord Nev 13,512]

49 minutes ago, rjay said:

The whole thing would have been easier with less pain and cost if the club had facilitated his communication to members.

It was the right thing to do.

Nah. It shouldn't be up to the club to facilitate the agenda of every member.

Demonland would shut down, we'd all be emailing the database with our opinions.