Constitutional Review

[daisycutter 29,613]

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

So now you know how the rest of us feel when we received the Deemocracy email and mail.

If you received an email from NT Tourism, then I'm assuming all members will receive it. How do you know the club supplied it? We do receive Spam emails based on Google searches.

members can opt out of their email being shared with sponsors for approved marketing

[daisycutter 29,613]

i don't agree with the way peter lawrence went about requesting changes. i think he did himself more damage than good.

the one important thing i do agree with him is the process for new applicants seeking a position on the board. applicants should be pre-approved firstly on a reasonable and transparent basis and then have a reasonable and limited opportunity to electioneer, currently it seems way too prohibitive and unreasonable. 

[Gouga 566]

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Hey Mo, until Peter Lawrence stood no member of the MFC had voted for a Board member since 2003.  That's democracy for you.

And I just got an email from NT Tourism because the Board supplied them with my email address.  It was pretty confronting, I had to delete it.

You can choose not to receive marketing material from the club's sponsors. Unlike deemocracy emails...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

It was Joey from Moe

And it was a terrible faux pas from Kate, who up until that point I'd thought was doing a great job

Snobbish and unnecessary 

I think it was meant to be similar to saying “Joe Blow” ie, the personification of an average, everyday person. I doubt it’s an example of snobbery. Have you ever met Kate? As in, spoken to her? Got to know her a little? Call her what you will, but a snob she ain’t.

Besides, even if she did feel that way, she’s a smart person; she’d never put herself in a position where she’s open to ridicule for making such a classist comment. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Tim said:

 

Along those lines, Slarti, rank and file members might like to note Roffey’s contemptuous throwaway line about Snowy from Moe. Shame!

Hi Tim! See above ⬆️ 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

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.

It’s strange that this wasn’t something members were told before the meeting(?)

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

49 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I think it was meant to be similar to saying “Joe Blow” ie, the personification of an average, everyday person. I doubt it’s an example of snobbery. Have you ever met Kate? As in, spoken to her? Got to know her a little? Call her what you will, but a snob she ain’t.

Besides, even if she did feel that way, she’s a smart person; she’d never put herself in a position where she’s open to ridicule for making such a classist comment. 

Did you hear it?

As I've said many times I think and have thought very highly of her, and that she's done a great job to date. I think she presents very well and quite down to earth

But it was a distasteful comment at the wrong time, and appeared to be an attempt at humour based on Moe, not Joe Blow

Sounded ordinary, others have agreed above

Edited October 27, 2022 by Graeme Yeats' Mullet

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

4 hours ago, mo64 said:

I don't, because I'm not part of the Peter Lawrence cult.

So once he had the addresses, did he not think that it's intrusive to utilise them? As others have said, he could have conveyed his message through other means.

It went to the Supreme Court of Victoria where Justice Riordan ruled he had the right to access the email database. If you disagree you should take it up with him.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

6 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

I don't remember now. It's not enough to just right down someone's email address. There is some hack where they introduce a trojan program that gets into the data behind your email address. There's DNS's and IP's. Nasher would probably laugh out loud at me saying that because I really don't know what I'm talking about other than they exist behind your emals. That's what the cyber security guy told me who was helping me. He also advised once this is done there's nothing you can do about it. It usually runs down over time. Every now and then I still get emails from people this has happened to more than 10 years ago.  

Yeah that's what I suspected, solely having access to an email address wouldn't allow that kind of hacking. It sounds like a horrible experience but I don't think there was a risk of that happening in this instance.

[Its Time for Another 4,208]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah that's what I suspected, solely having access to an email address wouldn't allow that kind of hacking. It sounds like a horrible experience but I don't think there was a risk of that happening in this instance.

Why do you say that. We can't know that. The attack on me was totally random but now we are in the middle of an epidemic of data hacking. Lawrence had front page coverage in the national press about obtaining 66,000 people's data. Why do you think that publicity exposure wouldn't make him a far more likely target for hackers who are very active here at the moment. I just hope he's deleted now and in a technical way that protects it from still being hacked. Anyhow hopefully we can get back to footy now. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

Just now, Its Time for Another said:

Why do you say that. We can't know that. The attack on me was totally random but now we are in the middle of an epidemic of data hacking. Lawrence had front page coverage in the national press about obtaining 66,000 people's data. Why do you think that publicity exposure wouldn't make him a far more likely target for hackers who are very active here at the moment. I just hope he's deleted now and in a technical way that protects it from still being hacked. Anyhow hopefully we can get back to footy now. 

But what are you concerned they would have hacked? An email address on its own would not be enough to do anything, people may send you spam email but they would need your email password or get you to click on a link in an email to download a malware program to do the kind of damage you mentioned.

[Its Time for Another 4,208]

3 hours 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.

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've enjoyed the debate on this topic and have learnt quite a lot. It's clear you and the people who have liked your post have an underlying distrust and dissatisfaction with this Board and probably will have even more after this. My personal view is that Board unity and member support is crucial for Club success. I think the current Board has done an outstanding job for all the reasons others have previously mentioned so I'm genuinely interested to find out what it is about the Board that has led to this. The two things I am aware of are people didn't like the Board having a preference for certain candidates for the elections and there is some universal frustration with the lack of progress getting the facilities approved which many people seem to be blaming on the Board. Is that it or are there other issues. 

I'm interested that people think the Board shouldn't engage in trying to get the best possible people elected. Personally I think it's very important on a small Board of 7 people that there is the right mix of complimentary skills required at a particular time. I think it's highly professional to set up a nomination committee that has the time to encourage anyone interested in standing for the Board to present their credentials and for the committee to also go out and actively find the best candidates with the best complimentary skill sets. Why shouldn't the Board support the candidates that come up who offer the best skill sets. Why would it be helpful to have Peter Lawrence elected who doesn't offer any required skills but is just has the same skills as other people on the Board. He being elected would have cut out getting someone with required skills. I know over the past ten years or so Directors have been sort out to come on the Board because they have skills that were required at that particular time. For instance property experts were brought on when the Bentleigh Club acquisition was going on. Lawyers were brought on when the Tanking saga was going on. Corporate Governance specialists were brought on when this was required by the AFL after the tanking saga. Fund manager specialists have come on now because of the Future Fund. Property specialists were on the Board for expertise on the sale of Leighoak and Bentleigh. Do people think there is something wrong with promoting those people for the Board. You also obviously want people who will work with and for the Board not against it for their own agendas.  I understand if a Board is doing a [censored] job that people will understandably work to get rid of it. There's always the ability for groups to get together and depose existing Boards if necessary. I'm interested in why some of you seem to think this Board shouldn't be supported now and why you want to support Lawrence instead. My experience of Lawrence's conduct since he got our data has proven that he actually doesn't practice the democracy or accountability you all seem to be supporting him for.  

 

[Its Time for Another 4,208]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But what are you concerned they would have hacked? An email address on its own would not be enough to do anything, people may send you spam email but they would need your email password or get you to click on a link in an email to download a malware program to do the kind of damage you mentioned.

It's not just emails though is it. It's the combination of those and names and home addresses. If you want to pay for it I'm happy to put you in touch with the cyber security guy I know. If he is prepared to he can educate you on data mining. He was appalled this could happen and he was the one who told me to ask Lawrence what cyber security he put in place so he could check it out but Lawrence never responded.

Hopefully this is over now and he's disposed of the data in a way that doesn't continue the risk. I really don't want to talk about this anymore. It just makes me bloody angry to be honest with you. I just hope it never happens again. I'll be discussing with the Club how I can be a member without having my home address on the database. It's been an eye opener. I'll probably spend the money on a PO Box. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

8 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

It's not just emails though is it. It's the combination of those and names and home addresses. If you want to pay for it I'm happy to put you in touch with the cyber security guy I know. If he is prepared to he can educate you on data mining. He was appalled this could happen and he was the one who told me to ask Lawrence what cyber security he put in place so he could check it out but Lawrence never responded.

Hopefully this is over now and he's disposed of the data in a way that doesn't continue the risk. I really don't want to talk about this anymore. It just makes me bloody angry to be honest with you. I just hope it never happens again. I'll be discussing with the Club how I can be a member without having my home address on the database. It's been an eye opener. I'll probably spend the money on a PO Box. 

That is assuming there is a data point that can link the emails to a specific person (membership number, home address, name, phone number). There may be but again, this data in itself is not enough for someone to do much with in regards to hacking - I've just looked up my surname in the White Pages online and it has come up with name, address, phone number of me, my dad, sister, uncle and one of dad's uncles. This information is not really protected as there is not much that can be done with it without passwords or unique/private information such as drivers licence number, passport number, medicare number etc

I'm far more concerned about the data that has been breached through Optus, Medibank/ahm and who knows what else in the future. Unfortunately it is a fact of life and it is here to stay, it will only get worse and there is no way to stop it. If governments/multi-billion dollar companies can't even stop some average citizen from downloading pirated movies how will they stop sophisticated scamming/hacking organisations from access sensitive information? If it's electronic it is susceptible doesn't matter how much security or protection is out there.

Again, as a member of a member based organisation you have to understand that your contact details may be made available to other members for the purposes of communication around things like this. You may not like it but the law and the Victorian Supreme Court Justice Riordan says it is so. You would need to lobby your local pollie to change the law in regards to this if you're unhappy with it.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,659]

14 hours ago, Redleg said:

Co Opting your mates, while at the same time denying members the right to stand, may be your type of democracy, but it certainly ain’t mine.

 

Cooption is permitted if not enough candidates stand for election and there are vacancies.  If you want to avoid cooption, stand for election.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,659]

16 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Because it is required under Corporations Law.  And now following Peters successful application and others quoted in the action, case law.

So if the club were to distribute on a member's behalf their points of view for all 66,000 members, how much time and resources should come out of the coffers of the club, that could be spent on other things?  

BTW, I wasn't referring to the distribution of contact information.  The Corporations Act required that action, not what I was referring to which was the club sending information to members on Peter's behalf.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,659]

14 hours ago, Redleg said:

Does your last name rhyme with toffee?

I'm not Kate Roffey if that's what you're inferring.  My name is Katrina Oxley, I've been a member of the club for 37 years.  Member of Redlegs since 1988, member of Demon Army, committee of Ruby Demons, foundation member of the women's team.  I have nothing to hide.  I also have a mind of my own. By the way, I got off my [censored] and turned up on Wednesday night.  Did you?

Edited October 27, 2022 by Katrina Dee Fan

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,659]

15 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Hey Mo, until Peter Lawrence stood no member of the MFC had voted for a Board member since 2003.  That's democracy for you.

And good on Peter Lawrence for standing.  The thing is, if not enough people put themselves up for election to the board, and can fill the vacancies with the number of people who do stand, elections don't get held.  That is no different to any other member driven not for profit organisations, that is the nature of governance, not a slight on democracy.  All this statement really highlights is the level of apathy amongst Melbourne members between 2003 and earlier this year. 

[Fritta and Turner 4,403]

I got my Deemocracy letter in the post.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,659]

16 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Katrina explain to me what was so bad about the Deemocracy proposals that the Club didn't want members to see them?

Frankly I don't give too hoots about the constitution and the only change I had any interest in was the proposal that people who want to stand for the Board have the opportunity to communicate with members.  I'd guess, although I might be wrong, that this, along with "tenure", were the main issues the Board had with Deemocracy's proposals.

In my opinion you (plural) support one of two positions in relation to the election of Directors.  The first is that the members have little or no ability to choose and the sitting Board invites people onto it to replace those that no longer want to serve.  In essence this is what has happened in the last two Board elections.  The Board established rules which prohibited those standing for election (or re-election) communication beyond a small number of words - around 250 to 300 I believe - but allowed the President to endorse those he or she chooses and to campaign for them.  Nobody outside those endorsed by the President will ever get up in these circumstances.

The second is open and fair elections where those wishing to stand for election as Directors can communicate their views and promote their candidature.  

Peter supports the second as do I and I think most would.  The opportunity to establish "fair and open" elections was lost last night and we will just have to hope this Board is active, passionate and committed because as members, under the current constitution, we have little chance to remove them if they aren't.

Our performance on field was years in the making and started by Peter Jackson.  This Board has ridden the crest of a wave but their elitest attitude worries me greatly.  A glaring example of this was one day at training at Gosch's when there was a special area roped off for them to watch while we as supporters were outside the ropes and unable to mingle.  It was a small but very symbolic thing.

As you say Katrina, actions speak louder than words. I'd put Peter's actions up again any of the Board and I reckon you couldn't find a more passionate and committed member than him.  His treatment has been disgraceful.  

 

You're welcome to scroll forward to read any of my posts and see what my point of view is.  I have no objection to Peter communicating to members his point of view, and in the wonderful age of web 2.0, he has the means to communicate that message to members.  The club issued him with mailing addresses, I'm not sure for what purpose he needed email addresses as well.  That exercise of taking it to the supreme court achieved little other than costing Peter money, the club money, and a lot of angst amongst members who did not want their contact details distributed.  How was that action going to get members to see Peter's point of view? And as I stated earlier, Peter had more opportunity than most members to get his point across to the board, he had several one on one meetings with David Rennick, he had mediation through Harold Lubanski, and yet he's communicating to members his proposals were ignored by the working party.  No, they were not.  Not all considerations from all members have to be considered.  There are 66,000 members, it would be impossible for every suggestion from every member to be considered.  

Strange example you used of the training session roping off supporters at Gosche's Paddock.  Hello, COVID.

I have no doubt Peter's intentions are honourable, and I know he has a lot of passion for the club.  I don't agree though that members, least of all Peter, are being treated unfairly.

[Its Time for Another 4,208]

On 10/27/2022 at 5:29 AM, Ugottobekidding said:

There is a message to the board, most people are only interested in football, not your politics.

I'd suggest it's more a message to Peter Lawrence and anyone in the future who wants to do a Lawrence. The vast majority of people aren't interested and will greatly resent members getting their personal details as so many have in this case. 

I hardly call wanting to update the Constitution for some very necessary improvements politics. 

[tiers 2,833]

This discussion is getting out of hand. The real, and only, issue is whether or not Mr Lawrence has been able to communicate his position to the members. The short and long answer is an unequivocal YES.

I received his letter in the post office mail about the same time as he went to the Supreme Court. So when he went to court he already had the addresses and had printed and mailed his documents. Why go to court to obtain email addresses? The most obvious, logical reason (HT Occam) that I can decipher is to save the enormous cost of printing and mailing hard copies.

But if this had already been completed, then, I ask again, why did he need he need to go to court to obtain email addresses? This remains a mystery.

BTW, although most of the recommended changes to the constitution made good sense, he had some valid points to make but given that it was an all or nothing vote by the members (not item by item), it was either too late or too early to run his case. Perhaps next year.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

2 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Cooption is permitted if not enough candidates stand for election and there are vacancies.  If you want to avoid cooption, stand for election.

Absolutely they should

They now just need 10x as many members to support them as they did last week, and as most other similar clubs require (to avoid the problem of frivolous nominations - which we don't have)

And they can be limited to write a 250 word pitch and be prepared to be campaigned against by the Board using club resources

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

I'm not Kate Roffey if that's what you're inferring.  My name is Katrina Oxley, I've been a member of the club for 37 years.  Member of Redlegs since 1988, member of Demon Army, committee of Ruby Demons, foundation member of the women's team.  I have nothing to hide.  I also have a mind of my own. By the way, I got off my [censored] and turned up on Wednesday night.  Did you?

I’ve seen them both in the same room. Many times. 😁

Most recently, I saw them chatting together at last week’s AFLW match. You know, the match which not nearly enough people attend. Oh, except for our “snobby” President. She deigns to attend our women’s and men’s matches and sits with us plebs. Crazy but true!

Edited October 28, 2022 by WalkingCivilWar

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Absolutely they should

They now just need 10x as many members to support them as they did last week, and as most other similar clubs require (to avoid the problem of frivolous nominations - which we don't have)

And they can be limited to write a 250 word pitch and be prepared to be campaigned against by the Board using club resources

… which sounds like a lot, until you remember that the original number was merely TWO. If anything, upping it to 20 may deter applications from any old Tom, Dique or Harry. Or Joey from Moe. 😉 
 

edit: deliberate misspelling of the abbreviation of the name Richard in order to avoid the censoring of such. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by WalkingCivilWar
Who’d name their kid Dique?? Except maybe Gryan Miers’ ’ parents 😁