Constitutional Review

[rjay 24,917]

12 hours ago, daisycutter said:

have you rung or written to the club asking them why there was a roped off area for staff? If the reason doesn't sit well with you then you could submit a complaint

whining on here is probably not going to get you an answer or a resolution

Not staff...board members and other hangers on.

It's fine to have a roped off area for players and FD staff as we don't have any changing rooms at the paddock.

Don't worry, if it happens again I will make my feelings heard on the day.

[drysdale demon 4,830]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

It's fine to have a roped off area for players and FD staff as we don't have any changing rooms at the paddock.

Don't worry, if it happens again I will make my feelings heard on the day.

Face to Face conversations { or confrontations} are the only way to really get your point across.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

Our constitution is now set for a while I'd image but I was interested in these comments reported in The Age today from Gowers.

"Diversity is not just a male and female thing.  Diversity is about differences of opinion, ideas, cultural backgrounds, religious views, which creates a melting pot of contributions which allows you to safely have a broad discussion about a range of topics".

Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice.  I'm still smarting over our (members) lack of choice of directors, lack of information and lack of input into the constitution.  It reflects so badly on our Board.  So much groupthink, lack of fresh ideas from people who have been there too long and who have an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Slartibartfast

[daisycutter 29,613]

29 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Our constitution is now set for a while I'd image but I was interested in these comments reported in The Age today from Gowers.

"Diversity is not just a male and female thing.  Diversity is about differences of opinion, ideas, cultural backgrounds, religious views, which creates a melting pot of contributions which allows you to safely have a broad discussion about a range of topics".

Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice.  I'm still smarting over our (members) lack of choice of directors, lack of information and lack of input into the constitution.  It reflects so badly on our Board.  So much groupthink, lack of fresh ideas from people who have been there too long and who have an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

maybe you'd prefer the vic upper house elections where $55,000 will get you a guaranteed seat (strings attached)?

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

maybe you'd prefer the vic upper house elections where $55,000 will get you a guaranteed seat (strings attached)?

I'd prefer it if State Governments were abolished.

[Roger Mellie 4,012]

Lucky we don't have Donald Trump as MFC president:

 

 

[Tim 3,418]

On 11/17/2022 at 12:44 PM, Slartibartfast said:

Our constitution is now set for a while I'd image but I was interested in these comments reported in The Age today from Gowers.

"Diversity is not just a male and female thing.  Diversity is about differences of opinion, ideas, cultural backgrounds, religious views, which creates a melting pot of contributions which allows you to safely have a broad discussion about a range of topics".

Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice.  I'm still smarting over our (members) lack of choice of directors, lack of information and lack of input into the constitution.  It reflects so badly on our Board.  So much groupthink, lack of fresh ideas from people who have been there too long and who have an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

Indeed. The wares of the competing contenders are out there to be assessed and compared, unlike the situation at MFC - gotta be a good thing!

As an aside it’s good to see some classic work from Jeffrey Gibb Kennett. Full frontal attack on Andy Gowers for being personal in his campaigning, in a textbook example of a typical Kennett ad hominem attack. Nice one, Jeff!

[Demonland 72,147]

Let’s keep political mudslinging out of this. Last warning. You want to take a dig at a political party or politician you will get an automatic 3 month ban on this website. Lifetime ban for your second offense. 

[Hawk the Demon 987]

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

Let’s keep political mudslinging out of this. Last warning. You want to take a dig at a political party or politician you will get an automatic 3 month ban on this website. Lifetime ban for your second offense. 

The current MFC Election Rules (we have had four different versions in the last two years) state that Candidates are not permitted to engage in electioneering. No interview to be transmitted to the general public. No posting to a website or to a social media platform. The rest of the rules are on the Club website - Club > Governance > Elections. Does that lead to a fair and open election?

[Lord Nev 13,512]

On 11/17/2022 at 12:44 PM, Slartibartfast said:

Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice.

Ah yes, Hawthorn, the democratic gold standard hey...

"He told the Herald Sun on Sunday night he was furious the Hawthorn executive and current board had used its official social media and website, as well as the club’s membership database, to communicate their position on the election but deny rivals the same opportunity."

“The fact the nominations closed the day they came out, they have tried to suppress opposition. It is straight out of Putin’s playbook. Suppress opposition and control the media.”

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

On 11/20/2022 at 11:06 AM, Hawk the Demon said:

The current MFC Election Rules (we have had four different versions in the last two years) state that Candidates are not permitted to engage in electioneering. No interview to be transmitted to the general public. No posting to a website or to a social media platform. The rest of the rules are on the Club website - Club > Governance > Elections. Does that lead to a fair and open election?

I mean, if the rules are the same for everyone then that's the very definition of fair isn't it?

The rules also say each candidate is entitled to a 300 word statement and a photo.

[Hawk the Demon 987]

58 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I mean, if the rules are the same for everyone then that's the very definition of fair isn't it?

The rules also say each candidate is entitled to a 300 word statement and a photo.

Speaking of rules and fainess. The MFC's Third set of Election Rules (there were two sets the year before) were issued immediately prior to the one-week Director nomination period opened at the end of November 2021. Candidates apply. Then a Fourth set of Election Rules are issued in January 2022. Nice to have 'absolute discretion' as to how elections are run.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

18 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Speaking of rules and fainess. The MFC's Third set of Election Rules (there were two sets the year before) were issued immediately prior to the one-week Director nomination period opened at the end of November 2021. Candidates apply. Then a Fourth set of Election Rules are issued in January 2022. Nice to have 'absolute discretion' as to how elections are run.

Perhaps they knew ahead of time the character of certain nominees that some of us have since discovered for ourselves... ;)

Say hi to your mate.

[chookrat 4,247]

On 10/30/2022 at 2:18 PM, Tim said:

Roped off area for the directors was a feature of the “come on down, fans” training sessions before COVID. It’s something that I didn’t like, and has stuck in my memory. 

I think you'll find it is still a Covid Safe measure, the Directors shouldn't have to get too close to the unwashed masses.

[Hawk the Demon 987]

12 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Perhaps they knew ahead of time the character of certain nominees that some of us have since discovered for ourselves... ;)

Say hi to your mate.

You didn't want to address the point on the Election Rules. So it seems you are OK with the Board changing Election Rules depending upon what type of 'characters' nominate. Doesn't seem like a fair or open process? I have an idea you might support - why don't we make one more change to the Constitution to say that the Board shall elect the Board each year, and we can do away with these pesky elections.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

49 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

You didn't want to address the point on the Election Rules. So it seems you are OK with the Board changing Election Rules depending upon what type of 'characters' nominate. Doesn't seem like a fair or open process? I have an idea you might support - why don't we make one more change to the Constitution to say that the Board shall elect the Board each year, and we can do away with these pesky elections.

Why don't you sue your way onto the board...

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Why don't you sue your way onto the board...

Lord, I know you're rusted on to the Board and they can do no wrong but the major difference we are seeing in the Hawks and MFC election is the Hawks candidate's ability to communicate with members.  Our candidates can't.

Our Board is a closed shop.  And as we know with Boards you don't know they are doing a poor job until it's too late.  Fresh blood is one way of having some sort of check on a Boards performance.  As members we didn't vote on a Board member from 2003 to 2021.  In that time we had the Gardner Board and the Stynes/McLardy Board.  How do you think they went?

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

19 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Lord, I know you're rusted on to the Board and they can do no wrong but the major difference we are seeing in the Hawks and MFC election is the Hawks candidate's ability to communicate with members.  Our candidates can't.

Genuine question - Can you show me where that's happened? I've not followed super closely, but as already noted there has been some pretty harsh comments made about the Hawthorn process so far:

“I don’t want to tell people how to vote or what to think. That is not my go. But I am particularly concerned where effectively the current board and president have suppressed opposition or any dissent,” he said.

“They are effectively state-controlled media in how they use their own database and messaging. It is a members’ resource. If they want to use that for electioneering they should offer that to all people putting their hat in the ring.

Hawthorn legend Chris Langford weighs into bitter boardroom fight

Also, didn't Peter Lawrence just get access to the entire members database to contact them about his agenda?

I'm not rusted on to the current board at all. As is the same with the rest of us, we can only judge the board by the club's performances (not just on field), and by all accounts every aspect of that is tracking very very well. The home base is the fly in the ointment currently, but I don't put the entirety of that on the current board given the time span.

There's also a bit of trust required at times like this when things are running well that the mix of strengths is cohesive. I had no opinion either way on Lawrence when he originally agitated for the board, but after this fiasco IMO he has shown himself as not the correct temperament at all to be running my football club.

I just don't see why anyone would be agitating for change so fervently at the moment when things are good unless they had a personal connection to someone trying to get onto the board or a personal grievance with someone already currently on there.

[Demon17 5,188]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

Lord, I know you're rusted on to the Board and they can do no wrong but the major difference we are seeing in the Hawks and MFC election is the Hawks candidate's ability to communicate with members.  Our candidates can't.

 

 

Didn't the Age report yesterday that only current Hawks Directors had access to the club database?

Cause for concern from the outsiders seeking election.

In the Dees election I received written material from Peter Lawrence before the Court direction. Confusing for sure . How did he get my mailing address.?

 

[Hawk the Demon 987]

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

eral public by way of teh media, including radio, television, blog or vlogGenuine question - Can you show me where that's happened? I've not followed super closely, but as already noted there has been some pretty harsh comments made about the Hawthorn process so far:

“I don’t want to tell people how to vote or what to think. That is not my go. But I am particularly concerned where effectively the current board and president have suppressed opposition or any dissent,” he said.

“They are effectively state-controlled media in how they use their own database and messaging. It is a members’ resource. If they want to use that for electioneering they should offer that to all people putting their hat in the ring.

Hawthorn legend Chris Langford weighs into bitter boardroom fight

Also, didn't Peter Lawrence just get access to the entire members database to contact them about his agenda?

I'm not rusted on to the current board at all. As is the same with the rest of us, we can only judge the board by the club's performances (not just on field), and by all accounts every aspect of that is tracking very very well. The home base is the fly in the ointment currently, but I don't put the entirety of that on the current board given the time span.

There's also a bit of trust required at times like this when things are running well that the mix of strengths is cohesive. I had no opinion either way on Lawrence when he originally agitated for the board, but after this fiasco IMO he has shown himself as not the correct temperament at all to be running my football club.

I just don't see why anyone would be agitating for change so fervently at the moment when things are good unless they had a personal connection to someone trying to get onto the board or a personal grievance with someone already currently on there.

Happy to keep providing facts to Demonlanders:

Re Director Elections - Election Rule 9C(i)

C. Cannot give an interview that is transmitted to the general public by way of the media, including radio, television, blog or vlog;

D. Cannot post to a website or to a social media platform material that can be viewed by the public;

E. Cannot send hard copy or eelctronic communications to persons in circumstances that does not satisfy Rule 9 (d((ii) - the exception to this final rule is quite long - and is on the Club website.

 

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

2 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Happy to keep providing facts to Demonlanders:

Re Director Elections - Election Rule 9C(i)

C. Cannot give an interview that is transmitted to the general public by way of the media, including radio, television, blog or vlog;

D. Cannot post to a website or to a social media platform material that can be viewed by the public;

E. Cannot send hard copy or eelctronic communications to persons in circumstances that does not satisfy Rule 9 (d((ii) - the exception to this final rule is quite long - and is on the Club website.

Yes, that has been posted before, I was asking about the Hawthorn comparison mate. As I said in my post, it seems like they have the same complaints about their process that you're making about ours, yet you're saying the Hawthorn process is different to ours - can you show some examples of that?

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

9 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Didn't the Age report yesterday that only current Hawks Directors had access to the club database?

Cause for concern from the outsiders seeking election

Both The Age and the Herald Sun have reported on that. It's been raised by (former AFL Commissioner) Chris Langford who has been absolutely scathing of the process.

[Hawk the Demon 987]

23 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Didn't the Age report yesterday that only current Hawks Directors had access to the club database?

Cause for concern from the outsiders seeking election.

In the Dees election I received written material from Peter Lawrence before the Court direction. Confusing for sure . How did he get my mailing address.?

 

Provided it is not to be used for an improper purpose, any member can inspect and request a copy of the Register of Members.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

5 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Provided it is not to be used for an improper purpose, any member can inspect and request a copy of the Register of Members.

Did you read the article I posted above yet?

Here's another quote from it:

He told the Herald Sun on Sunday night he was furious the Hawthorn executive and current board had used its official social media and website, as well as the club’s membership database, to communicate their position on the election but deny rivals the same opportunity.

Hawthorn legend Chris Langford weighs into bitter boardroom fight

 

[rjay 24,917]

39 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Did you read the article I posted above yet?

Here's another quote from it:

He told the Herald Sun on Sunday night he was furious the Hawthorn executive and current board had used its official social media and website, as well as the club’s membership database, to communicate their position on the election but deny rivals the same opportunity.

Hawthorn legend Chris Langford weighs into bitter boardroom fight

 

Sounds familiar...