Constitutional Review

[george_on_the_outer 6,992]

For those that may not have got the email:

[old dee 22,926]

Got mine Monday George. I have not been onto the site to read. What’s your view?

[george_on_the_outer 6,992]

34 minutes ago, old dee said:

Got mine Monday George. I have not been onto the site to read. What’s your view?

We don't know what is being proposed yet.  It all seems a bit rushed considering changes were mooted at least 12 months ago.

And considering it hasn't been updated for 15 years, this is a good time to get it right and bring it into the 21st century.

Edited July 20, 2022 by george_on_the_outer

[Demonstone 19,302]

26th July is Mick Jagger's birthday.  Let's hope we all get some satisfaction on the night.

[The heart beats true 16,235]

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

26th July is Mick Jagger's birthday.  Let's hope we all get some satisfaction on the night.

Lower your expectations. You can’t always get what you want.

[layzie 28,935]

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

26th July is Mick Jagger's birthday.  Let's hope we all get some satisfaction on the night.

Also on a (Ruby) Tuesday!

[george_on_the_outer 6,992]

Once again for those who may not have got the email.....

This is consultation?  It is the only opportunity that the 66,000 members will have to voice their thoughts.

You get less than 48 hours to register ( democracy in action?):

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by george_on_the_outer

[Ugottobekidding 915]

Load of [censored] 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,293]

3 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Once again for those who may not have got the email.....

This is consultation?  It is the only opportunity that the 66,000 members will have to voice their thoughts.

You get less than 48 hours to register ( democracy in action?):

 

 

 

I smell a rat...

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,293]

Righto. What am I missing here... ?

The premise of this review is desire to allow electronic voting to reduce costly postal elections  -  fair enough

But also to increase requirements for Board nominations to have 20 members signatures, rather than 2.

How many times has the election process been overwhelmed with candidates? And given the low cost online voting amendment - why would it matter?

Additionally, the formalisation of the requirement of a nominations committee, is there something I'm missing here? Is the current committee lacking some sort of legitimacy? Will formalisation of requirement for this committee allow for Board to give committee stronger charter??

Seems to me these 2 elements are designed to increase the power of the incumbent Board to choose new board members. The way the Board campaigned against that member (Peter Lawrence??) last election made me feel quite unneasy. Is this an effort to make the Board more of a closed shop than it currently is?

As for the consultation process, the online forum is faux consultation, questions easily managed and controlled and a mute function...

Someone slap me down if I'm wrong, but I get uneasy when I see a solution searching for a problem... ?

[Big Col 1,107]

45 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Righto. What am I missing here... ?

The premise of this review is desire to allow electronic voting to reduce costly postal elections  -  fair enough

But also to increase requirements for Board nominations to have 20 members signatures, rather than 2.

How many times has the election process been overwhelmed with candidates? And given the low cost online voting amendment - why would it matter?

Additionally, the formalisation of the requirement of a nominations committee, is there something I'm missing here? Is the current committee lacking some sort of legitimacy? Will formalisation of requirement for this committee allow for Board to give committee stronger charter??

Seems to me these 2 elements are designed to increase the power of the incumbent Board to choose new board members. The way the Board campaigned against that member (Peter Lawrence??) last election made me feel quite unneasy. Is this an effort to make the Board more of a closed shop than it currently is?

As for the consultation process, the online forum is faux consultation, questions easily managed and controlled and a mute function...

Someone slap me down if I'm wrong, but I get uneasy when I see a solution searching for a problem... ?

I actually suggested this exact thing in the survey.

Board nominees should have unfair impediments to election removed (such as the board endorsing certain candidates on club paid for literature - eg  if Kate Roffey wants to write to members recommending people vote for certain candidates then she's pays for it, not the MFC). It should also more widely advertise their nomination process (eg notice should be given to members and the election process transparent) and not prevent candidates from promoting themselves including on sites such as Demonland.

But the flipside to this is in order to prevent frivolous nominations that cost the club money, we should insist that board nominees actually have some support before they nominate. If a serious board contender can't even muster 20 nominations then how do they expect to be elected? 

 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,293]

2 minutes ago, Big Col said:

I actually suggested this exact thing in the survey.

Board nominees should have unfair impediments to election removed (such as the board endorsing certain candidates on club paid for literature - eg  if Kate Roffey wants to write to members recommending people vote for certain candidates then she's pays for it, not the MFC). It should also more widely advertise their nomination process (eg notice should be given to members and the election process transparent) and not prevent candidates from promoting themselves including on sites such as Demonland.

But the flipside to this is in order to prevent frivolous nominations that cost the club money, we should insist that board nominees actually have some support before they nominate. If a serious board contender can't even muster 20 nominations then how do they expect to be elected? 

 

I tend to agree

But we don't have a frivolous candidate problem now... so why do we need a solution?

And what's the downside even if we did when voting is electronic and low cost? 

[Big Col 1,107]

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

I tend to agree

But we don't have a frivolous candidate problem now... so why do we need a solution?

And what's the downside even if we did when voting is electronic and low cost? 

I think it's about modernising our constitution.
I don't think we need to wait for 'bad' things to happen before we take measures to address potential 'bad' things. The 20 member nomination requirement shouldn't be a problem for genuine nominees when it's also accompanied with other open democratic processes like allowing canvassing of votes (and before that nominations). It's the other 'open democratic' processes that may encourage frivolous nominations.

Having said that, I would be disappointed if the club chooses to enact this nomination proposal without the quid pro quo of opening up the rest of the process. 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,293]

1 minute ago, Big Col said:

I think it's about modernising our constitution.
I don't think we need to wait for 'bad' things to happen before we take measures to address potential 'bad' things. The 20 member nomination requirement shouldn't be a problem for genuine nominees when it's also accompanied with other open democratic processes like allowing canvassing of votes (and before that nominations). It's the other 'open democratic' processes that may encourage frivolous nominations.

Having said that, I would be disappointed if the club chooses to enact this nomination proposal without the quid pro quo of opening up the rest of the process. 

That's my whole point

The 20 vs 2 may be a small (but I think unnecessary) change, but then the nominations committee seems to only close the process more. There's nothing in here about opening the democratic processes, and the incumbent Board has no interest in doing so

Hence my objection to the recommendations, as solutions looking for a problem 

[Big Col 1,107]

Fair call GYM. 

[Rossmillan 481]

Is it likely to be an all or nothing vote on the changes, or would we be able to vote on each of the proposed changes?

The last time we did a constitutional change at our local sports club, each clause was able to be discussed on its merit, but I’m not sure if that applies here ( or would be practical)

75% is a very high bar needed to ratify changes and if they are all lumped together I can’t see any of the changes getting up.

[Demon Disciple 11,020]

Having our own training base, I’d like to know why that isn’t in our constitution.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,293]

Clunky web page to register and ask questions

Have a feeling my questions will have failed to be received...

[george_on_the_outer 6,992]

From the Herald Sun today:

 

 

 

 

 

 Check out the Deemocracy site for more: 

www.deemocracy.com

 

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by george_on_the_outer

[Tim 2,826]

@Demonland, this is same theme as similarly named one.

[Deeoldfart 7,766]

On 7/23/2022 at 10:47 PM, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Clunky web page to register and ask questions

Have a feeling my questions will have failed to be received...

I had one question which only arose on the night.  I lodged it, and it was answered completely and to my satisfaction.

Genuine consultation, and well done Melbourne Football club!

[george_on_the_outer 6,992]

I'm glad you got your question answered @Deeoldfart, but plenty of people didn't get their answered. 

Why?..Because WE decided that many questions were of a similar nature.

Minimal female Representation?  WE decided that it wasn't necessary, and WE would hate to deny a suitably qualified candidate.  What there aren't suitably qualified female candidates in 66,000 members?  How about THE MEMBERS deciding if they want this or not?

WE decided not to separate the clauses.  WE decided it would be all or nothing.  How about THE MEMBERS deciding what they like or don't?  It isn't all that hard to achieve.  ( Tick the box you approve of). After all they manage to fill out a Senate ticket with dozens of candidates.

You can put in further questions.....( except the Board is meeting this week to approve OUR proposals, 21 days later there is a vote). So in essence no further input will be possible. 

[Wrecker46 2,672]

37 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I'm glad you got your question answered @Deeoldfart, but plenty of people didn't get their answered. 

Why?..Because WE decided that many questions were of a similar nature.

Minimal female Representation?  WE decided that it wasn't necessary, and WE would hate to deny a suitably qualified candidate.  What there aren't suitably qualified female candidates in 66,000 members?  How about THE MEMBERS deciding if they want this or not?

WE decided not to separate the clauses.  WE decided it would be all or nothing.  How about THE MEMBERS deciding what they like or don't?  It isn't all that hard to achieve.  ( Tick the box you approve of). After all they manage to fill out a Senate ticket with dozens of candidates.

You can put in further questions.....( except the Board is meeting this week to approve OUR proposals, 21 days later there is a vote). So in essence no further input will be possible. 

We have Daisy and Kate Roffey in prominent positions. I will be very surprised if any other club has half that talent.

 

[Dingo 797]

If l wished to run for a director’s position l would be unable to find 20 members to support my nomination.And l have been a supporter for 6 decades.l know only 3 members.So having to get 20 signatures is a real impediment to run for the board - another blight on democracy.

[Deeoldfart 7,766]

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I'm glad you got your question answered @Deeoldfart, but plenty of people didn't get their answered. 

Why?..Because WE decided that many questions were of a similar nature.

Minimal female Representation?  WE decided that it wasn't necessary, and WE would hate to deny a suitably qualified candidate.  What there aren't suitably qualified female candidates in 66,000 members?  How about THE MEMBERS deciding if they want this or not?

WE decided not to separate the clauses.  WE decided it would be all or nothing.  How about THE MEMBERS deciding what they like or don't?  It isn't all that hard to achieve.  ( Tick the box you approve of). After all they manage to fill out a Senate ticket with dozens of candidates.

You can put in further questions.....( except the Board is meeting this week to approve OUR proposals, 21 days later there is a vote). So in essence no further input will be possible. 

I won’ be getting into a slanging match over this @george_on_the_outer, but the “WE” you emphasised above, were members of the Constitutional Review Working Group (CRWG) and not the MFC Board.  What else do you expect them to call themselves (?), or are you questioning the independence of the review (?)

If participants in last night’s meeting didn’t like or understand the responses from the CRWG, or had further questions, there was opportunity at the end of the meeting to seek clarification, ask additional questions, or express concerns.  Very few took up that option, unless you are suggesting that the Working Group were ‘selective’ and only addressed the issues that were palatable them.  I sincerely hope that wasn’t the case.

The CRWG spent months consulting with members in arriving at the recommendations, but I take your point about “tick the box you approve of” would have been a different, and possibly even better way of garnering a wider cross section of members’ views.  I imagine ‘cost’ might have been a consideration here, and perhaps also concerns about potential ‘donkey’ votes.

In any event, I hope that a large % of Members who had a genuine interest in the topic, would have joined the meeting last night. 

Yes, I’m gullible and maybe a little too easily satisfied, but I don’t believe that the outcome of the meeting was a fait accompli.