Constitutional Review

[pitmaster 3,052]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

The Age is reporting that Peter Lawrence is taking the club to court to get members’ details. 
 

@george_on_the_outer - do you want to address that? I am not sure I support the cost and distraction this will cause. 

OTOH the cost could be avoided if he was provided with the details in order to put his case...

Edited October 18, 2022 by pitmaster

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,267]

I dislike the proposal to increase the requirement for 20 members to support a nomination (rather than 2)

We don't currently have a frequent issue with frivolous nominations for committee causing contested elections, and that being costly, which is the justification. And with e-voting (a proposed amendment) the cost of any contested election is significantly reduced.

Additionally, formalising a nominations subcommittee and leaving the charter for the board to determine seems another barrier.

So no real problem, and reduced costs, and ability of incumbent board to favour preferred candidates through nominations subcommittee if there is a contested election - makes me concerned this is about board representation being controlled by board not the membership

The rest of the amendments are fine, but cloud the nominations issues IMO

[DeelightfulPlay 2,166]

9 hours ago, pitmaster said:

OTOH the cost could be avoided if he was provided with the details in order to put his case...

Except it would likely be a breach of privacy laws by the Club to do so...

[DeelightfulPlay 2,166]

Here's the article in The Age (no paywall) for ease of reference: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/demons-taken-to-supreme-court-over-club-constitution-changes-20221018-p5bqv9.html

[Cyclops 434]

45 minutes ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

Except it would likely be a breach of privacy laws by the Club to do so...

I would think that Lawrence would have done his homework on the issue of privacy.

I also think that we would be facing another postal election this year if not for the urging of supporter groups and Lawrence.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

1 minute ago, Cyclops said:

I would think that Lawrence would have done his homework on the issue of privacy.

I also think that we would be facing another postal election this year if not for the urging of supporter groups and Lawrence.

We would also not be facing another ego-driven court case disrupting the club if not for Lawrence.

Feels like his passion and want for reasonable change was on point early on but it's now becoming all about him and is damaging the club.

[DeelightfulPlay 2,166]

18 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

I would think that Lawrence would have done his homework on the issue of privacy.

I also think that we would be facing another postal election this year if not for the urging of supporter groups and Lawrence.

I can't speak to whether the club has been deliberately an obstacle regarding postal elections... but the Corporations Act was literally amended only in Feb this year to facilitate digital forms of notice for meetings and voting.  Prior to that there were only temporary COVID measures and it was necessary to have a permissive constitution (which the club did not). So the situation is not so cut and dried as suggested.

Also generally speaking the club needs consent (express or implied) to disclose personal information; that legal principle doesn't change regardless of what homework has been done.

I've not followed this issue too closely so I can't speak to the attitudes adopted by the club or Deemocracy, but I think it provides some clarity to acknowledge the above facts.

Edited October 18, 2022 by DeelightfulPlay
Semi colon

[Dingo 749]

11 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

The Age is reporting that Peter Lawrence is taking the club to court to get members’ details. 
 

@george_on_the_outer - do you want to address that? I am not sure I support the cost and distraction this will cause. 

It would be good to know the name of the legal firm the Board is using to get it’s advice on amending the constitution.AND how much they have been paid.Presumably it’s $$$ from members fees.

[Demon17 4,531]

I do not want my email/contact details made available to just anyone and I do not give permission for the club to release them to third parties.

I expect the club to defend this issue.

A local govt councillor friend of mine says its against the State's electoral Act , for example, to use business mailing lists to cold-canvas voters in Council elections.

Why is this any different?

Go Dees for 2023. 

[BDA 19,978]

the board should have sorted this by now. I know there are legalities involved but this is the 21st century. Modernising the constitution shouldn't be this difficult.

that said, incurring time and cost in the supreme court makes no sense to me. Looks like an ego trip on behalf of Peter Lawrence

Edited October 18, 2022 by BDA

[Slartibartfast 15,724]

The Board didn’t want us to hear from alternative Board candidates and limited them to 300 words. Now they don’t want us to hear suggestions to improve the constitution. 
 

What’s so dangerous about letting the members have access to this information?  Muzzling Board candidates, denying members access to ideas for a better constitution, making it harder for people to stand for election, endorsing longer terms for Board members and the failure to even inform us as to what’s happening on the training facility is a pretty damning scorecard. 
 

Looks like this Board wants tenure and is very scared of scrutiny.   I was a Roffey supporter but these are more the acts of an autocrat, not a member elected Board. 

[george_on_the_outer 6,944]

1 hour ago, BDA said:

the board should have sorted this by now. I know there are legalities involved but this is the 21st century. Modernising the constitution shouldn't be this difficult.

that said, incurring time and cost in the supreme court makes no sense to me. Looks like an ego trip on behalf of Peter Lawrence

I can assure you this is not about ego on behalf of Peter.  He is simply trying to get the MFC a constitution which is in line with 21st century principles.  And about giving the Members the option to vote for it or not.  It is 15 years since the last changes...are we going to wait for another 15 before we modernise?

At the moment the Board is only presenting their truncated version, and refusing to offer options to the members ( too confusing for them).  Not what the members might want or asked about, while leaving all sorts of antiquated clauses which suit them. 

To give an example:  The Board currently is allowed to set the rules for election procedures.  This will not be changed under their proposals.  So  we presently see:

1. Director nomination period advertised in the classified section of the HS and is only open for a limited time e.g. 1 week. When it is placed is at Board discretion.

2. Candidates have to be vetted by a Board nominated "independant" committee

3. Candidates can only submit a 300 word case for their election

4. No "electioneering" allowed, including mailouts, advertising etc.

Does this seem fair and democratic?  Perhaps voters in Hong Kong would see certain similarities.

 

So the Board is adopting the same tactics as were adopted against the Demon Alternative in the merger scenario. 

To quote from "Between the Flags" by Ian Munro:

"To argue the case for access to the full list of members, he ( Jenkins) began Supreme Court action.  Only then did the Board agree" 

That is why Peter has been forced to pursue this action to obtain the email addresses which the Club hold, and should be provided under Corporations Law and subsequent case law.

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by george_on_the_outer

[DeeSpencer 23,058]

20 members is fair enough. If you can’t get 20 of 50k+ you aren’t fair dinkum.

I don’t like how closed the board is but there’s no need for our emails or addresses. The internet exists. Pay some money for a social campaign and post on here, Facebook and anywhere else if you want to reach people. Online voting, online campaign. 

9 year fixed term limits for the President is crazy. It takes the best part of 2 terms (6 years) for a board member to really get up to speed. Why would you limit them to 3 years in the job? You’d have a new or inexperienced president every 3 years and that’s a disaster waiting to happen.

15 years for the president is spot on. 6 years learning the ropes and 9 years in charge if they’re up for it. 

[Lord Nev 13,511]

4 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Does this seem fair and democratic?  Perhaps voters in Hong Kong would see certain similarities.

[BDA 19,978]

48 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I can assure you this is not about ego on behalf of Peter.  He is simply trying to get the MFC a constitution which is in line with 21st century principles.  And about giving the Members the option to vote for it or not.  It is 15 years since the last changes...are we going to wait for another 15 before we modernise?

At the moment the Board is only presenting their truncated version, and refusing to offer options to the members ( too confusing for them).  Not what the members might want or asked about, while leaving all sorts of antiquated clauses which suit them. 

To give an example:  The Board currently is allowed to set the rules for election procedures.  This will not be changed under their proposals.  So  we presently see:

1. Director nomination period advertised in the classified section of the HS and is only open for a limited time e.g. 1 week. When it is placed is at Board discretion.

2. Candidates have to be vetted by a Board nominated "independant" committee

3. Candidates can only submit a 300 word case for their election

4. No "electioneering" allowed, including mailouts, advertising etc.

Does this seem fair and democratic?  Perhaps voters in Hong Kong would see certain similarities.

 

So the Board is adopting the same tactics as were adopted against the Demon Alternative in the merger scenario. 

To quote from "Between the Flags" by Ian Munro:

"To argue the case for access to the full list of members, he ( Jenkins) began Supreme Court action.  Only then did the Board agree" 

That is why Peter has been forced to pursue this action to obtain the email addresses which the Club hold, and should be provided under Corporations Law and subsequent case law.

 

If you know the guy then fair enough George

Irrespective of his intentions he appears to be as green as grass when it comes to the politics around board nominations. His campaign was doomed to failure when he didn’t have the support of the current board.

And in terms of making a case to members he far better off to use the money he will spend on the legal case to hire a couple of social media savvy youngsters to help him press his case on social media platforms, wherever MFC members are active. Very few people will open emails from a random anyways so hoping to get the word out that way is low return

I don’t know why the board are being difficult in this circumstance and I’m not that fussed. I’m far more interested to know whats going on with our home base. I would rather they prioritise that tbh

[Slartibartfast 15,724]

31 minutes ago, BDA said:

I don’t know why the board are being difficult in this circumstance and I’m not that fussed. I’m far more interested to know whats going on with our home base. I would rather they prioritise that tbh

Personally I don't really care about the constitution but this Board has now got form on being autocratic and non-inclusive.

If it was just the constitution, like you, I wouldn't really care but their whole behavior is to protect their position and exclude any sort of input from interested parties.  Frankly they are protecting themselves from scrutiny and from review.  They protect their positions through a deeply flawed election process, and they only want their mates to join them.

They are living off the work done by Peter Jackson, and I've not seen anything they've done that gives me any confidence they are improving us.

I think you should be worried about this behaviour BDA (and I'm not having a go as you) because a fish rots from the head and their attitudes will seep down into the rest of the Club and we will not be as good as we could possibly be. To use Goody's words "we will not be the best versions of ourselves".  We've all seen often enough what happens when you have bad Boards with ourselves and with others.  Just look at Essendon and Saints.

The one thing I think the constitution should do is allow those that want to stand for the Board to communicate with members.  Ours doesn't, the Board won't allow it.  It's wrong.  They're behaving like a group of entitled elites.  They're not.

 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,267]

So club email advises:

In response to the proposed amendments to the constitution, the Club received a written request from the relevant member to access the Club's members register. The Club is required under the Corporations Act to provide your name and postal address to the member.

An application has now been made to the Supreme Court of Victoria, by the same member, seeking access to additional member information, including email addresses.

The Club is committed to protecting your privacy and is contesting this application. We have engaged legal counsel to appear in court today on behalf of the Club and will do everything we can legally to limit access to the personal information.

 

So Corporations Act require postal address (in many cases no doubt a residential address) but club committed to protecting privacy by not sharing email addresses 🤷‍♂️

Clearly an attempt to prevent timely communications to member base....

[Demons1858 1,657]

I would prefer an email than something in the post to be honest ...

Edited October 19, 2022 by Demons1858

[Spaghetti 264]

2 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

So club email advises:

In response to the proposed amendments to the constitution, the Club received a written request from the relevant member to access the Club's members register. The Club is required under the Corporations Act to provide your name and postal address to the member.

An application has now been made to the Supreme Court of Victoria, by the same member, seeking access to additional member information, including email addresses.

The Club is committed to protecting your privacy and is contesting this application. We have engaged legal counsel to appear in court today on behalf of the Club and will do everything we can legally to limit access to the personal information.

 

So Corporations Act require postal address (in many cases no doubt a residential address) but club committed to protecting privacy by not sharing email addresses 🤷‍♂️

Clearly an attempt to prevent timely communications to member base....

I stand 100% with the Board on this issue. I’d be furious if they gave out my email address without asking me. Especially if not required to by law. 

Lots of people here seem so willing to give up their personal information… it’s bizarre.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

35 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

They are living off the work done by Peter Jackson, and I've not seen anything they've done that gives me any confidence they are improving us.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

5 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

So Corporations Act require postal address (in many cases no doubt a residential address) but club committed to protecting privacy by not sharing email addresses 🤷‍♂️

Clearly an attempt to prevent timely communications to member base....

Yes, why would a corporate entity be wary of privacy matters in the current climate...

🧐

[Demons1858 1,657]

6 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

So club email advises:

In response to the proposed amendments to the constitution, the Club received a written request from the relevant member to access the Club's members register. The Club is required under the Corporations Act to provide your name and postal address to the member.

An application has now been made to the Supreme Court of Victoria, by the same member, seeking access to additional member information, including email addresses.

The Club is committed to protecting your privacy and is contesting this application. We have engaged legal counsel to appear in court today on behalf of the Club and will do everything we can legally to limit access to the personal information.

 

So Corporations Act require postal address (in many cases no doubt a residential address) but club committed to protecting privacy by not sharing email addresses 🤷‍♂️

Clearly an attempt to prevent timely communications to member base....

Significant difference in costs for email vs post especially if you plan more than 1 communication which I suspect is true

[BDA 19,978]

Nowadays what's the difference between postal address and email address. they both serve the same purpose. 

[chookrat 3,774]

14 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

I dislike the proposal to increase the requirement for 20 members to support a nomination (rather than 2)

We don't currently have a frequent issue with frivolous nominations for committee causing contested elections, and that being costly, which is the justification. And with e-voting (a proposed amendment) the cost of any contested election is significantly reduced.

Additionally, formalising a nominations subcommittee and leaving the charter for the board to determine seems another barrier.

So no real problem, and reduced costs, and ability of incumbent board to favour preferred candidates through nominations subcommittee if there is a contested election - makes me concerned this is about board representation being controlled by board not the membership

The rest of the amendments are fine, but cloud the nominations issues IMO

At a practical level if someone is serious about nominating for a board position then it shouldn't be difficult for them to muster up the support of 20 members.

[DeelightfulPlay 2,166]

11 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

So club email advises:

In response to the proposed amendments to the constitution, the Club received a written request from the relevant member to access the Club's members register. The Club is required under the Corporations Act to provide your name and postal address to the member.

An application has now been made to the Supreme Court of Victoria, by the same member, seeking access to additional member information, including email addresses.

The Club is committed to protecting your privacy and is contesting this application. We have engaged legal counsel to appear in court today on behalf of the Club and will do everything we can legally to limit access to the personal information.

 

So Corporations Act require postal address (in many cases no doubt a residential address) but club committed to protecting privacy by not sharing email addresses 🤷‍♂️

Clearly an attempt to prevent timely communications to member base....

Mate, the club would literally be breaching the Privacy Act if they provided the email addresses without consent.  There are very few circumstances where disclosing personal information to a third party is permitted.

If members had previously consented to providing such info, such as by accepting a privacy policy which detailed such a disclosure, then it would likely be fine.