Constitutional Review

[chookrat 3,776]

Personally I'm annoyed that someone (Peter Lawrence) can apply to the Supreme Court to obtain my personal information.  While I get that Peter is a passionate supporter I don't have any issue with what the club is proposing and have more pressing matters than rewriting our constitution.

[mauriesy 6,787]

I am like a lot of relatively passive members when it comes to the politics of the board.

The last thing I want for Melbourne FC is an "open slather democracy" that runs the risk of degenerating into unnecessary dissension, infighting and ugly coups (much like Essendon at the moment, admittedly due to poor board performance). The second last thing I want is a closed board that runs the risk of degenerating into an arrogant autocracy (much like Eddie McGuire's reign at Collingwood).

That said, and just looking at it from the outside, I think the Deemocracy proposal is sensible and avoids both.

From my experience on the board of a golf club, in regard to member contact it's a requirement of the Corporations Act (and the Incorporated Associations Act) and often the constitution of the club itself, that the member's roll is available for viewing by any member on application. It's hardly ever asked for, and privacy considerations prevent the organisation from divulging addresses for general use. For elections etc. a sensible organisation would offer to send e-mail communication on behalf of the member, provided they can show that their purpose is genuine, constitutional and not vexatious.

Edited October 19, 2022 by mauriesy

[DeeSpencer 23,113]

3 minutes ago, chookrat said:

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.

That also means there’s 20 people to blame if a candidate starts spamming us with mail, emails or otherwise. A handy level of protection for everyone no matter which side of the privacy vs open democracy you fall on. 

You could buy 2 memberships for your dog and cat and endorse yourself.

 

[Demons1858 1,658]

9 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

That also means there’s 20 people to blame if a candidate starts spamming us with mail, emails or otherwise. A handy level of protection for everyone no matter which side of the privacy vs open democracy you fall on. 

You could buy 2 memberships for your dog and cat and endorse yourself.

 

Or 20 $13 Clayton Oliver memberships

[sue 8,418]

57 minutes ago, BDA said:

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

The difference is the ease and low cost to whoever gets the list of email addresses (and whoever they pass it on to) to spam us, including phishing etc. The cost of doing it by snail-mail on paper is relatively prohibitive.

[TRIGON 4,715]

I must say chaps, I am rather looking forward to receiving my telegram.

[Tim 2,790]

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Yes, thank you Peter Jackson, Paul Roos, Simon Goodwin, Jason Taylor (and even you Mark Neeld for bringing JT).
Bartlett and his Steve Bradbury board…? Not so much.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Tim

[Supermercado 2,609]

1 hour ago, Spaghetti said:

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

He can get my details from Optus like everyone else.

[old55 21,271]

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

For elections etc. a sensible organisation would offer to send e-mail communication on behalf of the member, provided they can show that their purpose is genuine, constitutional and not vexatious.

This

[Tim 2,790]

2 hours ago, chookrat said:

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.

Perhaps, but why have they gone from 2 to 20, which goes against the practice of all similar large member-based sporting organisations? Not necessary, and not a good look I reckon.

‘Another example of moat-building by the board.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Tim

[Clintosaurus 6,421]

I'm not sure why so many get wrapped up in Board machinations and functions. I only care about winning and the Board not steering us into Essendon and St Kilda type areas.

[Neil Crompton 4,716]

50 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

I'm not sure why so many get wrapped up in Board machinations and functions. I only care about winning and the Board not steering us into Essendon and St Kilda type areas.

Haha Clint,  if you thought of the board members as “umpires”, I bet you’d think differently 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Neil Crompton

[Lord Nev 13,511]

 

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Very small sample size, but fair to say by the majority of comments that old mate isn't winning himself any fans by trying to obtain personal data...

 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,277]

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

 

Sounds like, if true, Judge has a practical and sensible approach in mind. Suggestion that Club sends email and no information needs to change hands is a great idea

And for those referring to privacy policies, if you read it (AFL generic for all Clubs) it's pretty loose about providing details to "partners" etc

I'm not familiar with requirements of Corp Law, (2001), but maybe someone who is can advise whether the provisions that allowed the club to provide postal details are firm, or whether they can be interpreted in various ways to allow practical contact details to be provided?

Ridiculous that postal addresses can be provided under Law and not emails - either way the misuse of either surely attracts a penalty

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,277]

3 hours ago, mauriesy said:

I am like a lot of relatively passive members when it comes to the politics of the board.

The last thing I want for Melbourne FC is an "open slather democracy" that runs the risk of degenerating into unnecessary dissension, infighting and ugly coups (much like Essendon at the moment, admittedly due to poor board performance). The second last thing I want is a closed board that runs the risk of degenerating into an arrogant autocracy (much like Eddie McGuire's reign at Collingwood).

That said, and just looking at it from the outside, I think the Deemocracy proposal is sensible and avoids both.

From my experience on the board of a golf club, in regard to member contact it's a requirement of the Corporations Act (and the Incorporated Associations Act) and often the constitution of the club itself, that the member's roll is available for viewing by any member on application. It's hardly ever asked for, and privacy considerations prevent the organisation from divulging addresses for general use. For elections etc. a sensible organisation would offer to send e-mail communication on behalf of the member, provided they can show that their purpose is genuine, constitutional and not vexatious.

Agree, very sensible approach 

My questioning of the MFC approach is based on suspicion at the defensive approach

[GM11 688]

If I give my email address to any entity I expect to receive communications from that entity alone.

When as a result of that I receive unsolicited stuff from anyone else (I.e. spam), I bin it unread and block the sender.

I particularly don't want to hear from a disgruntled, failed board candidate shoving his agenda in my face.

[Clintosaurus 6,421]

1 hour ago, Neil Crompton said:

Haha Clint,  if you thought of the board members as “umpires”, I bet you’d think differently 

I'll pay that. Well played.

[roy11 2,924]

25 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

I'm not familiar with requirements of Corp Law, (2001), but maybe someone who is can advise whether the provisions that allowed the club to provide postal details are firm, or whether they can be interpreted in various ways to allow practical contact details to be provided?

Ridiculous that postal addresses can be provided under Law and not emails - either way the misuse of either surely attracts a penalty

Key section as follows;

s169 - Register of members
General requirements

             (1)  The register of members must contain the following information about each member:

                     (a)  the member's name and address;

                     (b)  the date on which the entry of the member's name in the register is made.

s173 is the Right to inspect and get copies (of any such register etc)

https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/ (Here is the Act if anyone is curious)

MFC complied with the Act, but would be curious to hear what else Judge Riordan said on the matter

A few years ago a Senator introduced a Bill to amend S169 to include email addresses, but this was not passed.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,277]

3 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Key section as follows;

s169 - Register of members
General requirements

             (1)  The register of members must contain the following information about each member:

                     (a)  the member's name and address;

                     (b)  the date on which the entry of the member's name in the register is made.

s173 is the Right to inspect and get copies (of any such register etc)

https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/ (Here is the Act if anyone is curious)

MFC complied with the Act, but would be curious to hear what else Judge Riordan said on the matter

A few years ago a Senator introduced a Bill to amend S169 to include email addresses, but this was not passed.

Thanks

Interestingly the MFC Privacy Policy seems to expressly permit the use of contact details for normal business of the club (among many other things... like sharing with sponsors and "partners")

Excerpt ---

The AFL and AFL Clubs collect, hold, use and disclose your personal information for purposes including, without limitation:

.....

to provide you with information about events, products and/or services that may interest you;

to facilitate the internal business operations of the AFL and the AFL Clubs;

to promote and market AFL events, products or services;

to undertake research;

to enable corporate partners and sponsors of the AFL, including AFL Clubs and the AFL’s digital rights partner Telstra, as well as their related bodies corporate, to market and promote their products and services to you;

 

[pitmaster 3,059]

7 hours ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

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.  

It's a curious one. An email address is just that and easily changed. it reveals next to nothing.

A postal address reveals where you live, unless you have a post office box, and is potentially more sensitive than a location in the ether.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,277]

22 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

It's a curious one. An email address is just that and easily changed. it reveals next to nothing.

A postal address reveals where you live, unless you have a post office box, and is potentially more sensitive than a location in the ether.

Yep

An email is more private than address in many or most cases, and Privacy policy appears on face value to allow club to share emails (or they could send info on behalf)

And clearly a benefit of the Board's approach to not share emails is making it hard for the Naysayer to get his message out, perhaps a good tactic, but "protecting privacy" is a stretch... 

[Lord Nev 13,511]

9 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

And clearly a benefit of the Board's approach to not share emails is making it hard for the Naysayer to get his message out, perhaps a good tactic, but "protecting privacy" is a stretch... 

Rubbish.

Catch up on the 21st century and data privacy mate.

[DeelightfulPlay 2,184]

3 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Thanks

Interestingly the MFC Privacy Policy seems to expressly permit the use of contact details for normal business of the club (among many other things... like sharing with sponsors and "partners")

Excerpt ---

The AFL and AFL Clubs collect, hold, use and disclose your personal information for purposes including, without limitation:

.....

to provide you with information about events, products and/or services that may interest you;

to facilitate the internal business operations of the AFL and the AFL Clubs;

to promote and market AFL events, products or services;

to undertake research;

to enable corporate partners and sponsors of the AFL, including AFL Clubs and the AFL’s digital rights partner Telstra, as well as their related bodies corporate, to market and promote their products and services to you;

 

Thanks for the excerpt of the privacy policy!

The club would likely be unwilling to rely on the privacy policy here as a source of implied consent for third party disclosure because the section in question is all about the AFL's or club's corporate partners or sponsors. It would be a stretch to say this extends to a third party who is neither a corporate partner nor sponsor.  Potentially there is more luck regarding facilitating internal business... except it is still going to an external third party.  

Even before the Optus data breach, the Office of the Information Commissioner was very clear express consent is best for disclosure to third parties - and so drawing a long bow from a privacy policy (which is implied consent at best, depending on implementation on a website) is really sticking one's neck out.  

That being said, seems like Judge Riordan is being very practical about this (thankfully) and seems he will likely ask the club to provide the communications on Lawrence's behalf.

Edited October 19, 2022 by DeelightfulPlay
Typo