Constitutional Review

[BDA 20,048]

I voted in favour of the changes proposed by the board. Electronic voting is a no brainer, receiving 20 nominations from fellow members should be an easy hurdle for serious candidates and I'm in favour of the term limits proposed. The board needs to be refreshed and renewed. After 6 six years (3x3) you've contributed whatever ideas, you have so time to step aside and bring in a new face.

Kate Roffey is doing a good job in my opinion and the board generally. Leave them at it for now. The lack of progress on the home is the big disappointment for me. The board can't dodge accountability on that front for much longer

[rjay 23,903]

9 minutes ago, BDA said:

I voted in favour of the changes proposed by the board. Electronic voting is a no brainer, receiving 20 nominations from fellow members should be an easy hurdle for serious candidates and I'm in favour of the term limits proposed. The board needs to be refreshed and renewed. After 6 six years (3x3) you've contributed whatever ideas, you have so time to step aside and bring in a new face.

Kate Roffey is doing a good job in my opinion and the board generally. Leave them at it for now. The lack of progress on the home is the big disappointment for me. The board can't dodge accountability on that front for much longer

Well, you've just voted for them to dodge accountability. They can dodge it for as long as their term now lasts and good luck in getting up a rival candidate.

[Bigfoot 235]

This has caused an unnecessary cost to club that could have been used to actually improve the club and the team. I blame one individual for this. As a result I, my wife and two of my adult children have given their proxy to Kate.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

17 minutes ago, Bigfoot said:

This has caused an unnecessary cost to club that could have been used to actually improve the club and the team. I blame one individual for this. As a result I, my wife and two of my adult children have given their proxy to Kate.

I just received an email from Deemocracy. Read it, deleted it, entirely painless exercise that the club could have facilitated weeks ago, and managed around the circus it has become, unnecessary I agree

It's great you feel better blaming one individual, and I feel your conclusions are somewhat valid  -  but it's concerning to me our Board couldn't manage a smoother outcome, if they think they have such a good solution for updating the Constitution then why not back themselves, back their consultation process, and allow members to hear the contrary view weeks ago?

[Lord Nev 13,511]

3 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

I just received an email from Deemocracy. Read it, deleted it, entirely painless exercise that the club could have facilitated weeks ago, and managed around the circus it has become, unnecessary I agree

It's great you feel better blaming one individual, and I feel your conclusions are somewhat valid  -  but it's concerning to me our Board couldn't manage a smoother outcome, if they think they have such a good solution for updating the Constitution then why not back themselves, back their consultation process, and allow members to hear the contrary view weeks ago?

Why should it be up to the board to facilitate the contrary views of one member? What guarantee is there that this doesn't become a regular thing whenever a member disagrees with the board? This is a horrible precedent, even more so at a time where we really need stability. I was ambivalent to Lawrence before this but now I think he's a troublemaker and doesn't truly have the best interests of the club at heart.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

43 minutes ago, BDA said:

I voted in favour of the changes proposed by the board. Electronic voting is a no brainer, receiving 20 nominations from fellow members should be an easy hurdle for serious candidates and I'm in favour of the term limits proposed. The board needs to be refreshed and renewed. After 6 six years (3x3) you've contributed whatever ideas, you have so time to step aside and bring in a new face.

Kate Roffey is doing a good job in my opinion and the board generally. Leave them at it for now. The lack of progress on the home is the big disappointment for me. The board can't dodge accountability on that front for much longer

Interest take here

I generally agree with you, and most of the proposals make sense and are fairly minor

But I dont understand your conclusion here:  "The board can't dodge accountability on that front for much longer"

The Nominations proposals make it harder for members to nominate and strengthen the ability of Board to support their preferred candidates 

[BDA 20,048]

38 minutes ago, rjay said:

Well, you've just voted for them to dodge accountability. They can dodge it for as long as their term now lasts and good luck in getting up a rival candidate.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood or don’t have the full picture. Please correct me if I’m misinformed but if members are sufficiently exercised we can group together and get enough support to force the board to call a general meeting and propose to spill the board if we want to. 5% of members is required per the Corps Act I think

A director can call a meeting and propose a resolution to remove the board but would still need member support to pass the resolution anyways so not much different to the above

Members have plenty of power to force change as long as enough of us have enough commitment to a cause (having said that I doubt enough members care enough about the home base to organise and agitate if needed). Having someone like Peter Lawrence as director won’t change much. Either work with the current board or organise and spill the lot of them.

I haven’t gone through the docs in detail or fully understand the processes and avenues but I don’t think these changes stop members from forcing change if needed. I could be wrong though so happy to hear an alternative view.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Why should it be up to the board to facilitate the contrary views of one member? What guarantee is there that this doesn't become a regular thing whenever a member disagrees with the board? This is a horrible precedent, even more so at a time where we really need stability. I was ambivalent to Lawrence before this but now I think he's a troublemaker and doesn't truly have the best interests of the club at heart.

It's not, and they chose not to, but they could have and avoided the unnecessary messy situation  -  a choice they made

As for precedent, this is a vote to amend the Club's Constitution, with some amendments quite material  -  this doesn't happen regularly at all (hence the premise of these changes being the Constitution is outdated...) I think we can live with it

The email took literally a minute or two of my time - hardly an impost

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

It's not, and they chose not to, but they could have and avoided the unnecessary messy situation  -  a choice they made

This makes absolutely no sense. The club was right to not send Lawrence's material for them, but it's also the club's fault for not sending Lawrence's material for him? Huh? Lawrence created this situation.

  

Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

As for precedent, this is a vote to amend the Club's Constitution, with some amendments quite material  -  this doesn't happen regularly at all (hence the premise of these changes being the Constitution is outdated...) I think we can live with it

Not sure you understand what precedent means if you're justifying this by saying it hasn't happened much before.

  

Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

The email took literally a minute or two of my time - hardly an impost

Sure, but the email itself is not the biggest issue. The cost, the disruption, the instability, the data... not to mention our details are now with someone who appears pretty clueless about technology.

[rjay 23,903]

11 hours ago, rjay said:

Can't remember but were you a Schwab supporter in your previous Demonland incarnation?

'@Lord Nev'?

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Just now, rjay said:

'@Lord Nev'?

Not interested in engaging in this type of thinly veiled attack. If you want to actually discuss let me know.

[BDA 20,048]

13 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Interest take here

I generally agree with you, and most of the proposals make sense and are fairly minor

But I dont understand your conclusion here:  "The board can't dodge accountability on that front for much longer"

The Nominations proposals make it harder for members to nominate and strengthen the ability of Board to support their preferred candidates 

In my experience the board forms 1 team. Each director has to be a team player and on the same wavelength as each other. New appointments have to fit the profile. You can’t have 1 person with a different agenda. It just doesn’t work, creates instability and distracts from the boards work. We’ve seen how much trouble one rogue director can cause with the Glen Bartlett shenanigans recently

In terms of the home base issue (I had this issue in mind when commenting), the whole board are on the hook therefore if they don’t deliver then they all need to go. If enough members care enough about it we can organise and get rid of them. The current changes don’t change that avenue for us (i don't think so anyways)

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

The club was right to not send Lawrence's material for them, but it's also the club's fault for not sending Lawrence's material for him? Huh? Lawrence created this situation.

No, not what I said

They are perfectly entitled not to send, but also, they were also entitled to send on behalf - they made a choice

I disagree with their choice, they could have facilitated, made clear they didn't support, and avoided the costly mess

It is clear in Law that the member had the rights to get access to the roll and became obvious he would pursue that avenue, the Club could have at that piint made more sensible decision IMO

[Lord Nev 13,511]

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

No, not what I said

They are perfectly entitled not to send, but also, they were also entitled to send on behalf - they made a choice

I disagree with their choice, they could have facilitated, made clear they didn't support, and avoided the costly mess

It is clear in Law that the member had the rights to get access to the roll and became obvious he would pursue that avenue, the Club could have at that piint made more sensible decision IMO

No. This is 100% on Lawrence. In the current climate especially, the club did the right thing trying to protect our data.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

Just now, Lord Nev said:

No. This is 100% on Lawrence. In the current climate especially, the club did the right thing trying to protect our data.

The could have sent on behalf and avoided the data transfer entirely... A way better outcome on every dimension than what has occurred 

[Lord Nev 13,511]

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

The could have sent on behalf and avoided the data transfer entirely... A way better outcome on every dimension than what has occurred 

We're going around in circles - we've already agreed the club shouldn't have to facilitate the communication of an individual members views.

[GM11 689]

10 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Interest take here

I generally agree with you, and most of the proposals make sense and are fairly minor

But I dont understand your conclusion here:  "The board can't dodge accountability on that front for much longer"

The Nominations proposals make it harder for members to nominate and strengthen the ability of Board to support their preferred candidates 

Makes total sense to me.

I could get 2 family members to nominate me.

I could get someone to write up a beautiful blurb about me as a board candidate. (All BS by the way.)

Fact is I have nothing to offer as a board member. 

I don't want it to be easy process.

This is a football club board. It needs a range of experience, abilities and contacts.

I think the board should be able to vet candidates based on the needs of the organisation rather than the ego driven desires of obvious disrupters who offer nothing apart from long time membership. 

[rjay 23,903]

14 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Not interested in engaging in this type of thinly veiled attack. If you want to actually discuss let me know.

Not an attack....but if the lessons of history aren't learned there is always the danger of repeating them.

Maybe cause for thought.

I don't remember where you sat at this time of the clubs history but no matter what, I think it is worth considering how things can go pear shaped pretty quickly when you accept the status quo.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

We're going around in circles - we've already agreed the club shouldn't have to facilitate the communication of an individual members views.

You're going around in circles because your missing the point... I'm continuing straight ahead

They're not compelled to, but they should have, to avoid the mess at the point when it was clear a member was going to pursue their legal rights  -  they could have shown Leadership and Foresight and taken the higher ground and bakced their case for change to prevail... Good qualities for a Board wouldn’t you say??

Instead they chose a path that resulted in a public spat, a lost court case, and in member roll data and emails, being transferred  -  all could've been avoided

Edited October 22, 2022 by Graeme Yeats' Mullet

[rpfc 27,451]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

Well, you've just voted for them to dodge accountability. They can dodge it for as long as their term now lasts and good luck in getting up a rival candidate.

Hang on, this blokes bringing ‘accountability’? Could have fooled me. He has little substantive difference to what the current board are putting up for the alteration of the constitution. He also can’t help himself from muckraking in that stilted ‘conversation with a Dees supporter’.

The club says it had a consultative process and other than telling that story and being less guarded (although when former Presidents are suing you I can understand) it’s fine.

I like the preamble, I don’t like overwrought rules in constitutions or strategies. 

This bloke has failed once more most likely. 

Let’s move on.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

3 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

You're going around in circles because your missing the point... I'm continuing straight ahead

They're not compelled to, but they should have, to avoid the mess at the point when it was clear a member was going to pursue their legal rights  -  they could have shown Leadership and Foresight and taken the higher ground and bakced their case for change to prevail... Good qualities for a Board wouldn’t you say??

Instead they chose a path that resulted in a public spat, a lost court case, and in member roll data and emails, being transferred  -  all could've been avoided

No, Lawrence chose that route. The club did not.

He's absolutely destroyed his chances of getting what he wants now. The reaction on socials has been brutal.

I don't want someone like that anywhere near our board.

[Nasher 33,047]

2 hours ago, ucanchoose said:

Which I quickly did. And emailed my displeasure at their email, which was just whiney nonsense 

It contained very similar content to the one from the club in regards to the court case, ie “we tried really hard to avoid this but waaaah unreasonable other party”. The only difference is one came from a @melbournefc email address and the other didn’t, and that is colouring your perception.

[Supermercado 2,611]

3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Secondly this could all have been avoided by the club just sending out the emails on Deemocracy's behalf.  No court case, no privacy issues, no angst and they would have acted responsibly and in the best interest of members.  Instead, they've cost us tens of thousands of dollars because they didn't want a member telling other members what an alternate constitution would look like.

I've also got some thoughts on the constitution, I'll just start a group with Dee in the name and they can send out emails for me too.

[Binmans PA 26,051]

6 hours ago, BDA said:

I voted in favour of the changes proposed by the board. Electronic voting is a no brainer, receiving 20 nominations from fellow members should be an easy hurdle for serious candidates and I'm in favour of the term limits proposed. The board needs to be refreshed and renewed. After 6 six years (3x3) you've contributed whatever ideas, you have so time to step aside and bring in a new face.

Kate Roffey is doing a good job in my opinion and the board generally. Leave them at it for now. The lack of progress on the home is the big disappointment for me. The board can't dodge accountability on that front for much longer

Were the shorter terms not put forward by Deemocracy in the first place? The idea that it might take a new board member a few terms to get things running is a pathetic excuse and wouldn't wash in the public or private sector.

5 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

I was ambivalent to Lawrence before this but now I think he's a troublemaker and doesn't truly have the best interests of the club at heart.

You keep saying this. It's painfully obvious you have an agenda here though. 

I don't like that it's gone to court, but what's the solution? From Deemocracy's position, do nothing and waste an opportunity to update the constitution?

I couldn't give a stuff about the constitution tbh, although I would like our club to be exploring best practice solutions, which they're clearly not. But I also don't like being told who to vote for in board elections, and this board has done that twice now. It reeks.

I want board stability, but I also dread the maintenance of status quo for status quos sake. Stability doesn't necessarily mean keeping the same people on the board. We surely want the best people for the composition of the board. Keeping a closed shop with an unwillingness to let democratic process play out (vis a vis board elections) doesn't sit right with me.

Edited October 22, 2022 by A F

[dxwal 32]

I’ve got a business idea and MFC members are the ideal client base. Can I have access to the member email list to shill my [censored]?