Constitutional Review

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,469]

30 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Absolutely they should

They now just need 10x as many members to support them as they did last week, and as most other similar clubs require (to avoid the problem of frivolous nominations - which we don't have)

And they can be limited to write a 250 word pitch and be prepared to be campaigned against by the Board using club resources

If you can't find 20 people to support your nomination amongst 66,000 perhaps you don't have much of a chance of getting elected.  Just saying.

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,469]

52 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Absolutely they should

They now just need 10x as many members to support them as they did last week, and as most other similar clubs require (to avoid the problem of frivolous nominations - which we don't have)

And they can be limited to write a 250 word pitch and be prepared to be campaigned against by the Board using club resources

Have you read the club's election rules?  I'll point the following out to you:

9. (a) Election material and any other written or verbal statement by and on behalf of a Nominee or Candidate during the nomination and election period must not:

i. disparage or other reflect adversely on the standing of the Club or its players, members, directors, officers, staff, Nominees or Candidates

Also: (b) Except as provided for under these Rules, Candidates are not permitted to engage in electioneering

So your claim that existing board members can campaign against a candidate using club resources is incorrect.  All candidates, whether incumbent or not, are limited to the 250 word statement which is distributed to members by the club.

https://resources.melbournefc.com.au/aflc-melb/document/2022/01/11/fdeacacd-8aa7-41f2-8c7b-dbe16b33ef44/MFC-Election-Rules.pdf

[Redleg 37,615]

4 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Cooption is permitted if not enough candidates stand for election and there are vacancies.  If you want to avoid cooption, stand for election.

I did many years ago and was elected. These days I believe they actively discourage people from standing, if not actually stopping them.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Redleg

[The Demon Duck 42]

Ms Roffey's ''throw away line'',  or perhaps a commonly used phrase in her dialogue,  re ''Snowy/Joey from Moe,''  at the SGM, 

treats an entire community with condescension and disdain,  and is disturbing on many levels.

I have lived and taught in and around Moe for 50 years,   raising a large family,   among many other MCC and MFC members,

and I thoroughly resent and reject Ms Roffey's slur,  and lazy stereotyping of a wonderful community.

In doing so,  of course,  she reinforces, in turn , the types of stereotypes we members all reject, of the ''off to the snow,

range rover  driving, arrogant aristocracy. ''

An apology is due,  but I won't hold my breath.

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,469]

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I have many years ago and was elected. These days I believe they actively discourage people from standing, if not actually stopping them.

No one has the right to do that.  It is unfortunate if that's the perception out there.  

Edited October 28, 2022 by Katrina Dee Fan

[Redleg 37,615]

4 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

  I also have a mind of my own. By the way, I got off my [censored] and turned up on Wednesday night.  Did you?

No need to get personal Katrina. You don't know me and I only asked if you were Kate Roffey. It didn't need that reply.

I am not involved with or wedded to Deemocracy  and just because I didn't turn up on wednesday night, doesn't make you a better supporter than me.

You don't know my age, state of health, or other commitments,  or what I have done and given to the MFC, so maybe turn it down a bit. Ok.

There is far too much going the man on this site, rather than discussing issues.

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,469]

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

No need to get personal Katrina. You don't know me and I only asked if you were Kate Roffey. It didn't need that reply.

I am not involved with or wedded to Deemocracy  and just because I didn't turn up on wednesday night, doesn't make you a better supporter than me.

You don't know my age, state of health, or other commitments,  or what I have done and given to the MFC, so maybe turn it down a bit. Ok.

There is far too much going the man on this site, rather than discussing issues.

I felt that that reply to me was indeed personal, and questioned my integrity or right to speak my opinion.  I didn't imply you were part of Deemocracy, and frankly I have been nothing but respectful to people on this forum.  Having said that, if I'm provoked, I'll bite back.  That you would ask that was not respectful to me.  You're right, I don't know who you are.  I am prepared to have my name in my username, which is more than what others do on this forum, yourself included.  

Perhaps when it comes to refraining from personal comments or respect, you should practice what you preach.

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Katrina Dee Fan

[Redleg 37,615]

33 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

 

Perhaps when it comes to refraining from personal comments or respect, you should practice what you preach.

 

I simply posted asking if you were Kate Roffey. I actually thought you might be. I was wrong. Sorry if asking you, was somehow offensive.

How does my post elicit the above reply?

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,469]

35 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I simply posted asking if you were Kate Roffey. I actually thought you might be. I was wrong. Sorry if asking you, was somehow offensive.

How does my post elicit the above reply?

Nice attempt at gaslighting.

[Redleg 37,615]

18 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Nice attempt at gaslighting.

I had to look up what gaslighting meant. Believe it or not, I didn't know the meaning.

 gaslighting

1. manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.

    

   You have accused me of that?

   I find that disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

   Well at least you don't get personal.

   As I said earlier,  too much going the man on here.

   You win.

    

   I am off this thread. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Redleg

[tiers 2,769]

As I stated before on this thread, the discussion is getting out of hand and too personal.

Unless the discussion relates to Mr Lawrence's attempt to contact the members or to the changes to the constitution, then the moderators should shut this down.

[Slartibartfast 15,774]

4 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

And good on Peter Lawrence for standing.  The thing is, if not enough people put themselves up for election to the board, and can fill the vacancies with the number of people who do stand, elections don't get held.  That is no different to any other member driven not for profit organisations, that is the nature of governance, not a slight on democracy.  All this statement really highlights is the level of apathy amongst Melbourne members between 2003 and earlier this year. 

Katrina I'm not sure if you are aware of the efforts that the Board went to in trying to dissuade Peter from standing, not once but twice.  When they were unable to dissuade him they then changed the election rules to prohibit him from communicating with members and limiting him (all those standing) to a 250-word statement.

This is clearly not "fair and open" elections.  It not apathy by members not standing.  It's manipulation by the Board to stop anyone other than the anointed few who are selected by the Board from representing the Club.  It's much closer to autocracy than democracy.

Autocracy is a legitimate form of governance.  I just happen not to like it because it takes away my right as a member from having even the slightest input into the club and more importantly is promotes groupthink which isn't the best form of governance.

As WCW has said you know Kate Roffey and it's understandable that you defend her and the Board but let's recognize this Board for what it is.  It's an autocracy.

 

4 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Strange example you used of the training session roping off supporters at Gosche's Paddock.  Hello, COVID.

Yes, it was COVID times.  The players were roped off for this particular reason as well as to give them a space for their gear and medical attention if required.  Clearly the Board thought they too deserved protection.  Really? Outside, chatting closely with themselves, the staff, the players but not with "Joey from Moe"?  It was a horrible look at minimum and sent a very poor message to those that were there.

BTW, have you ever spoken to Peter?  I've not noticed anyone who has say he was anything but respectful, thoughtful and full of passion.

[demon3165 1,918]

1 hour ago, The Demon Duck said:

Ms Roffey's ''throw away line'',  or perhaps a commonly used phrase in her dialogue,  re ''Snowy/Joey from Moe,''  at the SGM, 

treats an entire community with condescension and disdain,  and is disturbing on many levels.

I have lived and taught in and around Moe for 50 years,   raising a large family,   among many other MCC and MFC members,

and I thoroughly resent and reject Ms Roffey's slur,  and lazy stereotyping of a wonderful community.

In doing so,  of course,  she reinforces, in turn , the types of stereotypes we members all reject, of the ''off to the snow,

range rover  driving, arrogant aristocracy. ''

An apology is due,  but I won't hold my breath.

Jesus grow a hide, how soft is this world coming becoming if that throw away line offends you.

[daisycutter 28,561]

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Katrina I'm not sure if you are aware of the efforts that the Board went to in trying to dissuade Peter from standing, not once but twice.  When they were unable to dissuade him they then changed the election rules to prohibit him from communicating with members and limiting him (all those standing) to a 250-word statement.

This is clearly not "fair and open" elections.  It not apathy by members not standing.  It's manipulation by the Board to stop anyone other than the anointed few who are selected by the Board from representing the Club.  It's much closer to autocracy than democracy.

Autocracy is a legitimate form of governance.  I just happen not to like it because it takes away my right as a member from having even the slightest input into the club and more importantly is promotes groupthink which isn't the best form of governance.

As WCW has said you know Kate Roffey and it's understandable that you defend her and the Board but let's recognize this Board for what it is.  It's an autocracy.

 

Yes, it was COVID times.  The players were roped off for this particular reason as well as to give them a space for their gear and medical attention if required.  Clearly the Board thought they too deserved protection.  Really? Outside, chatting closely with themselves, the staff, the players but not with "Joey from Moe"?  It was a horrible look at minimum and sent a very poor message to those that were there.

BTW, have you ever spoken to Peter?  I've not noticed anyone who has say he was anything but respectful, thoughtful and full of passion.

seeing as you are getting down to the personal details, maybe you could explain what reason the board gave to trying to dissuade peter lawrence from standing.

could it have been that they were already well served in his area of expertise and they were looking for special skills for the board which he did not have?

boards do legitimately like to structure themselves with a certain set of skills to meet the current challenges. a small board with all the same skill sets would not be optimal

[Roger Mellie 3,503]

2 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

If you can't find 20 people to support your nomination amongst 66,000 perhaps you don't have much of a chance of getting elected.  Just saying.

I don't have many issues with the changes to the constitution, but this was one. I agree two nominations is nothing, but I suspect if you're a club endorsed candidate, those twenty nominations will be organised for you by the club.

 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

2 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Have you read the club's election rules?  I'll point the following out to you:

9. (a) Election material and any other written or verbal statement by and on behalf of a Nominee or Candidate during the nomination and election period must not:

i. disparage or other reflect adversely on the standing of the Club or its players, members, directors, officers, staff, Nominees or Candidates

Also: (b) Except as provided for under these Rules, Candidates are not permitted to engage in electioneering

So your claim that existing board members can campaign against a candidate using club resources is incorrect.  All candidates, whether incumbent or not, are limited to the 250 word statement which is distributed to members by the club.

https://resources.melbournefc.com.au/aflc-melb/document/2022/01/11/fdeacacd-8aa7-41f2-8c7b-dbe16b33ef44/MFC-Election-Rules.pdf

Refer the email signed by the Chairman dated 14 Jan 2021

[Slartibartfast 15,774]

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

seeing as you are getting down to the personal details, maybe you could explain what reason the board gave to trying to dissuade peter lawrence from standing.

could it have been that they were already well served in his area of expertise and they were looking for special skills for the board which he did not have?

boards do legitimately like to structure themselves with a certain set of skills to meet the current challenges. a small board with all the same skill sets would not be optimal

I'm not going further Daisy as I don't know.  And I agree that Boards need to be well structured.  I do know that Peter has a strong background in finance and fundraising and our current Board Member in charge of fundraising is based in Perth.  But beyond that I can't comment.

[daisycutter 28,561]

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

I'm not going further Daisy as I don't know.  And I agree that Boards need to be well structured.  I do know that Peter has a strong background in finance and fundraising and our current Board Member in charge of fundraising is based in Perth.  But beyond that I can't comment.

thanks, just trying to understand both sides better

[WalkingCivilWar 31,901]

1 hour ago, The Demon Duck said:

Ms Roffey's ''throw away line'',  or perhaps a commonly used phrase in her dialogue,  re ''Snowy/Joey from Moe,''  at the SGM, 

treats an entire community with condescension and disdain,  and is disturbing on many levels.

I have lived and taught in and around Moe for 50 years,   raising a large family,   among many other MCC and MFC members,

and I thoroughly resent and reject Ms Roffey's slur,  and lazy stereotyping of a wonderful community.

In doing so,  of course,  she reinforces, in turn , the types of stereotypes we members all reject, of the ''off to the snow,

range rover  driving, arrogant aristocracy. ''

An apology is due,  but I won't hold my breath.

Dafuq are you talking about????

If she was condescending (making a “slur”) wouldn’t she pick a better example. Granted, not many names rhyme with St Albans 😁 but my point is, why would she name any part of the country with disdain? The answer: she wouldn’t. And she didn’t.

Wasn’t gonna say this but here we are: if Kate’s Joey from Moe comment is all the detractors have, pretty sad state of affairs for them. That’s not even bottom of the barrel, that there’s splinters from the bottom of the barrel. 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

3 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

… which sounds like a lot, until you remember that the original number was merely TWO. If anything, upping it to 20 may deter applications from any old Tom, Dique or Harry. Or Joey from Moe. 😉 
 

edit: deliberate misspelling of the abbreviation of the name Richard in order to avoid the censoring of such. 

That's the point

When it was 2, there was no deterrence required. If the above poster is correct (no contest since 2003), then why... ?

[WalkingCivilWar 31,901]

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

That's the point

When it was 2, there was no deterrence required. If the above poster is correct (no contest since 2003), then why... ?

I’m not saying the increase from two to 20 is for the purpose of deterring anyone. I’m just noting that there is a benefit in that if someone is genuinely wanting to be nominated, the increase ought not trouble them. If it does, it begs this question: should you even bother running when you find this an inconvenience/too hard? Coz this is just the beginning. Things only get tougher from here on in. IMHO. 

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,469]

48 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I had to look up what gaslighting meant. Believe it or not, I didn't know the meaning.

 gaslighting

1. manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.

    

   You have accused me of that?

   I find that disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

   Well at least you don't get personal.

   As I said earlier,  too much going the man on here.

   You win.

    

   I am off this thread. 

I never was personal.  If you wanted to know why I took exception in your implication you only had to read my earlier explanation.  But I will repeat my explanation for you - in asking me if I was someone I was not, you were in effect questioning my intent on posting my opinions.  I personally have a huge respect for Kate Roffey, I certainly did not take offence at that. I glean, however, based on comments you've made that you don't have a particularly high opinion of the board (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Gaslighting in this context was your attempt to minimise the affect by diversion.  I do not buy for a second your comment that you honestly thought I was Kate Roffey, particularly given the wording of your post which was worded in a derogatory tone.

If you take that as personal, then diddums.  As you stated I don't know you personally.  I am not judging you personally.  Merely making an observation on your behaviour.  

 

[daisycutter 28,561]

can't believe people seriously have a problem with the need for 20 members for nomination

other than to be just frivolous or vexatious

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,469]

35 minutes ago, Roger Mellie said:

I don't have many issues with the changes to the constitution, but this was one. I agree two nominations is nothing, but I suspect if you're a club endorsed candidate, those twenty nominations will be organised for you by the club.

 

Wow, conspiracy theory much!

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,469]

50 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

As WCW has said you know Kate Roffey and it's understandable that you defend her and the Board but let's recognize this Board for what it is.  It's an autocracy.

 

I don't know Kate Roffey personally.  I've met her about 5 times since she's become president. And that was in the capacity of her making herself available by coming down to chat with us in the Demon Army.

Yes I have spoken to Peter, on a couple of different occasions.  At no stage on this forum have I criticised him on a personal level, and in fact multiple time I have acknowledged his passion to the club.  I know he sponsors players. I know he has committed and contributed a massive amount to the club. Do I know him personally? No, not at all, about the same amount as I know Kate Roffey personally.  Which is again, not at all.  You are making assumptions of me based on comments I've made here, which in no way could possibly be deemed to be critical of Peter personally.  I'm merely questioning why he acted in the way he did, which has, lets' face it, put a significant number of members offside. Personally, I don't have concerns about his obtaining contact details.  I do, however, understand other members' concerns.