Constitutional Review

[BDA 20,045]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I don't think there has been a run of candidates has there? either genuine or time wasters.

Reminds me a bit of 'The West Wing' in the first season where legislating against flag burning became a big issue.

Bartlett said something along the lines of 'Have I missed something here or has there been a spate of flag burning recently'...

In the constitutional changes put forward the only thing that made any sense to me was being able to vote electronically, thus saving a lot of time, energy and money.

My wife was a big west wing fan. I quite enjoyed it as well. Very idealistic though. Big contrast to shows such as The Wire which was dark and very cynical about politics

Maybe there is a nefarious motive, I don’t know, but either way I still think a threshold of 20 is a pretty low bar to meet for any candidate

[rjay 23,898]

3 minutes ago, BDA said:

Very idealistic though.

Very, we could only dream that things worked this way.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I don't think there has been a run of candidates has there? either genuine or time wasters.

Reminds me a bit of 'The West Wing' in the first season where legislating against flag burning became a big issue.

Bartlett said something along the lines of 'Have I missed something here or has there been a spate of flag burning recently'...

In the constitutional changes put forward the only thing that made any sense to me was being able to vote electronically, thus saving a lot of time, energy and money.

Spot on, and great show btw

I said on Page 1 that the changes to Nominations are a solution looking for a problem...

If I understand correctly from what's been posted here, Kate Roffey's time leading the Board, without term limits changing, her time is up (?)

That then is the underlying reason for Constitution changes

I think Kate has been a good leader, and broadly support the term proposals because of this  -  but this is not a comprehensive review, it's basically window dressing around the Term changes

If that's the case, why bother change Nominations requirements and annoy some members?

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,281]

47 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I just heard that the ‘vote’ is extremely close.

So no matter which way you’re leaning, if you care about the result, best make sure you’ve lodged yours. 👍🏽

That's interesting 

Anyone know much about the mechanics of this type of corporate voting?

Perhaps the Proxy numbers are known to the Proxies as they accumulate? But seems strange that would be broadly known

Saying it's close could just be a tactic to increase turnout also I guess

[WalkingCivilWar 31,412]

3 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

That's interesting 

Anyone know much about the mechanics of this type of corporate voting?

Perhaps the Proxy numbers are known to the Proxies as they accumulate? But seems strange that would be broadly known

Saying it's close could just be a tactic to increase turnout also I guess

Depends on who’s saying it’s close. In this case it’s someone who’d know but isn’t on either “side.”

[Demon17 4,543]

31 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

from their web page. no names. not even peter lawrence is mentioned! not even any email addresses, lol.

 

Thanks for this Daisy. It prompted me to make a couple of comments .

1. Transparency: I looked at the website and also found no information on anyone involed including the 'committed supporters'

That alone is just poor form from a group espousing transparency as an issue. 

2. The page notes ' we wrote the rules". Not true Tom WIlls and several others wrote the rules in Jerry Bryant's hotel, not necessarily part of the fledgling Demons.  An example of the truism " Success has many parents, failure is an orphan".

3. It states We were at the forefront of womens football - again not true. We put our hand up to start an AFL team first with the Dogs. This stateemnt is an affront to Darebin Womens club, with Whom Daisy has one about 10 flags, the other Victorian pioneers, Susan Alberti etc. whereby womens football had been runnign successfully well bfore the AFL woke up. A statement that needed clarity and accuracy, rather than take the marketing spin approach. Unprofessional.

No execptions re: the Board term limts issue smacks of hard core decison-making without considering the circumstnaces, such as the death  of a President in their final year. Why wouldn't it be sensible to have the incoming President have at least 1 or two terms, otherwise this proposal limits the Board's ability to select  the right/best replacement at a difficult time. Zealots worry me big time.

Too many errors of fact or limited clarifications to avoid issues that don't fit the narrative.

Dissappointing and a big test for the membership IMO.

[daisycutter 28,494]

4 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Thanks for this Daisy. It prompted me to make a couple of comments .

1. Transparency: I looked at the website and also found no information on anyone involed including the 'committed supporters'

That alone is just poor form from a group espousing transparency as an issue. 

2. The page notes ' we wrote the rules". Not true Tom WIlls and several others wrote the rules in Jerry Bryant's hotel, not necessarily part of the fledgling Demons.  An example of the truism " Success has many parents, failure is an orphan".

3. It states We were at the forefront of womens football - again not true. We put our hand up to start an AFL team first with the Dogs. This stateemnt is an affront to Darebin Womens club, with Whom Daisy has one about 10 flags, the other Victorian pioneers, Susan Alberti etc. whereby womens football had been runnign successfully well bfore the AFL woke up. A statement that needed clarity and accuracy, rather than take the marketing spin approach. Unprofessional.

No execptions re: the Board term limts issue smacks of hard core decison-making without considering the circumstnaces, such as the death  of a President in their final year. Why wouldn't it be sensible to have the incoming President have at least 1 or two terms, otherwise this proposal limits the Board's ability to select  the right/best replacement at a difficult time. Zealots worry me big time.

Too many errors of fact or limited clarifications to avoid issues that don't fit the narrative.

Dissappointing and a big test for the membership IMO.

loved your pun 🤣

[NowWeKnow 130]

I was a bit annoyed about all this at first.

But taking a good look at the Deemocracy point of view it all sees very reasonable and has a fair point to it.

I'd feel even better about it if they identified themselves. 

[drysdale demon 4,151]

If any members disapprove of the way Lawrence has handled this they can always email him to strongly put their views across.

Edited October 23, 2022 by drysdale demon
spelling

[daisycutter 28,494]

38 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

If any members disapprove of the way Lawrence has handled this they can always email him to strongly put their views across.

not that i could be bothered, but he doesn't seem to have an email address to share - 🤣

[Lord Nev 13,511]

40 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

If any members disapprove of the way Lawrence has handled this they can always email him to strongly put their views across.

Nah, I'm gonna just email the entire member database, that's apparently what we do now...

[Its Time for Another 4,053]

29 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

If any members disapprove of the way Lawrence has handled this they can always email him to strongly put their views across.

I responded to his/their email yesterday asking in the spirit of transparency he/they have been fighting for could they please provide me with the names personal addresses and emails of each of them so that I could contact them to give them my opinion on their amendments. I have been ignored. They are happy to grab our personal details but not prepared to even disclose who any of them are or the same details they were happy to go to the Supreme Court to get of ours. Any of you that think Lawrence and his group are honestly fighting for transparency and open communication, this says all I need to know about their authenticity. Deemocracy NOT !!!!

[Ugottobekidding 915]

I gather deemocracy is a group of members not an individual. How many I do not know? Maybe some are on here. Maybe I don't really care. Maybe I do. Maybe infiltration by Putin operatives. We just don't know.

 

[drysdale demon 4,151]

57 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

not that i could be bothered, but he doesn't seem to have an email address to share - 🤣

I sent him an email this morning, not a very polite one and yes I don't expect any response . I will just have to track him down in person and convey my feelings directly to him.

[daisycutter 28,494]

Just now, drysdale demon said:

I sent him an email this morning, not a very polite one and yes I don't expect any response . I will just have to track him down in person and convey my feelings directly to him.

what was the email address, or are you just replying to info@deemocracy?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,413]

6 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

That doesn't answer the questions at all.

Being a member based club doesn't mean the private data and contacting capabilities the club has collected are at the disposal of every member whenever they want.

There's plenty of ways for members to raise issues already.

And being a member based club doesn't mean the people who have been voted in to run the club have to use the club's official means of contact to enable the destabilization of the club.

Maybe if Lawrence had a clue how to use technology properly, how to get his case across effectively, how to garner support of members and how to have positive impact without this kind of disruption then he wouldn't need to hijack the club's communication systems.

As a member based club your contact details may be made available to enable the democratic functions of the club. Pretty simple. And Supreme Court Justice Riordan agrees.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

As a member based club your contact details may be made available to enable the democratic functions of the club. Pretty simple. And Supreme Court Justice Riordan agrees.

 This isn't 'enabling democracy', this is enabling a member to spread their grievances.

Will be interesting to see if these laws stay the same after this. I feel this part of the act has gone under the radar at AFL clubs previously but Lawrence's efforts here have highlighted how it can be easily abused.

 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,413]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 This isn't 'enabling democracy', this is enabling a member to spread their grievances.

Will be interesting to see if these laws stay the same after this. I feel this part of the act has gone under the radar at AFL clubs previously but Lawrence's efforts here have highlighted how it can be easily abused.

 

The club wants members to vote on amendments to the club's constitution. Seems like a democratic function of club governance to me.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Dr. Gonzo

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

The club wants members to vote on amendments to the club's constitution. Seems like a democratic function of club governance to me.

Lawrence does not represent the club though, and given he used his opportunity to further raise grievances it is clearly not just for democratic purposes.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,413]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Lawrence does not represent the club though, and given he used his opportunity to further raise grievances it is clearly not just for democratic purposes.

He is a member of the club and he is entitled to contact other members to provide an alternative or views on the amendments put forward by the club to influence the vote. Whether he is raising other grievances or not is irrelevant, this happens all the time in all facets of club governance (board elections being a prime example).

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

He is a member of the club and he is entitled to contact other members to provide an alternative or views on the amendments put forward by the club to influence the vote. Whether he is raising other grievances or not is irrelevant, this happens all the time in all facets of club governance (board elections being a prime example).

Of course it's relevant if he's using this apparent tool of 'democracy' to raise grievances. That's not what it's for, even by your own words.

Can you provide some other examples from AFL clubs where an opposing view to the club has been sent by a member using the club's contact details? This is the first time I've heard of it, so would be interested to see these numerous times it has happened.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,413]

10 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Of course it's relevant if he's using this apparent tool of 'democracy' to raise grievances. That's not what it's for, even by your own words.

Can you provide some other examples from AFL clubs where an opposing view to the club has been sent by a member using the club's contact details? This is the first time I've heard of it, so would be interested to see these numerous times it has happened.

It's part of the governance of the club, club members have the right to access member contact details to communicate with them around things like board elections and changes to the club constitution. It's not a hard concept to understand and Supreme Court Justice Riordan agreed.

Some people are being overly precious and I find it all quite hilarious. Getting your knickers in a twist because someone sent you an email, oh lord how will we sleep tonight?!

[Lord Nev 13,511]

20 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

this happens all the time in all facets of club governance (board elections being a prime example).

 

18 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Can you provide some other examples from AFL clubs where an opposing view to the club has been sent by a member using the club's contact details? This is the first time I've heard of it, so would be interested to see these numerous times it has happened.

 

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's part of the governance of the club, club members have the right to access member contact details to communicate with them around things like board elections and changes to the club constitution. It's not a hard concept to understand and Supreme Court Justice Riordan agreed.

Some people are being overly precious and I find it all quite hilarious. Getting your knickers in a twist because someone sent you an email, oh lord how will we sleep tonight?!

Still waiting....

[drysdale demon 4,151]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's part of the governance of the club, club members have the right to access member contact details to communicate with them around things like board elections and changes to the club constitution. It's not a hard concept to understand and Supreme Court Justice Riordan agreed.

Some people are being overly precious and I find it all quite hilarious. Getting your knickers in a twist because someone sent you an email, oh lord how will we sleep tonight?!

It doesn't bother me that I received an email from him, I am more concerned that his actions could have a destabilizing effect on the current board and the club itself.

[drysdale demon 4,151]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's part of the governance of the club, club members have the right to access member contact details to communicate with them around things like board elections and changes to the club constitution. It's not a hard concept to understand and Supreme Court Justice Riordan agreed.

Some people are being overly precious and I find it all quite hilarious. Getting your knickers in a twist because someone sent you an email, oh lord how will we sleep tonight?!

I couldn't imagine any poster on here freely giving their email account to other posters to discuss any board matters.