Constitutional Review

[jnrmac 18,947]

We're a happy team at Hawthorn......Boards wouldn't do anything nefarious to scupper potential Board nominees they don't want . Would they?

Were it not for a mole inside the Hawthorn Football Club it’s likely that Peter Nankivell would be guaranteed a presidential coronation when its AGM convenes on December 13.

The only reason that’s in doubt is that word somehow leaked of a bid to secretly shut the board nominations on Wednesday night. There’s more than a whiff of skulduggery about these events. Sure, the nominations had been open to candidates for many weeks. But who knew anything about it?

Nankivell, the club’s vice-president, stood to benefit most if the plan had succeeded. So, too, would have outgoing president Jeff Kennett, whose design had been to appoint Nankivell, his long-serving lieutenant, without a clash of any elbows during the handover phase.

There are arcane rules underpinning board nominations at the club. They’re supposed to close 45 days before the date of the AGM, which until Wednesday had yet to be announced. It seems the plan was to finally publicise the date while simultaneously shutting off the nominations, thereby locking out prospective candidates.

Isn’t that a quaint ploy? Such transparency and sturdy governance from a club that cries shrill about both while managing an investigation over its alleged mistreatment of First Nations players.

Anyway, with just hours to go until Wednesday’s deadline, which nobody knew about, someone tipped off a select number of Hawthorn powerbrokers, giving them a couple of hours to cobble together the forms and undermine the Nankivell power play in record time.

[Older demon 2,166]

4 hours 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 tried this several times and got an error message. The server thinks my email address is spam. I would like him to post his details so I can email or contact him.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

14 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

We're a happy team at Hawthorn......Boards wouldn't do anything nefarious to scupper potential Board nominees they don't want . Would they?

 

On 10/22/2022 at 5:35 PM, Lord Nev said:

How about you provide some examples where incumbent boards have sent out materials from the challengers to their members/shareholders? I'd be interested to see the 'real world' examples.

Still waiting on all those examples you talked about jnr.

Perhaps you and Dr. Gonzo could work together to provide lots of them given you both said there were plenty of times it's happened but then both went quiet when asked for examples.

Thanks in advance.

[titan_uranus 22,287]

@george_on_the_outer are you able to identify the members of Deemocracy other than Lawrence? Or explain why they haven’t identified themselves? Seems at odds with their stated intention to seek transparency.

[drysdale demon 4,146]

34 minutes ago, Older demon said:

I tried this several times and got an error message. The server thinks my email address is spam. I would like him to post his details so I can email or contact him.

I gave another email address a couple of hours ago but the mods on here zapped it.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

4 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

 

 

Still waiting....

For what?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

 

Still waiting on all those examples you talked about jnr.

Perhaps you and Dr. Gonzo could work together to provide lots of them given you both said there were plenty of times it's happened but then both went quiet when asked for examples.

Thanks in advance.

I said people raise grievances while also participating in a democratic process (such as board elections) all the time - not sure what's so controversial about that.

If you think it's such a devastating outcome that Lawrence and Deemocracy have been handed the email database of club members perhaps you could write to Justice Riordan at the Supreme Court to let him know your thoughts. I'm sure he'll be extremely interested to hear what you have to say 🤦‍♂️

Edited October 23, 2022 by Dr. Gonzo

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I said people raise grievances while also participating in a democratic process (such as board elections) all the time - not sure what's so controversial about that.

If you think it's such a devastating outcome that Lawrence and Deemocracy have been handed the email database of club members perhaps you could write to Justice Riordan at the Supreme Court to let him know your thoughts. I'm sure he'll be extremely interested to hear what you have to say 🤦‍♂️

It's not devastating, @Dr. Gonzo, Mr Lawrence, in my opinion, seems to be seeking some sort of validation and using the Club as a means to do it.

He cost the Club money, having to hire legal counsel, not the actions of a true supporter in my book

The hypocrisy irks me also, what transparency,  who are the members of Deemocracy, as you seem to be a 'defender' in a sense of Lawrences' actions, are you?

He seems to be following the Trump mantra by playing the victim card, perhaps the fact he got no support when he tried to [censored] his way on to the Board in the last election still  hasn't sunk in.

[No10 323]

6 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

 

Still waiting on all those examples you talked about jnr.

Perhaps you and Dr. Gonzo could work together to provide lots of them given you both said there were plenty of times it's happened but then both went quiet when asked for examples.

Thanks in advance.

@Clintosaurus answered this pretty smoothly a few pages back. @jnrmactells of Hawthorn. And @Dr. Gonzocovers nicely what is fair cooperate governance, at least according to the Supreme Court.

What’s the problem? You don’t like that Lawrence did this, or his ideas. But why be so upset about the fact that he could?

[chookrat 3,776]

22 hours ago, Dee*ceiving said:

Your argument is somewhat reasonable but not considerate of what damage can be done by hackers with your email address. 

Email addresses are commonly used to log into a range of online services. Some are very secure with two factor authentication and warnings if people try to use it to log into those services. Many however do not, and, if you're like me, and many other people yoy probably won't remember all the things you've signed up for, purchased online or left other personal details.

A poorly secured online platform can allow hackers access with an email address in short time & they know where to look.   

Exactly, and if the MFC membership list with name, email address and postal address all end up online and a hacker is able to find other details like our date of birth and suddenly we start getting hacked. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court adequately considered how the combination of postal, email addresses and names significantly increases data security issues over email addresses alone.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

8 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

It's not devastating, @Dr. Gonzo, Mr Lawrence, in my opinion, seems to be seeking some sort of validation and using the Club as a means to do it.

He cost the Club money, having to hire legal counsel, not the actions of a true supporter in my book

The hypocrisy irks me also, what transparency,  who are the members of Deemocracy, as you seem to be a 'defender' in a sense of Lawrences' actions, are you?

He seems to be following the Trump mantra by playing the victim card, perhaps the fact he got no support when he tried to [censored] his way on to the Board in the last election still  hasn't sunk in.

From the information available it seems the club could have saved themselves the money by sending the information out on his behalf but they refused.

I'm not a supporter of Lawrence but I am a supporter of open governance.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

4 hours ago, No10 said:

@Clintosaurus answered this pretty smoothly a few pages back. @jnrmactells of Hawthorn. And @Dr. Gonzocovers nicely what is fair cooperate governance, at least according to the Supreme Court.

What’s the problem? You don’t like that Lawrence did this, or his ideas. But why be so upset about the fact that he could?

Think you've got your wires crossed here mate.

I've asked both jnr and Dr for examples of where an incumbent board has used their own database or means of communication to advertise opposing views from a challenger. Apparently that happens all the time in the 'real world' but I've not been given the specific examples yet.

I'm not talking about general corporate governance because I've been talking about the precedent set by Lawrence in accessing the data.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I said people raise grievances while also participating in a democratic process (such as board elections) all the time - not sure what's so controversial about that.

No. The point was using the club's database to raise greivances. As below. Don't try and move the goal posts.

 

On 10/22/2022 at 12:07 PM, 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...

 

21 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because we are a member based club not a privately owned franchise

 

21 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.

 

15 hours 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.

 

15 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

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

 

15 hours ago, 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.

 

15 hours ago, 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).

 

15 hours 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.

Again. Still waiting.

 

[Supermercado 2,609]

We're filling in off-season brawling about whose ideas are better, but this isn't a vote on which constitution to adopt, it's whether to accept the board's proposed changes. If 25.01% of people vote against adopting the amendments on offer then nothing is altered.

If that does happen, what do Deemocracy propose to do next? For right or wrong, the board isn't going to put the alternative to a member vote, so where does a no vote sub-75% yes vote leave us other than continuing the brawl into 2023 with no change at all.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Supermercado

[Cyclops 434]

40 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Exactly, and if the MFC membership list with name, email address and postal address all end up online and a hacker is able to find other details like our date of birth and suddenly we start getting hacked. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court adequately considered how the combination of postal, email addresses and names significantly increases data security issues over email addresses alone.

I fail to see the key here. Names and postal addresses were given to Deemocracy by MFC as a legal right through a corporate law.

Email addresses were given to Deemocracy as a court order. 

There is no key or link between the two sets of data that I can see.  I would think you would need some link field such as member number to  combine the data.

Deemocracy has plan that has been actioned rather quickly.

If it was a game then the score would be :

Deemocracy 2 goals

MFC yet to score.

[daisycutter 28,485]

the major reason for a constitution change was to allow for electronic voting and thus save the club a lot of money and make voting easier for all members

the other changes are really all minor to the current status quo

25% no is all it takes to scupper this and we continue with a medieval costly postal voting system

focus on the big issue, folks

[BenJamin on Deesy St 792]

I got the letter but not the e-mail. No matter, I had already voted via proxy in favour of the Board’s - on the whole - pragmatic, reasonable and incremental changes to the Constitution. I would urge other members to do the same if for no other reason than to save the Club $200k now (and a whole heap of time) associated with electronic voting for director elections. More substantive changes can happen later.

And another thing. I’m sorry, Deemocracy, but the cynic in me views your proposal to make wholesale changes to the Constitution (particularly around club purpose & identity, and inclusion & diversity) as noble posturing, when it appears what is really sought is easier access for a member or members of your group to get on the Board, having missed out repeatedly in the past.

In my view, the incumbents are united and cohesive, were well and truly vindicated in their stance to stand by our senior coach (and CEO) and jettison he-who-must-not-be-named last year and, of course, presided over the Club’s first Premiership in 57 excruciating, long years. 

I mean, really, what is this all about? The Club has never been in as good a shape - in my lifetime, which is reaching the half century mark - as it is now.

Finally, and no offence to all the lovely CAs out there, but we have enough Chartered Accountants on the Board as it is. (I can say that because I’m a CA myself, although not working as one at the moment - no great loss to the profession, I’m afraid to say!)

[No10 323]

51 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Think you've got your wires crossed here mate.

I've asked both jnr and Dr for examples of where an incumbent board has used their own database or means of communication to advertise opposing views from a challenger. Apparently that happens all the time in the 'real world' but I've not been given the specific examples yet.

I'm not talking about general corporate governance because I've been talking about the precedent set by Lawrence in accessing the data.

I did understand what you’re asking. @Clintosaurushad good examples of real world.

A board are compelled to send relevant information to the shareholders - the ‘relevant’ part is a fair question here, but was answered by the courts. In terms of opposing views: Solomon Lew isn’t any friend of the Myer board, as you’ll find in his letters to shareholders.

It appears Lawrence hasn’t captured the mood of the membership. But if the board were doing the wrong thing, you’d want a way to reach the members effectively.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

6 minutes ago, No10 said:

I did understand what you’re asking. @Clintosaurushad good examples of real world.

A board are compelled to send relevant information to the shareholders - the ‘relevant’ part is a fair question here, but was answered by the courts. In terms of opposing views: Solomon Lew isn’t any friend of the Myer board, as you’ll find in his letters to shareholders.

It appears Lawrence hasn’t captured the mood of the membership. But if the board were doing the wrong thing, you’d want a way to reach the members effectively.

Genuine question, does Solomon Lew send the letters himself or does the Myer board send them for him? That's where I'm trying to draw the similarities here.

I'm 100% for members airing their grievances with the board, sharing new ideas, proposing changes etc, I'm just not aware of any previous examples where an AFL club board has been forced to send opposing views for a non-board member.

[Ugottobekidding 915]

I am sure they could have just decided to call the chairman president and nobody would have cared. But it is all about eeking out some more time by the president because she left her run too long.

[No10 323]

10 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Genuine question, does Solomon Lew send the letters himself or does the Myer board send them for him? That's where I'm trying to draw the similarities here.

I'm 100% for members airing their grievances with the board, sharing new ideas, proposing changes etc, I'm just not aware of any previous examples where an AFL club board has been forced to send opposing views for a non-board member.

Most likely Lew would be supplied their registry - same as the MFC have to do, now including emails.

It’s odd a member going to such lengths of the courts. Then not accept the club offer to send out the information, avoiding the obvious backlash. Then send the proposal without any personal details. People are strange.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

No. The point was using the club's database to raise greivances. As below. Don't try and move the goal posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again. Still waiting.

 

Not moving the goalposts at all, you just didn't clearly comprehend what I was talking about.

I said members raise grievances as part of democratic processes all the time, whether they be board challenges, director elections or in this case constitutional reform. Pretty straightforward.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Not moving the goalposts at all, you just didn't clearly comprehend what I was talking about.

I said members raise grievances as part of democratic processes all the time, whether they be board challenges, director elections or in this case constitutional reform. Pretty straightforward.

You did mate, because that was not what the discussion was which I highlighted above.

The discussion was about the board sending those grievances on behalf of non-board members. I asked for examples of that and you moved the goal posts to 'members raise grievances all the time'.

[Neil Crompton 4,716]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

You did mate, because that was not what the discussion was which I highlighted above.

The discussion was about the board sending those grievances on behalf of non-board members. I asked for examples of that and you moved the goal posts to 'members raise grievances all the time'.

I think you have made your point Nev, can you please now let it go?

Haha you're like a dog with a bone. I bet you were either an inside mid or a lockdown defender back in your day.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Just now, Neil Crompton said:

I think you have made your point Nev, can you please now let it go?

Haha you're like a dog with a bone. I bet you were either an inside mid or a lockdown defender back in your day.

Yeah fair enough, will do.

And funnily enough I was a lockdown defender! haha