Constitutional Review

[Its Time for Another 4,194]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That sounds extremely stressful and hopefully you were able to sort things out in the end albeit with a few extra grey hairs and hours of lost productivity.

Were the hackers able to get into your email account (ie were they able to circumvent the password) or was just having your email address enough to do the damage?

I don't remember now. It's not enough to just right down someone's email address. There is some hack where they introduce a trojan program that gets into the data behind your email address. There's DNS's and IP's. Nasher would probably laugh out loud at me saying that because I really don't know what I'm talking about other than they exist behind your emals. That's what the cyber security guy told me who was helping me. He also advised once this is done there's nothing you can do about it. It usually runs down over time. Every now and then I still get emails from people this has happened to more than 10 years ago.  

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,338]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

The whole thing would have been easier with less pain and cost if the club had facilitated his communication to members.

It was the right thing to do.

This I can't agree with.  The club has over 66,000 members.  It is not their responsibility to facilitate such requests to members.  To what end?  Peter, like every other member, was given an opportunity to provide feedback and contribute to the consultation like any other member was.  In fact I know for a fact Peter was afforded more attention from David Rennick than other members, in that he met with him one on one to discuss his proposals on a number of occasions.  To say he was denied an opportunity is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.  

Why should the club distribute his proposal when, as others have stated, he had a website, he had access to social media, etc?  If the club granted the same request to one, then theoretically they would have to grant a similar request to all members.  There are 66,000 members at the club!  One member is not more entitled than any other.  And as stated a number of times, to what end?  His model was not up for election.  The choice was the model put forward by the working party (which Peter had agreed in principle on anyway) and the status quo.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,338]

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

Anyway, we differ.  I'd suggest you contact Peter, his email is in the public domain and he'll give you his telephone number and you can talk to him.  Then you can decide if he's an agitator.  

 

 

In all due respect, actions speak louder than words

[rjay 24,885]

On 10/24/2022 at 11:08 AM, 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.

 

On 10/24/2022 at 11:10 AM, Lord Nev said:

Yeah fair enough, will do.

And funnily enough I was a lockdown defender! haha

mmm

[george_on_the_outer 7,571]

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

 

Why should the club distribute his proposal when, as others have stated, he had a website, he had access to social media, etc?  If the club granted the same request to one, then theoretically they would have to grant a similar request to all members.  There are 66,000 members at the club!  One member is not more entitled than any other.  And as stated a number of times, to what end?  His model was not up for election.  The choice was the model put forward by the working party (which Peter had agreed in principle on anyway) and the status quo.

Because it is required under Corporations Law.  And now following Peters successful application and others quoted in the action, case law.

Edited October 27, 2022 by george_on_the_outer

[Slartibartfast 17,190]

56 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

In all due respect, actions speak louder than words

Katrina explain to me what was so bad about the Deemocracy proposals that the Club didn't want members to see them?

Frankly I don't give too hoots about the constitution and the only change I had any interest in was the proposal that people who want to stand for the Board have the opportunity to communicate with members.  I'd guess, although I might be wrong, that this, along with "tenure", were the main issues the Board had with Deemocracy's proposals.

In my opinion you (plural) support one of two positions in relation to the election of Directors.  The first is that the members have little or no ability to choose and the sitting Board invites people onto it to replace those that no longer want to serve.  In essence this is what has happened in the last two Board elections.  The Board established rules which prohibited those standing for election (or re-election) communication beyond a small number of words - around 250 to 300 I believe - but allowed the President to endorse those he or she chooses and to campaign for them.  Nobody outside those endorsed by the President will ever get up in these circumstances.

The second is open and fair elections where those wishing to stand for election as Directors can communicate their views and promote their candidature.  

Peter supports the second as do I and I think most would.  The opportunity to establish "fair and open" elections was lost last night and we will just have to hope this Board is active, passionate and committed because as members, under the current constitution, we have little chance to remove them if they aren't.

Our performance on field was years in the making and started by Peter Jackson.  This Board has ridden the crest of a wave but their elitest attitude worries me greatly.  A glaring example of this was one day at training at Gosch's when there was a special area roped off for them to watch while we as supporters were outside the ropes and unable to mingle.  It was a small but very symbolic thing.

As you say Katrina, actions speak louder than words. I'd put Peter's actions up again any of the Board and I reckon you couldn't find a more passionate and committed member than him.  His treatment has been disgraceful.  

 

[Tim 3,413]

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

This I can't agree with.  The club has over 66,000 members.  It is not their responsibility to facilitate such requests to members.  To what end?  Peter, like every other member, was given an opportunity to provide feedback and contribute to the consultation like any other member was.  In fact I know for a fact Peter was afforded more attention from David Rennick than other members, in that he met with him one on one to discuss his proposals on a number of occasions.  To say he was denied an opportunity is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.  

Why should the club distribute his proposal when, as others have stated, he had a website, he had access to social media, etc?  If the club granted the same request to one, then theoretically they would have to grant a similar request to all members.  There are 66,000 members at the club!  One member is not more entitled than any other.  And as stated a number of times, to what end?  His model was not up for election.  The choice was the model put forward by the working party (which Peter had agreed in principle on anyway) and the status quo.

 

14 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Because it is required under Corporations Law.  And now following Peters successful application and others quoted in the action, case law.

Yes, it was pretty much a slam dunk case, and that’s the way it played out in the Supreme Court. It was totally foreseeable for a well-advised board, and in that context Lawrence sought to get around any costs and necessity to access the addresses by asking the club to send out the material. The board refused, then pig-headedly wasted our money trying to defend the indefensible.

 

15 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Katrina explain to me what was so bad about the Deemocracy proposals that the Club didn't want members to see them?

Frankly I don't give too hoots about the constitution and the only change I had any interest in was the proposal that people who want to stand for the Board have the opportunity to communicate with members.  I'd guess, although I might be wrong, that this, along with "tenure", were the main issues the Board had with Deemocracy's proposals.

In my opinion you (plural) support one of two positions in relation to the election of Directors.  The first is that the members have little or no ability to choose and the sitting Board invites people onto it to replace those that no longer want to serve.  In essence this is what has happened in the last two Board elections.  The Board established rules which prohibited those standing for election (or re-election) communication beyond a small number of words - around 250 to 300 I believe - but allowed the President to endorse those he or she chooses and to campaign for them.  Nobody outside those endorsed by the President will ever get up in these circumstances.

The second is open and fair elections where those wishing to stand for election as Directors can communicate their views and promote their candidature.  

Peter supports the second as do I and I think most would.  The opportunity to establish "fair and open" elections was lost last night and we will just have to hope this Board is active, passionate and committed because as members, under the current constitution, we have little chance to remove them if they aren't.

Our performance on field was years in the making and started by Peter Jackson.  This Board has ridden the crest of a wave but their elitest attitude worries me greatly.  A glaring example of this was one day at training at Gosch's when there was a special area roped off for them to watch while we as supporters were outside the ropes and unable to mingle.  It was a small but very symbolic thing.

As you say Katrina, actions speak louder than words. I'd put Peter's actions up again any of the Board and I reckon you couldn't find a more passionate and committed member than him.  His treatment has been disgraceful.  

 

Along those lines, Slarti, rank and file members might like to note Roffey’s contemptuous throwaway line about Snowy from Moe. Shame!

[mo64 5,853]

5 minutes ago, Tim said:

 

Yes, it was pretty much a slam dunk case, and that’s the way it played out in the Supreme Court. It was totally foreseeable for a well-advised board, and in that context Lawrence sought to get around any costs and necessity to access the addresses by asking the club to send out the material. The board refused, then pig-headedly wasted our money trying to defend the indefensible.

 

Along those lines, Slarti, rank and file members might like to note Roffey’s contemptuous throwaway line about Snowy from Moe. Shame!

Did Peter Lawrence ever consider that the other 66,000 members didn't want their address and email address disclosed? I can assure you that the board would have felt a greater backlash if they did as Peter Lawrence requested without a court challenge.

[rjay 24,885]

2 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Did Peter Lawrence ever consider that the other 66,000 members didn't want their address and email address disclosed? I can assure you that the board would have felt a greater backlash if they did as Peter Lawrence requested without a court challenge.

You have no understanding of the situation obviously.

He never wanted the addresses in the first place, he was asking for the club to send out the information.

[mo64 5,853]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

You have no understanding of the situation obviously.

He never wanted the addresses in the first place, he was asking for the club to send out the information.

I don't, because I'm not part of the Peter Lawrence cult.

So once he had the addresses, did he not think that it's intrusive to utilise them? As others have said, he could have conveyed his message through other means.

[rjay 24,885]

26 minutes ago, mo64 said:

I don't, because I'm not part of the Peter Lawrence cult.

So once he had the addresses, did he not think that it's intrusive to utilise them? As others have said, he could have conveyed his message through other means.

I've never met Peter Lawrence and wouldn't know him if I fell over him.

There's a couple of things I don't like here.

One is how he has been misrepresented.

...and the other the blind loyalty to a board who should not be above criticism.

I well remember the CS days (some here had blind loyalty to that administration) and understand we must remain vigilant or could quite easily head back there again.

EFC were set for a dynasty in 2000 and what happened?

[mo64 5,853]

12 minutes ago, rjay said:

I've never met Peter Lawrence and wouldn't know him if I fell over him.

There's a couple of things I don't like here.

One is how he has been misrepresented.

...and the other the blind loyalty to a board who should not be above criticism.

I well remember the CS days (some here had blind loyalty to that administration) and understand we must remain vigilant or could quite easily head back there again.

EFC were set for a dynasty in 2000 and what happened?

You and others still haven't answered the question. Why did he feel the need to access other members private details rather than convey his message through other means? 

I'm more wary of such an individual than the current board, who were democratically elected.

[Slartibartfast 17,190]

5 minutes ago, mo64 said:

You and others still haven't answered the question. Why did he feel the need to access other members private details rather than convey his message through other means? 

I'm more wary of such an individual than the current board, who were democratically elected.

Hey Mo, until Peter Lawrence stood no member of the MFC had voted for a Board member since 2003.  That's democracy for you.

And I just got an email from NT Tourism because the Board supplied them with my email address.  It was pretty confronting, I had to delete it.

[mo64 5,853]

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

Hey Mo, until Peter Lawrence stood no member of the MFC had voted for a Board member since 2003.  That's democracy for you.

And I just got an email from NT Tourism because the Board supplied them with my email address.  It was pretty confronting, I had to delete it.

So now you know how the rest of us feel when we received the Deemocracy email and mail.

If you received an email from NT Tourism, then I'm assuming all members will receive it. How do you know the club supplied it? We do receive Spam emails based on Google searches.

[titan_uranus 24,974]

1 hour ago, Tim said:

Yes, it was pretty much a slam dunk case, and that’s the way it played out in the Supreme Court. It was totally foreseeable for a well-advised board, and in that context Lawrence sought to get around any costs and necessity to access the addresses by asking the club to send out the material. The board refused, then pig-headedly wasted our money trying to defend the indefensible.

I raised this earlier with @Slartibartfast - is there a copy of the judge's ruling/reasons/orders anywhere?

The three major Deemocracy supporters on here - yourself, Slarti and @george_on_the_outer - have all described the court case as (in different terms) a slam dunk in Lawrence's favour. It may well have been, but as I said earlier if it was that clear-cut why didn't the judge decide it straight away on the Wednesday, and why was it then described as a possible "test case"? It is of course possible that Lawrence offered the alternative of the Club sending the Deemocracy material out because he'd received legal advice that he might possibly not succeed in getting access to the members' email addresses?

I have no idea what the answer to those questions is because I'm not an expert, I wasn't there and haven't seen any ruling/reasons etc.. As such, you may well be 100% right that it was a slam dunk, but I'd love to see the reasons/ruling to see how bad the Club's defence was, or alternatively whether it might have perhaps been more nuanced. Simply saying the court found in Lawrence's favour therefore it was "pig-headed" or "disgraceful" for the Club to defend the application is hindsight-reasoning on its own, without knowing more.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,772]

1 hour ago, Tim said:

 

Yes, it was pretty much a slam dunk case, and that’s the way it played out in the Supreme Court. It was totally foreseeable for a well-advised board, and in that context Lawrence sought to get around any costs and necessity to access the addresses by asking the club to send out the material. The board refused, then pig-headedly wasted our money trying to defend the indefensible.

 

Along those lines, Slarti, rank and file members might like to note Roffey’s contemptuous throwaway line about Snowy from Moe. Shame!

It was Joey from Moe

And it was a terrible faux pas from Kate, who up until that point I'd thought was doing a great job

Snobbish and unnecessary 

[Slartibartfast 17,190]

16 minutes ago, mo64 said:

So now you know how the rest of us feel when we received the Deemocracy email and mail.

If you received an email from NT Tourism, then I'm assuming all members will receive it. How do you know the club supplied it? We do receive Spam emails based on Google searches.

Now that I look at it the email was sent out by the Club!  Wow, they could have done the same with Deemocracy and saved us all the trouble!

How's your democracy going Mo?  Dodged that one didn't you!🙃

[DeelightfulPlay 2,543]

I've got to add that I'm surprised it was a slam dunk case too, given subsection 169(1) of the Corps Act simply says name and address.  Historically this has always been interpreted as a physical address.  Anyway, keenly awaiting the judgment!

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,772]

23 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Hey Mo, until Peter Lawrence stood no member of the MFC had voted for a Board member since 2003.  That's democracy for you.

And I just got an email from NT Tourism because the Board supplied them with my email address.  It was pretty confronting, I had to delete it.

This is what's being missed by many

The requirements for increasing member support on Nominations, and I suspect also a consequence of formalising the Nominations subcommittee, are aimed at reducing likelihood of having contested elections 

If what you say is true - largely in response to 1 contested election in 20 years.... Where electronic voting reduces costs anyway...

And as one person questioned on the night - why different from so many other Clubs

[Redleg 40,839]

3 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

In all due respect, actions speak louder than words

Does your last name rhyme with toffee?

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,772]

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

Did Peter Lawrence ever consider that the other 66,000 members didn't want their address and email address disclosed? I can assure you that the board would have felt a greater backlash if they did as Peter Lawrence requested without a court challenge.

Assuming you are a member... then,

You are a member of the club, not a customer of a business 

You signed up and agreed to what it means to be a member. Having your details on the member roll, and those details being available in relation to the business of the club is part of that...

[Redleg 40,839]

45 minutes ago, mo64 said:

the current board, who were democratically elected.

Co Opting your mates, while at the same time denying members the right to stand, may be your type of democracy, but it certainly ain’t mine.

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Redleg

[Lord Nev 13,512]

3 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Because it is required under Corporations Law.  And now following Peters successful application and others quoted in the action, case law.

For now....

[rpfc 28,262]

Why should a member get to have the club send something to us on their behalf?

I barely want the sponsors to send me stuff; unless it’s 40% of New Balance remainder stock…

That is not a good argument to criticise the club for pushing back on that request.

[rpfc 28,262]

And again, I what a snorefest this change to the constitution was - if he influenced the club to do that preamble - great. He should have walked home then. 

But to spend all your capital - and I mean all your capital - on pushing against these no brainer changes. 

This bloke needs a PR person or to listen to better advice. 

Absolutely obvious this would be the reaction and that it was not worth it.