Constitutional Review

[Lord Nev 13,512]

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

Sounds familiar...

That's the point....

On 11/17/2022 at 12:44 PM, Slartibartfast said:

Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice.  I'm still smarting over our (members) lack of choice of directors, lack of information and lack of input into the constitution.

 

[Its Time for Another 4,058]

On 11/17/2022 at 12:44 PM, Slartibartfast said:

Our constitution is now set for a while I'd image but I was interested in these comments reported in The Age today from Gowers.

"Diversity is not just a male and female thing.  Diversity is about differences of opinion, ideas, cultural backgrounds, religious views, which creates a melting pot of contributions which allows you to safely have a broad discussion about a range of topics".

Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice.  I'm still smarting over our (members) lack of choice of directors, lack of information and lack of input into the constitution.  It reflects so badly on our Board.  So much groupthink, lack of fresh ideas from people who have been there too long and who have an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

Out of interest are you one of Peter Lawrence's  Deemocracy group.

[Slartibartfast 16,284]

44 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

Out of interest are you one of Peter Lawrence's  Deemocracy group.

No I'm not part of Deemocracy. You might find this hard to believe but I'm not interested in the politics or agenda's being run.  I just find it utterly insulting that the Board tell me I'm not able to get information from those seeking election and I'm therefore not able to make an informed decision on who should be on the Board.  It's outrageous. 

For completeness, I do know Peter Lawrence and I find it disappointing that those that don't know him cast him in such a negative light although I understand why they would have their concerns.  Afterall there is no way for him to outline his position.

Oh, and as far as I'm aware Lawrence is unable to contact members now as the Court decision included a provision that he destroys the membership contact details after the vote on the constitution was taken.  Perhaps others closer to the situation could confirm this.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

7 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Afterall there is no way for him to outline his position.

Aside from his website and the emails and printed material he's sent.

7 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Oh, and as far as I'm aware Lawrence is unable to contact members now as the Court decision included a provision that he destroys the membership contact details after the vote on the constitution was taken.

But given the decision, he could easily attain those details again should he wish, just as any other member has now been made aware of apparently.

[Hawk the Demon 612]

4 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Aside from his website and the emails and printed material he's sent.

But given the decision, he could easily attain those details again should he wish, just as any other member has now been made aware of apparently.

It's the law, has been for some time. Another pesky inconvenience that. Suggest you read the Supreme Court decision when it is published.

[mauriesy 6,980]

Interesting article today by the Age sports reporter Peter Ryan titled "Democracy is spreading like wildfire through AFL clubs, and some can't handle it".

He suggests "part of the shift is due to built-up tension emerging after a decade where a tap on the shoulder from an influential figure saw a person with the requisite skills and standing (from a club’s perspective, at least) invited on to the board via a nominations committee ..."

He mentions Melbourne's attempts to limit the Deemocracy group and their victory in court to gain access to email addresses.

Are club boards doing the right thing to keep control of processes, or swimming against the democratic tide?

Edited November 22, 2022 by mauriesy

[Lord Nev 13,512]

10 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

It's the law, has been for some time. Another pesky inconvenience that. Suggest you read the Supreme Court decision when it is published.

You're certainly an expert at missing the point. Nowhere did I say it wasn't the law, I merely stated Peter Lawrence (or any member for that matter) can obtain the member contact details whenever they wish. That's correct isn't it?

Pretty clearly your mate has got a large number of members offside with that effort and given the vote count it was all for nothing in terms of furthering his agenda anyway. Not the type of decision maker I would want on my club's board.

[Hawk the Demon 612]

22 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

You're certainly an expert at missing the point. Nowhere did I say it wasn't the law, I merely stated Peter Lawrence (or any member for that matter) can obtain the member contact details whenever they wish. That's correct isn't it?

Pretty clearly your mate has got a large number of members offside with that effort and given the vote count it was all for nothing in terms of furthering his agenda anyway. Not the type of decision maker I would want on my club's board.

Good point made about decision-making. It might be worth asking who at the Club made the decision not to avoid any privacy issues by putting out this Deemocracy alternative view when the SGM was called - it seemed to be quite a considered view. Then who at the Club made the decision to fight an unwinnable case on addresses, and protract the fight - with members' money.  At least it seems he was using his own resources.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

6 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Good point made about decision-making. It might be worth asking who at the Club made the decision not to avoid any privacy issues by putting out this Deemocracy alternative view when the SGM was called - it seemed to be quite a considered view. Then who at the Club made the decision to fight an unwinnable case on addresses, and protract the fight - with members' money.  At least it seems he was using his own resources.

I' m glad they challenged it, and seeing member feedback on socials it seems the vast majority of members were too.

'Deemocracy' have managed to destroy their own agenda with their own hands. Just goes to show it takes more than passion and money to positively impact a football club.

Have a good one!

[Sir Why You Little 35,633]

How much did this distraction cost The MFC?

[old dee 23,350]

51 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

How much did this distraction cost The MFC?

Too much but we will never know.

[Its Time for Another 4,058]

30 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Good point made about decision-making. It might be worth asking who at the Club made the decision not to avoid any privacy issues by putting out this Deemocracy alternative view when the SGM was called - it seemed to be quite a considered view. Then who at the Club made the decision to fight an unwinnable case on addresses, and protract the fight - with members' money.  At least it seems he was using his own resources.

I see this Board bashing just won't go away and there continues to be quite a lot of misinformation being spread around on here. To be clear, after the Court case the Club offered to distribute Lawrence's propaganda without him getting anyone's emails. He made the decision to still demand getting them even though he didn't need to. 

Secondly a lot of people on here like you think that because the Judge ruled Lawrence could get the emails that was a correct decision and the Club should never have defended it. Obviously the Club had legal advice that it didn't have the legal right to distribute the emails and had to defend the case.  Do you want a Board that doesn't follow legal advice. Supreme Court decisions are constantly appealed and overturned especially where clauses are invented by Judges that don't exist. I would be very confident this decision would have been overturned on appeal but there wasn't time for it and it would have involved 

Thirdly many on here have continued to slam the Board for the process it followed for the Constitution amendments. I'm genuinely interested to hear what workable alternative they suggest should have been followed to give each of those 1000 submissions equal fair democratic coverage given you think Lawrence's submissions should have been sent to every member. Surely the only fair democratic thing to do would have been to distribute all of them. Or are you all actually closet elitists who think only Lawrence's should have been distributed because he was wealthy enough to sue the Club. Assuming they did distribute all those 1000 submissions what process do you think should have been followed to get a workable Constitution. Get the members to vote on everyone of them?  How do you exclude any?  How would we all be feeling about the Board if that was their process and we were buried in 1000 submissions?  

I'm so over this but I feel compelled to respond because I just want this Club to succeed and history shows a stable Board is essential to a healthy Club and a destabilised Club buried in nasty politics fails.  If this Board was doing a bad job put a ticket together and vote it out. I think right now this Board has made a series of critical decisions which have put the Club in the best position it's ever been in financially and with memberships and solid with football. 

[Hawk the Demon 612]

13 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

I see this Board bashing just won't go away and there continues to be quite a lot of misinformation being spread around on here. To be clear, after the Court case the Club offered to distribute Lawrence's propaganda without him getting anyone's emails. He made the decision to still demand getting them even though he didn't need to. 

Secondly a lot of people on here like you think that because the Judge ruled Lawrence could get the emails that was a correct decision and the Club should never have defended it. Obviously the Club had legal advice that it didn't have the legal right to distribute the emails and had to defend the case.  Do you want a Board that doesn't follow legal advice. Supreme Court decisions are constantly appealed and overturned especially where clauses are invented by Judges that don't exist. I would be very confident this decision would have been overturned on appeal but there wasn't time for it and it would have involved 

Thirdly many on here have continued to slam the Board for the process it followed for the Constitution amendments. I'm genuinely interested to hear what workable alternative they suggest should have been followed to give each of those 1000 submissions equal fair democratic coverage given you think Lawrence's submissions should have been sent to every member. Surely the only fair democratic thing to do would have been to distribute all of them. Or are you all actually closet elitists who think only Lawrence's should have been distributed because he was wealthy enough to sue the Club. Assuming they did distribute all those 1000 submissions what process do you think should have been followed to get a workable Constitution. Get the members to vote on everyone of them?  How do you exclude any?  How would we all be feeling about the Board if that was their process and we were buried in 1000 submissions?  

I'm so over this but I feel compelled to respond because I just want this Club to succeed and history shows a stable Board is essential to a healthy Club and a destabilised Club buried in nasty politics fails.  If this Board was doing a bad job put a ticket together and vote it out. I think right now this Board has made a series of critical decisions which have put the Club in the best position it's ever been in financially and with memberships and solid with football. 

My understanding is that there are a few Demonlanders out there who were involved when the Constitution was last changed - 15 years ago? They speak proudly about the wide consultation that was undertaken to garner views at that time. I hope they can share those experiences on here for you. As a result of those efforts apparently less than 10 members voted against the changes. This MFC Working Group stated that the primary reason for the Constitutional change was to bring in electronic voting. It seems they decided there were a handful of changes they couldn't ignore (e.g. term limits) and then said 'here it is' to members in a clunky survey with a tight deadline which dispapeared into the ether after you had responded.

There were numerous matters the changes didn't deal with - as the Deemocracy group pointed out in a submission to the Board and a contemporary re-draft.

The Virtual Town Hall lasted 45 minutes and was a one-way webinar style scripted event - again talking only about what the Board wanted to change. The SGM got deferred, but no more consultation - just some drafting changes required you understand.

Re the Court case I suggest you read the judgement when it is published and Demonlanders can read it (and the transcripts) for themselves. Seems like Peter Ryan of the Age sat through it? Hopefully we can then determine what motivations were at play - both those of Lawrence and the MFC decision-makers who wanted to fight what seemed to have been an unwinnable case, with our money.

 

[Demon17 4,826]

22 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Provided it is not to be used for an improper purpose, any member can inspect and request a copy of the Register of Members.

Thanks, but is this for the Dees or the Hawks you refer to?

If us, then I guess that how I got mail from Peter Lawrence, and thus what was the court case about?

[Cyclops 462]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

How much did this distraction cost The MFC?

I believe that Mr Lawrence and Deemocracy asked the club to send the proposed emails a few weeks before the court case. Cost neutral.

Having lost the the case the MFC bears most of the costs.

I may have to buy another membership just to help out.

[Demonstone 20,563]

I'd vote for Iggy Pop if he stood for election.  He's had a lot of experience working with Stooges.

 

[Cyclops 462]

Hopefully I have attached a file containing the transcripts from the final day of the court hearing. The final day 21 October 2022 was when the the judgment was handed down..It may be of some interest to some people. I found that paragraphs paragraphs 14-17 and 36 until the end the most interesting although there is to me, interest throughout the document.

 

Lawrence v Melbourne Football Club [2022] VSC 658 (2).pdf

Edited November 25, 2022 by Cyclops
font

[Cyclops 462]

3 hours ago, Cyclops said:

Hopefully I have attached a file containing the transcripts from the final day of the court hearing. The final day 21 October 2022 was when the the judgment was handed down..It may be of some interest to some people. I found that paragraphs paragraphs 14-17 and 36 until the end the most interesting although there is to me, interest throughout the document.

 

Lawrence v Melbourne Football Club [2022] VSC 658 (2).pdf 241.39 kB · 3 downloads

Just to be perfectly clear the file contains the final judgement as handed down on October 21 in it's entirety.

[Lucifers Hero 37,890]

This was interesting from Dunn who is standing for the Ess Board:  board-contender-dunn

"Dunn said it was important there was a contested election and members had a say after being frustrated at the lack of democracy and having new board members appointed without an election.

“I am not looking to be an agent of change, I am looking to be an agent of stability..."

Ess have got a lot wrong but seems to have no problem with their contenders taking their case to the media.  While we as MFC members vote, I'm not convinced our processes are democratic in that contenders do not have an effective means to put their case/credentials to members.

We are nearly a quarter of the way into the next century and it is a digital media world..  It makes sense that our (and all AFL clubs) move into modern day and improve their democratic processes both in nominating to stand and allowing candidates to take their message to members be it via media, forums, mail etc.  There is nothing to fear by incumbent Board members.  I don't mean those there today, I include those to come when the incumbents move on.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Lucifers Hero