Jump to content

  • Podcast: Jason Taylor Interview  

  • Podcast: Jason Taylor Interview 

Constitutional Review



Recommended Posts

Personally I'm annoyed that someone (Peter Lawrence) can apply to the Supreme Court to obtain my personal information.  While I get that Peter is a passionate supporter I don't have any issue with what the club is proposing and have more pressing matters than rewriting our constitution.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am like a lot of relatively passive members when it comes to the politics of the board.

The last thing I want for Melbourne FC is an "open slather democracy" that runs the risk of degenerating into unnecessary dissension, infighting and ugly coups (much like Essendon at the moment, admittedly due to poor board performance). The second last thing I want is a closed board that runs the risk of degenerating into an arrogant autocracy (much like Eddie McGuire's reign at Collingwood).

That said, and just looking at it from the outside, I think the Deemocracy proposal is sensible and avoids both.

From my experience on the board of a golf club, in regard to member contact it's a requirement of the Corporations Act (and the Incorporated Associations Act) and often the constitution of the club itself, that the member's roll is available for viewing by any member on application. It's hardly ever asked for, and privacy considerations prevent the organisation from divulging addresses for general use. For elections etc. a sensible organisation would offer to send e-mail communication on behalf of the member, provided they can show that their purpose is genuine, constitutional and not vexatious.

Edited by mauriesy
  • Like 14
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, chookrat said:

At a practical level if someone is serious about nominating for a board position then it shouldn't be difficult for them to muster up the support of 20 members.

That also means there’s 20 people to blame if a candidate starts spamming us with mail, emails or otherwise. A handy level of protection for everyone no matter which side of the privacy vs open democracy you fall on. 

You could buy 2 memberships for your dog and cat and endorse yourself.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

That also means there’s 20 people to blame if a candidate starts spamming us with mail, emails or otherwise. A handy level of protection for everyone no matter which side of the privacy vs open democracy you fall on. 

You could buy 2 memberships for your dog and cat and endorse yourself.

 

Or 20 $13 Clayton Oliver memberships

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, BDA said:

Nowadays what's the difference between postal address and email address. they both serve the same purpose. 

The difference is the ease and low cost to whoever gets the list of email addresses (and whoever they pass it on to) to spam us, including phishing etc. The cost of doing it by snail-mail on paper is relatively prohibitive.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

7gbOsEKU.jpg?width=1064&height=600

Yes, thank you Peter Jackson, Paul Roos, Simon Goodwin, Jason Taylor (and even you Mark Neeld for bringing JT).
Bartlett and his Steve Bradbury board…? Not so much.

Edited by Tim
  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

For elections etc. a sensible organisation would offer to send e-mail communication on behalf of the member, provided they can show that their purpose is genuine, constitutional and not vexatious.

This

  • Like 9
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chookrat said:

At a practical level if someone is serious about nominating for a board position then it shouldn't be difficult for them to muster up the support of 20 members.

Perhaps, but why have they gone from 2 to 20, which goes against the practice of all similar large member-based sporting organisations? Not necessary, and not a good look I reckon.

‘Another example of moat-building by the board.

Edited by Tim
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why so many get wrapped up in Board machinations and functions. I only care about winning and the Board not steering us into Essendon and St Kilda type areas.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

I'm not sure why so many get wrapped up in Board machinations and functions. I only care about winning and the Board not steering us into Essendon and St Kilda type areas.

Haha Clint,  if you thought of the board members as “umpires”, I bet you’d think differently 

Edited by Neil Crompton
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

 

Sounds like, if true, Judge has a practical and sensible approach in mind. Suggestion that Club sends email and no information needs to change hands is a great idea

And for those referring to privacy policies, if you read it (AFL generic for all Clubs) it's pretty loose about providing details to "partners" etc

I'm not familiar with requirements of Corp Law, (2001), but maybe someone who is can advise whether the provisions that allowed the club to provide postal details are firm, or whether they can be interpreted in various ways to allow practical contact details to be provided?

Ridiculous that postal addresses can be provided under Law and not emails - either way the misuse of either surely attracts a penalty

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mauriesy said:

I am like a lot of relatively passive members when it comes to the politics of the board.

The last thing I want for Melbourne FC is an "open slather democracy" that runs the risk of degenerating into unnecessary dissension, infighting and ugly coups (much like Essendon at the moment, admittedly due to poor board performance). The second last thing I want is a closed board that runs the risk of degenerating into an arrogant autocracy (much like Eddie McGuire's reign at Collingwood).

That said, and just looking at it from the outside, I think the Deemocracy proposal is sensible and avoids both.

From my experience on the board of a golf club, in regard to member contact it's a requirement of the Corporations Act (and the Incorporated Associations Act) and often the constitution of the club itself, that the member's roll is available for viewing by any member on application. It's hardly ever asked for, and privacy considerations prevent the organisation from divulging addresses for general use. For elections etc. a sensible organisation would offer to send e-mail communication on behalf of the member, provided they can show that their purpose is genuine, constitutional and not vexatious.

Agree, very sensible approach 

My questioning of the MFC approach is based on suspicion at the defensive approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I give my email address to any entity I expect to receive communications from that entity alone.

When as a result of that I receive unsolicited stuff from anyone else (I.e. spam), I bin it unread and block the sender.

I particularly don't want to hear from a disgruntled, failed board candidate shoving his agenda in my face.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites


25 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

I'm not familiar with requirements of Corp Law, (2001), but maybe someone who is can advise whether the provisions that allowed the club to provide postal details are firm, or whether they can be interpreted in various ways to allow practical contact details to be provided?

Ridiculous that postal addresses can be provided under Law and not emails - either way the misuse of either surely attracts a penalty

Key section as follows;

s169 - Register of members
General requirements

             (1)  The register of members must contain the following information about each member:

                     (a)  the member's name and address;

                     (b)  the date on which the entry of the member's name in the register is made.

s173 is the Right to inspect and get copies (of any such register etc)

https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/ (Here is the Act if anyone is curious)

MFC complied with the Act, but would be curious to hear what else Judge Riordan said on the matter

A few years ago a Senator introduced a Bill to amend S169 to include email addresses, but this was not passed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Key section as follows;

s169 - Register of members
General requirements

             (1)  The register of members must contain the following information about each member:

                     (a)  the member's name and address;

                     (b)  the date on which the entry of the member's name in the register is made.

s173 is the Right to inspect and get copies (of any such register etc)

https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/ (Here is the Act if anyone is curious)

MFC complied with the Act, but would be curious to hear what else Judge Riordan said on the matter

A few years ago a Senator introduced a Bill to amend S169 to include email addresses, but this was not passed.

Thanks

Interestingly the MFC Privacy Policy seems to expressly permit the use of contact details for normal business of the club (among many other things... like sharing with sponsors and "partners")

Excerpt ---

The AFL and AFL Clubs collect, hold, use and disclose your personal information for purposes including, without limitation:

.....

to provide you with information about events, products and/or services that may interest you;

to facilitate the internal business operations of the AFL and the AFL Clubs;

to promote and market AFL events, products or services;

to undertake research;

to enable corporate partners and sponsors of the AFL, including AFL Clubs and the AFL’s digital rights partner Telstra, as well as their related bodies corporate, to market and promote their products and services to you;

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

Mate, the club would literally be breaching the Privacy Act if they provided the email addresses without consent.  There are very few circumstances where disclosing personal information to a third party is permitted.

If members had previously consented to providing such info, such as by accepting a privacy policy which detailed such a disclosure, then it would likely be fine.  

It's a curious one. An email address is just that and easily changed. it reveals next to nothing.

A postal address reveals where you live, unless you have a post office box, and is potentially more sensitive than a location in the ether.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

It's a curious one. An email address is just that and easily changed. it reveals next to nothing.

A postal address reveals where you live, unless you have a post office box, and is potentially more sensitive than a location in the ether.

Yep

An email is more private than address in many or most cases, and Privacy policy appears on face value to allow club to share emails (or they could send info on behalf)

And clearly a benefit of the Board's approach to not share emails is making it hard for the Naysayer to get his message out, perhaps a good tactic, but "protecting privacy" is a stretch... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

And clearly a benefit of the Board's approach to not share emails is making it hard for the Naysayer to get his message out, perhaps a good tactic, but "protecting privacy" is a stretch... 

Rubbish.

Catch up on the 21st century and data privacy mate.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Thanks

Interestingly the MFC Privacy Policy seems to expressly permit the use of contact details for normal business of the club (among many other things... like sharing with sponsors and "partners")

Excerpt ---

The AFL and AFL Clubs collect, hold, use and disclose your personal information for purposes including, without limitation:

.....

to provide you with information about events, products and/or services that may interest you;

to facilitate the internal business operations of the AFL and the AFL Clubs;

to promote and market AFL events, products or services;

to undertake research;

to enable corporate partners and sponsors of the AFL, including AFL Clubs and the AFL’s digital rights partner Telstra, as well as their related bodies corporate, to market and promote their products and services to you;

 

Thanks for the excerpt of the privacy policy!

The club would likely be unwilling to rely on the privacy policy here as a source of implied consent for third party disclosure because the section in question is all about the AFL's or club's corporate partners or sponsors. It would be a stretch to say this extends to a third party who is neither a corporate partner nor sponsor.  Potentially there is more luck regarding facilitating internal business... except it is still going to an external third party.  

Even before the Optus data breach, the Office of the Information Commissioner was very clear express consent is best for disclosure to third parties - and so drawing a long bow from a privacy policy (which is implied consent at best, depending on implementation on a website) is really sticking one's neck out.  

That being said, seems like Judge Riordan is being very practical about this (thankfully) and seems he will likely ask the club to provide the communications on Lawrence's behalf.

Edited by DeelightfulPlay
Typo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    TRAINING: Monday 30th January 2023

    TRAINING MONDAY 30/1/2023 NO SHOWS JACK VINEY, MATT JEFFERSON, CHRISTIAN SALEM. Also Did not see ADAM TOMLINSON  INJURIES MODIFIED DUTIES MAX, JOEL SMITH, ANB, AMW,( NO 47 Not sure who ) and during training CLARRY ( More on this latter)  SKILLS , DRILLS AND MANOUVERS After warm ups and Run Throughs, players broke of into 3 Groups doing a variety of Close in Handball through traffic to hit clean target with players pressuring. One on one groundhog da

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Monday 30th January 2023

    NO SHOWS JACK VINEY, MATT JEFFERSON, CHRISTIAN SALEM. Also Did not see ADAM TOMLINSON  INJURIES MODIFIED DUTIES MAX, JOEL SMITH, ANB, AMW,( NO 47 Not sure who ) and during training CLARRY ( More on this latter)  SKILLS , DRILLS AND MANOUVERS After warm ups and Run Throughs, players broke of into 3 Groups doing a variety of Close in Handball through traffic to hit clean target with players pressuring. One on one groundhog day ground ball gets Teles

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Wednesday 25th January 2023

    Rehab Group: Lever (in runners but kicking the ball well and seems to be moving well), Max (not present), Melksham, Howes, AMW, J Smith - then later joined by the following not participating in contract drills/Match SIM - Brown, Spargo, D Turner, Verrall, Adams  Stafford was out early with Grundy & Verrall doing ruck drills.  White Guernseys: May, Bowey, Trac, JVR, Rivers, Sestan, Nibbler, Kozzie, Grundy, Hunter, Harmes, Fritsch, Laurie, Jordon, K Turner, #46 (may be Coop

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Monday 23rd January 2023

    WIZARD333'S TRAINING REPORT I went down and it was locked out for first hour but could see through fence then allowed in. Max Gawn ran laps — it looks like a 3 to 4 week injury. Andy Moniz-Wakefield ran laps. Blake Howes was taken off late as was on restricted minutes. Adam Tomlinson loudest on track and a leader - surprised me but won't be in best 25. Jake Lever on bike and walking up n down stairs, yelling out as he does. Melky copped a niggle so ran laps but

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Friday 20th January 2023

    TOUGH KENT'S TRAINING REPORT I journeyed out to Casey today and was fortunate enough to watch two quarters of match simulation. Here is a brief rundown of random occurrences/thoughts. First of all, there was no Jake Lever (ankle) or Joel Smith involved. AMW is still in rehab and was running strongly. It was Blue (Probables) v Red (Possibles) JvR was in blue. Ben Brown, T-Mac, Hibbo and Tom Sparrow were in red. Gus Brayshaw started at half back for blue and stayed there all game.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Wednesday 18th January 2023

    DEE ZEPHYR'S TRAINING REPORT Morning all. First time at Goschs for a while, there’s a scoreboard set up which I’ve never seen here before. Possible match sim? Williams yelling out to players to get their hands off hips during drills. Gus looks fine to me. Absolutely., first two mins of match sim and his kicking is exquisite on both sides. He’s moving incredibly well.  Some observations from a match sim drill that lasted about 15-20 mins. The purpose se

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Monday 16th January 2023

    STINGA'S TRAINING REPORT Went with a friend to watch training this morning.  They have 3 sets of temporary grandstands set up next to the rooms for spectators and get a good view of everything. Fritsch was the only absentee and J Smith was on the bike for the whole session. Everyone in their own numbers except JVR in 44,   Kye Turner is 47 and Burgoyne 33. Started off with goal kicking which has been described before. Then an agility routine where where they ducked aroun

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Friday 13th January 2023

    REDLEGS23'S TRAINING REPORT Got to training about 9:50 & headed off by 11:30. Rehab / Light Drills: • Jed Adams • Kyah Farris-White • Will Varrall • I think i spotted Joel Smith, but could be wrong. The above doing light drills. Andy Moniz-Wakefield & Trent Burgoyne doing seperate laps / runs for the whole session. James Harmes, Angus Brayshaw & Steven May all started with the main group but then progressed to light duties / laps for the remainder of th

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Wednesday 11th January 2023

    WAYNE WUSSELL'S TRAINING REPORT Haven’t noticed Oliver, Petracca and Hunter, just about everyone else accounted for. Petracca here! J Smith striding out in rehab. BB taking lots of shots on goal after session marking in goal square v Stafford Younger players tending to float short passes to leading forward (D Smith, 33, 39, KF-S) while Petracca, Viney, Kossie, ANB shoot hard and low bullets Harmes, Verall, & Adams doing agility, ball handling JVR stand out in te

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...