12 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Because most people post Covid are choosing to work from home where possible. 

If their employer let's them.

23 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If their employer let's them.

Hence my question re our admin staff. 

9 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Your considered contribution to this thread is to close it down? I guess you were quite pleased that the live stream stopped as Question Time commenced? You probably didn't want to hear from those pesky members daring to ask questions.

45.7% of members who voted on the Members' Resolution want open, fair and transparent elections - not enough though - BDA says let's just move right along.....

The Company Secretary just announced the result - no comment or reaction from the Chair or the Board?

You do realise every time you create your own straw man argument like what you have done with the use of that percentage -  you lose people? 

So 54.3% of the members who bothered to vote rejected the resolution - why? What do you intimate on their motives by your argument above?

The reaction of the board is to move on which is reflective of where the vast majority of their members were throughout this process.

Time to do an Elsa.

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

Hence my question re our admin staff. 

I can't imagine our entire admin staff would be required in the office 5 days a week. I'd be guessing they have a hybrid  approach. 

It's not just a training-base that is to be included in our home base, they want all admin and staff there as well. If it was just training then Casey is a no-brainer but because it's training and admin they need to find somewhere in the Heartland for it to all be together, that's my thoughts on it anyway. I don't believe it needs to be in the Heartland maybe 100 years ago yes but not now as all the supporters are so spread out and no one barracks for the suburb that they live in they barrack for the team their parents barrack for. I would just like to see everything all Under One roof with facilities everyone can be proud of.

Edited February 23, 20232 yr by AzzKikA

13 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

I suggest you ask the MFC Company Secretary to produce minutes of the meeting - something comparable to what the MCC produces would be nice - which would then include a summary of the Q&A. Minutes of last year's meeting were not available at the registration desk, and the Chair cited a resolution of an AGM in 1980 at item 2 to take the minutes of the previous year's meeting as read.

My understanding is that the Company Secretary is required to produce minutes within 30 days of the meeting. Let's hope they will be placed on the Club's website under the Governance tab.

There were around 6 or 7 questions, with the last question being from Jo McCoy, suggesting that the Club provide some type of members' forum or platform for respectful debate around the Board election. My recollection was that the President suggested that she would have a coffee with Jo.....or something like that?

I'm torn on the issue of publication of the minutes. While I appreciate the idea that it should support the principle of democracy, the reality is that if minutes are made public, two things happen. Firstly, debate at meetings becomes stifled because people might not want their comments and opinions shared widely and because information that might be sensitive for commercial or political reasons might be disclosed. Secondly, to avoid the latter problem, the minutes themselves are more likely to be a sanitised version of the discussion. That's not helpful to future discussions of the Board. On balance, I'm against the disclosure of the minutes as I believe the Board should not feel constrained by concerns as to publication of what they might say and because any future Boards should be able to look back at minutes of past meetings and know that they fully record what was discussed.

I'm speaking from experience here having recorded minutes for very senior government meetings as well as being a member of a government board that had to make highly sensitive decisions.   

11 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm torn on the issue of publication of the minutes. While I appreciate the idea that it should support the principle of democracy, the reality is that if minutes are made public, two things happen. Firstly, debate at meetings becomes stifled because people might not want their comments and opinions shared widely and because information that might be sensitive for commercial or political reasons might be disclosed. Secondly, to avoid the latter problem, the minutes themselves are more likely to be a sanitised version of the discussion. That's not helpful to future discussions of the Board. On balance, I'm against the disclosure of the minutes as I believe the Board should not feel constrained by concerns as to publication of what they might say and because any future Boards should be able to look back at minutes of past meetings and know that they fully record what was discussed.

I'm speaking from experience here having recorded minutes for very senior government meetings as well as being a member of a government board that had to make highly sensitive decisions.   

All noted but I was talking about the AGM minutes, not the regular Board meeting minutes. I don't see any harm in having reasonably deatiled AGM minutes including, for example, the slides that were presented during the meeting and a summary of the Q&A. The minutes prepared for the MCC AGMs are an excellent example of quality minutes.

Re Board meetings why not have a summary of what the Board deals with at their regular meetings on the Governance page, whilst retaining confidentiality around any sensitive, or commercial-in-confidence matters.

I wouldn't be sharing any minutes, while it's not officially a publicly owned company, members pay to be a part of the club but don't actually own any of it, they have every right not to release minutes of any kind. If you really want to know the ins and outs of what happens at AGMs, go there yourself. It's just smart business sense to not tell everyone what you're doing.

On 2/24/2023 at 11:00 PM, Hawk the Demon said:

All noted but I was talking about the AGM minutes, not the regular Board meeting minutes. I don't see any harm in having reasonably deatiled AGM minutes including, for example, the slides that were presented during the meeting and a summary of the Q&A. The minutes prepared for the MCC AGMs are an excellent example of quality minutes.

Re Board meetings why not have a summary of what the Board deals with at their regular meetings on the Governance page, whilst retaining confidentiality around any sensitive, or commercial-in-confidence matters.

I agree with both these points. Having said that, I'm not sure whether there would be much value in a summary of what the Board discusses. Any juicy bits will be left out of the disclosed information.

It's over and the thread should be closed, all it will do is deepen the divisions between the various factions on here.

This has been like a civil war, and I believe we should just mend the fences and get on with the job of supporting the players and the team.

19 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree with both these points. Having said that, I'm not sure whether there would be much value in a summary of what the Board discusses. Any juicy bits will be left out of the disclosed information.

I agree that it's a small thing - but it goes to openness and transparency. We are often told by the President that it's our Club. Maybe only 10-15% of members are interested in the off-field stuff, but a note on the Governance page outlining the Board meeting dates - the agenda items discussed (presumably with the home base on that agenda every meeting!) would be a start.

And the AGM minutes should be more comprehensive and available - after all it is the only time members meet formally in the year, with the Board in attendance, and many members are unable to attend, or as was the case last week, were not able to see the entire meeting.

The minutes, for example would include the slides that were used in the President's and the CEO's reports.

It's not hard and would make members feel more valued.

In answer to Supreme_Demon's question: There were about half a dozen "questions" put to the board.

Jo McCoy was very genuine & understanding of her defeat, wished the board well, but suggested that perhaps the club could hold an information session for parties interested in running for a board position. She said that it was a bit overwhelming & intimidating for anyone who hadn't been through the process previously and that it would be helpful for interested parties to decide if a) they had the required qualifications & b) were prepared for exactly what was required/expected. Kat Roffey was very pleasant to her and, whilst I thought she distinctly didn't answer the suggestion, she did say that she'd like to catch up for a coffee and chat to Jo.

Peter Lawrence got up and basically reiterated what his platform has been all along, sniped at the process & couched a question right at the end of his speech (dare I say diatribe) along the lines of "are you going to make the process more transparent". Kate basically said that she wasn't going to reply because she didn't believe that there was actually a question in amongst the previous 5 minutes of grandstanding (my word - not hers). She did, however, reiterate that the constitution had undergone a revamp to bring it up-to-date, that the board believes that all questions have been answered & voted on under due process and that she hoped we could all now move on.

A couple of people basically wanted more details re: the progress of the search for a home base. Clearly Gary Pert's message hadn't sunk in to everyone as to why he couldn't be too specific. He did, though, answer those questions by going over previously discussed points re: the Olympic Park precinct, Caulfield Racecourse and that any & all options were being investigated.

One person did get up and specifically ask if purchasing land at Fisherman's Bend had been considered. Pert responded that all possible site in inner Melbourne had/are being looked at & discussed at all level. It wasn't hard to read between the lines that yes - Fisherman's Bend has been considered. Kate jumped in to advise that, whilst we could comfortably resolve the issue if we went considerably out of town, it is important to note that we really require about 10 hectares of space to do what we need to do. That sort of land is as rare as hen's teeth in the areas in question - and equally as expensive BUT everything is being considred.

Edited February 27, 20232 yr by Checker Mate
Reference

4 hours ago, Checker Mate said:

In answer to Supreme_Demon's question: There were about half a dozen "questions" put to the board.

Jo McCoy was very genuine & understanding of her defeat, wished the board well, but suggested that perhaps the club could hold an information session for parties interested in running for a board position. She said that it was a bit overwhelming & intimidating for anyone who hadn't been through the process previously and that it would be helpful for interested parties to decide if a) they had the required qualifications & b) were prepared for exactly what was required/expected. Kat Roffey was very pleasant to her and, whilst I thought she distinctly didn't answer the suggestion, she did say that she'd like to catch up for a coffee and chat to Jo.

Peter Lawrence got up and basically reiterated what his platform has been all along, sniped at the process & couched a question right at the end of his speech (dare I say diatribe) along the lines of "are you going to make the process more transparent". Kate basically said that she wasn't going to reply because she didn't believe that there was actually a question in amongst the previous 5 minutes of grandstanding (my word - not hers). She did, however, reiterate that the constitution had undergone a revamp to bring it up-to-date, that the board believes that all questions have been answered & voted on under due process and that she hoped we could all now move on.

A couple of people basically wanted more details re: the progress of the search for a home base. Clearly Gary Pert's message hadn't sunk in to everyone as to why he couldn't be too specific. He did, though, answer those questions by going over previously discussed points re: the Olympic Park precinct, Caulfield Racecourse and that any & all options were being investigated.

One person did get up and specifically ask if purchasing land at Fisherman's Bend had been considered. Pert responded that all possible site in inner Melbourne had/are being looked at & discussed at all level. It wasn't hard to read between the lines that yes - Fisherman's Bend has been considered. Kate jumped in to advise that, whilst we could comfortably resolve the issue if we went considerably out of town, it is important to note that we really require about 10 hectares of space to do what we need to do. That sort of land is as rare as hen's teeth in the areas in question - and equally as expensive BUT everything is being considred.

Thank you Checker Mate.

I greatly appreciate you taking the time to provide a detailed response to my query. 😎👍🏻