4 minutes ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

maybe someone who lives in Melbourne and has time to devote to the Club

Hard to think of a lower bar.

4 minutes ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

Indeed Bing an "open election" would "throw up" a bunch of candidates that the members could then vote upon. The members might even have their own view on what skills are needed - maybe someone who lives in Melbourne and has time to devote to the Club? And the "skills we need"? Who determines that? - the same Board members that this thread is suggesting has failed us. See DFF's post - a nominee is identified by the Board and then the skill set they deem is required mysteriously appears as the skill set that the Board define as being required. Whatever that is, it is not an "open election".

Well I’m sold.

Vote ‘No’ on Open Elections

2 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Hard to think of a lower bar.

The nominee doesn't get over it....

2 hours ago, bing181 said:

We're changing board members, we have a new president, a new CEO, a new head coach plus other FD personnel, we've got rid of two of our best players ...

That's not a shake up?

Not when it's done by the same people/system

Changing from within is rare

Guerra for example is another version of Roffey if you take a step back. Will he be better. I have no idea but make no mistake he's a political animal/operative. Measure Roffey on any criteria and she failed. Some were her fault, others not but it was a failure.

Sometimes you just need to try something else or at least put in some different voices

15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

And they're not allowed to engage the members via other forums or directly via email so what hope do they have?

Yes, it stinks. I wonder if it is legal?

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by redandbluemakepurple

11 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Measure Roffey on any criteria and she failed.

Premiership?

11 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Not when it's done by the same people/system

Changing from within is rare

Guerra for example is another version of Roffey if you take a step back. Will he be better. I have no idea but make no mistake he's a political animal/operative. Measure Roffey on any criteria and she failed. Some were her fault, others not but it was a failure.

Sometimes you just need to try something else or at least put in some different voices

The idea democracy will generate better candidates sounds great but is deeply flawed. Look at our political class. The only thing they are good at is getting elected.

The board should nominate its preferred candidates. The board has to be united and aligned. Anything else is a recipe for chaos.

If supporters don't like that, then form a rival ticket, spill the current board and bring in your own people

16 hours ago, bing181 said:

By definition, an open election will throw up whoever it throws up - including people with either similar skills (undesirable) or just as likely, skills we don't need or even zero skills.

Huh?

It IS an open election is it not - or at least should be?

Isn't that the point?

That's to say it's supposed to be an open election where members get to elect their board member but in reality, it's anything but.

To be clear, of course its common practice for a board to identify both a skill gap and have preferred candidate in mind -it's ever been thus.

But I'd make three points.

Firstly, that approach to filling board seats is often a factor in in scenario's where boards are performing poorly. Why? Because it makes it difficult to get a diversity of experience and viewpoints, critical to good governance (particularly in organisations supper sensitive to market forces - in our case our need to sell memberships to survive, let alone thrive) and reinforces a job for the boy's culture.

Secondly, there are no issues in the Board identifying Dan from Stan as their preferred new board member however I'd argue it's in not appropriate for a future President in announcing his presidency to essentially anoint Dan from Stan in that statement (or any for that matter).

Why not simply do something like create a page on the MFC website with info about their preferred candidate, and any other candidates, promote that page and let members review that info.

Thirdly, the process is just a continuation of the status quo model of filling board seats at the MFC. In all seriousness, how has that model worked out for us since 1964 when the then board sacked a coach who had won the previous years' flag halfway thru a season?

For almost all of the intervening period we have been a shambles from a governance perspective. And we have been spectacularly unsuccessful in that period - winning the solitary flag in nearly six decades

At the end of the day the buck stops with the board - they own both success and failure. Does anyone seriously think our lack of success is not a function of our poor governance?

Hell, the one flag we have won since 1964 coincided with one of the few periods of stability at the board and executive level - and even then I'd question that boards' effectiveness given, amongst other things it signed off on Goody's, Claz and Tracc's contract extensions (a decision we are now paying for - literally), failed to land a home base, failed to leverage our flag into sustained membership growth and oversaw a culture that seemingly now needs to be reset.

What that saying about insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

Edited 36 minutes ago36 min by binman

The other point i'd make is it's a disingenuous straw man argument to correlate having a more transparent and open election process that actively encouraged people to put their name forward with that process necessarily throwing up some clueless footy fan nuffie.

For one thing that's an implicit insult to the members - 'members are no naive and dull of mind that they will elect some person who has no idea, better leave it to the experts, particularly given our stellar track record of anointing board members with gun skills that have underpinned our success'

But more significantly, it's ridiculous to think that outside of the board's tiny pool of candidates that amongst our 60,000 odd members there are not people who are supporters of the club AND have the high-level skills, knowledge, experience and abilities needed to make positive contribution to the club.

Further to that point, good governance is having Position Descriptions for board members. Anyone putting their name forward for consideration would have to demonstrate how they meet the PD and related KPIs. Then members can make a decision based on that information.