Graeme Yeats' Mullet

All the questions from the floor were good I thought. Didn't count numbers, but would say 7-8 people With maybe 4-5 specifically focussed on the Nominations 20+ number, 1 around the presence of the preamble, 1 on electioneering, 1 on all/nothing vs options, 1 on voting procedure I was surprised to hear the working group added the Nominations amendments after member input - would love to know some stats as to how many gave feedback in either direction as thats clearly the divisive point... My gut tells me they heard what they wanted to hear

Nope Very much on point, as directed and as appropriate for the special meeting

Resolution passed 3907 voted 84.1%

Great question on why not provide members options within the vote Could have provided FOR and AGAINST option by item, or by logically grouped items similar to layout of explanatory memo

Kate Roffey "except I suspect Joey from Moe is likely not an MCC member" OMG... 🤔

Suspect both sets of info had some common identifier as you suggest Should have just sent on behalf to begin with, all would have been avoided

Anyone willing to have a stab at the results? I'm keen to hear guesses for both TOTAL # of Votes FOR % My guess TOTAL 9411 votes FOR 83%

Sure But the premise of the post was the structure of Deemocracy alternative proposal was "cleverly concealing" something I was simply pointing out that putting forward an alternative is a legitimate way of promoting debate - better than simply [censored] canning ideas and offering nothing

I didn't say that I said the tactic of putting an alternative proposal for amendments forward (by Deemocracy) was like an Opposition party putting forward alternative policy ideas - they do this for the whole time they are in Opposition (nothing to do with election time) even though the Parliament will never vote on the policies

I agree with you on some/most of this, not sure how you see me differently The alternative is materially pointless, except to highlight their view of what they see as deficiencies in the Board's proposal and promote a debate, raise awareness, and ask members to vote Against I've clearly agreed above, it's FOR or AGAINST, the Board's proposal

Nope Made my concern clear on page 1 of this thread, well before they organised

There's nothing cleverly concealed, the point of their alternative ideas are simply to promote debate It's putting an alternative idea forward. Just like an Opposition would put an alternative policy position to a Government in parliament (where the alternative policy is not going to be voted on - the minor parties take this to the extreme to highlight their agendas) The Nominations obiection is clear, and obvious...

That's interesting Anyone know much about the mechanics of this type of corporate voting? Perhaps the Proxy numbers are known to the Proxies as they accumulate? But seems strange that would be broadly known Saying it's close could just be a tactic to increase turnout also I guess

Spot on, and great show btw I said on Page 1 that the changes to Nominations are a solution looking for a problem... If I understand correctly from what's been posted here, Kate Roffey's time leading the Board, without term limits changing, her time is up (?) That then is the underlying reason for Constitution changes I think Kate has been a good leader, and broadly support the term proposals because of this - but this is not a comprehensive review, it's basically window dressing around the Term changes If that's the case, why bother change Nominations requirements and annoy some members?

Yes only the things on your list... not things on anyone else's list... or others' opinions or anything like that! Lecturing others on what's inclusive and what's not... Haha, 🤣

You're going around in circles because your missing the point... I'm continuing straight ahead They're not compelled to, but they should have, to avoid the mess at the point when it was clear a member was going to pursue their legal rights - they could have shown Leadership and Foresight and taken the higher ground and bakced their case for change to prevail... Good qualities for a Board wouldn’t you say?? Instead they chose a path that resulted in a public spat, a lost court case, and in member roll data and emails, being transferred - all could've been avoided

The could have sent on behalf and avoided the data transfer entirely... A way better outcome on every dimension than what has occurred

No, not what I said They are perfectly entitled not to send, but also, they were also entitled to send on behalf - they made a choice I disagree with their choice, they could have facilitated, made clear they didn't support, and avoided the costly mess It is clear in Law that the member had the rights to get access to the roll and became obvious he would pursue that avenue, the Club could have at that piint made more sensible decision IMO

It's not, and they chose not to, but they could have and avoided the unnecessary messy situation - a choice they made As for precedent, this is a vote to amend the Club's Constitution, with some amendments quite material - this doesn't happen regularly at all (hence the premise of these changes being the Constitution is outdated...) I think we can live with it The email took literally a minute or two of my time - hardly an impost

Interest take here I generally agree with you, and most of the proposals make sense and are fairly minor But I dont understand your conclusion here: "The board can't dodge accountability on that front for much longer" The Nominations proposals make it harder for members to nominate and strengthen the ability of Board to support their preferred candidates

I just received an email from Deemocracy. Read it, deleted it, entirely painless exercise that the club could have facilitated weeks ago, and managed around the circus it has become, unnecessary I agree It's great you feel better blaming one individual, and I feel your conclusions are somewhat valid - but it's concerning to me our Board couldn't manage a smoother outcome, if they think they have such a good solution for updating the Constitution then why not back themselves, back their consultation process, and allow members to hear the contrary view weeks ago?

Maybe we can agree on something... Champ! To be clear, my beef with the whole situation started with the Board actively campaigning against a member - as I've stated numerous times on here. Without that action, I'd probably have remained unconcerned with the whole topic. I'd never heard of Lawrence before his candidacy and probably would've forgotten him by now without the Boards campaigning, like I've forgotten the others... The proposal to make Nominations for Board harder further irked me further... So yes, I'd prefer my details weren't sent out, and that the Board had excluded those specific proposal However I was aware of the workings of a Club when I paid my subs this year and previous years, and in hindsight I would still have chosen to be a member and accept those workings... Like accepting that the Privacy Policy allows the disclosure of personal information to many different parties at the clubs discretion...

The Club didn't provide any Stats as to calls or Feedback in the consultation period that was against the Board's view in their email... Also I'm sure most supporters wouldn't want any information provided - I would prefer none provided But that's not the issue here The issue here is that the process the Club has run is governed in a way that requires information to be given out if requested. The Court has ruled email should be given, that's the fact now... Pal!

"Mate"... give us a spell, we both know that ain't happening... Pal! Perhaps you can catch the Judge up on 21st Century privacy when you get a chance

Of course that's the case. But similar can be said for the Board's proposal To be clear - I agree with the proposal to increase the Term allowable for President - but this is directly related to advancing Kate Roffey's term as President Additionally, the changes proposed to the Constitution are pretty limited, a few fluffy wording changes, and making it harder for non-board endorsed candidates to run for Board Clearly not a comprehensive review aimed at getting the Constitution right Quite possibly right, but email over postal address is far more sensible from a Privacy, Cost and Comms perspective - but the Board aren't in favour of the Comms aspect I also found this interesting... The Club also cannot be in a position where it is seen to either endorse views of any member in such circumstances The Board was happy to actively campaign against a candidate at the last election - pretty happy to endorse views of some members back then...