Lord Nev

14 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

We're a happy team at Hawthorn......Boards wouldn't do anything nefarious to scupper potential Board nominees they don't want . Would they?

On 10/22/2022 at 5:35 PM, Lord Nev said:

How about you provide some examples where incumbent boards have sent out materials from the challengers to their members/shareholders? I'd be interested to see the 'real world' examples.

Still waiting on all those examples you talked about jnr.

Perhaps you and Dr. Gonzo could work together to provide lots of them given you both said there were plenty of times it's happened but then both went quiet when asked for examples.

Thanks in advance.

20 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

this happens all the time in all facets of club governance (board elections being a prime example).

18 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Can you provide some other examples from AFL clubs where an opposing view to the club has been sent by a member using the club's contact details? This is the first time I've heard of it, so would be interested to see these numerous times it has happened.

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's part of the governance of the club, club members have the right to access member contact details to communicate with them around things like board elections and changes to the club constitution. It's not a hard concept to understand and Supreme Court Justice Riordan agreed.

Some people are being overly precious and I find it all quite hilarious. Getting your knickers in a twist because someone sent you an email, oh lord how will we sleep tonight?!

Still waiting....

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

He is a member of the club and he is entitled to contact other members to provide an alternative or views on the amendments put forward by the club to influence the vote. Whether he is raising other grievances or not is irrelevant, this happens all the time in all facets of club governance (board elections being a prime example).

Of course it's relevant if he's using this apparent tool of 'democracy' to raise grievances. That's not what it's for, even by your own words.

Can you provide some other examples from AFL clubs where an opposing view to the club has been sent by a member using the club's contact details? This is the first time I've heard of it, so would be interested to see these numerous times it has happened.

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

The club wants members to vote on amendments to the club's constitution. Seems like a democratic function of club governance to me.

Lawrence does not represent the club though, and given he used his opportunity to further raise grievances it is clearly not just for democratic purposes.

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

As a member based club your contact details may be made available to enable the democratic functions of the club. Pretty simple. And Supreme Court Justice Riordan agrees.

 This isn't 'enabling democracy', this is enabling a member to spread their grievances.

Will be interesting to see if these laws stay the same after this. I feel this part of the act has gone under the radar at AFL clubs previously but Lawrence's efforts here have highlighted how it can be easily abused.

40 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

If any members disapprove of the way Lawrence has handled this they can always email him to strongly put their views across.

Nah, I'm gonna just email the entire member database, that's apparently what we do now...

52 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

and by providing your information to the Club and the AFL you have agreed to this under the AFL and Club privacy policy:

You agree to the disclosure and use of such personal information in accordance with this Privacy
Policy, and consent to its disclosure overseas and its use by third parties, including our service
providers, in the USA, Gibraltar, China and such other countries in which those parties or their
computer systems may be located from time to time, where it may be used solely for the purposes
described in this Privacy Policy, without us being responsible for such use (or for any
breach).

....and people are worried about just an email address?

Yes, privacy and data is a massive issue and only getting bigger.

The difference here is people are aware and agreeing to what happens with their data and it's going to reasonably secure systems, rather than going to a private citizen who is clearly clueless with technology.

Optus and Medibank are possibly going to cop huge fines, Cambridge Analytica doesn't exist anymore, what exactly are the repercussions for Lawrence should he not handle our data properly? What systems does he have in place to store it and protect it? How exactly is he going to 'destroy' the digital data?

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because we are a member based club not a privately owned franchise

That doesn't answer the questions at all.

Being a member based club doesn't mean the private data and contacting capabilities the club has collected are at the disposal of every member whenever they want.

There's plenty of ways for members to raise issues already.

And being a member based club doesn't mean the people who have been voted in to run the club have to use the club's official means of contact to enable the destabilization of the club.

Maybe if Lawrence had a clue how to use technology properly, how to get his case across effectively, how to garner support of members and how to have positive impact without this kind of disruption then he wouldn't need to hijack the club's communication systems.

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Suggest you go and read up up and how it works in the real world

Or you could answer the question...

How about you provide some examples where incumbent boards have sent out materials from the challengers to their members/shareholders? I'd be interested to see the 'real world' examples.

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

No one is saying does. You clearly don't understand how a Board process works

I can nominate for the BHP Board. I then get the opportunity to put forward my case and the shareholders vote on it.

 

And do you think that BHP would send around your messages for you to all their shareholders because 'inclusiveness'?

Is that how a board process works?

22 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

There is history behind this. Lawrence nominated last year and the club refused his request to put his case to members.

The club actually behaved very poorly and is looking to stymie and genuine nominations other than the ones they want.

Not sure they are as inclusive as they make themselves out to be

Inclusive means you're open to different races, genders, sexualities and on and on... It doesn't mean you accept any random unqualified supporter as a member of the board.

3 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

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

No, Lawrence chose that route. The club did not.

He's absolutely destroyed his chances of getting what he wants now. The reaction on socials has been brutal.

I don't want someone like that anywhere near our board.

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

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

We're going around in circles - we've already agreed the club shouldn't have to facilitate the communication of an individual members views.

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

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

No. This is 100% on Lawrence. In the current climate especially, the club did the right thing trying to protect our data.

Just now, rjay said:

'@Lord Nev'?

Not interested in engaging in this type of thinly veiled attack. If you want to actually discuss let me know.

Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

It's not, and they chose not to, but they could have and avoided the unnecessary messy situation  -  a choice they made

This makes absolutely no sense. The club was right to not send Lawrence's material for them, but it's also the club's fault for not sending Lawrence's material for him? Huh? Lawrence created this situation.

Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

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

Not sure you understand what precedent means if you're justifying this by saying it hasn't happened much before.

Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

The email took literally a minute or two of my time - hardly an impost

Sure, but the email itself is not the biggest issue. The cost, the disruption, the instability, the data... not to mention our details are now with someone who appears pretty clueless about technology.

3 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

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?

Why should it be up to the board to facilitate the contrary views of one member? What guarantee is there that this doesn't become a regular thing whenever a member disagrees with the board? This is a horrible precedent, even more so at a time where we really need stability. I was ambivalent to Lawrence before this but now I think he's a troublemaker and doesn't truly have the best interests of the club at heart.

41 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

from a friend: 

So looks like this Deemocracy group have already broken the Spam Act 2003 by not including adequate contact details in their email to members.

They've put in MCG but unless they have an office space there and can accept mail, they've done it wrong

report them here: https://www.acma.gov.au/avoid-sending-spam

Surely not... the bloke who doesn't know how to upload a twitter pic, build an email list and has the worst website you've ever seen in your life isn't totally up on technology? Oh well, I'm sure all our personal details are totally safe with him....

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

and not the board...

About time you've finally awoken from your slumber old son.

I can't see why on such an important issue we are not given a range of views.

Why do we get spoon fed what the board want us to vote for.

Perhaps you can ask your mate on the board.

Do they think their case is not strong enough to mount a solid argument?

Or do they think we are too stupid to make the right call?

The board.... of the club.

Come on mate.

"Why do we get spoon fed what the board want us to vote for." Read that again. Focus on the second last word.

if you want a range of views, go to an AGM, go to this meeting, contact the club, heck you might even want to start your own website using some kind of 'Dee' pun... No one is stopping you.

Not sure what 'argument' you're looking for? Plenty of info out there from the club about the proposed changes.

I don't have any mates on the board.

1 minute ago, rjay said:

The board haven't obtained data through appropriate means and they aren't the club.

Their job is to oversee the club.

I would think it appropriate that they allow the club to facilitate a flow of information to members when important issues come to a vote.

That would seem good governance.

What do they have to hide?

Wouldn't it be better if the arguments of the different cases were fairly put before us members so as we can make an informed decision?

Yes, the club has collected the data, not Lawrence.

Glad you've seen the light there.

There's plenty of means for a member to raise issues, they shouldn't have free access to the club's data to share any and all of their ideas.

4 minutes ago, No10 said:

In terms of the hysteria on privacy, you don’t have to agree with him but isn’t it preferable that a member this passionate about their views can be heard?

He's already able to be heard. He has a whole website for it. No one has stopped him being heard.

The club shouldn't have to facilitate communication for them using the data they have obtained through appropriate means.

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

It's pretty obvious you have an agenda here 'Lord'

If the board were open and transparent to start with this whole thing never would have gone to court.

They haven't been and that's a cause for concern.

My 'agenda' is how Lawrence has gone about all this.

I had absolutely no problem with his 'Deemocracy' stuff, him being able to throw up suggestions etc, go for it, by all reports he's paid his dues as a member  and more than has the right to have a say. But using (frankly; outdated) regulations to obtain personal addresses is a massive concern for me and has totally put me off side.

I would have been far more concerned had the board just handed over all the collected data to some random supporter who has made no mention of how they will use the data, how they will store it and how accessible it will be. Going by his twitter and website he doesn't seem the most technology savvy person.

Not exactly winning hearts and minds if the comments towards him on socials are anything to go by... (Read the replies)

2 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

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!

So, you didn't want your information provided, but now that a judge said it can be you're happy to do so?

I'm concerned about the whole thing. I wasn't aware of the conditions in the current corporate act that meant my address would be given out so freely, as I've not encountered this type of behaviour  from a fellow member before.

Lawrence has come out of this looking terrible an has damaged any chance he had of bringing forth the changes he wanted.

But not just that, he's been a  disruption to the club when we already have other ego-driven disruptive agendas to deal with, and has cost the club money - which comes from us. Just a shambles all round.

Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Perhaps you can catch the Judge up on 21st Century privacy when you get a chance

Definitely seems like the judge needs it.

Would seem most  supporters have the same concerns judging by the  reaction on socials and report from the club about the complaints.

Have a look here...