2017 AGM

[tommystigers]

That is one view, and of course you have every right to hold it. The alternate view is that the threshold should be high enough that it takes sustained non-performance for a member-led spill. It is not beyond the realms of possibility. They said Brexit and Trump were beyond the realms of possibility. Its a high threshold sure, as it should be (personally I don't think 5% of members, or maybe 20-30% of members who might be inclined to get political is that high).

People keep saying 'hasn't happened through history', well historically the rule would have been introduced 100 years ago when our membership was what? 1500? which was guess what? 5%-ish!

4686 members voted for directors last year. 5% of Richmonds membership was roughly 3600. On those figures more than 75% of members inclined to get political is the threshold for an EGM.

IIRC 194 votes* made the change to allow board appointments. The board was happy to bank that decision.

*194 is the number listed somewhere deep inside one of the threads from 2016.

 

[Al Bundy]

How does one put up a proposal for voting?

What I was thinking was to put up a figure of 1000 signatures for a vote for a EGM option

Secondly I would like an amendment to how these extra board members get in without being voted by members.
My thought was along the lines of say we do have a resignation after an election, then the position "should" be offered to the next in line in the last voted AGM meeting. If they decline, the one after him. (2 options). Failing that or there were no options from the AGM, then choose a random person of their choosing.

I hated how they orchestra further changes after the AGM and Wallace wasn't considered yet just failed to get in.

 

[tigersnake]

4686 members voted for directors last year. 5% of Richmonds membership was roughly 3600. On those figures more than 75% of members inclined to get political is the threshold for an EGM.

IIRC 194 votes* made the change to allow board appointments. The board was happy to bank that decision.

*194 is the number listed somewhere deep inside one of the threads from 2016.

When true crisis hits, people get political, witness SOS. That's the point. Last year that the anti-Hardwick people, fans and Board wannabees, were a very vocal minority, a significant minority, but still a minority. Point is it wasn't actually a crisis, a few people thought it was and jumped up and down and made a lot of noise, and I could understand their view even if I didn't agree with it, but ultimately they were a vocal minority. If had have been in an actual crisis, there would have been a lot more voters.

 

[RedanTiger]

How does one put up a proposal for voting?

This was the very point in the reasoning the board put out about these current changes.
"An argument has been advanced that ..... removing the 100 member provision will entrench directors. This is not correct and a resolution ..... can be put by members at the AGM".
Members resolutions can only be put forward and voted on at the annual AGM.

Last year it was changed from requiring 10 members with 14 days notice in resolution 6.
It now requires 100 members (or 5%) with 2 months notice to be voted on at the AGM only (249N and 249O of Corporations Act).

 

[year of the tiger]

This was the very point in the reasoning the board put out about these current changes.
"An argument has been advanced that ..... removing the 100 member provision will entrench directors. This is not correct and a resolution ..... can be put by members at the AGM".
Members resolutions can only be put forward and voted on at the annual AGM.

Last year it was changed from requiring 10 members with 14 days notice in resolution 6.
It now requires 100 members (or 5%) with 2 months notice to be voted on at the AGM only (249N and 249O of Corporations Act).

Can you not put forward a motion at an AGM and have members present vote on whether it can be tabled and discussed.

I understand changing a constitution maybe be a bit harder and some organisations require 75% vote for a change to occur depending on what's in their constitution.

My view on having Directors nominated or the board rather than being voted - the constitution should state that at least 70% of directors need to be member voted. This would allow the board some flexibility to appoint those with the skills they need but also ensure the majority are voted on.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I didn't even get sent a letter about the AGM. Did everyone else who's a member get one?

 

[caesar]

I didn't even get sent a letter about the AGM. Did everyone else who's a member get one?

Pretty sure there was an email sent to all members, nothing goes out snail mail these days.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Pretty sure there was an email sent to all members, nothing goes out snail mail these days.

Cheers mate. Just found it in my junk mail.

 

[deedee]

I'll vote no on the change, 100 is not much but if it is voted out of existence it is gone for ever and no one knows what tomorrow holds, if someone can show me it is/has been abused any time over the last 130 odd years, well then I might vote yes.

 

[rbartlett]

For those who maybe unaware, the club has confirmed to me that the AGM vote is for BOTH the 5% threshold change AND the life membership - premiership change.
You CAN'T vote no for one, or yes for the other (or vice versa).

Your one vote encapsulates BOTH topics.

 

[RedanTiger]

Sorry double post

 

[RedanTiger]

Can you not put forward a motion at an AGM and have members present vote on whether it can be tabled and discussed.

I understand changing a constitution maybe be a bit harder and some organisations require 75% vote for a change to occur depending on what's in their constitution.

My view on having Directors nominated or the board rather than being voted - the constitution should state that at least 70% of directors need to be member voted. This would allow the board some flexibility to appoint those with the skills they need but also ensure the majority are voted on.

Don't think you can move a motion and get a vote at the AGM.
To quote from the explanation from the club on last years changes under resolution 6.

"Clause 6.1.2: This amendment is to update the provisions requiring the giving of notice of AGMs to the members including updating the references to the Club's financial reports. The amendment also removes the reference to the ordinary business including any business of which 14 days notice has been given by any 10 members. This is because section 249N of the Corporations Act requires notice of member's resolutions to be lodged two months before the meeting and requires at least 5% of the voting members or 100 voting members to sign the notice. Members have the right under section 249N to lodge such notices of resolutions."

The new clause 6.1.3 says the club may give notice personally, by post, fax, email or any method approved by section 249J of the ACT.

 

[year of the tiger]

Thanks RT for the update - that makes sense.

 

[Al Bundy]

For those who maybe unaware, the club has confirmed to me that the AGM vote is for BOTH the 5% threshold change AND the life membership - premiership change.
You CAN'T vote no for one, or yes for the other (or vice versa).

Your one vote encapsulates BOTH topics.

Thanks Rhett.

Silly imo. They are separate issues!?!

 

[lamb22]

For those who maybe unaware, the club has confirmed to me that the AGM vote is for BOTH the 5% threshold change AND the life membership - premiership change.
You CAN'T vote no for one, or yes for the other (or vice versa).

Your one vote encapsulates BOTH topics.

That is such poor form from the club. In parliamentary terms these are called riders and they are not allowed in some jurisdictions such as France. Most members will be happy to give life membership to premiership players. Those voting No will be seen as Grinch's stealing Christmas.

The Board doesn't need to act in such an underhanded way.

 

[year of the tiger]

That is such poor form from the club. In parliamentary terms these are called riders and they are not allowed in some jurisdictions such as France. Most members will be happy to give life membership to premiership players. Those voting No will be seen as Grinch's stealing Christmas.

The Board doesn't need to act in such an underhanded way.

Agree - I don't understand the logic as I would assume both issues would get through.

The board, for all the good it is doing at the moment, hasn't quite got the voting stuff right. It seems to lack confidence in taking its ideas to the members - strange.

 

[OldTiger67]

What you may not know is that the Board has closed the RFC Museum (it is being packed up now) AND has plans to demolish the Jack Dyer Grandstand.

Maybe someone should ask questions at the AGM!!

 

[deedee]

What you may not know is that the Board has closed the RFC Museum (it is being packed up now) AND has plans to demolish the Jack Dyer Grandstand.

Maybe someone should ask questions at the AGM!!

I was under the impression that it is heritage listed, very hard to get approval to demolish anything heritage listed.

 

[taztiger4]

I was under the impression that it is heritage listed, very hard to get approval to demolish anything heritage listed.

No its not heritage listed

If we are to keep growing, it needs to go

 

[taztiger4]

What you may not know is that the Board has closed the RFC Museum (it is being packed up now) AND has plans to demolish the Jack Dyer Grandstand.

Maybe someone should ask questions at the AGM!!

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2017-12-08/richmond-museum-relocation