Proposed Constitution Changes | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Proposed Constitution Changes

Serious question, am I missing something here?

Why would anyone be against resolution 5? I don't get what the 2011 references are for but to allow Board members to vote via technology is normal these days. I'm on half a dozen Boards and travel 3-4 months of the year, hence often away when meetings are on and regularly attend meetings via phone or video conferencing. Isn't this simply allowing this?

Similarly, sometimes we've discussed things and the CEO needs to confirm something and rather than wait for the next meeting to get cracking on it, an email is sent with the answer and requesting a vote, it looks to be allowing that as well.
It appears as if currently everyone needs to be in the actual meeting or have given a proxy to be able to actually vote, if that's the case seems a bit outdated to me and a logical change.
 
Big Tiger said:
Serious question, am I missing something here?

Why would anyone be against resolution 5? I don't get what the 2011 references are for but to allow Board members to vote via technology is normal these days. I'm on half a dozen Boards and travel 3-4 months of the year, hence often away when meetings are on and regularly attend meetings via phone or video conferencing. Isn't this simply allowing this?

Similarly, sometimes we've discussed things and the CEO needs to confirm something and rather than wait for the next meeting to get cracking on it, an email is sent with the answer and requesting a vote, it looks to be allowing that as well.
It appears as if currently everyone needs to be in the actual meeting or have given a proxy to be able to actually vote, if that's the case seems a bit outdated to me and a logical change.
Click to expand...
On face value it seems logical to vote for this resolution. Unfortunately the Richmond Football Club Board treat members as fools so I am wary and suspicious of anything they do. March stated before the last constitution changes that appointments to the Board would be the exception and the majority of directors would be elected. That worked out well.

Most importantly the Richmond Football Club through Computershare provided me with an all or nothing proxy form. There was no opportunity to vote for individual resolutions, it was either for all or against all. I chose the latter. They have now realised this and have made available a proxy form that allows votes on each resolution. Why the change?

The Board have done a number of things that are questionable at best in the lead up to this AGM. It's either a conspiracy or gross ineptitude. Why would you support ineptitude? You certainly wouldn't contribute to a conspiracy.
 
Big Tiger said:
Serious question, am I missing something here?

Why would anyone be against resolution 5? I don't get what the 2011 references are for but to allow Board members to vote via technology is normal these days. I'm on half a dozen Boards and travel 3-4 months of the year, hence often away when meetings are on and regularly attend meetings via phone or video conferencing. Isn't this simply allowing this?

Similarly, sometimes we've discussed things and the CEO needs to confirm something and rather than wait for the next meeting to get cracking on it, an email is sent with the answer and requesting a vote, it looks to be allowing that as well.
It appears as if currently everyone needs to be in the actual meeting or have given a proxy to be able to actually vote, if that's the case seems a bit outdated to me and a logical change.
Click to expand...

I would think it isn't to do with casting a vote, or asking for info, so much as being able to 'join a meeting' via skype etc. that people may disagree with.
 
So which is it? Do we vote on all together as one or do we vote on each individually?

*smile* this is complicated.

Benny was right.
 
Big Tiger said:
Serious question, am I missing something here?

Why would anyone be against resolution 5? I don't get what the 2011 references are for but to allow Board members to vote via technology is normal these days. I'm on half a dozen Boards and travel 3-4 months of the year, hence often away when meetings are on and regularly attend meetings via phone or video conferencing. Isn't this simply allowing this?

Similarly, sometimes we've discussed things and the CEO needs to confirm something and rather than wait for the next meeting to get cracking on it, an email is sent with the answer and requesting a vote, it looks to be allowing that as well.
It appears as if currently everyone needs to be in the actual meeting or have given a proxy to be able to actually vote, if that's the case seems a bit outdated to me and a logical change.
Click to expand...

Logical question.

The constitution uses different words to describe 'present' - "present personally" and "present". The absence of the word "personally" doesn't seem to place a need for directors to be "present personally".

I would think that the ability to use technology to conduct meetings would be more a procedural issue, not a constitutional issue.
 
Big Tiger said:
Serious question, am I missing something here?

Why would anyone be against resolution 5? I don't get what the 2011 references are for but to allow Board members to vote via technology is normal these days. I'm on half a dozen Boards and travel 3-4 months of the year, hence often away when meetings are on and regularly attend meetings via phone or video conferencing. Isn't this simply allowing this?

Similarly, sometimes we've discussed things and the CEO needs to confirm something and rather than wait for the next meeting to get cracking on it, an email is sent with the answer and requesting a vote, it looks to be allowing that as well.
It appears as if currently everyone needs to be in the actual meeting or have given a proxy to be able to actually vote, if that's the case seems a bit outdated to me and a logical change.
Click to expand...

As you say, voting by technology is normal.
If you attend meetings via phone or video conferencing then aren't you "present" at the meeting?
So why change the constitution?
Did the boards that you are on require a constitutional change approved by 3/4 of members to allow them to use technology or circular resolutions?

My reference to 2011 that you mention is to show that this change normalises Sydney-based financiers as appointed board members as floated by March. I personally do not want that.

It's reasonable to get good quality "fresh blood" on the board by having APPOINTED directors.
How's that going with only current board members being appointed?

It's reasonable to have the board APPOINT replacement directors for retiring ones.
How's that going with staged retirements leading to incumbents for a month or two before re-election?
Board-selected replacement people who are vetted and approved in a closed confidential committee.

This board has not earned our trust by their actions in the past manipulating the rules.

Vote AGAINST all the resolutions and let them change the board standing orders to allow technology.

Edit: note Peter and others have answered in a similar manner
 
Harry said:
So which is it? Do we vote on all together as one or do we vote on each individually?

*smile* this is complicated.

Benny was right.
Click to expand...

Each individually if you have the proxy form.
 
My thanks also Redan, emailed copies of our proxy to computershare.

Hope we as a club have a big turn out in voting no matter who or what gets up.

Go Tigers
 
jb03 said:
Each individually if you have the proxy form.
Click to expand...

Not so fast, my friend...

Which proxy form?

Only one of the three separates each resolution individually...so do the other two only allow against all? Or are they deemed invalid?
 
bigtigercasey said:
Not so fast, my friend...

Which proxy form?

Only one of the three separates each resolution individually...so do the other two only allow against all? Or are they deemed invalid?
Click to expand...

I rang and asked for a proxy form. It was mailed to me. There is an opportuniuty to vote for each item individually.


Some good questions on how the proxies work. I have full faith in the current board to rig the result in their favour.
 
Fair enough.

Getting you out from under that bridge and to the AGM is a triumph in itself. ;D
 
DragicevicFan said:
Am i too late to get a proxy form?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately yes, Draga. Proxies needed to be lodged last night by 6pm. You can still attend the AGM and vote in person.
 
If anyone wondered why Peggie is so desperate to remain in the presidency for the corporate and establishment doors it opens look no further than her being the first woman admitted to the. Carbine Club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< 2017 AGM | 3-0-75 >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom