Proposed Constitution Changes

[Harry]

Alot of love and cheer leading for the board in the room. A few asked some hard questions but no real answers given - didn’t really expect any. Main purpose I was there was to vote against the EGM requirement change. Mission accomplished. Look the board seem like a lovely bunch of people with genuine intentions which makes it difficult to really go hard at them in meetings such as last night even though some tried. unfortunately its becoming clear they lack the nous and ruthlessness to lead us to a flag. Can't see anyone on the board challenging Benny and his team which is a big concern and why we're not progressing. We need more dynamic people on the board with fresh ideas that aren't afraid to challenge. Disappointing peter and simon didn't get in and being there last night I can see why because its the cheer leaders that get involved and vote and most others switch off during this time of the year.

 

[Harry]

I think Peggy mentioned she won't be running for another term. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jb03]

Thanks TT and H. We certainly are an apathetic supporter base.

In good news, the one change they likely wanted didn't get up. Thanks also to Redan for his constant provision of information.

 

[Harry]

Yep thanks Redan, Peter, David and others for keeping us informed. The members still have some power to keep the board accountable.

 

[dcstar]

We didn't pay out Chris Yarran but settled for a smaller amount. It's the smaller amount that counts in the salary cap. We dont have a ground sponsor yet.

Also do not forget that Yarran still takes up a list spot for 2017. No matter what the financial cost ends up being, recruiting him with his known problems was a massive failure of due diligence that has left us one player short on our list for 2016 and 2017 as well as losing the picks we traded for him.

An absolute massive fail by any reasonable evaluation - and the PR spin we were fed this year by the club about him being "on track" just shows how deluded the place is.

 

[dcstar]

did anyone question Princess Peggy for not facing the members to see if she would be "elected" rather squirm back into the position by an appointment
........

I did attempt to question the process of her leaving the elected position and taking up the appointed board position because IMHO you actually have to resign from one particular board position with its individual attributes of expiry dates etc. before you can take up another board position with totally different attributes. Ms O'Neal stated that she didn't resign as she didn't think it was necessary.

My opinion is that you must resign, there is nothing in our Constitution that addresses this directly as it seems to assume that Appointed board positions would be filled by people who are not current board members (that was the rationale that the whole concept of Appointed positions were sold to us years ago, to get new people in to help the club without having to expose them to the politics of elections).

It may have only been a trivial formality to officially resign from one position before being appointed to the other board position, but I believe that it should have been followed rather than the apparent situation of people treating board positions in such a cavalier manner for their own political purposes.

I didn't want to press the issue and further bore the tiring audience too much more so I let it go after I made my opinion known.

And just for everyone's interest, the Richmond Constitution specifically states that only club Members (or their appointed representatives) may attend AGMs, the person supervising and doing the resolution vote counting was not a club member - it may be trivial but would have also been trivial for the club to temporarily make her a member for the night to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution.

 

[Sintiger]

Alot of love and cheer leading for the board in the room. A few asked some hard questions but no real answers given - didn’t really expect any. Main purpose I was there was to vote against the EGM requirement change. Mission accomplished.

It's a pity the two options were so different imo Harry. I agree the 5% of voting members the Board was pushing for is too many but I also believe that being able to call an EGM with 100 signatures is too low. Something like 500 or even a few more would be more realistic.

 

[dcstar]

It's a pity the two options were so different imo Harry. I agree the 5% of voting members the Board was pushing for is too many but I also believe that being able to call an EGM with 100 signatures is too low. Something like 500 or even a few more would be more realistic.

There has never been an EGM at Richmond even with 100 signatures, so the whole scare campaign falls to pieces by the shear facts of history.

The possibility of an EGM is basically the only leverage the Richmond members have to make changes to a board between AGMs, but the general apathy of the membership base has ensured that it is impotent in the face of the cult like behaviour that seems to worship the incumbents simply because they are already there.

 

[joegarra]

I was disappointed with all the cheer leading going on. We have the worst game style in the comp, we have no ground sponsor, the Board keeps manipulating casual vacancies to get who they want up and yet the majority think it's wonderful. At least the EGM requirement didn't get up and I may get a call from Benny about our Etihad seats that we have paid for

 

[Sintiger]

There has never been an EGM at Richmond even with 100 signatures, so the whole scare campaign falls to pieces by the shear facts of history.

The possibility of an EGM is basically the only leverage the Richmond members have to make changes to a board between AGMs, but the general apathy of the membership base has ensured that it is impotent in the face of the cult like behaviour that seems to worship the incumbents simply because they are already there.

The number at 100 leaves the door open for professional agitators with very few signatures to waste everyone's time, it's too low. It doesn't matter whether it has happened or not because it can happen. I think we need a more reasonable number which is representative of a real concern by a significant number of members and that is not 100. It's not 5% either btw and if I was there I would have voted against that as well.

Your comments about worship and cult like behaviour just diminish your arguments btw. People weigh up arguments and make their own minds up and when they don't agree with you it doesn't mean they worship anyone.

 

[asian tetley]

Also do not forget that Yarran still takes up a list spot for 2017. No matter what the financial cost ends up being, recruiting him with his known problems was a massive failure of due diligence that has left us one player short on our list for 2016 and 2017 as well as losing the picks we traded for him.

An absolute massive fail by any reasonable evaluation - and the PR spin we were fed this year by the club about him being "on track" just shows how deluded the place is.

Yep deluded is the word.
One positive was that the 100 votes stayed.
Some good posting going on around here.
David, Harry, Redan & others.
Well done.
As Don Chipp used to say.
Keep the bastards honest!

 

[dcstar]

.......
Your comments about worship and cult like behaviour just diminish your arguments btw. People weigh up arguments and make their own minds up and when they don't agree with you it doesn't mean they worship anyone.

I call it as I see it, Some people do weigh up arguments but some people simply follow the company line again and again.

Remind me how many people came to regret swallowing the Casey/Miller propaganda about how close were were to a supposed "golden era" and how unfair it would be to toss out the board that was about to deliver us the imminent success of the mid 2000's?

Half these fools who kept Casey in power now deny that they made a massive mistake that set the club back a decade or simply pretend that it never happened and are happy to make the same mistakes again.

 

[jb03]

It's a pity the two options were so different imo Harry. I agree the 5% of voting members the Board was pushing for is too many but I also believe that being able to call an EGM with 100 signatures is too low. Something like 500 or even a few more would be more realistic.

What is wrong with 100 signatures? How many EGM's have we ever had.

Anything that cedes power from members to an elected board is not a good thing.

 

[spook]

Did Spook get his questions in?

No, they were pretty much covered by others.

Alot of love and cheer leading for the board in the room. A few asked some hard questions but no real answers given - didn’t really expect any. Main purpose I was there was to vote against the EGM requirement change. Mission accomplished. Look the board seem like a lovely bunch of people with genuine intentions which makes it difficult to really go hard at them in meetings such as last night even though some tried. unfortunately its becoming clear they lack the nous and ruthlessness to lead us to a flag. Can't see anyone on the board challenging Benny and his team which is a big concern and why we're not progressing. We need more dynamic people on the board with fresh ideas that aren't afraid to challenge. Disappointing peter and simon didn't get in and being there last night I can see why because its the cheer leaders that get involved and vote and most others switch off during this time of the year.

Like you, I voted against the EGM changes. 100 signatures doesn't seem many but 5% of all members is 3600, which is way too many, so I was happy for it to remain at 100 given there was no middle alternative.

There was plenty of feeling both ways, IMO. Some for and some against the board. Peter Casey led the way with the questioning, but some of his and old Trevor's questions were either pedantic, missed the point (Trevor arguing against allowing board meetings and votes via technology because "we don't want people from Sydney on the board"), or were angry bluster against being denied information deemed commercial in-confidence. Peter was dogged but did not present as a viable board candidate to me. (I voted for him and Wallace, by the way.)

The board does seem insular and exclusive. I'm not a fan of how Dunne especially was slipped in, or Peggy's avoidance of a vote. But we need better alternative candidates. Someone with gravitas, not just grievances. Sorry, Peter. You're not the man.

If Simon spoke, I missed it. Forgive me if so (and perhaps remind me what he said?).

Also do not forget that Yarran still takes up a list spot for 2017.

I thought they said he was off the list.

I did attempt to question the process of her leaving the elected position and taking up the appointed board position because IMHO you actually have to resign from one particular board position with its individual attributes of expiry dates etc. before you can take up another board position with totally different attributes. Ms O'Neal stated that she didn't resign as she didn't think it was necessary.

My opinion is that you must resign, there is nothing in our Constitution that addresses this directly as it seems to assume that Appointed board positions would be filled by people who are not current board members (that was the rationale that the whole concept of Appointed positions were sold to us years ago, to get new people in to help the club without having to expose them to the politics of elections).

It may have only been a trivial formality to officially resign from one position before being appointed to the other board position, but I believe that it should have been followed rather than the apparent situation of people treating board positions in such a cavalier manner for their own political purposes.

I didn't want to press the issue and further bore the tiring audience too much more so I let it go after I made my opinion known.

And just for everyone's interest, the Richmond Constitution specifically states that only club Members (or their appointed representatives) may attend AGMs, the person supervising and doing the resolution vote counting was not a club member - it may be trivial but would have also been trivial for the club to temporarily make her a member for the night to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution.

There certainly were a few trivial grievances aired.

Peggy made clear she will not seek another term, so we can all be satisfied with that.

I saw you sitting with Phillip Allison and voting against every resolution. Are you part of the Focus on Footy group?

 

[Big Tiger]

The number at 100 leaves the door open for professional agitators with very few signatures to waste everyone's time, it's too low. It doesn't matter whether it has happened or not because it can happen. I think we need a more reasonable number which is representative of a real concern by a significant number of members and that is not 100. It's not 5% either btw and if I was there I would have voted against that as well.

Your comments about worship and cult like behaviour just diminish your arguments btw. People weigh up arguments and make their own minds up and when they don't agree with you it doesn't mean they worship anyone.

Totally agree, I think 1,000 is the number. Currently the number is really 99 because you'll always have David C's signature.

 

[joegarra]

The board does seem insular and exclusive. I'm not a fan of how Dunne especially was slipped in, or Peggy's avoidance of a vote. But we need better alternative candidates. Someone with gravitas, not just grievances. Sorry, Peter. You're not the man.

If Simon spoke, I missed it. Forgive me if so (and perhaps remind me what he said?).
I thought they said he was off the list.
There certainly were a few trivial grievances aired.

I saw you sitting with Phillip Allison and voting against every resolution. Are you part of the Focus on Footy group?
[/quote]


At least Peter had the guts to get up and speak, even if I didn't agree with everything he said. I hope my trivial grievance of not getting our reserved seats at Etihad that we have paid for, gets sorted, I would prefer an opt out to an opt in system. I'd go for 500 for an EGM

 

[tommystigers]

On the 100 votes for EGM, this needs to stay as is. Only 10% of eligible voters could be bothered to have a say on the board even though they were directly provided with a candidate to vote for and a link to make it happen. This EGM clause is the only remaining power that educated members have to leverage the club into accountability. The fact that it has never been used, despite turmoil and valid cause to pull the trigger, is an indicator that those that care enough about the club to become mobilised actually do so with some thought and consideration.

The Kool-Aid drinking masses can't be bothered to look past the HUN to formulate an opinion, let alone download a proxy form to vote on the future of the Club. If you change the number of required member signatures you might as well strike EGM out of the constitution completely.

Peggy to Benny: "Mission accomplished. Eunuchs, the lot of them."

 

[Harry]

I thought Peter had some good questions which weren't answered. Benny got defensive when asked why our sponsorship decreased by over 2m saying that the fairfax article was wrong which had nothing to do with the question.

 

[asian tetley]

Totally agree, I think 1,000 is the number. Currently the number is really 99 because you'll always have David C's signature.

Make that 98.
Let's face it, if there was a decent challenge this mob would be gone.
Their performance has been dismal.
Hopefully the 100 signatures are in someone's top pocket,ready to go, if this mob put their heads back up their rectums for yet another year.

 

[Harry]

There's definitely a mob mentality at these AGMs. It was interesting watching the cheer leaders at the front look you up and down when you raised your hand against the board. These people need to realise that you're not against the club if you don't follow the board.