2015 Brisbane Lions Board Elections - Democracy comes to town Dec 17th

[Alan Smithee]

Huge mental picture of the later period of the Roman Republic with wealthy politicians owning whole rafts of clients and parlaying their excess wealth into political capital ... of course it does still happen that way but having whole bays bought out by various interest groups...**

In any case - how do the bigger / more established clubs handle the membership/voting rights issue - is it many and varied or fairly standard or .... ?

** assumes that control of the Lions Board brings something of value##

## pubic minded, high spirited, community focused, philanthropic property developers excluded of course

Bombers Members can get voting rights for as little as $50: http://membership.essendonfc.com.au/packages/view/121

Compared to the Lions where the cheapest voting rights membership is $155 for Victorian Standard or $335 in Brisbane for Standard Reserved Seat Memership ($295) plus another $40 for September Membership

 

[Haso]

Bombers Members can get voting rights for as little as $50: http://membership.essendonfc.com.au/packages/view/121

Compared to the Lions where the cheapest voting rights membership is $155 for Victorian Standard or $335 in Brisbane for Standard Reserved Seat Memership ($295) plus another $40 for September Membership

GET IT EVERYBODY?? ALAN SMITHEE!! BECAUSE IT'S AN ALIAS!! IT'S ACTUALLY VERY CLEVER.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Bombers Members can get voting rights for as little as $50: http://membership.essendonfc.com.au/packages/view/121

Compared to the Lions where the cheapest voting rights membership is $155 for Victorian Standard or $335 in Brisbane for Standard Reserved Seat Memership ($295) plus another $40 for September Membership

With all the opportunists trying to secure a spot on their board, can't blame the club for cashing in.

#FlightPlan

 

[James North]

Bombers Members can get voting rights for as little as $50: http://membership.essendonfc.com.au/packages/view/121

Compared to the Lions where the cheapest voting rights membership is $155 for Victorian Standard or $335 in Brisbane for Standard Reserved Seat Memership ($295) plus another $40 for September Membership

Where's the stupid bee pun?

This post is constitutionally unsound.

 

[wantok]

With the 2nd Test now starting at the Gabba on the 17th does anybody know about a new venue for the AGM. Gabba might be troublesome.

 

[Haso]

Where's the stupid bee pun?

This post is constitutionally unsound.

I gotcha back buddy.

 

[alscotoz2]

"Alignment" doesn't really matter too much on a company board. It's not like politics where everyone votes the party line all the time.

So company boards are politics free?

 

[GingerGreatness]

Speaking for myself, given:
- the history of our board (ie. a boys club);
- the Springfield decision and its aftermath;
- Sharpless' appointment as a specialist director and then chairman, but now apparent lack of need for that specialty;
- Sharpless' denial of any conflict of interest this year;
- McGregor's role in last year's crisis;
- Sharpless formally asking the members to vote back in the incumbents;
I think "alignment" is a definite consideration. Kliemt already got my vote, as I think all of the above dot points corroborate the ongoing disconnect between the club's board and its members. Ultimately I want to be proud of our Chairman and, trying to be as fair as I can be, I can't get past some of the above.

 

[James North]

So company boards are politics free?

That is exactly not what dlanod was saying.

 

[James Kliemt]

Governance reforms

As I said in my last post I think members are still uneasy about the events of last year, I think it's important they have full confidence in the board and its processes restored.

It's great that things are starting to turn the corner at the club, but none of the structural issues that surfaced last year have actually been addressed in any way. The same underlying problems are still in place at our club and if board disunity breaks out again we are all right back where we started from.

Alongside of this, our constitution was written before most people had email and a number of club processes are still entirely dependent on physical letters being sent in the post. That in itself tells me that some of the practices underpinning the club have not been looked at in quite some time.

So I want to be sure members have confidence our club processes and documents and I want to be sure those processes and documents are aligned with contemporary standards of best practice.

To do that I think it's time some sort of review took place. It almost goes without saying that I think the membership should be included in this review and their input sought along the way.

In regards to the board I think two points in particular should be looked at:

Appointment of specialist directors

The board's ability to appoint up to four specialist directors and not have those directors face election for two years does not sit well with me. In a politically charged environment I think this is an open invitation for board stacking. I think two specialist directors at any one time is plenty and they should face election at least at the very next AGM.

Otherwise I think the perception remains that the board can play Chinese checkers with board positions to manufacture the outcome that suits them. I strongly believe the membership should not abide this situation.

Limits on director terms

After our glory years I think our club drifted for a long, long time; but we slipped so gently and so quietly away that many did not even notice until it was too late. I think good people can get too comfortable after too long in the job. It's too easy for them to become ensconced in power and lose direction and focus.

We need to keep a stable and strong board but at the same time we need to ensure it is regularly infused with a mix of fresh talent, ideas and energy.

I think a mechanism needs to be found so that long term board members are required to face genuine elections with real opposition. We can't go back to situations where a small group of people continually rubber stamp themselves back into power via proxies at an AGM.


Members need to have complete faith that the club is following best practice and making the best decisions it can on their behalf. Board stability is crucial, but so is renewal, I think it is vital for the long term stability of the club that systematic processes are in place to ensure we achieve the right balance.

 

[James Kliemt]

I really like James's pitch. If he were to be elected, given he is 'unaligned' (I think), how loud would his 'voice' be?

I think a great deal of what I'm arguing for is not very controversial. It's just that my expertise is in areas the board has not focused on previously. So I don't think much of it would actually meet a lot of opposition.

I also have a bit of a knack for arguing about this sort of stuff and getting people and organisations to come along with me for the ride. Queensland Police were seen as pretty much the most traditional and conservative media organisation in the country, now they are perceived very differently.

I think you have to be pretty persuasive to create that sort of turnaround in an organisation like that.

I need to be clear, I think I face very substantial challenges to get elected onto the board. I'm not saying that as some sort of political grab for underdog status. I think the way this election is structured and the candidates who have nominated make this very much an uphill battle for me.

So that said, if I was successful I think I would be able to claim a substantial mandate for change.

 

[alscotoz2]

That is exactly not what dlanod was saying.

Fair enough, badly worded. If there's a pay rise/self interest on the go (e.g. Springwhatever-Lions specific) how much debate goes on about that around the table if the majority have something to gain (not necessarily financial)?

I've yet to see turkeys voting for Xmas or pollies arguing against their own pay tribunal (unless somebody's missing out!)

Thinking I'm still not making my point? C'est la etc

 

[dooglyblack]

I think Springfield Bob's days of back room dealings should come to an end. A self serving chairman is no friend to the organisation. His inability to declare a conflict of interest in the Training Facility issue is embarrassing. If the AFL have an agenda to grow the game in growth corridors then lets be clear on what the funding they are giving us is actually for.

 

[Skoob]

I think Springfield Bob's days of back room dealings should come to an end. A self serving chairman is no friend to the organisation. His inability to declare a conflict of interest in the Training Facility issue is embarrassing. If the AFL have an agenda to grow the game in growth corridors then lets be clear on what the funding they are giving us is actually for.

Far be it from me to defend the chairman, but everyone was aware of any conflict there before he was put in the seat and he abstained from voting on the issue.
The whole thing stank, but I don't think that bolded statement is correct.

 

[dooglyblack]

The total lack of information surrounding other potential venues was damning for mine. There was only one option for the club. His dual positions with Springfield Land Corp and the Lions made it clear to me he had his own agenda.
I still do not know why there isn't a dedicated page on the Lions website devoted to this issue. A page listing ALL potential venues and their pros and cons. Lets open the discussion with members.

 

[Fatcat08]

The total lack of information surrounding other potential venues was damning for mine. There was only one option for the club. His dual positions with Springfield Land Corp and the Lions made it clear to me he had his own agenda.
I still do not know why there isn't a dedicated page on the Lions website devoted to this issue. A page listing ALL potential venues and their pros and cons. Lets open the discussion with members.

You do realise he wasn't on the board when Springfield was announced don't you?

 

[dooglyblack]

Excellant. So to bring this back to the relevant issue of "specialist directors", in my opinion Bob Sharpless's fruitless tenure should end and a new Chairman without history or bias be elected. I also agree with James's mandate to review the constituion and the clubs process's to maintain best recognised practise at Board level.
Members deserve it.

 

[dooglyblack]

Can anyone tell me why there has been so little information offered regarding other potential training venues. All I have been told is Giffen Oval, Coorparoo is not suitable due to flooding. I would love to know the stat on how many training sessions have actually been missed due to flooding. Or a wet track for that matter. I'm tipping none.

 

[Skoob]

Can anyone tell me why there has been so little information offered regarding other potential training venues. All I have been told is Giffen Oval, Coorparoo is not suitable due to flooding. I would love to know the stat on how many training sessions have actually been missed due to flooding. Or a wet track for that matter. I'm tipping none.

It's not about missing training days, I'm pretty sure the council is not in favour of building on floodplains.*


*Unless a developer is paying a bit extra under the table

 

[MSB ROYS]

It's not about missing training days, I'm pretty sure the council is not in favour of building on floodplains.*


*Unless a developer is paying a bit extra under the table

Ever heard of the Howard Smith Wharves development that will be below the Story Bridge on the valley side? They even went to the extent of exempting this site from zoning rules due to the number of complaints!

 

[dooglyblack]

...and how about the Queensland tennis centre at Yeronga. My point being I have no information about alternative venues and their pros and cons. It is still a mystery issue and while Bob Sharpless holds dual positions with Lions and Springfield Land Corp there will be suspicion around this issue.

 

[Hollow Knight]

The club has been fairly upfront about the training base situation since Swann took over. A new subcommittee (which doesn't include Sharpless) is reviewing options (including a range of new sites which have come onto the radar) and will report back soon.

Springfield is pretty much dead fwiw.

 

[winged1]

I heard on the grape vine through labor cronies (why are labor people always cronies?) QE2 is in the frame. Personally I would prefer Yeronga.

 

[Skoob]

Ever heard of the Howard Smith Wharves development that will be below the Story Bridge on the valley side? They even went to the extent of exempting this site from zoning rules due to the number of complaints!

Yep, a re-development of 10% of the land, incorporating existing heritage buildings in a medium flood risk site.
Giffen is circled by high flood risk, including land that would need to be built on. Besides that, my dig at council approval for developers stands. I suspect the Wharf developers might also spend more (be in a position to spend more) on flood mitigation.

 

[Davemonkey]

Yep, a re-development of 10% of the land, incorporating existing heritage buildings in a medium flood risk site.
Giffen is circled by high flood risk, including land that would need to be built on. Besides that, my dig at council approval for developers stands. I suspect the Wharf developers might also spend more (be in a position to spend more) on flood mitigation.

Giffen is also just too small, and would have to be shared not just with Coorparoo JAFC but Coorparoo SHS. I also recall someone mentioning that it is an old dump so major works are unlikely to get approval without some super serious engineering.

Oh and old pet cemetery.

And bats. Creepy little bastards in the creek wanting to pass on their Hendra Virus.