Board vetoes nominee

[Pres]

Many organisations have a succession committee where they actively seek to recruit future directors with the right balance of skills and experience.

They then endorse them as board nominations in the event of an election. If the members are happy with the board's performance then many will support that candidate and they'll probably get elected.

However I've never heard of a nominations committee where people are outright blocked from running for office based on the whim of the incumbents. In a member based organisation no less!

This is nothing other than a bona fide disgrace.

 

[gokangas]

There are issues with the nominations committee.

But we would have seriously been wasting our limited resources to hold an election just because this guy wanted a seat on our board.

Really? Why? Surely it is the right of any club member to run for office. It is the members right to elect that person or not. Would have thought that was the basis of a democratic process.

 

[ferball]

One-sided journalism. Such is the rubbish standard today.

I'm not saying NM did nothing wrong. But in something publicly published for profit and attention you'd hope they provided all relevant perspectives. Even a perfunctory "We tried to contact..."

That's a good point actually.

Although frankly any pressure on the baord right now isn't a bad thing.

 

[ferball]

You mean this part?

A North Melbourne spokesperson said the nominations committee was approved by the members and “in line with modern corporate standards”.
“This is common practice and shows sound corporate governance. The committee, which several other clubs have also adopted, is designed to enhance the quality of the club’s board and to ensure it is appropriately balanced with the right range of skills, experience, diversity and business acumen.
“Through this process, members with the right skill-sets that can help the club grow and succeed will be endorsed.”

I read that and missed that part.

Frankly its bullshit so maybe my brain glazed over.

 

[ferball]

West Coast have apparently run like this for decades, and it is seen as the gold standard for ensuring club stability.
But surely there is still a way for a board that's doing a shithouse job to be shaken up by the members?

The whole point about stability is its only good when things are going well. When things go badly it makes it hard to generate change. The stability itself is seen as a virtue in troubled times even tho sometimes change is what is needed because the problems are caused by the entrenched system that is in place.

You could actually make a very similar criticism of Brad Scott as a coach.

 

[Arden]

If Wangmann isn’t qualified to be a Shinboner, then who the hell is?

 

[Val Keating]

When Scanlon's kid was re-elected "unopposed" it was due to them vetoing candidates running against him!!!

The mechanism to end this club is now in place.

I’m not going to slag off Scanlon but it does have more then a tinge of nepotism about it.

 

[shinboner magic]

Boys club is in full swing

 

[longlivenmfc]

I was at the AGM a couple of years ago when members approved the changes to the constitution to implement the nominations committee process. You people saying you’re members and never heard about it need to read your mail more closely.

 

[Val Keating]

I was at the AGM a couple of years ago when members approved the changes to the constitution to implement the nominations committee process. You people saying you’re members and never heard about it need to read your mail more closely.

The mail that comes out a day or 2 before the AGM?

 

[longlivenmfc]

The mail that comes out a day or 2 before the AGM?

No, about 3 weeks before.

 

[tazaa]

The issue is these constitutional changes that the club seeks to implement like a nominations board and not capping games interstate is done in a manner in where the board gets its way each time.
Limerick knows more about this then I do but when an AGM is held it only
require 75% of the total vote to get something through. And that’s not the 40,000 members but the members who vote.
Its a boys club and it’s probably too late to reverse these changes.

 

[Mordecai]

West Coast have apparently run like this for decades, and it is seen as the gold standard for ensuring club stability.
But surely there is still a way for a board that's doing a shithouse job to be shaken up by the members?

Where can I read more about this?

 

[Twinkletoes]

Wangmann upon receiving the news his nomination had been vetoed.



Seriously, they’re dead ringers.



Wangmann, meet your doppelgänger.

 

[kelman]

Wangmann. Gold.

 

[numchuks]

Really? Why? Surely it is the right of any club member to run for office. It is the members right to elect that person or not. Would have thought that was the basis of a democratic process.

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/R...earchIdType=BUSN&_adf.ctrl-state=10ee8zet79_4

Look up the name of the business mentioned in the article.

Registration has lapsed, and it’s main activities when it was active was helping to run student elections a few times a year.

Google search the half a billion dollar business he sat as a director on, and it looks like it was through being a student rep to a university council.

Sure anyone can run, but I question the value add of conducting an election which would have cost 50-100k to get someone on board who’s qualifications rest in student politics. Not quite what we’re in desperate need of right now.

And I imagine that’s what the nominations committee would have picked up on aswell.

 

[Luke72]

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/R...earchIdType=BUSN&_adf.ctrl-state=10ee8zet79_4

Look up the name of the business mentioned in the article.

Registration has lapsed, and it’s main activities when it was active was helping to run student elections a few times a year.

Google search the half a billion dollar business he sat as a director on, and it looks like it was through being a student rep to a university council.

Sure anyone can run, but I question the value add of conducting an election which would have cost 50-100k to get someone on board who’s qualifications rest in student politics. Not quite what we’re in desperate need of right now.

And I imagine that’s what the nominations committee would have picked up on aswell.

Wouldn’t it just be case of a aye’s and nays at the AGM. If you care enough to vote show up and do so. The candidates could send out emails stating their positions on relevant issues and intentions on how the club should run into the immediate future. I don’t think it necessarily has to be an expensive experience.

 

[numchuks]

Wouldn’t it just be case of a aye’s and nays at the AGM. If you care enough to vote show up and do so. The candidates could send out emails stating their positions on relevant issues and intentions on how the club should run into the immediate future. I don’t think it necessarily has to be an expensive experience.

You have to individually mail out voting forms and proxy forms to all 42,000 members. Candidate statements aswell. Hire a venue, and someone to act as returning officer.

It’s a minimum 50k exercise.

 

[Reverend Shinboner]

You have to individually mail out voting forms and proxy forms to all 42,000 members. Candidate statements aswell. Hire a venue, and someone to act as returning officer.

It’s a minimum 50k exercise.

And worth every penny if it retains democracy within our club - even if Wangmann isn't actually our man.

I recall the nominations committee constitutional amendment when it was put up at that time and was extremely concerned. Living overseas it was impossible for me to turn up to the AGM, and difficult to mobilise others to speak out against it. The board rationalised the proposal on the basis of cost. I'm sorry, but for an organisation that turns over nearly $40m, allocating $50-100k towards an election (less than 0.25% of total revenue) doesn't seem like a justifiable reason to abolish any semblance of real democracy at the club.

I know nothing about Wangmann, and numchuks cursory research seems on the money. But the dude should've been allowed to run for the board.

 

[Bigeasy]

The costs of elections should be factored in every year and if it means cutting spending elsewhere in the Administrative arm of the club then so be it, I doubt we'd notice the difference. The members should decide who is on the Board.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You have to individually mail out voting forms and proxy forms to all 42,000 members. Candidate statements aswell. Hire a venue, and someone to act as returning officer.

It’s a minimum 50k exercise.

What was mailed to you when incumbents sought re-election?

 

[Hearts to hearts]

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/R...earchIdType=BUSN&_adf.ctrl-state=10ee8zet79_4

Look up the name of the business mentioned in the article.

Registration has lapsed, and it’s main activities when it was active was helping to run student elections a few times a year.

Google search the half a billion dollar business he sat as a director on, and it looks like it was through being a student rep to a university council.

Sure anyone can run, but I question the value add of conducting an election which would have cost 50-100k to get someone on board who’s qualifications rest in student politics. Not quite what we’re in desperate need of right now.

And I imagine that’s what the nominations committee would have picked up on aswell.

I didn’t think it was a question of running an election for this guy - but whether, if an election was being run, this guy was free to stand.

Honestly it’s window dressing either way. Wit proxies and the level of disinterest (the same disinterest that means this committee is a surprise to many), no one is going to become a Board member without the sanction of the existing Board.

 

[Orange Peanut]

Where can I read more about this?

It was part of a discussion of how well run WC are, on an edition of the Soumding Board podcast about a month ago.

So yes, my source is Hutchy.
But I think this is something he would be well informed on.

 

[Winterlong]

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/R...earchIdType=BUSN&_adf.ctrl-state=10ee8zet79_4

Look up the name of the business mentioned in the article.

Registration has lapsed, and it’s main activities when it was active was helping to run student elections a few times a year.

Google search the half a billion dollar business he sat as a director on, and it looks like it was through being a student rep to a university council.

Sure anyone can run, but I question the value add of conducting an election which would have cost 50-100k to get someone on board who’s qualifications rest in student politics. Not quite what we’re in desperate need of right now.

And I imagine that’s what the nominations committee would have picked up on aswell.

Hey mate, my business was originally structured as a sole tradership, I have expanded and now it is a Pty Ltd company, please refer to https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?id=628028768

 

[gokangas]

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/R...earchIdType=BUSN&_adf.ctrl-state=10ee8zet79_4

Look up the name of the business mentioned in the article.

Registration has lapsed, and it’s main activities when it was active was helping to run student elections a few times a year.

Google search the half a billion dollar business he sat as a director on, and it looks like it was through being a student rep to a university council.

Sure anyone can run, but I question the value add of conducting an election which would have cost 50-100k to get someone on board who’s qualifications rest in student politics. Not quite what we’re in desperate need of right now.

And I imagine that’s what the nominations committee would have picked up on aswell.

My point is he (any member) should have the right to run and let the members decide. The cost of an election is irrelevant - its part of the cost of being a club.