you think that governance is only poor if something goes wrong?Has Essendon employed a policy like this before? I just don’t see how we can ‘assume’ it’s poor governance. Has it failed yet?
Um, that fundamentally misses the entire point of what good governance is actually about. Due process, checks and balances, perception as reality, clearly defined roles, separation of powers, etc etc etc.
It boggles the mind to think that governance is only proven to be poor when something goes wrong. You couldn't miss the whole point of it any more than that