Member's vote and the Roo

[1970crow]

Came up in Dan's 'vote for me' thread. Apparently Roo is going to be positioned amongst the candidates for the 2 member elects. To me, it is disgusting that the club is hijacking one of the positions in our first ever genuine opportunity to elect board members. We are only electing 2 of about 7, so it's largely an exercise in PR as opposed to genuine member control. The board chose Roo under the old regime, he is not a member elect and shouldn't be voted in as such. They should be rationalising the self appointed numbers and we members should vote for 2 fresh candidates to represent us.

This is the kind of s**t I'd expect from the Trigg regime.

 

[Jars458]

Came up in Dan's 'vote for me' thread. Apparently Roo is going to be positioned amongst the candidates for the 2 member elects. To me, it is disgusting that the club is hijacking one of the positions in our first ever genuine opportunity to elect board members. We are only electing 2 of about 7, so it's largely an exercise in PR as opposed to genuine member control. The board chose Roo under the old regime, he is not a member elect and shouldn't be voted in as such. They should be rationalising the self appointed numbers and we members should vote for 2 fresh candidates to represent us.

This is the kind of s**t I'd expect from the Trigg regime.

Agreed and it was always going to happen. chapman should put himself up,and stand on his record. At least it will mean Roo needs to listen to members.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Yep. Pretty poor. Not voting for him and pretty disappointed to be honest b

 

[Elite Crow]

Came up in Dan's 'vote for me' thread. Apparently Roo is going to be positioned amongst the candidates for the 2 member elects. To me, it is disgusting that the club is hijacking one of the positions in our first ever genuine opportunity to elect board members. We are only electing 2 of about 7, so it's largely an exercise in PR as opposed to genuine member control. The board chose Roo under the old regime, he is not a member elect and shouldn't be voted in as such. They should be rationalising the self appointed numbers and we members should vote for 2 fresh candidates to represent us.

This is the kind of s**t I'd expect from the Trigg regime.

Allefgib was this discussed?

 

[Doctor B]

Yep. Pretty poor. Not voting for him and pretty disappointed to be honest b

Love Roo & he needs to be on the board, love the way things have been shaken up since he has been on the board. That being said it seems strange he is an automatic appointment for 1 of the 2 positions available. I am not sure on the clubs constitution of appointing board members. Is this the only way he could get appointed to the board or could it have been handled better?

 

[Allefgib]

Allefgib was this discussed?

No it wasn't actually.

I was intrigued by Dan's comments in his thread. If they can just 'appoint him', and still have 2 member voted board members - I'd prefer they do that.
Need to careful we don't make it too big - definitely a few theories around on the ideal size of boards to ensure efficient, but considered, decision making. They may be trying to protect that.

I wouldn't be happy if Roo didn't get on... so its a bit of an awkward one. Right now I'd vote Roo over someone like Dan.

 

[Allefgib]

Love Roo & he needs to be on the board, love the way things have been shaken up since he has been on the board. That being said it seems strange he is an automatic appointment for 1 of the 2 positions available. I am not sure on the clubs constitution of appointing board members. Is this the only way he could get appointed to the board or could it have been handled better?

Sorry did I miss something - is he an automatic appointment? Or is it going to a vote?

 

[footy4ever]

I think it's a must that Roo be on the board, and I won't be voting against him just because the process is rigged.

 

[Doctor B]

Sorry did I miss something - is he an automatic appointment? Or is it going to a vote?

The way I read it is there are 2 member elects appointed by a vote, but Roo has 1 of those spots and is already on the board. Sorry if I am wrong on this.
I previously thought he stepped into Hurleys position.

 

[AFC3000]

Adelaide currently has seven board members, while the Chief Executive sits as a Board appointed Director. Under the Crows’ new Constitution, which allows for between seven and nine Directors, there is scope to now add another Director.

Ricciuto steps into this role immediately until the end of the year. Ricciuto will then stand for election, with the Club’s members now having the capacity to fill up to two positions on the board.

http://www.afc.com.au/news/2014-06-24/ricciuto-returns-to-crows

 

[1970crow]

Sorry did I miss something - is he an automatic appointment? Or is it going to a vote?

I don't think there's a difference. According to the constitution we'll have to vote him in. But it's a foregone conclusion, he's already on the board and has a massive profile. He was selected under the self-appoint system and should remain on the board in that capacity. They are hijacking one of the elected positions with a plant who couldn't possibly lose. The effect is that we are only truly electing 1 position, which is pathetic given the limited influence the member elected directors will wield.

The coup de gras would be for a self-appointed changeover at the same time. Push Roo to the members and self-appoint another director, that would be the s**t and I'd lose mine.

 

[Southerntakeover]

This shouldn't surprise me anymore.

 

[1970crow]

The way I read it is there are 2 member elects appointed by a vote, but Roo has 1 of those spots and is already on the board. Sorry if I am wrong on this.
I previously thought he stepped into Hurleys position.

Maybe, but that wasn't a true member elect role. It was no more than a window dressed self appointment, as the rest are. Here's our chance to genuinely elect 2 member candidates, Roo shouldn't be one of them as he has already been appointed by the old system which is now quashed. I'm not aware of any transitional arrangements in the new constitution, so all present board members are just that, board members. The new constitution allows us to elect 2 of our own, parachuting Roo into that mix is a really poor way to celebrate the first ever genuine member elected board positions.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Roo joining the board took the expanded members from 7 to 8.

2 retirees will drop it back to 6.

So should be able to add 2 member elect representatives to bring it back to 8.

Even if Afc wanted to add another non-elect person, the constitution allows for a maximum of 9.

Really should be 2 genuine member reps excluding roo.

Roo on the board should be a given

 

[Doctor B]

Maybe, but that wasn't a true member elect role. It was no more than a window dressed self appointment, as the rest are. Here's our chance to genuinely elect 2 member candidates, Roo shouldn't be one of them as he has already been appointed by the old system which is now quashed. I'm not aware of any transitional arrangements in the new constitution, so all present board members are just that, board members. The new constitution allows us to elect 2 of our own, parachuting Roo into that mix is a really poor way to celebrate the first ever genuine member elected board positions.

Absolutely, it's ridiculous to say there are 2 positions to be elected by members when Roo is automatically one. Why didn't they just say there is only one member elect? I would like to get some clarification on this from Fagan.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Generally speaking, I would rather Mark Ricciuto go onto the board as the members elected postion than someone who isn't worthy.

We need the best 8 people on that board, not a members elected who won't contribute.

If the member elected position has the skills, knowledge, experience and credentials to add something, then sure have them join the board but if they don't, we shouldn't add them for the sake of it.

 

[1970crow]

Absolutely, it's ridiculous to say there are 2 positions to be elected by members when Roo is automatically one. Why didn't they just say there is only one member elect? I would like to get some clarification on this from Fagan.

Fagan's response will be that this was how it was designed when Roo joined the board back in the Trigg days and that it is perfectly correct according to the constitution. There's technically nothing wrong with this, but the feel is up the shitter and we are being denied an opportunity to keep Roo on the board and have our inaugural 2 member elects. It is easily fixable as Kane McGoodwin detailed. The board already select the nominees that they choose to allow us to vote for, it's only 2 positions from a min of 7 and they are further limiting our influence by pushing Roo into one of those spots.

Of course we will be told that we don't have to vote for Roo, it's our choice. But the reality is that the only members who won't vote for Roo will either be protesting this or have a friend as a nominee. The board and Fagan know this. It's what I expect from a Trigg led AFC.

 

[Houston]

If this is the only way he can be on the board then I'll call it a necessary evil and move on.

 

[Doctor B]

Generally speaking, I would rather Mark Ricciuto go onto the board as the members elected postion than someone who isn't worthy.

We need the best 8 people on that board, not a members elected who won't contribute.

If the member elected position has the skills, knowledge, experience and credentials to add something, then sure have them join the board but if they don't, we shouldn't add them for the sake of it.

Roo's appointment to the board is not the issue here. I think every member would 100% agree he needs to be on the board.
It's the way he has taken a member elected position to get there. I have lurked on this forum for a few years but only just joined, but I think the general feeling here is that the board/club has been really out of touch with all of their members. How long is the sack Trigg thread? I'm sure there was a lot said there about the board members too.
Absolutely we need board members to be more than capable and not to be there as a token just for the sake of it, but that said I think there would be many applicants with the skills to do the job but also represent us and our concerns. It in my opinion make for a stronger club.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If this is the only way he can be on the board then I'll call it a necessary evil and move on.

Agree, if it was the only way - but it's not.

There is room for roo + 2 elected reps + 1 more if needed.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Roo's appointment to the board is not the issue here. I think every member would 100% agree he needs to be on the board.
It's the way he has taken a member elected position to get there. I have lurked on this forum for a few years but only just joined, but I think the general feeling here is that the board/club has been really out of touch with all of their members. How long is the sack Trigg thread? I'm sure there was a lot said there about the board members too.
Absolutely we need board members to be more than capable and not to be there as a token just for the sake of it, but that said I think there would be many applicants with the skills to do the job but also represent us and our concerns. It in my opinion make for a stronger club.

Don't disagree with this. Have you expressed this to any current board member?

 

[Doctor B]

Don't disagree with this. Have you expressed this to any current board member?

No I haven't, I have only read about it in the last half hour. Maybe if there were 2 member elects, it may be an easier way for us all to express our concerns to the club.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

No I haven't, I have only read about it in the last half hour. Maybe if there were 2 member elects, it may be an easier way for us all to express our concerns to the club.

Once again, not disputing that but until we know the entire field of applicants - we don't know if they have the skills to do the job.

 

[jackster83]

"Hello, my name is Mr Ggirt And I come from, uh... someplace far away."

Smart: "I like the way Ggirt thinks"

 

[Dandy_GO]

Generally speaking, I would rather Mark Ricciuto go onto the board as the members elected postion than someone who isn't worthy.

We need the best 8 people on that board, not a members elected who won't contribute.

If the member elected position has the skills, knowledge, experience and credentials to add something, then sure have them join the board but if they don't, we shouldn't add them for the sake of it.

You are so very skilled at missing the point, Alex.