NEW Peter De Rauch letter and Proxy Form

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

Another interesting point of contention will be when the "lower profile" directors are up for election next year. Would a " 'flawed'/'biased'/'rigged' election process which ultimately elected/protected directors" still be a good option then?

I'm sure that the remaining directors will expect the same system for them when its their turn.

That's when we will need the "'fair/'even'/'honest'/'open' election process", otherwise there will be very little incentive for any quality candidates to come forward at all.

Is there any reason why we can't just get it right the first time?

Good point.

I'm sure people will be outraged when Stephen Head is given this advantage next year.

 

[The Other Dean]

I accept that some candidates for a range of reasons e.g. a higher profile, more $'s, connections etc will therefore have a better chance at getting elected. BUT THE ELECTION PROCESS ITSELF MUST BE EVEN.

Fair and democratic process in the election of NMFC board members ?

Pffft, over-rated.

Nah, just kidding. You're of course spot on there, Lim.

Some people's personal agendas would appear to be clouding their basic common sense. Whether or not the non-incumbents would have won under more even conditions, the extent of just how much said candidates have been hampered here, the exact number of members aggreived by the current process, how much each candidate has in his bank account, whether or not politics is ever an even playing field.....all these things are peripheral, and in some cases downright irrelevant, to the central issue of the club needlessly employing a process that disadvantages the non-incumbent candidates.

To date, I have seen lots of deflection, but to the best of my knowledge no one yet has been able to provide a decent explanation as to why the club would manufacture and stand behind an inequitable process when there is no express or binding need to do so. I doubt I'll see one either.

Is there any reason why we can't just get it right the first time?

Wondering the same thing. Would seem like an incredibly simple problem to rectify.

Unfortunately, until the current administration review and improve the existing process, they will leave themselves wide open to suggestions of impropriety, regardless of whether or not these suggestions have any actual basis in fact.

 

[The OBSTacle]

We are still in a precarious position like we were 3 years ago.

This sentence has no relationship whatsoever with reality.

We were just about semi relocated to Tasmania less than 6 months ago with no notice to the supporters (even Greg Miller wrote us a letter).

"Semi relocated" is like being "partially pregnant".

Again, it has no basis in reality.

That's a pretty big decision for a board to make on behalf of a member owned club but it shows what you can do when you fill the board up with your mates.

It was a decision that was within the boards range of powers.

 

[snrub]

The proxy forms are effectively ballot papers. You either sign your vote over to another based upon your understanding of how they are going to vote OR you tick 3 boxes and have the proxy submit them. The majority of votes are lodged by proxy. So potentially the majority of votes can be completed BEFORE all candidates have nominated OR on forms that have only three candidates preprinted.

And this is where the conspiracy theory falls down. What you are saying is that thousands of ignorant people look at a proxy form and decide to vote for the only 3 candidates. When was the last time you bothered to send a proxy form in to an election where there was no challenger? You don't bother. You assume that the election is simply ceremonial and unanimous, so you tear up the form and allow the voters present on the night to carry the motion.

The proxy forms that will arrive at the club are from people who are making a considered decision to support the candidates they have chosen.

 

[j flex roo]

And this is where the conspiracy theory falls down. What you are saying is that thousands of ignorant people look at a proxy form and decide to vote for the only 3 candidates. When was the last time you bothered to send a proxy form in to an election where there was no challenger? You don't bother. You assume that the election is simply ceremonial and unanimous, so you tear up the form and allow the voters present on the night to carry the motion.

The proxy forms that will arrive at the club are from people who are making a considered decision to support the candidates they have chosen.

1. These people only think there is no challenger because the proxy form the club has sent discloses only those who are incumbent.

2. They don't bother? Many, perhaps. However, the law of averages, which I tend to be a fan of, would dictate that perhaps 1 in 20, or even 1 in 30 or 40, would bother. These seemingly small numbers may be enough to tip the balance in favour of the incumbents who have the blessing of being listed on a club sanctioned proxy.

Fact is, the process being used by the club is flawed, and it if anything good comes of this election, I hope it will be a fair process going forward into future board elections.

The mere subjective appearance of bias is bad on all fronts - just as damaging as the actual presence of bias, which I am confident is well and truly dug in to the line in this instance. You damage the reputation of the club in any given member's eyes - me being one.

It damages the club in the eyes of the football public, which includes members who are not yet supporters, current and potential sponsors, etc...i.e. the financial backbone of the club in the now, and in the future. Not good.

Anyone who lords it over me or other members like me and tells me 'politics isn't meant to be fair' or 'the current board have done good' blah blah blah need to give themselves an uppercut and look at the big picture.

Conspiracy? I don't know anything about that. But what I can tell you about is the needless NMFC bashing happening presently - a bashing administered by the club's own hand.

Get with it.

 

[Limerick]

And this is where the conspiracy theory falls down. What you are saying is that thousands of ignorant people look at a proxy form and decide to vote for the only 3 candidates. When was the last time you bothered to send a proxy form in to an election where there was no challenger? You don't bother. You assume that the election is simply ceremonial and unanimous, so you tear up the form and allow the voters present on the night to carry the motion.

The proxy forms that will arrive at the club are from people who are making a considered decision to support the candidates they have chosen.

Every election form I have received has all candidates listed. The candidates statements, also included, indicate who is an incumbent and who is a challenger. Armed with this together with any knowledge of history I make my considered decision.

Why should a proxy form be sent prior to the nomination closing date?

THE PROCESS NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED FOR THE 2011 ELECTION.

Another area that you have raised is - Is an organisation required to obtain votes when there are no challengers i.e. 3 candidates (incumbents or otherwise) and only three vacancies. This would seem to be a wasted exercise.

 

[The OBSTacle]

If this is such a big deal could someone please point out to me why resolution 1 of De Rauchs mailout is laid out in exactly the same fashion as the club mailout?

Could it be...........shock..........horror..........standard protocol?

In the meantime, I'll just put the kettle on.

 

[j flex roo]

'Protocol' for would suggest you require a picture of a tea cup, and not a coffee cup, for that picture to convey the literal meaning of the ol' sayin' you seem to be referring to.

 

[Pres]

If this is such a big deal could someone please point out to me why resolution 1 of De Rauchs mailout is laid out in exactly the same fashion as the club mailout?

Could it be...........shock..........horror..........standard protocol?

TheOBSTacle

You might be the person to explain to us exactly where this supposed standard election protocol is followed and acceped as standard (as our CEO does not appear to be able to).

I'm sure you have lots of examples?

 

[j flex roo]

TheOBSTacle

You might be the person to explain to us exactly where this supposed standard election protocol is followed and acceped as standard (as our CEO does not appear to be able to).

I'm sure you have lots of examples?

I can see the OBSTacle furiously turning the virtual pages of the online ASIC resources right now.

Frankly I've not heard nor read any compelling arguments against my position, as stated in the previous page. Neither here on this melting pot of questionable soap-boxery nor here, there, everywhere or anywhere. Zip.

I am Wheaton's corner - not necessarily because of his acumen (which, by the way, is good) or his public profile (which, compared to others, is tiny) or his wallet (which, without being his accountant, I am sure is far less stuffed with cash than some of the other incumbents and/or challengers), but because he's a stand-up kinda guy who will bat for correct processes and the concept of the voice of the member, of course within sensible bounds.

The happenings of late, especially the happenings brought about by the club mail out, are thoroughly insensible.

 

[snrub]

Anyone who lords it over me or other members like me and tells me 'politics isn't meant to be fair' or 'the current board have done good' blah blah blah need to give themselves an uppercut and look at the big picture.

Oh, I'm lording it over you am I? Terribly sorry I didn't realise you were such a delicate petal.

Honestly, what has happened to North supporters? We used to well 'ard. Now our ranks our filled with sooks and whingers. Toughen the hell up, ffs.

 

[Limerick]

If this is such a big deal could someone please point out to me why resolution 1 of De Rauchs mailout is laid out in exactly the same fashion as the club mailout?

Could it be...........shock..........horror..........standard protocol?

In the meantime, I'll just put the kettle on.

The general format of the proxy form is not at issue. Its the content and timing that is being challenged.

I reject that that sending out proxy forms listing the incumbents without the known challengers is standard protocol in organisational elections. I also believe that sending proxies out prior to the closure of nominations is just poor form.

If this is protocol within the AFL community then they need to review it.

 

[snrub]

I can see the OBSTacle furiously turning the virtual pages of the online ASIC resources right now.

Frankly I've not heard nor read any compelling arguments against my position, as stated in the previous page. Neither here on this melting pot of questionable soap-boxery nor here, there, everywhere or anywhere. Zip.

I am Wheaton's corner - not necessarily because of his acumen (which, by the way, is good) or his public profile (which, compared to others, is tiny) or his wallet (which, without being his accountant, I am sure is far less stuffed with cash than some of the other incumbents and/or challengers), but because he's a stand-up kinda guy who will bat for correct processes and the concept of the voice of the member, of course within sensible bounds.

The happenings of late, especially the happenings brought about by the club mail out, are thoroughly insensible.

I'm with OBSTacle. I prefer to support NMFC as opposed to disenfranchised individuals with an axe to grind.

 

[roobear]

snrub and The OBSTacle make me hate the incumbents, even though several weeks ago I was quite enamoured with them.

 

[Wednesday]

I wasn't aware that you'd actually seen the ballot paper. You must have a mole inside Andrew Harris' office.

I hope for your sake your defence of this election process gets you an invite to James's next birthday 'cause afterall, keeping sweet with your mate James is more important than acknowledging that every poster on this board bar two feels the process is not right and not in the best interests of a member elected club.

But hey, who needs uneducated members getting in the way of your and you mates running the club anyway.

 

[Hoser]

Fair and democratic process in the election of NMFC board members ?

Pffft, over-rated.

Nah, just kidding. You're of course spot on there, Lim.

Some people's personal agendas would appear to be clouding their basic common sense. Whether or not the non-incumbents would have won under more even conditions, the extent of just how much said candidates have been hampered here, the exact number of members aggreived by the current process, how much each candidate has in his bank account, whether or not politics is ever an even playing field.....all these things are peripheral, and in some cases downright irrelevant, to the central issue of the club needlessly employing a process that disadvantages the non-incumbent candidates.

To date, I have seen lots of deflection, but to the best of my knowledge no one yet has been able to provide a decent explanation as to why the club would manufacture and stand behind an inequitable process when there is no express or binding need to do so. I doubt I'll see one either.



Wondering the same thing. Would seem like an incredibly simple problem to rectify.

Unfortunately, until the current administration review and improve the existing process, they will leave themselves wide open to suggestions of impropriety, regardless of whether or not these suggestions have any actual basis in fact.

Entirely sensible post. Not much to add to that.

(Mental picture of Chief Wiggum from the Simpsons, standing out the front of the election, "Move along people, nothing to see here")

 

[j flex roo]

Oh, I'm lording it over you am I? Terribly sorry I didn't realise you were such a delicate petal.

Honestly, what has happened to North supporters? We used to well 'ard. Now our ranks our filled with sooks and whingers. Toughen the hell up, ffs.

I'll book the karate lessons and start brawls with opposition supporters at railway stations as soon as I can, John Wayne.

 

[Horace]

snrub and The OBSTacle make me hate the incumbents, even though several weeks ago I was quite enamoured with them.

How true, how very true, although enamoured might be overdoing it a bit.

It is quite startling to see how the positions of some people seem to have changed since 2007.

If I am not mistaken Handsome B. Wonderful was a pro-GC person in 2007. Now he/she seems to have reversed his/her perspective and is anti-Tasmania and very uncomfortable with the current election process as run by the club. Well done HBW.

On the other hand if snrub is who we believe him to be then he seems to have moved from a vehement anti-GC position to a pro-Tasmania position and very comfortable with the current election process as run by the club.

As for the OBSTacle, I can't remember which way he was in 2007 (I am sure someone will remind me) but clearly now he is solidly aligned with snrub.

This is fascinating to watch.

 

[Wednesday]

How true, how very true, although enamoured might be overdoing it a bit.

It is quite startling to see how the positions of some people seem to have changed since 2007.

If I am not mistaken Handsome B. Wonderful was a pro-GC person in 2007. Now he/she seems to have reversed his/her perspective and is anti-Tasmania and very uncomfortable with the current election process as run by the club. Well done HBW.

On the other hand if snrub is who we believe him to be then he seems to have moved from a vehement anti-GC position to a pro-Tasmania position and very comfortable with the current election process as run by the club.

As for the OBSTacle, I can't remember which way he was in 2007 (I am sure someone will remind me) but clearly now he is solidly aligned with snrub.

This is fascinating to watch.

Horace its simple. 3 years ago HBW was on the inside as dad was a board member. Now he's on the outer.

3 years agos Pharro was on the outer. Now his mates the chairman.

Its funny how power corrupts ones view of 'fair'.

 

[numchuks]

Horace its simple. 3 years ago HBW was on the inside as dad was a board member. Now he's on the outer.

3 years agos Pharro was on the outer. Now his mates the chairman.

Its funny how power corrupts ones view of 'fair'.

lol. got it in a nutshell

 

[The Zebra]

Oh, I'm lording it over you am I? Terribly sorry I didn't realise you were such a delicate petal.

Honestly, what has happened to North supporters? We used to well 'ard. Now our ranks our filled with sooks and whingers. Toughen the hell up, ffs.

You done?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=508729&highlight=done

 

[Horace]

Horace its simple. 3 years ago HBW was on the inside as dad was a board member. Now he's on the outer.

3 years agos Pharro was on the outer. Now his mates the chairman.

Its funny how power corrupts ones view of 'fair'.

Thanks Wednesday. As I said, fascinating.

 

[RoyalBlue]

you done?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=508729&highlight=done

This is epic, epic win.

 

[shintemaster]

This is epic, epic win.

Snrubs is great, but I laughed. Heartily.

 

[The OBSTacle]

Has David Wheaton obtained a mailing list and sent out any proxy forms or associated information to the members yet?

Or does he expect the NMFC to do that for him?