Official Club Stuff Notice of General Meeting - Tuesday 17 August 2021 at 6:30pm

[Matty411]

How will I know if I have voting rights? No email as yet but I do only have interstate mship.

 

[gab213]

Do the 17 other Clubs Members vote on their President?

Not Collingwood members, not Essendons members. I'd be surprised if àny did .

 

[gab213]

How will I know if I have voting rights? No email as yet but I do only have interstate mship.

As tar as I know interstate members don't have voting rights, just as 3 game members etc don't.

 

[Aphrodite]

Not Collingwood members, not Essendons members. I'd be surprised if àny did .

Doubt any do gab.

 

[cookie monster]

You know it doesn't work that way, members vote board members in, board members select the President. This is common practice with boards and committees and all comply with statutory requirements and regulations.

It's nice to write things on the internet passing them off as fact, but what you say here is wrong.

Members did not vote on at least each of the following board members' arrival on the board:

• David Campbell. People & Culture.
• Patty Kinnersly. AFLW/VFLW programs.
• Chris Townshend QC.

Peculiarly we put our recruiter on our board. Why they felt compelled to introduce such a conflicted interest into the governance structure of our club is just another point of bewilderment on this board.

Members at this club have had their rights eroded for quite some time now, most particularly over the course of the last 12 years.

 

[Pixelshooter]

Does your perception of his character matter here?

Of course not. But it does go to show how easily club turmoil can begin pretty quickly by a small number of troublemakers (not saying this bloke is BTW).

IMO, entertaining the possibility of an EGM based on obtaining 100 signatures...or even 500 signatures is sheer folly. As we've seen at Collingwood, this just leads to unrest and instability. You can't tell me everyone that signed the Collingwood motion were completely informed on what they were signing...if you only need to convince a few hundred people then it's not a particularly high bar to jump.

That's why clubs have AGMs...all members have a chance to voice their opinions and vote accordingly. Not saying our Board hasn't been dysfunctional at times but once voted in, they need clean air. If there's an issue so important that it needs to go to an EGM, then a higher threshold to get there shouldn't be an issue.

 

[gab213]

It's nice to write things on the internet passing them off as fact, but what you say here is wrong.

Members did not vote on at least each of the following board members' arrival on the board:

• David Campbell. People & Culture.
• Patty Kinnersly. AFLW/VFLW programs.
• Chris Townshend QC.

Peculiarly we put our recruiter on our board. Why they felt compelled to introduce such a conflicted interest into the governance structure of our club is just another point of bewilderment on this board.

Members at this club have had their rights eroded for quite some time now, most particularly over the course of the last 12 years.

Now you are talking about something different to voting for a President.

In the case of a casual vacancy that exists if a board member steps down between AGMs the board can appoint a replacement. That person is able to be challenged at the next AGM
if there is anybody interested in doing so. Standard practice on these types of boards and committees.

These are common-sense measures, you don't want an election every time a board member retires mid-term.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Of course not. But it does go to show how easily club turmoil can begin pretty quickly by a small number of troublemakers (not saying this bloke is BTW).

IMO, entertaining the possibility of an EGM based on obtaining 100 signatures...or even 500 signatures is sheer folly. As we've seen at Collingwood, this just leads to unrest and instability. You can't tell me everyone that signed the Collingwood motion were completely informed on what they were signing...if you only need to convince a few hundred people then it's not a particularly high bar to jump.

That's why clubs have AGMs...all members have a chance to voice their opinions and vote accordingly. Not saying our Board hasn't been dysfunctional at times but once voted in, they need clean air. If there's an issue so important that it needs to go to an EGM, then a higher threshold to get there shouldn't be an issue.

Please don't post things based on assumptions without thinking them through...

First of all, we haven't called for an EGM in 19 years and that one was obviously necessary and successful. So there's no unrest and instability to speak of.

But to say it's not a particularly high bar to jump is pure nonsense. It is an exponential increase. With this constitution there will be a vastly larger pool of voting members and to obtain 5% of that would be a monumental task... people are generally very reluctant to consign their names, membership numbers, addresses etc to sign a petition. But the jump could realistically go from 100 to over 1000 or potentially even 4 or 5 thousand. Increasing it is fine, but make it a fixed amount and not a near impossible hurdle like they're trying to do.

Also they want to allow people who haven't been members for at least 2 years to join the board... what's the reason for that requirement? So they can bring their mates in? Hahahaha yeah, this club is a club for the people, not for a pack of suits to monopolise it...

The fact that they've given us the bare minimum amount of time to decide upon this is also very glaring...

Think about these things. This will give them the power to bring in their mates to run the show and when they constantly make poor decisions on and/or off field we will have a steep mountain to climb to make them accountable.

There should be motivates we can choose to approve or disprove of, not either pass or reject it as a whole.

 

[Pixelshooter]

Please don't post things based on assumptions without thinking them through...

No assumptions from me. What I stated is a factual possibility. The fact we haven't had an EGM in so long means nothing. Once they're seen as a way to take on a Board...as with Collingwood, it's over. Twitter, Instagram, BF...all fertile ground for pushing a narrative that can make inroads quickly.

Totally unworkable. A few hundred members to call one is a laughably small number to force an EGM.

Also they want to allow people who haven't been m4embers for at least 2 years to join the board... what's the reason for that requirement?

Perhaps to get qualified people on board? Goes right against your narrative mate...Carlton has been a super closed shop for years. This would be a good way to get fresh eyes onto the Board.

This will give them the power to bring in their mates to run the show and when they constantly make poor decisions on and/or off field we will have a steep mountain to climb to make them accountable.

Nonsense. What do you think has been going on for decades?

 

[cookie monster]

Now you are talking about something different to voting for a President.

In the case of a casual vacancy that exists if a board member steps down between AGMs the board can appoint a replacement. That person is able to be challenged at the next AGM
if there is anybody interested in doing so. Standard practice on these types of boards and committees.

These are common-sense measures, you don't want an election every time a board member retires mid-term.

An open vote at AGM to anybody that fulfils a casual vacancy in the preceeding 12 month period should be the minimum requirement
As an example however, Kinnersley was appointed to a vacancy in 2018 and has never had to face an election
It can't be discounted either how much harder the "Independent" nominations committee makes it for prospective challengers to become eligible

 

[gab213]

An open vote at AGM to anybody that fulfils a casual vacancy in the preceeding 12 month period should be the minimum requirement
As an example however, Kinnersley was appointed to a vacancy in 2018 and has never had to face an election
It can't be discounted either how much harder the "Independent" nominations committee makes it for prospective challengers to become eligible

He's never faced an election because nobody challenged him as far as I know. You don't have an election if there's no challenger and you rarely have people challenging just because people really aren't killing themselves to be part of a board, too much work.

That committee doesn't make it hard at all. They have no scope to make it harder than it is. As long as you are eligible under the constitution and State and Federal statutory requirements, you are approved. It hasn't stopped LoGiudice from facing a board challenges of late. It is a matter of ticking off boxes ensuring that someone is in fact eligible BEFORE electing them rather than finding out after the election that they weren't.
That's a matter of good governance.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

No assumptions from me. What I stated is a factual possibility. The fact we haven't had an EGM in so long means nothing. Once they're seen as a way to take on a Board...as with Collingwood, it's over. Twitter, Instagram, BF...all fertile ground for pushing a narrative that can make inroads quickly.

Totally unworkable. A few hundred members to call one is a laughably small number to force an EGM.

No assumptions from you... except the bolded parts right

Perhaps to get qualified people on board? Goes right against your narrative mate...Carlton has been a super closed shop for years. This would be a good way to get fresh eyes onto the Board.

Hahahahahahahaha ... yeah right

Nonsense. What do you think has been going on for decades?

Oh it's been happening for decades... so it's nonsense to want to prevent them from having even more control...

Righto.

 

[Aphrodite]

When was the last time Carlton members got to vote on a club president?

You know it doesn't work that way, members vote board members in, board members select the President. This is common practice with boards and committees and all comply with statutory requirements and regulations.

It's nice to write things on the internet passing them off as fact, but what you say here is wrong.

Members did not vote on at least each of the following board members' arrival on the board:

• David Campbell. People & Culture.
• Patty Kinnersly. AFLW/VFLW programs.
• Chris Townshend QC.

Peculiarly we put our recruiter on our board. Why they felt compelled to introduce such a conflicted interest into the governance structure of our club is just another point of bewilderment on this board.

Members at this club have had their rights eroded for quite some time now, most particularly over the course of the last 12 years.

Now you are talking about something different to voting for a President.

In the case of a casual vacancy that exists if a board member steps down between AGMs the board can appoint a replacement. That person is able to be challenged at the next AGM
if there is anybody interested in doing so. Standard practice on these types of boards and committees.

These are common-sense measures, you don't want an election every time a board member retires mid-term.

Way to shift the goalposts Cookie.

Gab's response was to your original post :-

When was the last time Carlton members got to vote on a club president?

 

[Pixelshooter]

No assumptions from you... except the bolded parts right

Seriously...I can't be bothered arguing this point. They aren't assumptions. I'm not assuming they may happen. But the possibility they could...absolute fact.

Oh it's been happening for decades... so it's nonsense to want to prevent them from having even more control...

More nonsense. All Board members need to be ratified at some point. If enough members have a grievance, there are ways to address. EGM's ain't that mechanism.

 

[cookie monster]

Way to shift the goalposts Cookie.

Gab's response was to your original post :-

Hogwash

I responded to his assertion that members vote board members in. It was factually incorrect.

If you're going to have a go at a poster, at least look at each post objectively, rather than just participating in group-think

 

[sweetchoif]

Again, I stated in my original post that I understand the club is trying to avoid a dictatorship (e.g. Elliott).

You do that by enforcing consistent standards and practices.

You don't do that by running scared.

There is nothing wrong with rewarding excellence as long as the appropriate checks and balances are in place.

if they are doing a good job in the 4th / 5th year - then make the amendment then.

 

[cookie monster]

Seriously...I can't be bothered arguing this point. They aren't assumptions. I'm not assuming they may happen. But the possibility they could...absolute fact.



More nonsense. All Board members need to be ratified at some point. If enough members have a grievance, there are ways to address. EGM's ain't that mechanism.

Please clarify what that mechanism is?
Is it, writing emails to the club?

 

[Pixelshooter]

Please clarify what that mechanism is?
Is it, writing emails to the club?

AGM. Or EGM if there is a very large groundswell of support...not a couple of hundred random signatures.

 

[cookie monster]

AGM. Or EGM if there is a very large groundswell of support...not a couple of hundred random signatures.

OK, and how do members set any of their own agenda items at an AGM?

 

[gab213]

Hogwash

I responded to his assertion that members vote board members in. It was factually incorrect.

If you're going to have a go at a poster, at least look at each post objectively, rather than just participating in group-think

How is this factually incorrect? It's correct, regardless of you picking the circumstance of a casual vacancy. In any case Members have the opportunity to ratify those appointments or stand for election and have them voted out. Everything I have said on this is based on fact and is in the constitution.

This has nothing to do with groupthink, you are the one making statements which aren't based upon facts to suit a narrative. You're deliberately misleading.

 

[gab213]

OK, and how do members set any of their own agenda items at an AGM?

I'm guessing that you know that you can't at an AGM, standard practice once again. You would need to satisfy the requirements to call a General Meeting, signatures required to call such meeting, notice of what business you want to transact at the meeting, etc. AGMs are always for the presentation of specific reports and Board Elections.

Calling of general meeting when requested by members

5.2. (a) Directors must call meetings The Directors of the Club must call and arrange to hold a general meeting on the request of:

(i) Ordinary members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at the general meeting; or
(ii) at least 100 Ordinary members who are entitled to vote at the general meeting;

(b) Request Constitution of Carlton Football Club 10 The request must:
(i) be in writing; and
(ii) state any resolution to be proposed at the meeting; and
(iii) be signed by the Ordinary members making the request; and
(iv) contain the addresses and membership ticket numbers of the Ordinary members making the request; and
(v) be given to the Club. Notice period

5.3. Subject to the Act, the Club must give 21 days’ notice of general meetings and annual general meetings.

 

[Aphrodite]

Hogwash

I responded to his assertion that members vote board members in. It was factually incorrect.

If you're going to have a go at a poster, at least look at each post objectively, rather than just participating in group-think

Talk about hogwash & being incorrect.

You seem to twist things around to suit your agenda.

The response from gab was directly to your post below which he responded to, specifically in regards to Club Members voting on the President.

When was the last time Carlton members got to vote on a club president?

You know it doesn't work that way, members vote board members in, board members select the President. This is common practice with boards and committees and all comply with statutory requirements and regulations.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Seriously...I can't be bothered arguing this point. They aren't assumptions. I'm not assuming they may happen. But the possibility they could...absolute fact.

Well you can because you've been doing that. You are assuming they may happen...

More nonsense. All Board members need to be ratified at some point. If enough members have a grievance, there are ways to address. EGM's ain't that mechanism.

AGM. Or EGM if there is a very large groundswell of support...not a couple of hundred random signatures.

So, an EGM isn't the mechanism... but then it is...

And where is this "random signatures" s**t coming from? They are signatures from members who have rights..

Nonsense indeed... only coming from your end.

 

[Pixelshooter]

So, an EGM isn't the mechanism... but then it is...

And where is this "random signatures" sh*t coming from? They are signatures from members who have rights..

Nonsense indeed... only coming from your end.

It's a mechanism as long as the threshold isn't an absurdly small number of member "signatures".

And where is this "random signatures" sh*t coming from? They are signatures from members who have rights..

I reckon I could muster up a couple of hundred member signatures without too much difficulty. It's a ridiculous number.

Nonsense indeed... only coming from your end.

Fair enough mate. I'll check out now.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

It's a mechanism as long as the threshold isn't an absurdly small number of member "signatures".

Why you quoting signatures? You do realise that they have to provide more info than just their signature right?

And it's not a viable mechanism if you have to get thousands of people to sign...

I reckon I could muster up a couple of hundred member signatures without too much difficulty. It's a ridiculous number.

Yeah, of course you could...

This isn't an online petition we're talking about here where you can bring in random signatures...

Fair enough mate. I'll check out now.

You've been calling what I say nonsense in your last 3 or so posts. When you cop it back, you check out. Bye.