News Off-field discussion - AGM discussion - General Governance, board etc.

[hamohawk1]

Had a look through the forums and saw we had a thread for Jeff Kennett, Dingley and board talk but nothing that ties it all together.

Noticed this article floating through the web today:

HAWTHORN BOARD HOPEFUL QUESTIONS CULTURE OF THE CLUB

For me, i see the club in a big transition phase, both on and off the field. On-field we haven't really been in the hunt since the '16 finals series with board issues (and coaching) haunting us in between. As Kennett has signalled his intention to leave next year and having a new coach at the helm, i think its a great opportunity for the club to undertake another 'cleanup' in culture similar to when Clarko came in and solidify our position as the biggest team in the east, and south east of melbourne.

Mod's, feel free to merge this into another thread if necessary but i thought its a good place to discuss/ vent about the clubs direction moving forward.

 

[Accipiter]

Had a look through the forums and saw we had a thread for Jeff Kennett, Dingley and board talk but nothing that ties it all together.

Noticed this article floating through the web today:

HAWTHORN BOARD HOPEFUL QUESTIONS CULTURE OF THE CLUB

For me, i see the club in a big transition phase, both on and off the field. On-field we haven't really been in the hunt since the '16 finals series with board issues (and coaching) haunting us in between. As Kennett has signalled his intention to leave next year and having a new coach at the helm, i think its a great opportunity for the club to undertake another 'cleanup' in culture similar to when Clarko came in and solidify our position as the biggest team in the east, and south east of melbourne.

Mod's, feel free to merge this into another thread if necessary but i thought its a good place to discuss/ vent about the clubs direction moving forward.

Yeah, I saw this also.

I've had enough of the hate campaign on Jeff so a refreshing new thread. Does anybody have an update on Dingley or any projections on the project? Also Id be interested in comments around culture and females on the board, the website shows that we have two. Is anybody close enough the the inner workings to provide some perspective on this?

 

[BIGHAWK23]

Jennifer Holdstock is doing my head in

 

[theiaofseed]

Jennifer Holdstock is doing my head in

WE don't need or want a wrecking board with political agendas like Kennett, hope she never steps foot on the board.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

WE don't need or want a wrecking board with political agendas like Kennett, hope she never steps foot on the board.

Not sure how saying that women should be better represented on the board is 'political'. It's a statement of fact - there are more women than there are men but the board is dominated by men. As Holdstock has rightly pointed out - if we get more women on the board we are then eligible for state government funding. I'm glad that someone wanting to join the board is actively promoting ideas that would improve our bottom line. She shouldn't have been pressured to stand aside also - it is anyone's right to stand for the board and the club is meant to be a democratic organisation so she has every right to stand. As a solicitor she is also credentialed to obtain a position that is concerned with governance. Her comments on the coaching saga weren't exactly wrong either - it was an embarassing ordeal for the club. I am happy with the end result and with Sam as coach - but I doubt any here would argue it was a fun time to be a Hawks supporter when it all went down. I certainly have more of an open ear to someone wanting the board to be more representative, to the point where it also comes with a financial windfall and to ensure debacles like the coaching sage don't happen again than someone who publicly talks down our list with Kane Cornes. Full disclosure that I voted for Shearer and Silk.

 

[BIGHAWK23]

Not sure how saying that women should be better represented on the board is 'political'. It's a statement of fact - there are more women than there are men but the board is dominated by men. As Holdstock has rightly pointed out - if we get more women on the board we are then eligible for state government funding. I'm glad that someone wanting to join the board is actively promoting ideas that would improve our bottom line. She shouldn't have been pressured to stand aside also - it is anyone's right to stand for the board and the club is meant to be a democratic organisation so she has every right to stand. As a solicitor she is also credentialed to obtain a position that is concerned with governance. Her comments on the coaching sage weren't exactly wrong either - it was an embarassing ordeal for the club. I am happy with the end result and with Sam as coach - but I doubt any here would argue it was a fun time to be a Hawks supporter when it all went down. I certainly have more of an open ear to someone wanting the board to be more representative, to the point where it also comes with a financial windfall and to ensure debacles like the coaching sage don't happen again than someone who publicly talks down our list with Kane Cornes. Full disclosure that I voted for Shearer and Silk.

Hiring the right people for the board should be based on credentials, input and value, not gender

If that matches up to get more funding per say, great

But otherwise, shouldnt be a running point

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Hiring the right people for the board should be based on credentials, input and value, not gender

If that matches up to get more funding per say, great

But otherwise, shouldnt be a running point

Honestly - why is it people think that better attempts at diversity will somehow lead to people being appointed on the basis of their gender alone as opposed to being selected because they are a well credentialed person who is otherwise unrepresented. She's not saying we should just grab some women off the street because they are wearing a Hawks scarf. Richmond have 50% representation on their board - representative of both the population and the workforce. They are an incredibly well run, profitable and successful club these days. I am sure each one of those women are well qualified and credentialed.

 

[Brishawk]

Hiring the right people for the board should be based on credentials, input and value, not gender

If that matches up to get more funding per say, great

But otherwise, shouldnt be a running point

The biggest barrier to having more women on boards is board members typically promote people just like them onto the board, and given men dominate boards, they have a strong tendency to promote other men to board positions.

obviously, a person needs to have the relevant experience to make a positive contribution but unless we are proactive in promoting women to boards, it won’t happen organically. Same goes for management roles. Boards with a higher than average Proportion of women on boards perform better than male dominated boards. Diversity is a valuable thing in its own right. It leads to better decision making.

 

[BIGHAWK23]

Honestly - why is it people think that better attempts at diversity will somehow lead to people being appointed on the basis of their gender alone as opposed to being selected because they are a well credentialed person who is otherwise unrepresented. She's not saying we should just grab some women off the street because they are wearing a Hawks scarf. Richmond have 50% representation on their board - representative of both the population and the workforce. They are an incredibly well run, profitable and successful club these days. I am sure each one of those women are well qualified and credentialed.

If she is, vote her in

No issue with it, but it shouldn't be the reason she is voted in, which is what her whole interview was about

 

[Ned Ryerson]

If she is, vote her in

No issue with it, but it shouldn't be the reason she is voted in, which is what her whole interview was about

Because she is a QUALIFIED woman and at present we have a lack of QUALIFIED women in board positions and it is to the financial detriment of the club.

 

[BIGHAWK23]

Because she is a QUALIFIED woman and at present we have a lack of QUALIFIED women in board positions and it is to the financial detriment of the club.

You vote for the best person for the job, if she is the most QUALIFIED as you say, then no worries, she is an asset to the board
Improperly suited board members are more of financial detriment to the club, so if she is QUALIFIED the most, put here in

 

[Pessimistic]

It seems the board is anti 'people we don't want' not 'anti-women' history shows that

Lets not confuse the issues, also Hawks and Bombers are the last victorian clubs to get AFLW teams. Surely Hawthorn is well on the way to being very diverse, especially if you include the various diversity groups. Other clubs with AFLW already have a leg up so to speak.

Not bad fr a traditionaly male dominated industry

 

[Poison]

Putting to one side the very valid arguments for greater gender diversity which I agree with, Holdstock appears to be representing that the Club is automatically going to get $15 million of state government funding if she is elected to the Board.

I would be very interested to understand the basis for this assertion.

 

[Poison]

Because she is a QUALIFIED woman and at present we have a lack of QUALIFIED women in board positions and it is to the financial detriment of the club.

I am in wholesale agreement with you, particularly when it comes to the Richmond Football Club.

Peggy O'Neal is a gun former Freehills partner and current Lander & Rogers consultant with more top-tier board/corporate governance experience than I've had hot dinners. Tina de Young is a Morgan Stanley alumni with a CFA and current VIS board member (amongst other things). Kate Palmer is a member of the Order of Australia, former CEO of Netball Australia, a Trustee of the MCG Trust, etc. Her resume might be the best of the lot. Henriette Rothschild is a KordaMentha partner and former COO of iSelect. Kerry Ryan is a former partner of Norton Rose Fulbright who was awarded an Austrade Business Fellowship to Indonesia as well as being a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors to go with an insanely impressive resume that includes being a board member of a range of ASX-listed companies.

We would be privileged to have any one of these directors at Hawthorn and should be working hard to identify female candidates with equivalent credentials.

Based on her candidate statement, Holdstock appears to be a director of a very small NFP who otherwise runs her own suburban firm that primarily deals in small-scale tribunal work. It is great that she is passionate about the Club but from what I can tell, and with the greatest of respect, one of these things is not like the other(s).

 

[KermitJagger]

Not sure how saying that women should be better represented on the board is 'political'. It's a statement of fact - there are more women than there are men but the board is dominated by men. As Holdstock has rightly pointed out - if we get more women on the board we are then eligible for state government funding. I'm glad that someone wanting to join the board is actively promoting ideas that would improve our bottom line. She shouldn't have been pressured to stand aside also - it is anyone's right to stand for the board and the club is meant to be a democratic organisation so she has every right to stand. As a solicitor she is also credentialed to obtain a position that is concerned with governance. Her comments on the coaching sage weren't exactly wrong either - it was an embarassing ordeal for the club. I am happy with the end result and with Sam as coach - but I doubt any here would argue it was a fun time to be a Hawks supporter when it all went down. I certainly have more of an open ear to someone wanting the board to be more representative, to the point where it also comes with a financial windfall and to ensure debacles like the coaching sage don't happen again than someone who publicly talks down our list with Kane Cornes. Full disclosure that I voted for Shearer and Silk.

I have no issues with diversity as a target, I agree with Bris' comments above. I also don't think it was right that she was asked to stand down from a process that should be open and democratic - it's a shame that the club tried to stop her, but they were likely thinking less about her identity, more about the bottom line and the cost involved in facilitating the election.

To me and I'm sure to a lot of other members, she just felt less like she had a position in which to contribute on the board. For both Silk and Shearer, recent comments from Shearer aside, the cases made themselves - which is why Holdstock was left on the outer as with the other MALE electees that were also asked not to run.

 

[Flukey!]

WE don't need or want a wrecking board with political agendas like Kennett, hope she never steps foot on the board.

I don't agree with that at all but I do wish she had waited a year.
She may take votes from Silk which we do not want.

 

[Maybloom madness]

Not sure how saying that women should be better represented on the board is 'political'. It's a statement of fact - there are more women than there are men but the board is dominated by men. As Holdstock has rightly pointed out - if we get more women on the board we are then eligible for state government funding. I'm glad that someone wanting to join the board is actively promoting ideas that would improve our bottom line. She shouldn't have been pressured to stand aside also - it is anyone's right to stand for the board and the club is meant to be a democratic organisation so she has every right to stand. As a solicitor she is also credentialed to obtain a position that is concerned with governance. Her comments on the coaching sage weren't exactly wrong either - it was an embarassing ordeal for the club. I am happy with the end result and with Sam as coach - but I doubt any here would argue it was a fun time to be a Hawks supporter when it all went down. I certainly have more of an open ear to someone wanting the board to be more representative, to the point where it also comes with a financial windfall and to ensure debacles like the coaching sage don't happen again than someone who publicly talks down our list with Kane Cornes. Full disclosure that I voted for Shearer and Silk.

 

[Maybloom madness]

I’m more interested to see what skills a new board member could bring to the board. I’m not quite sure a litigation lawyer adds much, quite frankly. What or who does she need to litigate against?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Putting to one side the very valid arguments for greater gender diversity which I agree with, Holdstock appears to be representing that the Club is automatically going to get $15 million of state government funding if she is elected to the Board.

I would be very interested to understand the basis for this assertion.

I believe that state government funding that is essentially withheld from clubs and associations who don't meet the 40% quota. I am not sure that the figure would be $15M - I believe that's a figure that is being withheld from Collingwood on the same issue - I could be wrong though.

I am in wholesale agreement with you, particularly when it comes to the Richmond Football Club.

Peggy O'Neal is a gun former Freehills partner and current Lander & Rogers consultant with more top-tier board/corporate governance experience than I've had hot dinners. Tina de Young is a Morgan Stanley alumni with a CFA and current VIS board member (amongst other things). Kate Palmer is a member of the Order of Australia, former CEO of Netball Australia, a Trustee of the MCG Trust, etc. Her resume might be the best of the lot. Henriette Rothschild is a KordaMentha partner and former COO of iSelect. Kerry Ryan is a former partner of Norton Rose Fulbright who was awarded an Austrade Business Fellowship to Indonesia as well as being a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors to go with an insanely impressive resume that includes being a board member of a range of ASX-listed companies.

We would be privileged to have any one of these directors at Hawthorn and should be working hard to identify female candidates with equivalent credentials.

Based on her candidate statement, Holdstock appears to be a director of a very small NFP who otherwise runs her own suburban firm that primarily deals in small-scale tribunal work. It is great that she is passionate about the Club but from what I can tell, and with the greatest of respect, one of these things is not like the other(s).

Personally I think someone who has been involved with law and governance for as long as she has would not be out of place on our board. That said, I would agree that the commercial acumen of Richmond's directors are a class above and they are all incredibly credentialed individuals. My overall point is that I believe there would be similarly incredibly well credentialed Hawthorn women in the corporate sector who we should be encouraging to run for vacant board positions in future. My argument isn't that Holdstock should be on the board - I openly admitted having not voted for her, I was just defending the points she was making as I felt they were valid.

I have no issues with diversity as a target, I agree with Bris' comments above. I also don't think it was right that she was asked to stand down from a process that should be open and democratic - it's a shame that the club tried to stop her, but they were likely thinking less about her identity, more about the bottom line and the cost involved in facilitating the election.

To me and I'm sure to a lot of other members, she just felt less like she had a position in which to contribute on the board. For both Silk and Shearer, recent comments from Shearer aside, the cases made themselves - which is why Holdstock was left on the outer as with the other MALE electees that were also asked not to run.

Don't disagree with any of that - and I don't think anyone asked her to step aside because she is a woman, it was purely a financial thing and that H4C and HFC had obviously made a compromise on Shearer and Silk and Holdstock didn't agree to that. I am not suggesting being a woman is why she was asked to stand aside and if that's an assertion made by Holdstock I would disagree with that element of her statement.

I’m more interested to see what skills a new board member could bring to the board. I’m not quite sure a litigation lawyer adds much, quite frankly. What or who does she need to litigate against?

Just because you are a litigator doesn't mean you don't have practical governance experience. Holdstock has experience in governance and risk management - areas of importance to a board in any capacity. She's also a board member of Financial Counselling Victoria - so it's not as if she doesn't have experience at board level.

 

[Hawkk]

Jennifer Holdstock is doing my head in

The constant reference to ‘AFL-M’ is a red flag

 

[Hawkk]

I am in wholesale agreement with you, particularly when it comes to the Richmond Football Club.

Peggy O'Neal is a gun former Freehills partner and current Lander & Rogers consultant with more top-tier board/corporate governance experience than I've had hot dinners. Tina de Young is a Morgan Stanley alumni with a CFA and current VIS board member (amongst other things). Kate Palmer is a member of the Order of Australia, former CEO of Netball Australia, a Trustee of the MCG Trust, etc. Her resume might be the best of the lot. Henriette Rothschild is a KordaMentha partner and former COO of iSelect. Kerry Ryan is a former partner of Norton Rose Fulbright who was awarded an Austrade Business Fellowship to Indonesia as well as being a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors to go with an insanely impressive resume that includes being a board member of a range of ASX-listed companies.

We would be privileged to have any one of these directors at Hawthorn and should be working hard to identify female candidates with equivalent credentials.

Based on her candidate statement, Holdstock appears to be a director of a very small NFP who otherwise runs her own suburban firm that primarily deals in small-scale tribunal work. It is great that she is passionate about the Club but from what I can tell, and with the greatest of respect, one of these things is not like the other(s).

100 per cent

 

[Pessimistic]

The urge to vote for Holdstock on evidence given is your classic Reality TV response. you think a person has been wronged - you are triggered and want to trigger back.
But you have no Idea about the policy or competence of the person, and maybe you do but you mimimise that in your mind

Next thing Trump Johnson and Scomo are in charge of the joint.

we need board members with minimal public profile, especially NOT those who are experts in triggering

 

[Ned Ryerson]

The urge to vote for Holdstock on evidence given is your classic Reality TV response. you think a person has been wronged - you are triggered and want to trigger back.
But you have no Idea about the policy or competence of the person, and maybe you do but you mimimise that in your mind

Next thing Trump Johnson and Scomo are in charge of the joint.

we need board members with minimal public profile, especially those who are experts in triggering

 

[theiaofseed]

Not sure how saying that women should be better represented on the board is 'political'. It's a statement of fact - there are more women than there are men but the board is dominated by men. As Holdstock has rightly pointed out - if we get more women on the board we are then eligible for state government funding. I'm glad that someone wanting to join the board is actively promoting ideas that would improve our bottom line. She shouldn't have been pressured to stand aside also - it is anyone's right to stand for the board and the club is meant to be a democratic organisation so she has every right to stand. As a solicitor she is also credentialed to obtain a position that is concerned with governance. Her comments on the coaching sage weren't exactly wrong either - it was an embarassing ordeal for the club. I am happy with the end result and with Sam as coach - but I doubt any here would argue it was a fun time to be a Hawks supporter when it all went down. I certainly have more of an open ear to someone wanting the board to be more representative, to the point where it also comes with a financial windfall and to ensure debacles like the coaching sage don't happen again than someone who publicly talks down our list with Kane Cornes. Full disclosure that I voted for Shearer and Silk.

Campaigning for change and political issues isnt an undesired outcome from a leader but when you use those political issues to say why you should and someone shouldn't be voted in, is a huge problem and just scream another Kennett nothing but self serving crap. "middle age white men" being used 3 times in a interview to discredit 2 men who quite frankly have a better resume for the job just doesn't never sits well for me.

If there is an issue with over looking females ect for a role within the club than that's something the new board and members can work through but someone that's openly attacking what would be a fellow board member if shes successful is not the environment we need

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Campaigning for change and political issues isnt an undesired outcome from a leader but when you use those political issues to say why you should and someone shouldn't be voted in, is a huge problem and just scream another Kennett nothing but self serving crap. "middle age white men" being used 3 times in a interview to discredit 2 men who quite frankly have a better resume for the job just doesn't never sits well for me.

If there is an issue with over looking females ect for a role within the club than that's something the new board and members can work through but someone that's openly attacking what would be a fellow board member if shes successful is not the environment we need

100% agree that if she was characterising Silk and Shearer as just middle age white men that is drastically underselling them and pretty poor form. Not exactly the best way to sell the point of better board diversification.