News ROTHSCHILD AND POWELL JOIN RICHMOND BOARD

[_RT_]

It's called a casual vacancy

They face the punters when the term of the person they replace is up

Just as it happens in the senate before you cry about democracy

I know they are casual vacancies, but those vacancies funnily enough appeared not long after the last board elections which conveniently lets the board appoint those that are recommended to them i.e. mates of mates. Free and Chadwick didn't just suddenly decide they were leaving the board, they would have know for a while they were leaving and to me if it walks like a conspiracy and talks like a conspiracy it's a conspiracy.

 

[_RT_]

Personally I have very little faith in the democratic system anyway. Most people only vote based on who they've always voted for, who they like or dislike the look of, or for changes sake rather then the policies and credentials of candidates.
As RFC members we have been given the option to vote for change but have not done this. Just because the guy came a credible 3rd doesn't make him the next best candidate. Maybe the successful candidates were the best option at the time as seen by the majority of voters???

Anyway I'd rather candidates were selected by a committee by going thru a rigorous interview process - not by being voted in by members who only know the candidates by a short advertising spiel or external profile.

As I said why even bother having elections if the board can simply interview people and appoint who they want, when they want. Just save the cash it costs to hold an election and simply put an ad on Seek(we have a former Seek Managing Director on the board now so should get a good deal) and ask for people to apply for the job instead.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I know they are casual vacancies, but those vacancies funnily enough appeared not long after the last board elections which conveniently lets the board appoint those that are recommended to them i.e. mates of mates. Free and Chadwick didn't just suddenly decide they were leaving the board, they would have know for a while they were leaving and to me if it walks like a conspiracy and talks like a conspiracy it's a conspiracy.

no, we've been through this before

AGAIN

if both of them resigned on February 2016 their replacements WOULD NOT have faced the members in the 2016 election. They would have faced the members at the end of the terms for the two guys they replaced - 2017 and 2018

this is why Dunne faced the members, the guy who he replaced had a term that ended in 2016

show me what part of that is a conspiracy to avoid the members

 

[_RT_]

no, we've been through this before

AGAIN

if both of them resigned on February 2016 their replacements WOULD NOT have faced the members in the 2016 election. They would have faced the members at the end of the terms for the two guys they replaced - 2017 and 2018

this is why Dunne faced the members, the guy who he replaced had a term that ended in 2016

show me what part of that is a conspiracy to avoid the members

As I said both Free and Chadwick would have known they were going to leave the board, you don't just wake up one morning and say stuff it I'm resigning from the board. But instead of announcing it before the election they hold off their announcements until after the elections to reduce the chances of an unwanted candidate getting voted on. Once the elections is done, these guys both drop the news they are resigning which creates 2 vacancies that the board can fill with whomever they want and who the members don't get to vote on until their terms are finished. By then they are incumbents and the odds are that the members simply vote for the status quo. I mean when was the last time a new board member was voted in by the members themselves rather than being appointed by the board. As I pointed out earlier the last 5 additions to the board have been hand picked by the board themselves to fill casual vacancies.

 

[blaisee]

It's called a casual vacancy

They face the punters when the term of the person they replace is up

Just as it happens in the senate before you cry about democracy

we know you are a board apologist mate. According to you they can do no wrong.

Problem for you is, the rest of us don't have our heads in the sand. Sad.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

As I said both Free and Chadwick would have known they were going to leave the board, you don't just wake up one morning and say stuff it I'm resigning from the board. But instead of announcing it before the election they hold off their announcements until after the elections to reduce the chances of an unwanted candidate getting voted on. Once the elections is done, these guys both drop the news they are resigning which creates 2 vacancies that the board can fill with whomever they want and who the members don't get to vote on until their terms are finished. By then they are incumbents and the odds are that the members simply vote for the status quo. I mean when was the last time a new board member was voted in by the members themselves rather than being appointed by the board. As I pointed out earlier the last 5 additions to the board have been hand picked by the board themselves to fill casual vacancies.

you're not getting it.

if they both resigned months before the AGM, it wouldn't matter. they are both a casual vacancy, because Free and Rex were not due to face election in 2016.

if they stepped down in february 2016 they would have been a casual vacancy which would be filled by the board on the recommendation on the noms committee

in no way shape or form would the Free or Rex seats have faced election in 2016 UNLESS an EGM was triggered, or the board called for a full spill of the entire board

standing down in 2016 or 2017, it changes NOTHING

 

[blaisee]

No matter what happens, the plunkers on here will complain.

considering that as members they have taken our rights away to pick our board, I guess you will also be in favour of the members not being able to voice an opinion either?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

we know you are a board apologist mate. According to you they can do no wrong.

Problem for you is, the rest of us don't have our heads in the sand. Sad.

okay then. explain how either of these seats would have been up for vote at the 2016 AGM without a full spill of the board occurring, or a rewriting of the constitution. explain away

 

[blaisee]

okay then. explain how either of these seats would have been up for vote at the 2016 AGM without a full spill of the board occurring, or a rewriting of the constitution. explain away

On the basis of the incompetence of the board, there should be a full spill of the board, and the members should have a chance to actually VOTE on who they want to be led by.

At the very least Peggy should hang her head in shame and resign.

Answer this question. Who was the last member of the board that was picked by the fans/members and not given an armchair ride by the board

 

[Tiger71]

Do it anyway mods

Posted for the likes. If i dont get 100 the mods can permaban my alt account Tiger71

Tall poppy

 

[_RT_]

you're not getting it.

if they both resigned months before the AGM, it wouldn't matter. they are both a casual vacancy, because Free and Rex were not due to face election in 2016.

if they stepped down in february 2016 they would have been a casual vacancy which would be filled by the board on the recommendation on the noms committee

in no way shape or form would the Free or Rex seats have faced election in 2016 UNLESS an EGM was triggered, or the board called for a full spill of the entire board

standing down in 2016 or 2017, it changes NOTHING

I am getting it, they are board appointed board members who were hand picked by the board.

My point is that their spots should have been put up for election and let us the members have the chance to vote in the people we want to run our club. As I said name the last board member to be voted in by the members directly.

It appears that board members are allowed to walk, granted Chadwick had a medical issue, partway through their terms because the club can simply appoint who they want to replace them without the members having any say, then by time they people do front up for election the majority just stick with the incumbent as they are too scared of change unless there is a big enough reason to vote for change.

 

[Tiger_4_Life]

Same Rothschild family that rules the world?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

On the basis of the incompetence of the board, there should be a full spill of the board, and the members should have a chance to actually VOTE on who they want to be led by.

At the very least Peggy should hang her head in shame and resign.

Answer this question. Who was the last member of the board that was picked by the fans/members and not given an armchair ride by the board

why didn't you get an EGM trigger up and spill it yourself? or is it easier to bitch and cry on the net than actually run for the board yourself?

 

[DrMike]

okay then. explain how either of these seats would have been up for vote at the 2016 AGM without a full spill of the board occurring, or a rewriting of the constitution. explain away

Why would anyone trust us campaigners on board selection
As a collective we're idiots, we'd select the next Trump

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I am getting it, they are board appointed board members who were hand picked by the board.

My point is that their spots should have been put up for election and let us the members have the chance to vote in the people we want to run our club. As I said name the last board member to be voted in by the members directly.

It appears that board members are allowed to walk, granted Chadwick had a medical issue, partway through their terms because the club can simply appoint who they want to replace them without the members having any say, then by time they people do front up for election the majority just stick with the incumbent as they are too scared of change unless there is a big enough reason to vote for change.

you are not getting it.

board positions dont go up for election mid term. they only get voted on at the end of each of their three year cycle - or if a full spill is done

unless the board ignored the clubs constitution, the proper process per our constitution is to replace mid term resignations with a casual vacancy appointment, with that person facing a vote when the term they are taking over is due.

if you want this changed, we need to change the constitution

i dont get how people claim the club is running a conspiracy, but NOT breaking the clubs own constitution

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Why would anyone trust us campaigners on board selection
As a collective we're idiots, we'd select the next Trump

hey, Focus on Footy were all kinds of awesome!!!!

 

[Sir_Loin]

Looks like Rothschild has already had a fair bit to do with the club via the noms committee and working on the risk and audit committee. She's put in some hard yards at the club so far so happy with the appointment of someone who has a fair idea of what's going on

Powell don't know much about apart from the bio but given his marketing background it's probably a good appointment from a sponsorship perspective

Have no issues with casual vacancy appointments of they're good

 

[docko911]

Does anyone in the know, know exactly what they gain from being on the board as they do not get paid?

 

[blaisee]

why didn't you get an EGM trigger up and spill it yourself? or is it easier to bitch and cry on the net than actually run for the board yourself?

considering I paid you the respect of answering your question.

Why dont you pay me the courtesy of answering mine?

 

[blaisee]

Does anyone in the know, know exactly what they gain from being on the board as they do not get paid?

ITS ALL ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL !

 

[Bojangles17]

Having worked for Joe many years ago, I can say he's a very passionate Tiger's man, and it's an excellent appointment by the board.

Good to know, that's one important Q answered

 

[_RT_]

you are not getting it.

board positions dont go up for election mid term. they only get voted on at the end of each of their three year cycle - or if a full spill is done

unless the board ignored the clubs constitution, the proper process per our constitution is to replace mid term resignations with a casual vacancy appointment, with that person facing a vote when the term they are taking over is due.

if you want this changed, we need to change the constitution

i dont get how people claim the club is running a conspiracy, but NOT breaking the clubs own constitution

I'll say it again slowly:

If a board member steps down then their position should be put up at the next election, not 1, 2 or 3 years later.

But the constitution states that this isn't the case and the club can effectively appoint whomever they choose. Why has this never been put up for change?


Oh and while you're answering that question, can you also tell us who the last board member was to be voted on to the board by the members directly? You've only been asked half a dozen times but are yet to produce an answer.

 

[Livonski]

On the basis of the incompetence of the board, there should be a full spill of the board, and the members should have a chance to actually VOTE on who they want to be led by.

At the very least Peggy should hang her head in shame and resign.

Answer this question. Who was the last member of the board that was picked by the fans/members and not given an armchair ride by the board

We all had a chance very recently and guess what happened?

Democracy happened. You are in a minority. I respect your right to an opinion but not enough people share it to force the change you require.

 

[TigerImposter]

I'll say it again slowly:

If a board member steps down then their position should be put up at the next election, not 1, 2 or 3 years later.

But the constitution states that this isn't the case and the club can effectively appoint whomever they choose. Why has this never been put up for change?


Oh and while you're answering that question, can you also tell us who the last board member was to be voted on to the board by the members directly? You've only been asked half a dozen times but are yet to produce an answer.

I think it was Rex .

 

[DrMike]

hey, Focus on Footy were all kinds of awesome!!!!

The only difference between those idiots and us idiots is their budget