2024 HFC AGM

[Ned Ryerson]

Nah, not shits and giggles.
20,000 members voted - almost 4,000 voted for Scott. He lost out of the 3 but many voted for him.

We’re a democracy - that’s why we have elections despite the cost.

The notion of aspiring candidates having to meet a committee formed by the board for permission to stand is simply not right. Scott was entitled to stand, he published his reasons for standing and he did.
Again, under our constitution, that’s the democratic process.

We should not have a HFC board that controls elections or dissuades members from standing.

Go back a few years where we had a president who was a member of a Melbourne men’s club - and he managed to second onto the Hawthorn board 7 or 8 members from his private men’s club. That is technically undemocratic because those 7 or 8 were not initially voted onto the Hawthorn board by members.

Give me any day the constitutional right of Don Scott or Billy Blogs from Latrobe (if he’s a member) to stand for the board. The members will get it right when they vote (as they no doubt did in this case).

You don't have to meet the committee to stand though - as Scott didn't. This isn't the local primary school P&C - it's a multi-million dollar enterprise. The members get their say, as well they should, but I have no qualms with a group of people vetting candidates who are running for a governance role at my footy club.

And if Scott had zero answer to what he would be bringing in his role on the board in a media interview, then he clearly was not a serious candidate but still saw fit to waste club resources.

 

[Mississippi]

You don't have to meet the committee to stand though - as Scott didn't. This isn't the local primary school P&C - it's a multi-million dollar enterprise. The members get their say, as well they should, but I have no qualms with a group of people vetting candidates who are running for a governance role at my footy club.

And if Scott had zero answer to what he would be bringing in his role on the board in a media interview, then he clearly was not a serious candidate but still saw fit to waste club resources.

I agree - a subcommittee meeting - but not vetting, and all that implies - prospective candidates is fine. There should always be a representative mix of talent on the board. The potential problem with the vetting system is that a vetting committee - effectively dictating who should stand and who should step side - can have the effect of merely reinforcing the power base of a dictatorial president or power bloc of some directors. It’s happened before !

And you’re basically saying that 4,000 members should not have been entitled to vote for Scott - because he shouldn’t have been standing?

The fact that he had 4,000 members wanting him on the board is more than enough reason for him to stand. His reason or justification for his decision to stand was clear enough in his policy statement, wasn’t it?

As for the analogy of the local primary school committee - that’s what democratic voting is! If someone stands who is, by your analogy, an HFC member but only fit to represent a primary school - then the members vote accordingly don’t they?
But either way, let the candidate stand and be democratically considered at the club’s expense.

What really annoys me is this assertion -

The club, with an annual revenue in 2024 of $60 million and total assets of $108 million, shouldn’t have had an election of directors in accordance with its constitution, because “it was a waste of resources”?!

 

[paddington]

The notion of aspiring candidates having to meet a committee formed by the board for permission to stand is simply not right.

This. It seems designed to keep the status quo on the board, and risks group think. Having someone on a board with an alternate view may not mean changes if they are the only one, but would hopefully make the others at least critically consider their views.