News Board Nominations now with Poll

Pick your 2 nominees and it better not include Jamo


  • Total voters
    58
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

We generally only get around 4-5 nominees for the board from memory.

I think the most surprising is that they're all new candidates, who haven't nominated before.

Having said that, they're not the usual suspects you normally get (celebrities, past players, lawyers etc), so in a way it's good that the board will be more diverse.

Its good we don’t know any of them but which one you would vote for - I’d like to see them all in front of members taking questions.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think even to get there you need to get endorsed by a certain number of members, which probably puts a lot of people out of the running cause who can be assed getting signatures from hundreds of members.

That's similar to board nominations elsewhere - you need x number of people to endorse a nomination.
 
I'm at the point with our board elections that ill just abstain.

No point in wasting my time to vote when nothing's changed or changing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seems a very highly curated selection of candidates.

Which makes the process feel less like a "member elected" nomination and more like choose whoever the board already has chosen

That's a design feature of the process though. Members only get to choose between candidates that the board has already selected. Didn't they appoint one or two of the failed candidates from the last election anyway?
 
My vote is going to be either Shouwn or Dr Thomas, Shouwn talking about transparency got my interest, but out of all the four candidates Dr Thomas was the only candidate who mentioned extending the members voting to spread across more positions on the board.

This is actually decisive, and IMO means that he should receive support.

Our members need to have a look at our constitution, and the fork in the road that is coming for us. In five years time the board will be called upon to decide whether or not all members will get to choose our board, or whether they will create a special elite class of members who alone get that right.

Ensuring that the rule of our club by an insular elite with no accountability or transparency ends is the single biggest issue in the governance of our club. We must elect board members that will support members control.

________________________________
Constitution extracts:

Development Grant Completion Date means 31 October 2028 (or such earlier time as
the AFC and the AFL agree);

7.2 Cessation of AFL Membership
(a) The AFL will cease to be a Member on the Development Grant Completion Date.
(b) From the Development Grant Completion Date, the Board may grant all of the rights held
by the AFL to any other class of Member that is in existence on the Development Grant
Completion Date or is otherwise established by the Board.
(c) If the Board does not grant the rights of the AFL Voting Member to another class or
classes, the Board will grant all of the rights held by the AFL to the Electing Members
 
This is actually decisive, and IMO means that he should receive support.

Our members need to have a look at our constitution, and the fork in the road that is coming for us. In five years time the board will be called upon to decide whether or not all members will get to choose our board, or whether they will create a special elite class of members who alone get that right.

Ensuring that the rule of our club by an insular elite with no accountability or transparency ends is the single biggest issue in the governance of our club. We must elect board members that will support members control.

________________________________
Constitution extracts:

Development Grant Completion Date means 31 October 2028 (or such earlier time as
the AFC and the AFL agree);

7.2 Cessation of AFL Membership
(a) The AFL will cease to be a Member on the Development Grant Completion Date.
(b) From the Development Grant Completion Date, the Board may grant all of the rights held
by the AFL to any other class of Member that is in existence on the Development Grant
Completion Date or is otherwise established by the Board.
(c) If the Board does not grant the rights of the AFL Voting Member to another class or
classes, the Board will grant all of the rights held by the AFL to the Electing Members
Would you do all, or just some?

Obviously 18+

But what classes?

Even though I'm gold, I dont want it as restrictive as it is (or was) with it just being gold/captains club/interstate members.

I'd have any 11 game members and interstate members.
 
Would you do all, or just some?

Obviously 18+

But what classes?

Even though I'm gold, I dont want it as restrictive as it is (or was) with it just being gold/captains club/interstate members.

I'd have any 11 game members and interstate members.

I don't think it needs to be more complicated than members. Various membership categories cost more because they include the cost of games, but membership ought include rights within the club.

In terms of the board: you can include mechanisms so that the board can allow the addition of persons to address skills, but those appointments ought not survive beyond elections. Fundamentally, each election cycle, we should be able to spill the board if we so desire.

There is no basis for anyone else to have the right to choose our board.
 
That's a design feature of the process though. Members only get to choose between candidates that the board has already selected. Didn't they appoint one or two of the failed candidates from the last election anyway?

Yeah Shanti was an unsuccessful members rep (lost out to Takos), and then got appointed to the board anyway.

In hindsight, the members stuffed up appointing Takos.
 
weeeeeewwwww!!! CHANGE!!!!

celebrate good imelda c'mon!

drunk party GIF by South Park
 
Imelda Lynch was elected with 37% of the vote

Going from the 4 videos I think she spoke the best by a mile so I am not surprised that she was the one who was elected.

I had two votes so I voted once for Oosting and once for Lynch

I thought Oosting had some great points about a lack of transparency, but came across incredibly nervous and wouldn't be surprised if that hurt his vote.

Angela McCabe I couldn't even sit through her video, it just was not engaging at all and felt like she just was reading off a script that had been written. Roger Thomas to me seemed more interested in talking about the committees and groups he's been involved in rather than what he would bring to the club.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News Board Nominations now with Poll

Back
Top