News Dr Bridie O'Donnell elected to the board

[Capital Magpie]

Bridie was a guest panelist on the ABCs Offsiders program this morning.

The panel questioned her about only being a Collingwood member for 15 months and alluded to her Bulldog allegiances.

The panel came to the view that its better to have diversity on boards as opposed to rusted on club supporters who might not be very balanced or intelligent.

Bridie presented very well I have to say. She seems intelligent and articulate and is able to talk intelligently about a range of sporting issues. Draws on her knowledge of cycling well.

I found it interesting that she was asked whether the Board knew that she wouldn't be immediately eligible to vote if she came onto the Board. She didn't quite answer the question. She replied that yes, she was quite up front about being a general supporter of AFLW and therefore AFLW teams.

All up, an interesting program.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The rules in the Constitution (I believe Collingwood has Articles of Association, the old fashioned equivalent) are not optional. They must be followed and any competent chairman would make sure they understood them and did so, especially when facing a potential EGM led by a lawyer whose first step will be to know the provisions.

Parsing this post through the Articles of Association (I’m not a lawyer) ...

( http://footyindustry.com/files/constitutions/Collingwood Football Club Limited Articles of association (2010).pdf )

It is completely inappropriate for her to sit in confidential Board discussions when she is not an appointed director nor yet eligible to be one . Korda said she is there in an ex officio capacity until her appointment is ratified at the AGM. This is poor governance and arrogant. I cannot fathom that this is a suggestion of someone sitting on corporate boards.

This is a bit murky.

Korda is invoking Article 55c. (The board have the power to appoint anybody to any committee, but they shall have no voting rights. IIRC they also did this with Peter Murphy when he ran his review, and then naturally he participated as a matter of course when he became acting CEO (Article 63), and then in turn as board member)

A counter view would invoke Article 32(b). “The Board shall have the power at any time to fill a casual vacancy occurring within the Board. Any person so appointed must satisfy the qualification for Board membership as required by Clause 30”, where Clause 30 states “Subject to paragraph (b), no member shall be qualified for election as a member of the Board unless he shall have been a member of the Club for at least twenty four (24) months immediately prior to his nomination.”, but paragraph (b) states “The Club in general meeting may pass an ordinary resolution waiving compliance with paragraph (a) in respect of a particular member, and if such a resolution is passed, the member shall be qualified for election as a member of the Board.”

I wasn’t paying close attention when Waitslitz got on the board in 1998, but my understanding is that it was similar circumstances so maybe there is some kind of precedent there.

Once eligible, she will need to be elected by a vote of voting members at a general meeting and there is no indication that she will be successful. You can only “ratify” a decision if you believe on reasonable grounds that those who need to agree will do so and it is just a formality. This is clearly not the case.

I take it that if no more people nominate for the seat, that this will be covered by Articles 52 and 72b (Articles covering newly elected board members at AGM’s)

We should also look at the other appointees. Were they eligible when they filled casual vacancies and then stayed on unopposed at the AGM? Why were there never any other people who stood for over 20 years? Eddie seems proud of this record. I find it shocking governance.

I guess in the Articles of Association parlance, Ed put members on the board using Article 32, and managed to keep anybody from invoking Articles 53 snd 54.

During that period they took the club away from its core business, adding netball.

Whilst object (objective) in II.ii does state “The promotion of Australian rules football”, II.iii does state “The association of members for social, sporting and athletic purposes.” and II.ix “To promote and hold, either alone or jointly with any association, club or person, meetings, competitions and matches, and to offer, give or contribute towards prizes, medals and awards, and to promote, give or support dinners, balls, concerts and other entertainments.” And II.x “To establish, promote, or assist in establishing or promoting, and to subscribe to, give to or become a member of any association or club whose objects are similar in whole or in part to the objects of the Club, or the establishment, promotion or assistance of which may be beneficial to this Club.”

IMO (Not a lawyer) the club’s actions in establishing a netball team wasn’t against the Articles of Association.

Eddie starting calling it ‘Australia’s leading sporting club’, and invested in a reception venue. When was this fundamental shift in the focus of the business ever put to the members?

This appears to be well with the scope laid out in Memorandum of Articles ...

II.iv: “To provide a suitable club premises with refreshment rooms with or without residential accommodation and other conveniences in connection therewith and to furnish and maintain the same, and to permit the same and the property of the Club to be used by members and other persons duly introduced by members, either gratuitously or for payment.”

II.v: “To purchase, hire, make, or provide and maintain all kinds of furniture, equipment, implements, tools, utensils, plate glass, linen, books, papers, periodicals, stationery, cards, games and other things required, or which may be conveniently used in connection with the premises of the Club by persons frequenting the same, whether members of the Club or not.”

II.vii: “To purchase, take on lease, or in exchange, or otherwise acquire, or develop any lands, buildings, easements or property, real or personal, which may be requisite for the purpose of or conveniently used in connection with any of the objects of the Club, and to sell, demise, mortgage, give in exchange, or dispose of the same.”

II.xvi: “To improve alter demolish and develop any property owned or leased by the Club.”

II.xix: “To do such other lawful things as are, in the opinion of the Board incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects or any of them.”

If you ask me as a member, I would say the club’s vision should be to win AFL premierships.

Nothing in the objectives or articles about AFL Premierships or winning them.

I would support the move to AFLW. I think netball is too far and focus is lost through diversification to this extent.

Already covered above that netball is OK, and AFLW subject to the same.

I am a female and I believe in gender equality and balance on Boards. My objection is not in any way connected to that. She is not the only woman in the country with strong skill sets and experience that could assist the club.

Under “interpretations”, it does state that “Words importing the masculine shall include the feminine and ...”, but IMO one of the reforms needed to the articles is that they explicitly clean up the use gender pronouns in the body.

I have simply lost confidence in the competence and integrity of the Board to set the strategy and govern the organisation. They seem to think that financial performance is the only metric.

Financials are covered in the Objects, for example ...

II.xi “To invest and deal with the moneys of the Club not immediately required, upon such securities and in such manner as may from time to time be thought fit.”

But there are other Objects (objectives) that the club have been addressing , such as II.iii “The association of members for social, sporting and athletic purposes.”, and the club in the last six years has dramatically improved that by introducing AFLW, VFLW, SNL, ANL and the wheelchair footy team.

I have many years experience with Boards (as a director, company secretary and General Counsel) and it is either incompetent or a Board culture which disregards compliance and governance to have a anyone who may never be appointed in the boardroom, even if they do not vote. Equally, an experienced director would be telling them that it is inappropriate for them to attend unless and until formally appointed.

Article 55 seems to cover that.

If they do not like the provisions of the Constitution there is a formal mechanism to vary it (with a vote of members). They cannot pick and choose what applies.

I couldn’t find any such article. Curious ... unless it’s implied by some kind of governing provisions? The only thing I could find is Artcle 93: “The Secretary shall within one month of the making of any amendment or alteration to these Memorandum or Articles of Association lodge with the Secretary of the Liquor Licensing Commission a certified copy of such amendment or alteration.”

Also interestingly, I couldn’t find anything in there about needing signatures from 5% of voting me,bers to trigger an EGM either. Maybe that’s in governing provisions, such as laws associated with Liquor and Gaming?

They would also understand that the Board acts as one so they are collectively responsible for all of the governance failures over their tenure. Those members who were on Eddie’s board (which is all bar 1) cannot simply suggest that Eddie was the sole decision-maker and distance themselves. The President is their representative and speaks for the Board. They appoint and remove the President, not the members. Their inability to make the simple decision to nominate a single president when Eddie stepped down has created this instability and does not exactly inspire confidence.

Nothing explicit, but I’d imagine that’s all covered in governing provisions.

 

[Maggie5]

Bridie was a guest panelist on the ABCs Offsiders program this morning.

The panel questioned her about only being a Collingwood member for 15 months and alluded to her Bulldog allegiances.

The panel came to the view that its better to have diversity on boards as opposed to rusted on club supporters who might not be very balanced or intelligent.

Bridie presented very well I have to say. She seems intelligent and articulate and is able to talk intelligently about a range of sporting issues. Draws on her knowledge of cycling well.

I found it interesting that she was asked whether the Board knew that she wouldn't be immediately eligible to vote if she came onto the Board. She didn't quite answer the question. She replied that yes, she was quite up front about being a general supporter of AFLW and therefore AFLW teams.

All up, an interesting program.

I also watched that as I really didn't know much about her. She was pretty upfront.

Social media seems to have been a bit brutal with her, did she say she is not longer on there? Her twitter account and Instagram are now private which is a shame. Keyboard Warriors hard at work out there as not her fault she accepted the role.

 

[Capital Magpie]

I also watched that as I really didn't know much about her. She was pretty upfront.

Social media seems to have been a bit brutal with her, did she say she is not longer on there? Her twitter account and Instagram are now private which is a shame. Keyboard Warriors hard at work out there as not her fault she accepted the role.

Yes I think that's righf. She's now off social media. Gideon said he has never been on it.

 

[collingwoodmick]

My opinion is that board members (CEO aside) should be Collingwood people, with an established history of such support.
Staff involved in the running of the club - be that back office, front office (such as CEO alluded to above) or coaching/playing staff, should be best available for the required roles (independent of any diversity/gender quotas etc).
My preference is for Collingwood people to steer the ship, but it doesn’t matter to me who maintains and runs the club.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The panel came to the view that its better to have diversity on boards as opposed to rusted on club supporters who might not be very balanced or intelligent.

I think the point about intelligence (or in his words “cretin”) was a bit harsh. If we wrote off every dumb idea as being from a dumb person who only has dumb ideas, our society would still be living in caves.

But IMO the “balanced” point should have been explored a bit deeper. It’s healthy to have critical thinking and advocating for the devil on boards ... more healthy than simply having a bunch of fanboys.

 

[Lockyer24]

Wanting Mouncey to play AFLW is as cretin as you can get...

 

[jackcass]

My opinion is that board members (CEO aside) should be Collingwood people, with an established history of such support.
Staff involved in the running of the club - be that back office, front office (such as CEO alluded to above) or coaching/playing staff, should be best available for the required roles (independent of any diversity/gender quotas etc).
My preference is for Collingwood people to steer the ship, but it doesn’t matter to me who maintains and runs the club.

My opinion, the board should comprise the best possible people with the broadest possible skill set. Gender equality is only a bonus. Shutting out anyone with past allegiances to other clubs or only relatively limited and/or recent AFL support automatically denies access to something like 80% or more of potential candidates. Seems counter intuitive to recruiting the best.

 

[Lockyer24]

Shame we couldn’t win for her first time seeing the black and white

 

[Doc1763]

Shame we couldn’t win for her first time seeing the black and white

Does she care one way or the other?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Does she care one way or the other?

Probably not much. She’s there to ensure the growth of the AFLW team, netball and wheelchair teams from all we keep hearing.

 

[Kappa]

At least her beloved Doggies got up this weekend, she can't be too upset.

 

[JB1975]

I heard she only went to the game to bathe in Magpie tears.

 

[Black_White]

Shame we couldn’t win for her first time seeing the black and white

But we did win!

Fever secure first points of Super Netball campaign, Magpies hold off Firebirds in thriller

The West Coast Fever finally have something to show for their undefeated start to the season following a 70-62 win over the Adelaide Thunderbirds, while the Collingwood Magpies beat the Queensland Firebirds 68-65.

www.abc.net.au

 

[76woodenspooners]

But we did win!

Twice ...

 

[jc37]

My opinion, the board should comprise the best possible people with the broadest possible skill set. Gender equality is only a bonus. Shutting out anyone with past allegiances to other clubs or only relatively limited and/or recent AFL support automatically denies access to something like 80% or more of potential candidates. Seems counter intuitive to recruiting the best.

The issue is we currently have 4 people who sit on the board 50% who are not Collingwood people. I honestly doubt these people care if we win or lose. we have an accountant as president who obviously did not use his skillset to help with the management of the salary cap. Terrible governance. That leaves 4 on the board who are Collingwood people but of that group I dont think we have one person who truly connects with the fans/members for which the board is actually there to represent. I dont expect all but one person would be nice. lets not forget this board has brought in an activist to do a report that we are institutionally racist. Only a board full of idiots would have been so stupid to bring in Larrisa Bherendht (who answer to everything is racism) in to do that report which is insulting, damages the clubs reputation with a term that is so ambiguous in its meaning. There were plenty of good people they could have brought in that would have been fair to both the club and Lumumba. To then find out we are bringing in a gender equality activist is alarming. She is super talented but we really do need people who are looking after Collingwood's interest first rather than self interest at this time in our clubs history. This board has shown little effort to fight for the club, preferring to virtue signal and with it trash the clubs reputation. The scary part is I think they are actually proud of what they have done! They are woke elites who by talking spin every time one of them opens their mouths are basically treating us the fans with contempt. If one of them comes up with a vision to direct the club that would be great. They shouldn't fear the members anger they should embrace the passion of it and try to turn this club around.
I really do hope this Jeff Browne character is not just a myth and will soon become more vocal than Humphrey B Bear and if he is looking to join the board and be president has a genuine vision and direction. The club lacks leadership.

 

[HeadInTheSand]

Good old Christine. The gift that keeps on giving.

State Government knocked back Bridie O’Donnell’s first request to take Magpies’ role
When Bridie O’Donnell joined Collingwood’s board it emerged she could not vote until early next year. But it has surfaced that another issue existed in her move to join the AFL club.

Michael Warner

3 min read
May 24, 2021 - 6:58Pm

Collingwood’s contentious new board member Bridie O’Donnell was initially denied clearance to take a role at the club because of a conflict of interest with her State Government job.

O’Donnell was forced to withdraw from the Magpies recruitment process on April 22 because of her “prevailing work arrangements”.

But the public servant was later given clearance to join Collingwood’s board after transferring some of her government job responsibilities to a co-executive director.

O’Donnell, a medical practitioner who is the executive director of the Victorian Government’s public events team, was announced as Collingwood’s latest board member last Tuesday.


A Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions spokesperson said: “Bridie O’Donnell advised the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions of her potential appointment to an unpaid position on the board of the Collingwood Football Club before her appointment was confirmed.

“We are satisfied that any conflicts can be managed.”

Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events Martin Pakula said the management of public servants was a matter for the Secretary of the Department.

 

[76woodenspooners]

You do realise the new board member came from a Steven Bradbury like position as the person the club wanted to replace Eddie as a director was told by their employer they could not be on the Collingwood board and maintain their current working position due to a conflict of interest.....

Only the best for Collingwood.....

Ah, you called it ...

The only situation where I could imagine that happening is if the person was a public servant of some form and they had policy about anybody serving on boards (eg: ASIC, RBA, etc)

I called it too ..

Good old Christine. The gift that keeps on giving.

State Government knocked back Bridie O’Donnell’s first request to take Magpies’ role
When Bridie O’Donnell joined Collingwood’s board it emerged she could not vote until early next year. But it has surfaced that another issue existed in her move to join the AFL club.

Michael Warner

3 min read
May 24, 2021 - 6:58Pm

Collingwood’s contentious new board member Bridie O’Donnell was initially denied clearance to take a role at the club because of a conflict of interest with her State Government job.

O’Donnell was forced to withdraw from the Magpies recruitment process on April 22 because of her “prevailing work arrangements”.

But the public servant was later given clearance to join Collingwood’s board after transferring some of her government job responsibilities to a co-executive director.

O’Donnell, a medical practitioner who is the executive director of the Victorian Government’s public events team, was announced as Collingwood’s latest board member last Tuesday.


A Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions spokesperson said: “Bridie O’Donnell advised the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions of her potential appointment to an unpaid position on the board of the Collingwood Football Club before her appointment was confirmed.

“We are satisfied that any conflicts can be managed.”

Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events Martin Pakula said the management of public servants was a matter for the Secretary of the Department.

 

[Mike Olotripo]

Ah, you called it ...



I called it too ..

I'm a little surprised it took this long to come out to be honest.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I'm a little surprised it took this long to come out to be honest.

Do you support Bridie O’Donnell taking a board position?

 

[sideswipe]

I'm a little surprised it took this long to come out to be honest.

Well done. You were right!

 

[Billys Back]

Good old Christine. The gift that keeps on giving.

State Government knocked back Bridie O’Donnell’s first request to take Magpies’ role
When Bridie O’Donnell joined Collingwood’s board it emerged she could not vote until early next year. But it has surfaced that another issue existed in her move to join the AFL club.

Michael Warner

3 min read
May 24, 2021 - 6:58Pm

Collingwood’s contentious new board member Bridie O’Donnell was initially denied clearance to take a role at the club because of a conflict of interest with her State Government job.

O’Donnell was forced to withdraw from the Magpies recruitment process on April 22 because of her “prevailing work arrangements”.

But the public servant was later given clearance to join Collingwood’s board after transferring some of her government job responsibilities to a co-executive director.

O’Donnell, a medical practitioner who is the executive director of the Victorian Government’s public events team, was announced as Collingwood’s latest board member last Tuesday.


A Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions spokesperson said: “Bridie O’Donnell advised the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions of her potential appointment to an unpaid position on the board of the Collingwood Football Club before her appointment was confirmed.

“We are satisfied that any conflicts can be managed.”

Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events Martin Pakula said the management of public servants was a matter for the Secretary of the Department.

This isn’t an uncommon situation. Happens in private industry, but obviously a lot more in the public sector where conflicts are more prevalent.

Not sure what makes it a story to be honest.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The issue is we currently have 4 people who sit on the board 50% who are not Collingwood people.

Licuria is obviously a Collingwood person
Sizer is a lifelong supporter
Nobody has ever questioned Murphy’s bona fides
Holgate is an immigrant and has been a supporter for most of her time in the country. Fair effort for somebody who spent much of that time based in Sydney .
You don’t think Korda is a Collingwood person ?
Or Wilson?

I honestly doubt these people care if we win or lose.

Two of the current board (Korda, Holgate) were on the board when we instituted the Murphy / Walsh review, which brought us from obscurity to a GF, PF and a SF. A third current board member actually ran the review (Murphy), and two others (Licuria, Sizer) were brought on as part of the recommendations of the review.

we have an accountant as president who obviously did not use his skillset to help with the management of the salary cap.

Would you have preferred that we kept the salary cap balanced and let Grundy walk?

Our salary cap was cactus in 2017 - one of the findings of the review - so we did very well to Be competitive for three years, and then something had to give. All the more so given the AFL salary cap squeeze as a result of Covid.

The Dayne Beams recruitment was a screw-up. No doubting that.

Terrible governance.

We’re financial. We seem to be paying our bills. No reason to think our insurances aren’t in place?. Governance can’t be that bad?

lets not forget this board has brought in an activist to do a report that we are institutionally racist. Only a board full of idiots would have been so stupid to bring in Larrisa Bherendht (who answer to everything is racism) in to do that report which is insulting, damages the clubs reputation with a term that is so ambiguous in its meaning. There were plenty of good people they could have brought in that would have been fair to both the club and Lumumba.

I agree that could have been handled better.

To then find out we are bringing in a gender equality activist is alarming.

Why?

You’ve reasonably (IMO) pointed out that we should have board members who represent us. Given that around 50% of the supporter base are female, and we’ve got more female athletes than male athletes in the joint these days. Wouldn’t it seem appropriate for good governance to ensure their interests are being represented?

She is super talented but we really do need people who are looking after Collingwood's interest first rather than self interest at this time in our clubs history.

The board and each of it’s members are absolutely looking after Collingwood’s interests, I think it’s unfair to suggest otherwise.

What is fair game IMO is debating how well they are / are not doing that.

This board has shown little effort to fight for the club, preferring to virtue signal and with it trash the clubs reputation. The scary part is I think they are actually proud of what they have done! They are woke elites who by talking spin every time one of them opens their mouths are basically treating us the fans with contempt.

Never seen Ed referred to as a “woke elite” before, and yet it was him who had to fall on his sword after spinning the Do Better report as a “Proud Day for Collingwood”?

If one of them comes up with a vision to direct the club that would be great.

Agree 100%

But Murphy has done that. He put together the review of club operations and a path forward. Would have been nice if some of that was being shared with the members but.

They shouldn't fear the members anger they should embrace the passion of it and try to turn this club around.

Agree 100%

Although some folks who have been around snd paying attention to this stuff for longer than I have, have pointed out that that passion has almost broken the club at times.

I really do hope this Jeff Browne character is not just a myth and will soon become more vocal than Humphrey B Bear and if he is looking to join the board and be president has a genuine vision and direction.

He is being painted as the panacea of all our problems, but I’d like to understand a lot more about him, together with his ticket, before I‘d contemplate any support.

The club lacks leadership.

What specifically are you looking for in Leadership?

Pendlebury is universally acknowledged for his leadership?
Buckley for all his faults is also a strong leader?
Wright comes across as a very strong leader?
Anderson in my dealings with him has shown good leadership qualities?

Sure, Korda is hardly a Churchillian character, but he hasn’t been in the job for long?

 

[sideswipe]

This isn’t an uncommon situation. Happens in private industry, but obviously a lot more in the public sector where conflicts are more prevalent.

Not sure what makes it a story to be honest.

Conflicts of interest are a key driver of career advancement within the AFL!

 

[sideswipe]

He is being painted as the panacea of all our problems, but I’d like to understand a lot more about him, together with his ticket, before I‘d contemplate any support.

The thing about Browne is that we have heard nothing from him so far.