News ROTHSCHILD AND POWELL JOIN RICHMOND BOARD

[Sir_Loin]

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.

That felt like normal speed to me

 

[Livonski]

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.

The last bit is a bit of a dumb question, with all due respect.
It could've been Wallace but not enough people voted for him. If you're talking about someone not endorsed by the board.
Members had a chance right there and then and decided not to.

 

[DrMike]

considering I paid you the respect of answering your question.

Why dont you pay me the courtesy of answering mine?

Probably because you've demonstrated that you're irrational on this subject and debating it with you is a waste of time

 

[Goldust]

Well, at least the bloke from SEEK might be able to find Peggy, Benny and the rest jobs when it all goes to the s**t like always!

 

[blaisee]

Probably because you've demonstrated that you're irrational on this subject and debating it with you is a waste of time

how convenient.

and how predictable.

 

[DrMike]

how convenient.

and how predictable.

How tiring

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

"Rothschild currently sits on the Board of Brown Brothers "

Does that mean the Grog Squad have to drink Sauvignon Blanc now?

If she doesn't do the right thing it will be Browne Brothers...thats Browne, with an E

 

[Azzleberry]

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.

For a club that has 65k+ members every year to get under 10K of them vote is the exact reason there is never any change. Nobody has the right to complain unless they voted and encouraged others to vote

 

[_RT_]

The last bit is a bit of a dumb question, with all due respect.
It could've been Wallace but not enough people voted for him. If you're talking about someone not endorsed by the board.
Members had a chance right there and then and decided not to.

How is it a dumb question, I want to know who was the last person voted on to the board that wasn't appointed via a casual vacancy beforehand.

 

[shaky]

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.

Your obviously new to the BF board, you speak with way too much sense and thought.
Hopefully you will soon learn there is no place for that here.
Please be more irrational and look for conspiracies if you want likes and arguments!!!

 

[Azzleberry]

How is it a dumb question, I want to know who was the last person voted on to the board that wasn't appointed via a casual vacancy beforehand.

Because this has nothing to do with the 2 casual vacancies that were just announced and which is the basis to this thread.
If you think members should vote in new board members, maybe you should tell the 50k members who couldn't be bothered to fill in a 2min online vote to do so next time when there is an end of term vote

 

[JazMac]

To be fair these are pretty good appointments

And they're not lawyers

Why are they good appointments on a football club board. Just because they have been high achievers elsewhere does not guarantee that they will do a good job on the RFC board. Do you know something that makes you think that they will?

 

[Goldust]

Your obviously new to the BF board, you speak with way too much sense and thought.
Hopefully you will soon learn there is no place for that here.
Please be more irrational and look for conspiracies if you want likes and arguments!!!

BUT the question has to be asked. If Rothschild and Poiwell were so keen to join our board, why did they not avail themselves for an election?
I like Keilor Tiger have little faith in the democratic system, as I have seen governments both conservative and Labor pull this short of crap continually, stacking boards with former pollies, powerbrokers, supporters etc. It's the way of the world.
Sadly, our club operates the same way.
Our current regime will continue stacking the board with their mates just as governments do ... it's just the way it goes.

 

[JazMac]

Can't like this post enough

I'm with you on this one.

 

[Goldust]

For a club that has 65k+ members every year to get under 10K of them vote is the exact reason there is never any change. Nobody has the right to complain unless they voted and encouraged others to vote

Well granted a lot of people do have a right to complain as they did vote!

 

[TigerImposter]

Because this has nothing to do with the 2 casual vacancies that were just announced and which is the basis to this thread.
If you think members should vote in new board members, maybe you should tell the 50k members who couldn't be bothered to fill in a 2min online vote to do so next time when there is an end of term vote

cmon Azzle most of those 50k members are made up of pets and minors.
Agree with your point though when 6k or so voted. Appalling,but people were ECO .

 

[JazMac]

BUT the question has to be asked. If Rothschild and Poiwell were so keen to join our board, why did they not avail themselves for an election?
I like Keilor Tiger have little faith in the democratic system, as I have seen governments both conservative and Labor pull this short of crap continually, stacking boards with former pollies, powerbrokers, supporters etc. It's the way of the world.
Sadly, our club operates the same way.
Our current regime will continue stacking the board with their mates just as governments do ... it's just the way it goes.

I am an out and out brightsider; but I do wonder why the club does these appointments in such a way to seem like they are trying to just achieve what the board members want and not to be concerned with democratic elections.

 

[Goldust]

cmon Azzle most of those 50k members are made up of pets and minors.
Agree with your point though when 6k or so voted. Appalling,but people were ECO .

Just wait to Rothschild and Powell vote to give Hardwick a two year extension when we finish 10th.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

considering I paid you the respect of answering your question.

Why dont you pay me the courtesy of answering mine?

Its an idiotic question

Every year we have an agm, and every year candidates are up for a vote

Most years members choose not to challenge

And if there is a contested election, outside of rex the members have always backed the board noms in recent years

Your issue is the members. They dont agree with you. Deal with it, because if they wanted change it is very easy to make happen.

 

[_RT_]

Because this has nothing to do with the 2 casual vacancies that were just announced and which is the basis to this thread.
If you think members should vote in new board members, maybe you should tell the 50k members who couldn't be bothered to fill in a 2min online vote to do so next time when there is an end of term vote

It has everything to do with this thread. The club holds elections only when a board members term comes to an end and someone outside the board wants to run. In the meantime board members who walk away in the middle of their terms are simply replaced by a hand picked candidate who then gets to serve the rest of the term before being put up for election for a first time.

My point is that those positions should be declare open at the next election and give the members a chance to vote for who they want. I've got no issue in appointing a board member when a vacancy arises, what I don't like is those people being given 1-3 years before they are made to face the members.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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.

And ill say it again for you - this is the process spelt out in the constitution. You dont like it, change the constitution because it has to be followed.

Last person elected by the members was dunne and ryan last year. Next?

 

[JazMac]

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

Why has the board ensured that we have a constitution where the members most often don't get a say who is on the board.

And does the constitution actually say that casual vacancies cannot be filled by an election - or just that they may be filled by appointment? Surely there is a way that the club could have included those two vacancies in the elections (if they had of resigned before the elections and not shortly after).

 

[Snout]

These are excellent appointments. Experienced private sector leaders, familiar with governance responsibilities, and with real commercial nous. Exactly the sort of people I want in place to ensure the ongoing financial viability of the club I love. Ex-footy players and naive amateurs with good intentions are a one way ticket to insolvency, irrelevance and eventually oblivion.

Don't like it? The club constitution ensures we will have our opportunity to vote them out and someone else in, if we so desire. The club constitution does not however cater to the whims of a disenfranchised minority who are determined to hang on to their misplaced angst at all costs.

Don't agree with the club constitution? There are mechanisms available to you to change it. Ranting against a perceived lack of board transparency on an anonymous online forum isn't one of them however, and it carries about as much weight as hashtag activism.

If you truly believe change is necessary, then stop waiting for the world to solve your problems for you and go do something about it. Stand for election on a platform of constitutional change, and put your case to the members. Too hard? You can just just keep whining like a child, if that's what you'd prefer.

While you're at it, maybe go find out what a board actually is and isn't responsible for. So much angst arising from so many incorrect assumptions could be avoided with just a little research.

 

[Azzleberry]

Well granted a lot of people do have a right to complain as they did vote!

You are correct.. if you are one of the 4,686 members who chose to vote and you didn't vote for the status quo, you can complain!

All I'm saying is you can't blame the board, they give the members the opportunity and every time we either can't be bothered or just vote for the names that look familiar.... yet people want these same members to pick the board in its entirety and also fill casual vacancies!! You're kidding me, the club would be in the hands of people who know very little about the applicants and can't be bothered to think or do any research...

FYI- I voted for Dunne and Wallace, so I have a right to be annoyed

 

[JazMac]

Its an idiotic question

Every year we have an agm, and every year candidates are up for a vote

Most years members choose not to challenge

And if there is a contested election, outside of rex the members have always backed the board noms in recent years

Your issue is the members. They dont agree with you. Deal with it, because if they wanted change it is very easy to make happen.

the problem is, it seems like more often than not the members aren't given the opportunity to have their say - as appointments happen just after AGMs and then the appointees have incumbency on their side when they are up for election 1 or more years later. Good way of giving the board the best chance of keeping the membership within their preferred clique. that is the appearance given.