I also whacked all of them when I said they must all go, except speed. Tell me how long had speed been on the board when this vote occurred?? Give him the top job like he should have got it back then.
I really don't understand where you get this idea that Speed is a good choice as president.
If you bothered to do a search on his history you will find he has been a poor and divisive leader wherever he has gone, especially at the ICC.
Within his first term at Richmond he has been such a divisive force that the board has had to make a "neutral" the president. Speaks volumes.
Speed was appointed with Carl Walsh to fill two board vacancies in October 2011. Yes APPOINTED.
Garry Cameron and Don Lord resigned in October, two months before the AGM after serving for ten years on the board and were replaced by Speed and Walsh.
As there was such little time before the AGM there were no other candidates and they (Speed and Walsh) were deemed to have been ELECTED unopposed.
I think Walsh resigned in 2015 and John O'Rourke was Appointed to replace him.
In 2011 I was opposed to the changes and gave a proxy to WP to vote against (since I did not trust the chair or Stahl to lodge my vote correctly).
I also received a message from another OER poster that they had done the same.
In emails to the administrator of another site, she told me she and her husband had both voted against by proxy.
On reading on here that there were only a very few proxies cast against the motion I contacted the admin and suggested that the counting was dodgy.
She contacted Michael Stahl (COO and returning officer) and he replied to her as follows:
There were 73 proxies received, 69 in favour and 4 against the proposed changes.
At the AGM, the motion to change the Constitution was proposed by Charles Macek and seconded by Garry Cameron.
At the AGM there were 117 members present and 3 of those voted against the proposed changes.
Accordingly the proposed changes to the Constitution were passed.
Now according to that I personally know all 4 who voted against. Small, small, small world.
There were 117 members present. WP, Mightytoges and Jackstar have said they were the 3 votes against. Even smaller world.
The motion was moved by Macek and Cameron.
To go back to another thread
Just read the replies to my post.
Funny if not ironic.
A thread about changes to the Board.
I was one of the few who voted against the changes to the constitution that allows the board to appoint a third of directors.
The vote against the changes was SEVEN against of whom I personally know of four, WP and myself included.
So my question to Harry, yandb, Diocletian and Dooks - which way did you vote on the constitutional changes?
If you did not vote against them then you have at the least agreed with and condoned the changes the board made to limit the power of members to select the board.
So again to all those who now include the posters on this thread critical of WP. Which way did you vote?
