Depends on how you interpret the phrase "elected to the board".
Agree
You say in your post that "they have served their terms, faced re-election".
Your point is that the directors were RE-ELECTED to the board after they were initially APPOINTED to the board.
The very same point I made which you claim was incorrect.
In any election there is a huge advantage to incumbency. You ignore this.
Also agree with your comment on incumbency. That is the nature of things especially at footy clubs
But my view is and this is obviously where we don't agree is this:
You are correct regarding how they first got on the board. That is not in dispute as it is very much fact. But once that initial term is over then any term after that IMESHO is they become "elected" or "re-elected" directors and that was my point
There is also the minor point that these directors as you say "served their terms" but in many of the cases as referred to in my previous post these terms were only the monthly remains of the directors they replaced. For example Dunne will replace Matthies from September till the AGM in December and face RE-ELECTION in December, the 3 months remaining of a 3 year term.
Yep and if the pub crew have the courage to nominate rather than wanting to just get on the board via some brokered deal then we will all get a say
And hopefully this time unlike previous occasions people will actually bother to vote, rather than sook that they never get a say