RFC Board election & candidate info

[Harry]

It's all about self preservation for this mob.  Nothing else.  Always has been.

[🏅Dooks]

It's all about self preservation for this mob.  Nothing else.  Always has been.

The well being and success of the club is a very very distant second priority.

[FlashGordon]

It's all about self preservation for this mob.  Nothing else.  Always has been.

The well being and success of the club is a very very distant second priority.

I am convinced the current board dont want to allow outsiders in, because they are desperate to not be exposed as amateurs until the team plays finals again.

[RedanTiger]

And like the Kerry Ryan PR piece, while it was approved by the Returning Officer (COO Michael Stahl?), it also contains a link to the voting site.
Election by-laws, approved in the last months, forbids such a link under 3.1.(d)

They can't even follow the rules they made up and they want to cement in the Constitution the power of the Returning Officer under new clause 8.2.2 (j).

Not Michael.

The contravention on 3.1 (d) applies to the candidate's material, not RFC.

As an aside, the voting turnout is not representative of the membership numbers, in fact it is probably down compared to other elections.

I would encourage all members who have not voted to hop on and express their view.

Not Michael? Then who is this mythical being, Returning Officer.
So the article, with a link to the voting site in the middle, approved by the "Returning Officer", on the club's website is not candidates election material but Richmond's?

Methinks you might fit perfectly with this board.

[Penelope]

I would suggest that both Peter and simon make a similar submission to the returning officer and if it is rejected make sure every media outlet in the country is aware of the double standard being applied

[🏅Dooks]

Sent to:- info@richmondfc.com.au
4:04pm, Wed 30 Nov 2017

Dear beloved RFC,

I am stunned to hear and read the club nominating 'preferred candidates' for the upcoming/current board election.

I havent made my mind up, and do not usually vote on these matters, but i would suggest its clearly highly innappropraite with regard to the integrity and transparency of the democratic process.

I would also ask the question - is this  considered contrary to relevant published core values and code of conduct for the club?

Are links on candidate PR pieces to the voting site considered to be in accordance with relevent board election by -laws?

I would like answers!

Regards,

XXXXXXXXXX

[Penelope]

Redan, do you have that link to the applicable by-laws again please?

[Penelope]

They actually make no bones about them pushing certain canadates in what is supposed to be the members will.

On behalf of the board, I would like to endorse the two current directors standing for re-election. Emmett, only joined the Board on 1 September to fill a casual vacancy created by the retirement of John Matthies, and Kerry Ryan has just completed her first term. They deserve the opportunity to continue to serve the members. Their campaign statements give a brief summary of their work on the board.

http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=25576.0

[Penelope]

The current Board is using the RFC website to promote its two favoured candidates.

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2016-11-30/not-dunne-yet-at-tigerland

Notice there is no name to the article? does that contravene any electoral laws?

does providing quotes to be put on the clubs website, thus giving the impression that they are endorsed by the club, contravene

...or make any statement that directly or indirectly implies that
the candidate is endorsed by the Club as a candidate in the elec

3.2 .     Candidates must not use the Club logo, name, promotion material, insignia or use any image of any employee of the Club (including players) or make any statement that directly or indirectly implies that the candidate is endorsed by the Club

[one-eyed]

Add the email to members yesterday promoting the Board's two candidates and linking to an article on the RFC website from last week promoting the same two candidates. Right underneath of both is the link to the voting page .

[RedanTiger]

Redan, do you have that link to the applicable by-laws again please?

Looking at your later post quoting 3.2, I presume you found it but for others.
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/Richmond/Club%20Promos/Richmond%20By%20Laws%202015.pdf
3.1(d) any electronic communication must not include direct links to the electronic ballot.

It's important to know that these by-laws were changed in September after the Wallace website went up and the changes were mostly about the use of electronic campaign material.

[RedanTiger]

In all this debate about breaking election by-laws I would point to this post from Peter Casey.

The contravention on 3.1 (d) applies to the candidate's material, not RFC.

As an aside, the voting turnout is not representative of the membership numbers, in fact it is probably down compared to other elections.

I would encourage all members who have not voted to hop on and express their view.

So the by-laws do not affect the actions of RFC, only candidates.
I disagree.
I don't accept the argument that the article is from RFC and thus exempt.
It's obviously campaign material from/about a candidate and the platform is irrelevant.
Even if it is from the club it then opens up even more questions about the club endorsing candidates.
Are they actually WRITING campaign material?

Judging by the Casey post, I'd say he's inquired about this and that's the answer he got, unsatisfactory as it is.

[Penelope]

I suspect that probably is the case, and as the by laws do not specifically prohibit the board or the club from doing anything during this election, id say their arses are covered.

The catch all clauses about the returning officer being god like cover their arses even more.

Its probably something the media need to jump onto and take these pricks to task over it, but I wouldnt be holding my breath.

[Penelope]

The other angle is that these two incumbents are members of the board, so when the board endorses them, they may well be in vioation of

3.2 .     Candidates must not use the Club logo, name, promotion material, insignia or use any image of any employee of the Club (including players) or make any statement that directly or indirectly implies that the candidate is endorsed by the Club 

as they are party to making these statements.

[Diocletian]

This is a matter for the police now....