Casey gone

[Tiger Spirit]

Can anyone that is a member of the club remember voting Anthony Mitten onto the board?

I remember driving to the Collingwood game and hearing the announcement...does that help?

Well there you go then. The current board already makes appointments without putting them before the members. Not exactly democrats themselves are they.

Fair enough that we want a members vote on Casey VS Macek. And Casey should stop putting up duds like Mitten to the board

The thing is that, with an election, we can have a say about whether Casey, Macek or anyone gets on the Board.  The alternative ticket doesn’t want to take it to an election, they just want to take the place over.

Once on the Board, whoever they are and however they get there, have the authority to make these appointments, because it says so in the Club’s constitution.  So we have to say and do something about it now, not after.  And if we want the Board to operate as it should then we need a certain number of Directors in order for that to happen.

If they weren’t democratic then they could let all these Directors resign without appointing anyone else in their place and could virtually become a dictatorship.

I don’t know if that can legally happen, but I guess that’s why the rule says Directors can be appointed when positions become vacant.  And if we were to hold an election whenever a Director resigned, or whatever, it could turn into a very expensive exercise.  It makes sense this way.

It would have been done at other times, it’s just never been the issue that it seems to be now.

[mightytiges]

  And if we were to hold an election whenever a Director resigned, or whatever, it could turn into a very expensive exercise.  It makes sense this way.

That would be correct TS. The same rule applies in the Senate. Since November 1975, the party whose member has resigned/retired mid-term appoints a new member to serve the remainder of the 6 year term.  On the other hand in the House of Reps there must be a by-election held if a sitting member leaves. A by-election for one electorate (70-80K people) although still no cheap is a hell of a lot less expensive to hold than a senate election for a single state (up to 4-5 million people if Vic or NSW).

I don't recall anywhere where a board director can be made to resign unless they have done something in breach of the constitution. So although the alternative has 9 members, technically there'll be only 3 spots up for grabs at an election:

1. Mithin or Nicklos' spot ( depending on which one took Schwab's place as Schwab was up for re-election now. The other took over from Welsh who was re-elected at the last AGM).
2. Don Lord's spot (I think? - blame froars for that info lol)
3. Turner or Cameron's spot (?)

Based on an enlightening chat last night  , apparently any more causes legal problems although I don't have a clue what they are and why that is. Maybe a legal eagle here can fill us in  .

[froars]

. Don Lord's spot (I think? - blame froars for that info lol)

In general chit-chat, Don said he was looking forward to the election - by that, i'm not sure if he meant that he was one of the three who would stand down, or just the election in general.

I don't see how this is workable based on the fact that there will be a spill of the whole board.  The complex part comes in when after nine members are elected, who is going to stand down for re-election the following year, as all members are entitled to a three-year term?

Any legals, please help.  I put this question to Don, and he hadn't thought of it at the time - maybe they have thought of it now 

[Tiger Spirit]

In general chit-chat, Don said he was looking forward to the election - by that, i'm not sure if he meant that he was one of the three who would stand down, or just the election in general.

I don't see how this is workable based on the fact that there will be a spill of the whole board. The complex part comes in when after nine members are elected, who is going to stand down for re-election the following year, as all members are entitled to a three-year term?

I wouldn’t know really, but going by what MT said in his previous post, wouldn’t it depend on who they took over from?  If 9 spots are vacant then they would be filled in some order, so they would assume the spot of the Director they take over from.

Does that make sense?

[froars]

Does it make sense - not really, because this will be a completely new board if 9 stand down - who decides who's taking over from whom?

But i tell you what else doesn't make sense, is the fact that if Schwab and Welsh had have stayed put and not resigned, they still could have had their campaign while on the board, and if there was such a rush of support for them, three new members could have been elected - and they would have had a majority on the board anyway.  Then a vote of no-confidence in Casey and whammo.  And if that's the case, doesn't seem too smart to me by Schwab to stand down, because if there is some legal reason why a spill can't happen, then it would go to a normal AGM and only 3 positions up for grabs - and we could be left with the situation of having Welsh and Schwab voted back on.  A bit of a farce scenario IMO.

[Tiger Spirit]

Does it make sense - not really, because this will be a completely new board if 9 stand down - who decides who's taking over from whom?

Too complicated for me froars.  I guess if they have nominations they would do it in the order of nominations received.

But i tell you what else doesn't make sense, is the fact that if Schwab and Welsh had have stayed put and not resigned, they still could have had their campaign while on the board, and if there was such a rush of support for them, three new members could have been elected - and they would have had a majority on the board anyway. Then a vote of no-confidence in Casey and whammo. And if that's the case, doesn't seem too smart to me by Schwab to stand down, because if there is some legal reason why a spill can't happen, then it would go to a normal AGM and only 3 positions up for grabs - and we could be left with the situation of having Welsh and Schwab voted back on. A bit of a farce scenario IMO.

They haven’t known what they were doing all along and they expect us to want them to be in charge of our footy club.

[mightytiges]

If there is an election I hope everyone just gets on with it and there's no further challenge in the months afterwards. If we have a situation where Turner and Matthies are on the outer with Casey and 3 people from the alternative are elected then combined the 5 could hold a bare majority. We don't need further political upheaval to drag into and through 2005 .

[mightytiges]

In general chit-chat, Don said he was looking forward to the election - by that, i'm not sure if he meant that he was one of the three who would stand down, or just the election in general.

On the RFC site under directors, they have Don listed as appointed to the board in Oct 2001. So he might be up for re-election.

I don't see how this is workable based on the fact that there will be a spill of the whole board.  The complex part comes in when after nine members are elected, who is going to stand down for re-election the following year, as all members are entitled to a three-year term?

From the RFC constitution:

8.1.1 ... The members of the Board to retire each year shall be those longest in current office since their last election; as between members elected on the same day, those to retire shall be determined by agreement amongst themselves or, failing such agreement, by lot. Any casual vacancy occurring on the Board may be filled by it, but the person so chosen shall be subject to retirement at the same time as if he had become a member of the Board on the day on which the other member of the Board in whose place he has appointed or was last elected to the Board.

8.1.2   Subject to these Articles, each member shall be elected for a term of three (3) years and shall then be eligible for re-election.
------

So it might mean the whole new nine board members agree to who takes over from which previous board member or it comes down to a "lucky dip" scenario (or clutching at straws lol). The 3 say shortest straws take over the positions of those who were up for re-election in late 2005 will only serve initially one year. The next 3 for 2 years and the last 3 get a full term. Maybe that's how it'll work  ???   

[Tiger Spirit]

From the RFC constitution:

8.1.1 ... The members of the Board to retire each year shall be those longest in current office since their last election; as between members elected on the same day, those to retire shall be determined by agreement amongst themselves or, failing such agreement, by lot. Any casual vacancy occurring on the Board may be filled by it, but the person so chosen shall be subject to retirement at the same time as if he had become a member of the Board on the day on which the other member of the Board in whose place he has appointed or was last elected to the Board.

8.1.2 Subject to these Articles, each member shall be elected for a term of three (3) years and shall then be eligible for re-election.
------

So it might mean the whole new nine board members agree to who takes over from which previous board member or it comes down to a "lucky dip" scenario (or clutching at straws lol). The 3 say shortest straws take over the positions of those who were up for re-election in late 2005 will only serve initially one year. The next 3 for 2 years and the last 3 get a full term. Maybe that's how it'll work ???

And here's me thinking it's complicated.