Have only skimmed, but so far not happy. They want to change the EGM requirement to 5% of members, which means over 3000 signatures - ridiculous. And they want to exempt the president from a maximum 9 nine years - also ridiculous
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Proposed Constitution Changes
- Thread starter joegarra
- Start date
joegarra said:
Said at the time term limits were mooted that the test would be what other things will be included but not announced to further entrench the board.
Your post Joe, confirms my suspicions.
The 3000 signatures figure is demonstrated as excessive when you consider the 2011 constitutional changes were only voted on by 190 members.
So changing the rules decreasing member's power was endorsed by 190 but the member's right to seek answers from the board will require 3000 votes.
Members have an example of how the rules have been manipulated by the board.
Vote the changes down.
Term limits will arise again. It is not worth trading away other member powers to bring in a term limit.
I receive all the club emails but I'm yet to get a voting email.
Have I missed the boat, or will it come in due course. By email or snail mail?
BTW, I'm a Gold member and have renewed.
Have I missed the boat, or will it come in due course. By email or snail mail?
BTW, I'm a Gold member and have renewed.
got mine by email, already voted for Casey and Wallace - sick of the Board appointing their mates. And will vote against changing the constitution to 5% required for an EGM.
There are some distasteful clauses hidden away and ticking in that lot.
Weakening of members power to hold the Board accountable through an EGM.
Director being able to stay on for 15 years if President.
Members need to carefully consider the full ramifications of voting yes. I will be voting no.
Weakening of members power to hold the Board accountable through an EGM.
Director being able to stay on for 15 years if President.
Members need to carefully consider the full ramifications of voting yes. I will be voting no.
joegarra said:
Especially when only about 3000 members pulled their fingers out and voted last time!
C'mon everyone lets send a loud and clear message to the board and vote!
Okay, be warned this will probably be a long one.
Necessarily by virtue of all the thing they've changed.
3.3.2.d They have inserted the word "senior" into life member awards. Looks like the poor old bootstudder just got screwed. Life membership is now only for 'senior' staff. So elitist.
6.1.3 Timing of AGM's. Although it only broadly refers to the ACT (Corporations Act) it can be assumed that since it removes the 21 day limit (under 249H of the Act), we will now function under 249R which only says at a "reasonable time and place".
6.4 Calling of EGM. Under 249D and 249F of the Act, it requires 5% of the membership to call an EGM. Note my previous post that says that only 190 votes were cast at the 2011 ADM.
Also according to 249C any single director may call a meeting of members. According to 6.4.5 the board may call an EGM at any time. A 30 times increase in limits on members rights.
Under 249N, members can move a resolution either by a) 5% or b) 100 members.
I think this clause also should be affected by the following clause 6.6 which gives quorum numbers.
6.6 Quorums. Remains the same with 100 for an AGM and 200 for an EGM. So 5% (about 3000 currently) of members are required to call an EGM but the quorum for an EGM is less than 0.33333%.
8.1.10 Presidents term. This is the really, really sneaky one. A president is eligible for a further two terms on top of the three term limit.
For example Malcolm Speed, appointed in 2011, elected unopposed in 2011 and 2014, APPOINTED or elected in 2017, can be made President before his third term ends in 2020 and serve as President until 2026.
There is little variation between APPOINTED or elected directors except the following..
8.1.12 Replacement directors (taking over on resignation, a right reserved to the board. O'Neal says "shall". Casey points out "may" in constitution.) shall not have that first replacement term counted in their limits.
While we have seen that most of these are in the final months thus granting incumbency, O'Neal replaced Casey after one year in 2005 and served the two remaining years of that term.
This is very important as the above case of Speed exemplifies -replacing 2011, elected 2011 and elected 2014.
Without this clause the three term limit begins in the Replacement term.
Thus Ryan's third would be the upcoming one - replacing 2013, elected 2013, elected 2016.
8.2.2 (j) Strengthens the recently changed Election by-laws. The Returning Officer (usually COO, Michael Stahl) has the power to disqualify candidates.
While the Election by-laws can be changed at any time by the board, this locks this power to disqualify into a constitution only changeable by a member vote.
If you have looked at the new Election by-laws they are ridiculous.
The new section on "Other campaign material" makes opposing rules on the timing of this material (3.1 and 3.4) and bars people from using the club name.
9.2.6 Allows board meetings by video and teleconferencing.
A few years ago March dangled the idea of Sydney-based financiers in Carnegie and Nelson (?) joining the board.
As I said at the time, how do they get to board meetings and functions while living in Sydney?
This clause totally allows this. We could have a Sydney mate next year (replacing Free) attending meetings by video.
Any RULES about board terms will come without giving up member power hidden away in these changes.
VOTE THESE DOWN.
Necessarily by virtue of all the thing they've changed.
3.3.2.d They have inserted the word "senior" into life member awards. Looks like the poor old bootstudder just got screwed. Life membership is now only for 'senior' staff. So elitist.
6.1.3 Timing of AGM's. Although it only broadly refers to the ACT (Corporations Act) it can be assumed that since it removes the 21 day limit (under 249H of the Act), we will now function under 249R which only says at a "reasonable time and place".
6.4 Calling of EGM. Under 249D and 249F of the Act, it requires 5% of the membership to call an EGM. Note my previous post that says that only 190 votes were cast at the 2011 ADM.
Also according to 249C any single director may call a meeting of members. According to 6.4.5 the board may call an EGM at any time. A 30 times increase in limits on members rights.
Under 249N, members can move a resolution either by a) 5% or b) 100 members.
I think this clause also should be affected by the following clause 6.6 which gives quorum numbers.
6.6 Quorums. Remains the same with 100 for an AGM and 200 for an EGM. So 5% (about 3000 currently) of members are required to call an EGM but the quorum for an EGM is less than 0.33333%.
8.1.10 Presidents term. This is the really, really sneaky one. A president is eligible for a further two terms on top of the three term limit.
For example Malcolm Speed, appointed in 2011, elected unopposed in 2011 and 2014, APPOINTED or elected in 2017, can be made President before his third term ends in 2020 and serve as President until 2026.
There is little variation between APPOINTED or elected directors except the following..
8.1.12 Replacement directors (taking over on resignation, a right reserved to the board. O'Neal says "shall". Casey points out "may" in constitution.) shall not have that first replacement term counted in their limits.
While we have seen that most of these are in the final months thus granting incumbency, O'Neal replaced Casey after one year in 2005 and served the two remaining years of that term.
This is very important as the above case of Speed exemplifies -replacing 2011, elected 2011 and elected 2014.
Without this clause the three term limit begins in the Replacement term.
Thus Ryan's third would be the upcoming one - replacing 2013, elected 2013, elected 2016.
8.2.2 (j) Strengthens the recently changed Election by-laws. The Returning Officer (usually COO, Michael Stahl) has the power to disqualify candidates.
While the Election by-laws can be changed at any time by the board, this locks this power to disqualify into a constitution only changeable by a member vote.
If you have looked at the new Election by-laws they are ridiculous.
The new section on "Other campaign material" makes opposing rules on the timing of this material (3.1 and 3.4) and bars people from using the club name.
9.2.6 Allows board meetings by video and teleconferencing.
A few years ago March dangled the idea of Sydney-based financiers in Carnegie and Nelson (?) joining the board.
As I said at the time, how do they get to board meetings and functions while living in Sydney?
This clause totally allows this. We could have a Sydney mate next year (replacing Free) attending meetings by video.
Any RULES about board terms will come without giving up member power hidden away in these changes.
VOTE THESE DOWN.
joegarra said:
I agree 100% with your comments and will therefore also vote for Casey and Wallace, and vote against the constitution changes. I also believe that we should all explain to our mates the consequences of the proposed changes, and the methods used by Peggy to retain the President position.
Chiang Mai Tiger said:
Where's the 3000 figure from, Chiang Mai. Elections?
Cos as I stated in my first there were only 190 votes to change the constitution in 2011.
Haven't got my email yet.
Thus find it strange if they haven't notified how to vote on the Consitution by proxy when it's at the same time as the election results.
I suppose they figure it's safer to keep the changes as quiet as possible and roll them through with an overwhelming vote at the AGM like last time.
May be a little different this time around.
PS My advice is to try to avoid sending proxies voting AGAINST the changes to the club. The president votes these proxies.
Send them via someone on here who is attending, as I did last time.
Very strongly agree with Oldie.
Most members are unfortunately either apathetic or accepting of the spin.
That's what happened last time.
Don't just vote.
Intervene for a friend or family.
RedanTiger said:
Yep as separate to being at the AGM, we couldn't get any great number of members interested in voting last time even when voting online is so easy.
