RedanTiger said:
I thought she said it was 460 or 470 but sounds like I misheard her. I did miss a couple of things and seeing as though someone else has backed up what you said it appears that I stuffed up.
-
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
I thought she said it was 460 or 470 but sounds like I misheard her. I did miss a couple of things and seeing as though someone else has backed up what you said it appears that I stuffed up.
I don't think they said on the night how many proxies there were.Tenacious Tiges said:
What you may have heard was the figure given late in proceedings, as things were breaking up, that there had been 4,800 (approx.) votes cast in the election.
I think it was 4,686 or something. As I say I didn't hear it clearly but that may have been what you heard.
Harry said:
Bit of a trend lining up with dud entities in recent years. *smile* Smith, Metro Sloar, BLk, any others?
As I have already said jb it's not that we have had a spurious AGM it's that the system says we can.jb03 said:
Maybe I'm just an old whinger but this comment on the official website annoys me
The members also voted to maintain their right to call an extraordinary general meeting with only 100 signatures, rejecting a proposed change to increase that number to five per cent of voting members, which would have brought the Club into line with the current corporations act
There was no need to add the bit about the corporations act. As Malcolm Speed had to admit when I asked him on the night, there is no consequence of us NOT being in line with the corporations act!
The members also voted to maintain their right to call an extraordinary general meeting with only 100 signatures, rejecting a proposed change to increase that number to five per cent of voting members, which would have brought the Club into line with the current corporations act
There was no need to add the bit about the corporations act. As Malcolm Speed had to admit when I asked him on the night, there is no consequence of us NOT being in line with the corporations act!
Clearly the board are under pressure.joegarra said:
Pressure of their own making, from years of heads in the sand, ignoring all The obvious warning signs and that dumb stability mantra just magnifies the incompetence.
That's why 100 votes worry them.
They haven't been overly concerned about it in the past.
So why now?
taztiger4 said:
And the changes are far more relevant for companies with shareholders who can have significant portions of ownership and therefore voting rights, not for membership based companies like Richmond where individuals can only have one vote each.
One person with a significant shareholding can call an EGM of a company with that structure, that cannot happen at Richmond because our Constitution says so - and we can change our Constitution to make that number anything we like and still be in full compliance with the Corporations Act who's percentage minimum will still be available.
The "compliance" argument simply highlights how people with backgrounds in the corporate world still don't accept or understand the difference between those environments and a membership based organisation where they are supposed to serve the members and not shareholders.
David C said:
Had to laugh recently, when I heard Benny sooking about the membership voting down the 500 signatures.
He's lucky to still be employed as the CEO.
It's only the jobs for life policy at RFC that's saving him.
Talk about pushing your luck.
The audacity of this mob is incredible.joegarra said:
On the back of years of incompetence,they expect the membership to bend over and take that.
I reckon the majority of the meeting voted for the change (did anyone find out the actual count) but they didn't get the 75% needed.
It's difficult to stay upbeat when there seems to be a percentage of the membership who will back the administration, no matter how woeful the performance.joegarra said:
However, there are some competent people waiting to see how 2017 pans out.
Here's hoping we will see a more pro active RFC should things not go according to plan.
