Constitution Changes

There will be a Special Meeting to adopt changes to the Constitution, on 9th February.

I hope the changes are explained before the needing. They're currently shown only by a large number of amendments to the current Constitution.

Seems like the Board will be changed from 7 to 9, adding a women s foitba person and another member elected person.

That person has to have been a financial member for 3 years, I think.

The way I read it they have to be CURRENT member and have been a member for not less than 3 years total. Non consecutive membership implies they may have been a member (years ago or “off and on”) as long as the total time as member is not less than 3.
At least they have to be a member !
Devils in the detail.

Case in point. They can become a member 1 day before the nomination (making them financial) and as long as they have been a member at some time for 3 years e.g. years 2000-2003 they can stand for election.

Lee Harradine wrote:There will be a Special Meeting to adopt changes to the Constitution, on 9th February.

I hope the changes are explained before the needing. They're currently shown only by a large number of amendments to the current Constitution.

This annoys me.
Call me cynical but this modus operandi ensures that the majority of the West Adelaide plebs wont be bothered to take the time and effort to read and understand all the proposed changes.

Rather than having to trawl through 32 pages to find all the amendments, any proposed changes should be collated into a single document with each amendment having an explanation of why the change is deemed necessary.

Absolutely correct, BT.

Coolie, basically spot on --- must be a present member and a financial member for a total of 3 non-consecutive Financial Years.

20.2.1 in respect of a Members Nominee(s) the candidate is/must be a current
Member and has been a Financial Member of the Club for not less than
three (3) non-consecutive Financial Years and which nomination is signed
by two (2) members and the candidate; and

The reasoning behind this is a person could join first day of new financial year and be eligible ---- If a 2 financial year limit was set then person could join last day of financial year and get new membership next day (first day of financial year) == hence 3 financial years seemed a good start point ===== Read between lines BRANCH STACKING is made more difficult.

The critical issue is that if no members nominate for the Members Elected position then I believe that the Board can appoint a person under rule 20.4.6 and subject to rule 13.3

20.4.6 Any vacancy caused by a lack of nominations, by the withdrawal of
a nomination or by the death of a candidate shall be deemed to be a
casual vacancy for the purposes of Rule 13.3 and shall be filled
pursuant to Rule 13.3

13.3 Any casual vacancy occurring during the year in the position of any Officer of the
Club may be filled by the Board but any person appointed to fill such vacancy
will hold office only until the Annual General Meeting following their
appointment and shall be eligible for re-election.

The reason for the extra 2 Board Members is that in the original report recommending changes to the last change of Constitution it was identified a belief that it takes 3 years for a Board Member to become proficient in their role and as such the Nominated Board Members was 3 years  ----- this lead to the natural question of why was the Member elected positions 2 years based on parity of roles --- the extra Member Elected position reflects that Member elected positions are for 3 years (if Members approve the amendments).

The extra Nominated Board Member basicallyreflect the normally accepted practice of having an odd number on Boards for voting

If anyone has question I will do my best to answer within bounds of confidentiality

Oldfella, Thanks for the explanation.
Re: if no members nominate to become board member, the options for the board are limited. Either don’t fill the position for the term or appoint someone of their choice. They could temp fill the position and recall but whose to say they won’t be in the same position again.
This highlights the difficulty facing many clubs, sporting and otherwise I.e. having someone (with relevant skills) willing to commit to what is acknowledged a sometimes difficult, thankLess and time consuming task. Solve that one and everyone would be happy.

Thanks oldfella and again correct, Coolie.

After the last members' election 2 years ago where a long time member lost to a newcomer to the Club who was supported and allegedly campaigned for by the Board, I'm not surprised nobody has put up their hand since. (Nothing against the person elected, just the process).

As for needing 3 years to become a proficient Board Member, that is nonsense IMO. You're either up to it or not.

Just a question, oldfella. Is the current member-elected person eligible to continue under the 3 non-successive year rule, or is there a grandfather clause?

Just a question, oldfella. Is the current member-elected person eligible to continue under the 3 non-successive year rule, or is there a grandfather clause?

Imo, yes, the current member-elected person whose term ends at AGM is entitled to renominate and (subject to how many nominations and need for election or not) get reappointed for a 2 year term under the existing Constitution. There is no need for a grandfather clause IMO

As for needing 3 years to become a proficient Board Member, that is nonsense IMO. You're either up to it or not.

I totally agree but that was the recommendation advice within the highly (HAHAHA) rated SANFL Report from the Private Consultants

After the last members' election 2 years ago where a long time member lost to a newcomer to the Club who was supported and allegedly campaigned for by the Board

It is my personal hope and belief that the proposed Constitution change will stop this situation happening again or at minimum limit the ability to do so.

I'm not surprised nobody has put up their hand since. (Nothing against the person elected, just the process)

Again, I totally agree with your thoughts --- with that thought in mind I have already started to discussed the situation with some long term members well known around the club, within the Past Players group and the Westonians with good business background to convince them to nominate in the AGM after the Members hopefully support the changes to the Constitution.

Thanks again, oldfella. Re the current member elected person, why do you say there's no problem if that person was only elected 2 years ago and has to be member for 3 non-consecutive years?

Presumably I'm misunderstanding this.

I hasten to add that my question is theoretical only, certainly not objecting in any way regardless.

As I understand it, The 3 year term is only applicable if these changes are accepted. Previously they only had to be financial and nominated by 2 other members. If the changes are not accepted, the person elected can re nominate. That’s how I read it.

Techincally the person has not met the criteria If these changes accepted.
I can not see special dispensation clause.

why do you say there's no problem if that person was only elected 2 years ago and has to be member for 3 non-consecutive years?

Firstly, the requirement to be member for 3 non-consecutive years to nominate for a Member Elected Board position does not exist at this time under the present Constitution.

If the Members approve the proposed changes to the Constitution at this pending AGM then, and only then, will the requirement to be member for 3 non-consecutive years to nominate be in place. This will apply to the candidates at the next AGM after Members approve (eg Feb next year)

Coolie, you wise old owl - right and wrong LOL

Please note this is also why I talked in terms of being appointed for 2 years at this AGM under existing Constitution.

Touché Oldfella. Got my years muddled.

Your not the only one who gets muddled --- it took me 5/6 tries to get the years right LOL

Keep well my friend.

Tom W

Thanks again, oldfella, all good

Oldfella wrote:
If the Members approve the proposed changes to the Constitution at this pending AGM then, and only then, will the requirement to be member for 3 non-consecutive years to nominate be in place. This will apply to the candidates at the next AGM after Members approve (eg Feb next year)

What if the SGM is held before this year's AGM (they're scheduled at the same time)? Could the changes then apply to this year's AGM?

Very good question and I honestly do not know the answer. I would be surprised if it were to happen and expect that AGM business first then Special meeting after AGM is closed. Interesting. Time will tell?

EDITED TO ADD.

Remembering that the “Financial Year” means the period of one year ending on 31 October in each calendar year then the Present Member Elected Board Member whose term in office finishes at this AGM is actually in her third year of being a Member.

As such IMO the Present Member Elected Board Member whose term in office finishes at this AGM is eligible to nominate for reappointment at this AGM even were the proposed Constitution change be accepted by Members in a special meeting prior to the AGM.

While admitting I honestly do not know (as per first para) I feel it is a reasonable speculation that were the proposed Constitution change be accepted by Members in a special meeting prior to the AGM then the person elected as the Member Elected Board Member would have a 3 year term === NOTE my thoughts only needs legal opinion by a qualified legal practitioner.

Best I can offer Aldo and is a bit of guess

aldo russian wrote:

Oldfella wrote:
If the Members approve the proposed changes to the Constitution at this pending AGM then, and only then, will the requirement to be member for 3 non-consecutive years to nominate be in place. This will apply to the candidates at the next AGM after Members approve (eg Feb next year)

What if the SGM is held before this year's AGM (they're scheduled at the same time)? Could the changes then apply to this year's AGM?

The Special Meeting will be held first.

I hope there will be someone from the Nominations Committee attending and also from the Governance Committee.

The club has been at rock bottom for the last 3 years under the current President’s watch. 3 wooden spoons in a row.
Financially we are struggling too.
So both the President and Financial Director are given new multi year deals…
Interesting

Wolf Pack wrote:The club has been at rock bottom for the last 3 years under the current President’s watch. 3 wooden spoons in a row.
Financially we are struggling too.
So both the President and Financial Director are given new multi year deals…
Interesting

Yes it does make you wonder what they would have to do NOT to be endorsed by the Nominations Committee.

It also makes you wonder why there is a Governance Committee when failed KPIs are of no consequence, presumably?