Notice of special general meeting

The Constitution says a show of hands first, but a secret ballot will be held if that's not obviously conclusive. All attendees will be given a ballot paper on entering the room and a ballot box will be available. A poll must be held if the Chairman or 3 members ask for it.

On such important issue I believe it should be a ballot some people could be intimidated by a show of hands

Whist not disagreeing with you i do feel that were the board not to conduct the members vote exactly as and in sequence with how the constitution directs then the club can be open for legal challenge ---- my reading of the constitution is that a show of hands is identified as the  first method of members voting and there is secondary provisions for secret ballot if required

Whilst understanding some members reluctance members must be brave for the good of the club --- they all had the oportunity and have been consistently advise that they can place a PROXY vote.

As an example, in my own case i suffer from severe  clinic depression which while thankfully i am in no way suicidal 😁😁, I have have rarely left my home in the last 4 month and have extreme difficulty in dealing or being with more than 5 people at any one time in fact this is why i no longer undertake an role with Westies after 30 odd years of volunteer service. ---- BUT I will put aside my personal needs and strong  reluctance to be there tomorrow and i will vote!

I hope that the Members of the WAFC vote for their future interest.

I agree, that’s why it should be a “YES” vote

brodlach wrote:I agree, that’s why it should be a “YES” vote

I agree and have a feeling that the yes vote will get up

Vote "yes" to abdicate Members rights...…...

It will be interesting tomorrow night

Lee Harradine wrote:The Constitution says a show of hands first, but a secret ballot will be held if that's not obviously conclusive. All attendees will be given a ballot paper on entering the room and a ballot box will be available.  A poll must be held if the Chairman or 3 members ask for it.

How would we know some one has already voted by Proxy and still attends the meeting for a show of hands?

Nobody who has voted by proxy can attend the meeting . The process will be properly controlled.

Good question that i was wondering about too and good clear response.

Well done to both of you

Thank you for your commentary on each post Oldfella


Well done to you.

I am so pleased that i have pleased you in using the same option as any poster on this site and that is to comment or posting on any subject that takes my interest this includes commenting/responding to questions raised by other posters. Further, where another poster raises a good question to me it is fair to let them know.

Thank you for your kind and generous feedback

I generally accept what I hear from the Board at face value, but the series of statements posted regarding the content of tonight's meeting just don't make a lot of sense.
1. The reason given for Grenvold's removal
2. The reasons given for the restructuring of the Board
I would like to know specifically why it was announced that David's services would no longer be required ahead of tonight's vote. It seems that the Board were sure of a yes vote.
I still fail to see why these proposed changes are necessary. The reasons given, such as  'young professionals' unwillingness to stand for election are pretty thin. Given that for the past six years or so all retiring Board members have been elected unopposed, it stands to reason that if existing Board members don't seek re-election then any other nominees would stand a very good chance of being elected, probably guaranteed. This would bring new 'blood' into the mix without reducing members right to have a say. Alternatively, these professionals with particular 'skill sets' could be used as consultants.
These alternatives are quite obvious yet don't appear to have been considered. The arguments offered in favour of the proposed changes by the Board are extremely weak. I'm sorry, but I really don't think members have been fully informed of all the circumstances surrounding tonight's vote. The Board has done an excellent job in turning around our dire financial situation and are correct in identifying the current financial model as unsustainable, however any action that places membership numbers at risk needs to be avoided.
I was angry and frustrated when Port and Crows reserves were admitted to the competition. Apart from a few emails, I had no say in this. I will be voting against the proposed changes tonight as I want to be sure that I have a say in the future.
Long Live The Bloods
PS
At some point it was mentioned that our facilities are tired and in need of an upgrade. I'm not sure what this has to do with the proposed changes, however. When this happens, most community groups fund raise and enlist volunteers to contribute skills and labour. When Collins was at Westies, players were involved in upgrading facilities at the Richmond Baptist Church. Maybe in the name of team building, Gavin could do something similar. There must be some players/members who have trade skills and many more who might be willing to donate their labour. Or maybe these 'young professionals' might be willing to roll their sleeves up.
Just a thought.

brodlach wrote:Thank you for your commentary on each post Oldfella


Well done to you.

OUCH !!!!!!!

Vote "yes"

bruce cameron wrote:I generally accept what I hear from the Board at face value, but the series of statements posted regarding the content of tonight's meeting just don't make a lot of sense.
1. The reason given for Grenvold's removal
2. The reasons given for the restructuring of the Board
I would like to know specifically why it was announced that David's services would no longer be required ahead of tonight's vote. It seems that the Board were sure of a yes vote.
I still fail to see why these proposed changes are necessary. The reasons given, such as  'young professionals' unwillingness to stand for election are pretty thin. Given that for the past six years or so all retiring Board members have been elected unopposed, it stands to reason that if existing Board members don't seek re-election then any other nominees would stand a very good chance of being elected, probably guaranteed. This would bring new 'blood' into the mix without reducing members right to have a say. Alternatively, these professionals with particular 'skill sets' could be used as consultants.
These alternatives are quite obvious yet don't appear to have been considered. The arguments offered in favour of the proposed changes by the Board are extremely weak. I'm sorry, but I really don't think members have been fully informed of all the circumstances surrounding tonight's vote. The Board has done an excellent job in turning around our dire financial situation and are correct in identifying the current financial model as unsustainable, however any action that places membership numbers at risk needs to be avoided.
I was angry and frustrated when Port and Crows reserves were admitted to the competition. Apart from a few emails, I had no say in this. I will be voting against the proposed changes tonight as I want to be sure that I have a say in the future.
Long Live The Bloods
PS
At some point it was mentioned that our facilities are tired and in need of an upgrade. I'm not sure what this has to do with the proposed changes, however. When this happens, most community groups fund raise and enlist volunteers to contribute skills and labour. When Collins was at Westies, players were involved in upgrading facilities at the Richmond Baptist Church. Maybe in the name of team building, Gavin could do something similar. There must be some players/members who have trade skills and many more who might be willing to donate their labour. Or maybe these 'young professionals' might be willing to roll their sleeves up.
Just a thought.

Very good questions, Bruce. it seems pretty obvious to me that the Board was under duress to accept this. I hope
someone tonight is brave enough to ask questions such as:
Was the Board threatened with funding cuts unless they supported this proposal?
Was there any SANFL input to make sure this was supported by the Board?
Did the SANFL insist on having an observer present when the Sub-Committee was discussing this proposal?
Why has this whole process been so rushed?
Why wasn't there a Members' information night, for example?
Why was it necessary for the players to be addressed by a Board member on a training night in an effort to scramble for
proxies, thereby involving them in Club politics?

I think you might know the answers to some of these questions

This whole process is under a cloud. Perhaps it is not too late to stop this vote going ahead. Someone could propose at the meeting that the vote be postponed until a later date so that members can make a more informed decision. It is only fair that members are presented with both sides of the argument at an "information Session". #BloodsSupportersForAFairGo

Will any of the present board members be speaking tonight,and if so saying what they really think, or are they forced to follow the official line and encourage a yes vote even though they may personally feel this is not the right way to go?

I have to say I have some real concerns. It sounds to me that the SANFL wants to control all the clubs by enabling them to get their people on to club boards. Sturt were the first to go now us. One by one they do the same thing to each club until like MacDonalds we are all just a franchise who do what head office says we must do. The end result could well be the majority of the board aren't even West supporters??.
Then we come to the President and Vice President. These can't be elected by the members.
I have never come across any club,association etc in my life that do this. There maybe some but I don't know of any.
The club President and the Vice President in his absence are the public spokesperson of the club.
Imagine one day if these positions were filled by "smart young things" that had no loyalties to Westies or even football. It is possible to end up with someone with a soccer ,basketball,netball background who actually barracks for someone else! That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard of and would suggest the quickest way to kill off the incentive to become a member.

I in my time as a member I have never voted for the president or vice president the board make that decision
So really nothing is going to change

Hotdip,

You are correct to say members have never voted to appoint the president or vice president as they are appoint by the board after the composition of the board is known after the AGM members voted board members are known

Given that  the proposed amendment to the constitution states that member elected board members cannot be president then YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG TO SUGGEST NOTHING HAS CHANGED

You are correct Hotdip my error. Many boards elect the Office bearers out of themselves. But as Oldfella correctly points out and is what I meant but did not express that correctly,it is the board that is voted in by the members. In my view if the Board is going to be appointed in future ( supposing this proposal got up tonight )then I believe the President and his Vice should be stand alone (even if without any formal board authority to make any decisions) and be elected by the members.
I suppose a good example would be the President of many countries such as Ireland (unlike the USA) who holds only ceremonial duties/spokesperson and as with our own Gov General.
This would prohibit the ridiculous situation of having a non westies person as President.

TAARS

An interesting suggestion in reference to  the president which i feel is well worth following up after tonight.

After a quick read i identified that the proposed amendments to the constitution clearly states that the proposed Nomination Committee will appoint the President not the board itself so clearly things are changed in more than one area.

The current president has never faced a vote for office in the time he has been on the board