Notice of special general meeting

[quote="Bill Clinton"]
We need to spread the load so we can attract good young professional West Adelaide Club Members to the board to improve our skill base that is required to run our club. It is important that we spread the load over more members to be part of the running of the day to day operations with the confidence of clear direction. [quote="Bill Clinton"]

An interesting comment, Bill, considering the proposed changes suggest fewer board members.  How does this work?


[quote="Bill Clinton"]
It is important that we have a strong, capable, dedicated board with the skills base to lead us through the next few years but also for the future of our wonderful club. [quote="Bill Clinton"]

From my observations, most of the Board's members are very dedicated, but I quite agree with you Bill, we need to strengthen the Board against attacks from outside influences.

[quote="Bill Clinton"]
I think that is very important that all members get to understand the changes to constitution being put forward by the board on the 17th of December 2018 Special General Meeting.  
[quote="Bill Clinton"]

Absolutely agree.  

[quote="Bill Clinton"]
My current understanding is that the board want to have right to elect key roles in the club so that we can attract quality capable skills based personal to guide the club going forward.
[quote="Bill Clinton"]

The Board may wish to have the right to elect key roles in the club but these proposed changes do not give them that right. That's the whole point, Bill.

Introducing some new blood to the board adding to our volunteer base can only help. Introducing more operating committee's with current volunteer's to help get things done.

Board needs to be more skill based rather than just a dedicated member.

The board selects and nominates the independent committee  including 1 board member.

Bill Clinton wrote:Introducing some new blood to the board adding to our volunteer base can only help. Introducing more operating committee's with current volunteer's to help get things done.

Board needs to be more skill based rather than just a dedicated member.

The board selects and nominates the independent committee  including 1 board member.

Agree with first point, Bill, but surely this can be done at any time. The Board currently can appoint more Board members. No need to destroy membership rights to do so.

The current Board already has skilled members - it just needs a few more. It doesn't need to be gutted. What a terrible look for the Club!

The Governance "Sub" Committee which proposed these changes included David Shipway (a SANFL person, and therefore not independent). Is the make up of this Sub-Committee likely to be held to be unconstitutional under the present constitution? Unfortunately, its recommendations could be seen to be proscriptive, not advisory. How undemocratic is this?

Quote Introducing some new blood to the board adding to our volunteer base can only help. Introducing more operating committee's with current volunteer's to help get things done. 

Agreed but can be done through election not a free pass ---- also they can be appointed to the board for a fixed term (1 year then can be extended from memory) and be performance assessed in that year ---- no issues with operating subcommittees in fact feel its a great idea to spread the load on our unpaid hard working board members but can be done under exist constitution noting these people on sub-committees have NO board voting rights hence do not attack or reduce member control of the club


[i]Quote -zz Board needs to be more skill based rather than just a dedicated member. [/i]

Dont disagree at all that board members need to have very good professional business skills the days of election to the board because some person is a good footballer is hopefully over -----  but AGAIN this can be achieve through existing constitution and AGM members voting so why change ---- if young professionals want free pass and not willing to front member then do we really want them if they are just on an ego trip

Looking ar rhe existing board all appear to be highly successfull and motivated professional business people or trained and qualified senior business administrators are you suggesting differently --- within the existing constitution and as proven by the appointment of DR JOSEPH MASIKA (OAM) - COMMUNITY DIRECTOR if additional expertise become available usefull to the club then they can be appointed but in a quantity that does not limit or infringe on member control of the club

The board selects and nominates the independent committee  including 1 board member

Yes but the point is that the proposed 7 member board is 2 member elected and 5 appointed further given these numbers then it is highly unlikely that any of the 3 selection committee members will be member elected -- to help you understand this means of the 10 in total under discussion only 2 (20%) will be elected by the members with neither of those 2 member elected member being eligible for the president or vice presidents role.

Thank you as your comment support my case that this is a blatant attempt to remove power from member to control thier club probably strongly pushed by the SANFL or person/s with vested interests

If these young professionals are available then where have they been for the last 3 or 4 AGMs where  existing member were returned unapposed in most case, if they are there then appoint them for 1 year under exisring constitution and assess them. --- it not rocket science you know ---- please provide examples where member having control of the club has limited or hamstrung the board --- the board in fact has been given basically free rein by the members.

Given this proposal reduces the number of board member does this not reduce the overall professional expertise of the board

Within the proposal there is no discussion on how long a term these appointed board members are in for ---- job for life like the SANFL board --- i think not. Also, no mention of how to change appointed member nor any mention of how members can change bad decisions by the board under this proposal

There just is too many holes in this feeble proposal with most thing you put up as reasons for its adoption failing to stand up under the strong scruitiny of truth and  facts and basically strongly support reasons for rejection ---- thank you

LOOK AT THE CROWS FOR A REAL LIFE EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS SYSTEM WORKS ---- IT MAY BE A BUSINESS BUT IT IS ALSO A CLUB AND IF MEMBER HAVE NO POWER OR CONTROL WHY OHH WHY WILL THE PUT IN THIER HARD EARNED MONEY --- MOST UNLIKELY HEY

Why do you keep referencing the Crows? They are a totally different business model

Agree Mockingjay.
And if oldfella is right and the SANFL is making certain funding to us conditional on these changes going through, that's not on. For a start the Board can't control how the members vote, and secondly the SANFL should be there to help us without facilitating some de facto takeover.

brodlach wrote:Why do you keep referencing the Crows?  They are a totally different business model

Crows are an excelent example of an appointed board model where members have absolutely no power to control or influence the club direction.

Directly applicable example to the present proposal of 5 appointed directors and only 2 member ekected directors

If these "appointed directors" at some time in the future decided Westies due to financial problems from minor to serious should for eg merge with another SANFL club,sell off our clubrooms and be like Sturt and use a Community hall or cease existing entirely,what would the members be able to do to stop them?
Is there anything in our constitution for example that would prevent such a thing without the members approval or would they be able to bring in the liquidators regardless?
This scenario worries me having observed the way the AFL reserves were admitted.

Very good point my friend

I seems they could do what they liked and the members will have no options available

dead against losing my right to vote if this the same as the cows then not happy
plus is the sanfl doing this to other clubs or just westies
or is the bloody afl making the decison

Hotdip wrote:Has to be a yes vote a few people in power think it's all about them
We are in need of a change

There appears to be only 2 members of the Board who have served for longer than 5 years. I think that makes it a fairly "new" Board. Why are we in need of a total change?

I have no problem changing the board setup if that will improve things. My concern is that it appears the overriding level of management will be appointed not elected by members. I can see the day when we might get in financial difficulty as all clubs do from time to time, our own benefactors will not put their hands in their pockets again due to "no say,no pay" and who can blame them. We end up with an appointed board with members from the SANFL,Power and Crows.Because they bail us out.
Guess who's interest they will have at heart?

aldo russian wrote:Agree Mockingjay.
And if oldfella is right and the SANFL is making certain funding to us conditional on these changes going through, that's not on. For a start the Board can't control how the members vote, and secondly the SANFL should be there to help us without facilitating some de facto takeover.

Doesn't this mean the members still have the power to change the constitution in future if they don't like it?

ALTERATION OF CONSTITUTION AND RULES

25.1 This Constitution and Rules may be altered, varied or amended by a resolution passed at an Annual General Meeting or Special General Meeting of the Club. No such resolution shall be deemed to have been passed unless it be carried by a majority of at least three quarters of the members present and entitled to vote in person or by proxy. At least fourteen (14) days' notice in writing specifying the proposed amendment or amendments shall have been given to members.

Mockingjay wrote:

Hotdip wrote:Has to be a yes vote a few people in power think it's all about them
We are in need of a change

There appears to be only 2 members of the Board who have served for longer than 5 years.  I think that makes it a fairly "new" Board.  Why are we in need of a total change?

So how many board members have been voted in over the last 5 years
My recollection is none even the president has not been voted in

blacky wrote:dead against losing my right to vote if this the same as the cows then not happy
plus is the sanfl doing this to other clubs or just westies
or is the bloody afl making the decison

I am also dead against losing my right to vote, Blacky. I am also very against this proposed power shift away from the Club. The SANFL have always had it in for Westies.

Hotdip hi,

In the past 5  (may be longer) each board member who has reached the end of his 2 year term and chose to seek reelection has nominated and been placed in front of the members at the AGM for election voting if required.

In i believe all cases there were the same number of candidates as positions available and as such consistent with the clubs constitution were declared elected unapposed to the board.

I think you may be confusing the need for members to vote on board candidates at the AGM with the powers granted to the board within constitution to appoint for a one year term a very limited number of person with exceptional personal professional skill needed that would benifit the club ---- an example is DR JOSEPH MASIKA (OAM) - COMMUNITY DIRECTOR --- i honestly cannot think of any other direct appointees but other poster may be able to help.

So the simple straight answer to your question is that with the exception of any direct appointment above discussed all board members including the president whose term in officer had ended and sought reelection were legally and constitutionally voted in!

The reason you dont recall a vote is because it was not needed due to candidate/position numbers being equal  hence a formal vote by member was not required

[quote="Hotdip] So how many board members have been voted in over the last 5 years
My recollection is none even the president has not been voted in [/quote]

I think you may be right Hotdip but that is because there have been insufficient nominations to fill the Board. There will be even less willingness to serve on the Board if this proposal gets thru. Have you noted the impositions that are proposed to put upon Board members? Who would want to serve on this Board? Anybody would think we were dealing with BHP not the Westies Board. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Mockingjay wrote:

blacky wrote:dead against losing my right to vote if this the same as the cows then not happy
plus is the sanfl doing this to other clubs or just westies
or is the bloody afl making the decison

I am also dead against losing my right to vote, Blacky.  I am also very against this proposed power shift away from the Club. The SANFL have always had it in for Westies.

Oh please, had the SANFL ‘had it in for West’ they could have stood back and allowed the club to fold rather than advancing payments.

You can fool some of the people some of the time , but not all of the people all of the time mockingjay

\"brodlach wrote:
Oh please, had the SANFL ‘had it in for West’ they could have stood back and allowed the club to fold rather than advancing payments.

I don't think so.  Surely that would not have been in the best interests of the SANFL competition, brodlach?   The Wolfpack through the Board saved the Club, not the SANFL as far as I can see.   Haven't your sources mentioned the restrictions  that the SANFL seem to impose upon South Adelaide and Westies and is it true that two other cash-strapped Clubs have refused to accept SANFL assistance because of unreasonable control measures?  Surely it is about time that members of our Club started protecting the Club from outside influences, rather than continually attacking their own?

So out of my statement which part is incorrect?

I know, as you do mockingjay, that we have been on restricted salary cap but if we ask/accept handouts don’t you agree some extra measures should be taken? You don’t think allowing the club to access funding early is a benefit to the club?

So have we been a financial disaster for 10 years (at least) because of the SANFL or the.fact that the board/employees at times have not been up to standards?

When you say handouts, it's not money that we're not entitled to is it? I may be wrong but I don't think it's money over and above what the other clubs get is it? Isn't it just that, on occasion, and like some other clubs, we've been advanced money ahead of when it would normally be distributed? I think that's what they should be doing without conditions. God, how much debt have we wiped off in the last few years.

Handouts as in receiving funds before they are due to pay outstanding bills. Without these funds the club would not have been able to run

Cashflow is king, no cash no stock. Period

I’m sure if you get a loan, an this is technically an interest free loan, of course there is certain criteria that needs to be met. Surely that makes sense

Mockingjay wrote:

blacky wrote:dead against losing my right to vote if this the same as the cows then not happy
plus is the sanfl doing this to other clubs or just westies
or is the bloody afl making the decison

I am also dead against losing my right to vote, Blacky.  I am also very against this proposed power shift away from the Club. The SANFL have always had it in for Westies.

That should be a warning for saying that
People on here have said less and been banned

Educate me please --- which of the two posters and what part of the offending post breaches site guidelines --- you have confused me friend