Swans elected board

[chammond]

Originally posted by lizz
That proposal very much frames the concept as an elected representative of the members on the board, rather than the members getting to choose a director (or directors) that they believe would best serve the club. If a candidate has to have been a member it narrows the field considerably.

It's a subtle distinction, Liz, but it probably has more chance of winning support from the AFL than pushing for a fully elected Board.

We have to remember that the members do not own the Swans; the AFL (read: the other AFL clubs) owns the Swans. Convincing them to hand over control of the club to the members without paying for the licence would be very difficult IMHO.

And persuading Swans members to pay, say, triple the price of membership to fund the cost of the licence in exchange for the right to vote may also be very difficult.

Unless there is another AFL model that I don't know about?

[knownothing]

A member elected board sounds interesting. Who do people think would be good on it?

[i'm-uninformed2]

Originally posted by knownothing
A member elected board sounds interesting. Who do people think would be good on it?

Whatever we do - we have to keep Richard Colless on there. He is a man who could be doing anything but puts his life into the Swans because he wants them to succeed and has shown nothing but honour and commitment to the club. Think about it - are we better off as a club since he has been involved or not?

[NMWBloods]

That will start a few people commenting...

You seem very controversial IUT...

[Mark]

For what it is worth i agree with him !!

[DST]

My two cents worth,

We should have some sort of member elected representives on the board but I do not see it as necessary for the whole board to be elected by members, lets say 3 out of 9 with at least one of the member elected positions taken by a Melbourne based director.

As for Colless, if you are serious IU2 (not totally sure you are) I agree with you. While he has his detractors on this board and amongst some of the members, Richard has given his heart and sole to this club and clearly wants it to propser.

I also believe that with his credentials there is no one more capable of leading this club at this point in time.

DST

[Bear]

Originally posted by lizz
That proposal very much frames the concept as an elected representative of the members on the board, rather than the members getting to choose a director (or directors) that they believe would best serve the club. If a candidate has to have been a member it narrows the field considerably.

No way.

Doesn't work in practice....

Just as an example... would it be an elected member from Melbourne or Syd? Male or female? Old or young?

Would this person be bound to vote for popular decisions based on what the (possibly uninformed) members want, or would they be able to vote for what is best for the club after taking in the necessary facts?

You are also unnecesarily narrowing the talent base to current members when we need experienced people who are up with key marketing, sponsorship, finance, etc issues. What about if the best person has been overseas for a year and not signed up?

I would hate for a member who has none/liitle of the necessary experience to hold a deciding vote on a key issue. It is like the old affirmative action thing, where others know they are only there becausre they are a member, not necessarily because they are the best person for the job.

This is an issue that would create divison and disenchantment rather than benefits. How many other AFL clubs have members on the board?

[liz]

Originally posted by chammond
It's a subtle distinction, Liz, but it probably has more chance of winning support from the AFL than pushing for a fully elected Board.

We have to remember that the members do not own the Swans; the AFL (read: the other AFL clubs) owns the Swans. Convincing them to hand over control of the club to the members without paying for the licence would be very difficult IMHO.

And persuading Swans members to pay, say, triple the price of membership to fund the cost of the licence in exchange for the right to vote may also be very difficult.

Unless there is another AFL model that I don't know about?

I think there are a couple of distinctions.

1 Should the whole board be elected by members - not necessarily immediately but as a long term goal - or just a couple? Many (most?) of the Melbourne clubs have a full board elected by the members. Whether that's a good thing or not, who knows.

2 Should directors elected by members necessarily have to be members themselves, suggesting they are very much on the board to represent the members?

Personally I don't see why the members need to be represented on the board. As customers of the club we get pretty well looked after, and very few other organisations have customers on the board. As spiritual (if not legal) owners of the club maybe we entitled to some mechanism to hold the board accountable to us, but I'm not entirely convinced that having one or two "member directors" would achieve this.

I would like to see some more openness - maybe published financial statements and/or an AGM style event where members can ask the board questions about the direction of the club.

[Bron]

Originally posted by Mark
Whilst i am happy to admit i was not a fan of this type of group to start with, 25 -30 people out of a potential of 20, 000 plus members or 14,000 plus full members is hardly representative !

Those are the people who came to an evening workshop on a winter's evening. There are more people who are participating in the group.

[Bron]

Originally posted by Charlie
Bron - approximately how many members do SSI actually have?

I don't know the exact number. There is over a thousand on our mailing list. All of these are not members of SSI. The numbers are, I believe in the hundreds.

As far as whether it is representative .... well, look at the number of shareholders of any large company .... how many turn up to the AGM? Generally not a lot. It is only when there is controversy, like NRMA up here, that people turn up .... and then only at the time of the controversy.

As I have said elsewhere before, there has been no communication on this point, apart from promises that have not been fulfilled. Membership groups have not had access to the Chairman for information or to present a point of view. SSI has had this, so from my perspective, in believing that there should be membership representation on the board, this is an organisation worthy of support.

My personal opinion is that it is probably acceptable to have a board that is half appointed by the AFL and half through election.

[Nico]

For those new to the site, Richard Colless got an absolute caning from many detractors in the preseason. To many he was nothing but a drop kick.

Since we starting winning games the silence has been deafening.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Nico
Since we starting winning games the silence has been deafening.

I still dislike him and us winning games has nothing to do with me being quiet. Since he went public with our mid season financial problems, the club has done well off the field and even I can see that there is no direct replacement for him.

In any case I still want this club to revert back to member-owned and have board elections introduced. I agree that the best way to do it is to put 3 spots up a year until the entire board is members-elected and from then on we have elections every 3 years so that if we vote in a new board that they get the chance to do what they want to do with the club.

In terms of who should be allowed to stand for election I agree that the person should be a member (of any kind) and over a certain age (I think 25). However I don't like the must be a member for 2 season, as Lizz pointed out that it could limit the people who could get involved. So I suggest that to stand for the board you must be a member full stop and if Joe Bloggs wants to stand all he has to do is buy a membership.

[CureTheSane]

I'm going to steer away from SSI for the moment.
Most here know how I feel about them, and for all intents and purposes they pretty much don't exist in any mentionable way at the moment.

As far as the member elected board goes, I still fail to see ANY benefit to me, the other members or the club, other than haveing members all warm and fluffy inseide in the knowledge that they could one day be on the board.

Give me a benefit....

[Reggi]

Beer

And a guarantee of enough Beer at aftermatches

[Mark]

[QUOTE]As far as whether it is representative .... well, look at the number of shareholders of any large company .... how many turn up to the AGM? Generally not a lot. It is only when there is controversy, like NRMA up here, that people turn up .... and then only at the time of the controversy.

[QUOTE]

Sorry Bron but that is a crock, If you want to compare the club with anything then it is a mutual, nothing like a shareholder AGM !

As you are well aware institutions hold block votes at agm's individual votes are pretty irelevant, is that what SSI are aiming for ?

Even if there are 200 members, hardly representative of 22,000 members or 14,000 full members is it !

Let the club get on with business, we dont need self interested groups pushing private agendas