We are proposing common sense changes to the Constitution – ensuring that Board Elections are more open, fair and transparent.

Currently, the Board has absolute discretion regarding the form, timing and conduct of elections.

This has resulted in the Board adopting five different sets of Election Rules over the past two years alone.

Yes, and he accepted those results, but this experience has informed our position. Candidates were prohibited from electioneering, yet Peter still received over 47% of Members’ votes.

Yes, after a protracted Court Case which only occurred because the Board was resistant to providing emails for Members to inform Members of Deemocracy’s proposed changes to the constitution.

Deemocracy had asked for the Club to send its message to Members on their behalf, but this reasonable request was denied.

The teams are in great shape on the field. This is exactly the time to improve our governance.

The financials are in good shape relative to their parlous state in the past. However, we have the third lowest net assets of the ten Victorian clubs and still no permanent home base.

The Board does not approach the membership base directly for new Directors. We believe that there is a diverse skillset within the membership that should be better utilised.

We note that three other big Victorian clubs, who recently held elections, did not attempt to restrict candidates with lengthy Election Rules.

Yes and we hope we continue to be for years to come, but does that mean we shouldn’t have more open, fair and transparent elections?

In the past two years incumbents have been expressly or implicitly endorsed, with new Board appointments made immediately before Members are 'notified’ of the director nomination period.