2015 Parramatta Leagues Club Election thread

[emjaycee]

Sure, hard to say given that the club's constitution doesn't seem to be publicly available. The nomination form only asks the nominee to assert that they will make disclosures if they are elected as a director (s13), but I guess it falls into whatever the constitution says (s4 of nomination form). Anyone know if there is a copy of the constitution available (or just the relevant section)?

i think its on the website.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

i think its on the website.

I couldn't find it on either the LC site or the main parra eels site, but maybe it's linked within one of the pages there somewhere.

 

[IFR33K]

Fair enough, bit vaguer when he's a contractor. I want Sharpie's lot to stay on, but this is just seems a bit unnecessary, and likely to amplify the constant tit-for-tat childishness that seems to be the hobby of most people who get involved in these elections. As an outsider who doesn't have any particular affinity with the LC....it just make you shake your head and look to the heavens.

Tit-for-tat????

Wouldn't sharpie or the board just be following the constitution????

Could you image the unlikely scenario of Ben smith being elected only for DF to reveal he wasn't eligible to stand. We then would be the laughing stock of the NRL.

IMO, the right call has been made.

 

[emjaycee]

I think Ben Smith was/is eligible to nominate and run for the Board.
The Constitution doesn't say employees cannot nominate.

 

[hindmarshisgod]

I am seriously concerned for our resident meth addict Green river eel.

Normally he is all over these election threads, but have not heard from him yet.

Hopefully he is ok

 

[not graham olling]

So he's an honorary member right? You have to be financial to stand.

Statement the on the clubs website states that he was honorary member. Can't stand for election or vote at AGM. Probably explains why I've never seen pricey at any Leagues club AGMs in the last decade or so

 

[not graham olling]

I think Ben Smith was/is eligible to nominate and run for the Board.
The Constitution doesn't say employees cannot nominate.

I think it might be a Registered Clubs Act thing. Ben Smith must known something about it or why would the clubs statement says that he has now resigned from his position ? Doesn't make sense to me but I reckon Spags or Fitzy would know.

 

[emjaycee]

I think it might be a Registered Clubs Act thing. Ben Smith must known something about it or why would the clubs statement says that he has now resigned from his position ? Doesn't make sense to me but I reckon Spags or Fitzy would know.

In part you are correct, as this issue is covered by Section 30 of the Registered Clubs Act 1976.

Section 30 1.
(h) An employee of the club shall not vote at any meeting of the club or of the governing body of the club, or at any election of the governing body of the club, or hold office as a member of the governing body of the club.

(h1) An employee of the club must not vote at any election of the governing body of another club or association if any member of that governing body would, as the result of that election, be entitled or qualified to be appointed (or be nominated for appointment) to the governing body of the registered club.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rca1976173/s30.html

However my read is that Smith is still okay as he resigned before the election. Reference to the nomination in (h1) is for a 3rd person i think.

 

[not graham olling]

just saw a good story on the AFR - How to spot bad directors

http://www.afr.com/personal-finance...potting-bad-company-directors-20150421-1moq0o

Reckon our members should look at this and do their research. We have a real estate agent, property developer, councillors, ex footy players, former sacked employees, trainers, junior coaches, builders retired charity workers.

Fitzy hasn't used Tinga vouchers this time to get the Asian vote but he has a got a bloke who looks questionable, out of work and not so professional

http://mumbrella.com.au/nswact-newsagents-association-removes-ceo-chiang-lim-222017

 

[Obscene Assassin]

However my read is that Smith is still okay as he resigned before the election. Reference to the nomination in (h1) is for a 3rd person i think.

If Smith has invoiced the club as late as the 20th of April as has been stated and it was completed on the 27th of April then he would have been an employee of the club at the time of his nomination. As such he can't hold office as a member of the governing body of the club.

 

[emjaycee]

If Smith has invoiced the club as late as the 20th of April as has been stated and it was completed on the 27th of April then he would have been an employee of the club at the time of his nomination. As such he can't hold office as a member of the governing body of the club.

No, he can't hold office at the time of the election if he is an employee as per (h).

(h1) however says that an employee (the voter) cannot vote for someone where that person (the votee) would be entitled to nominate or be elected to the governing body. No one has asked Smith to vote on anything yet and no one has voted for Smith.
(h1) stops an employee of the PLC voting for someone at the PDRL elections if it meant that person could use the special condition to be appointed to the PLC.

 

[I bleed blue & gold]

Fitzy was all over the possibilty of Smith being ineligable.

 

[emjaycee]

Fitzy was all over the possibilty of Smith being ineligable.

Who was Smith going to run with??
I thought he was part of Fitzy's ticket.

 

[bartman]

Who was Smith going to run with??
I thought he was part of Fitzy's ticket.

Fitzy's ticket is the Parra Professionals - all identified via their team page.

Smith was not part of that ticket, and the SMH article had rimoured him to be a part of a Spagnolo-backed ticket, running in opposition to Riddell (who is part of Fizty's ticket).

 

[bartman]

I think the semantics of the words in the quoted part of the Clubs Act are clouding people's view of the Ben Smith issue? Profesional independent returning officers do not make mistakes on this stuff.

I would say that the term "to hold office" is interpreted as including the act of nominating for election to hold office. That is, if you are an employee (however that is elsewhere definied) at the time of nominating for an election through which you may (evejtually) hold office, then you are ineligible to stand for office. You have to resign employment first, then nominate to stand for office.

Even if Ben Smith realised (or was tipped off) about this five minutes after his nomination was registered and then immediately submitted his notice to "cease employment", it would be deemed too late. Given the Club's statement that Smith has also resigned his role it seems like this might have been what happened - Smith got the order of things wrong?

 

[emjaycee]

Fitzy's ticket is the Parra Professionals - all identified via their team page.

Smith was not part of that ticket, and the SMH article had rimoured him to be a part of a Spagnolo-backed ticket, running in opposition to Riddell (who is part of Fizty's ticket).

Thanks - makes sense now.

 

[I bleed blue & gold]

Yup, Bartman is correct.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I think the semantics of the words in the quoted part of the Clubs Act are clouding people's view of the Ben Smith issue? Profesional independent returning officers do not make mistakes on this stuff.

I would say that the term "to hold office" is interpreted as including the act of nominating for election to hold office. That is, if you are an employee (however that is elsewhere definied) at the time of nominating for an election through which you may (evejtually) hold office, then you are ineligible to stand for office. You have to resign employment first, then nominate to stand for office.

Even if Ben Smith realised (or was tipped off) about this five minutes after his nomination was registered and then immediately submitted his notice to "cease employment", it would be deemed too late. Given the Club's statement that Smith has also resigned his role it seems like this might have been what happened - Smith got the order of things wrong?

What is the basis of your interpretation. There is no suggestion in that Act of a need to imply any interpretation of 'to hold office' other than a literal one? You hold office from the time the result of a poll is declared until you resign, are sacked, or until the start of the next AGM (when all positions are spilled). At any given time, the people who 'hold office' are the current directors. If the intention of the Act was to prohibit employees (or personal services contractors as I suspect this case really is) from running it would include this. Ben Smith's behaviour is perfectly consistent with being informed of the content s.30 of the Act and then giving notice. I note that the club's statement makes no reference to who made this deliberation (i.e. they do not quote or reference the returning officer or the advice of the returning officer).

I'll say it again, this is childish stuff. Neither the Constitution or the Act prohibit Smith from standing for election. I'm all for the current Board staying on, I think they are doing a pretty fair job, but that doesn't mean I like everything they do

 

[emjaycee]

What is the basis of your interpretation. There is no suggestion in that Act of a need to imply any interpretation of 'to hold office' other than a literal one? You hold office from the time the result of a poll is declared until you resign, are sacked, or until the start of the next AGM (when all positions are spilled). At any given time, the people who 'hold office' are the current directors. If the intention of the Act was to prohibit employees (or personal services contractors as I suspect this case really is) it would include this. Ben Smith's behaviour is perfectly consistent with being informed of the content s.30 of the Act and then giving notice. I note that the club's statement makes no reference to who made this deliberation (i.e. they do not quote or reference the returning officer or the advice of the returning officer).

I'll say it again, this is childish stuff. Neither the Constitution or the Act prohibit Smith from standing for election. I'm all for the current Board staying on, I think they are doing a pretty fair job, but that doesn't mean I like everything they do

What he said. (which is what i said).

 

[Bigfella]

Yes but baz this is politics so that you have to agree completely with the side you align with, and completely shun the other side.

Even when your mob starts doing the same things the other mob used to do.

I agree. It is incredibly petty and just embarrassed the club, it's candidates, and it's procedures yet again.

More snouts in the trough jealously guarding the spoils.

Completely unimpressive.