I wasn't going to be assed providing a detailed analysis of what transpired last night, but I keep getting asked so here is my take on it.
There were 4 motions raised in relation to Constitutional Change.
The first was for an extension of the Directors terms from 2 to 3 years.
DF took the floor and stated that the wording of the Motion was incomplete and did not provide a full picture to members of what and how this would be implemented and as such he threatened that this was illegal in accordance with the Registered Clubs Act.
He raised a Point of Order that the motion was illegal and this was seconded by someone from the floor. The Point of Order was then voted on (as is required) and it passed so the motion was not put to a vote (you can't vote on a motion that has had a Point of Order passed on it).
The second Motion was for the addition of an Independant Director and I think it was Chris Jurd (ex-PLC lawyer) who raised a Point of Order on this motions legality for similar grounds to the one DF raised, however in potential contravention of the Corporations Act regarding appointment of independant directors. This Point of Order was overruled by the Chairman. There were also a number of other speakers from the floor against this motion and from where I was sitting it was obvious that the Motion had not been explained well and communicated to the membership well. For example, the condition of the nominee being a PLC member was one of a few sticking points with members and involved a lot of heckling of the Chairman and the Exec team.
As the Point of Order had been overruled, the motion was put to a vote, requiring 75% majority to pass (as is normal for Special Motions). It was rejected by the members. Personally I believe this was because the motion was 'sold' and communicated badly, not because the motion was wrong or because Bill Moss was the Chairmans preferred nomination.
The 3rd Motion never had a chance of passing even though it is the one everyone wanted. This was the motion to hold the Directors to a Code of Conduct and this got voted down on the back of the momentum of voting the previous 2 motions down. By rejecting this motion the members have agreed that there is no code of conduct controlling the Board and as such, they are allowing leaks, drunken behaviour, in-fighting and general mis-behaviour to be seen as acceptable by the Board. :CRAZY:
The last Special Motion was for the appointment of the Australian Electoral Commission or some similar organisation to the role of Returning Officer for future elections. This too was called out by DF as potentially be worded incorrectly and hence the room followed the negative lead of previous motions and voted this down as well.
Anyone else who was present feel free to correct any mis-representation I have made above.
This post is the opinion and reflections of the Author only. No intention to represent the Board or Management of Parramatta Leagues Club Limited should be taken or inferred.
