As others have said, 12 board members is crazy. If you can't choose 8 good people, then you're just chucking warm bodies at the problem hoping someone will work.

One specific example is the fact that we have not one, but two barristers on the board. Simon Wilson and Marcus Clarke. Both are career lawyers, and practicing barristers and any sensible analysis would suggest that they're basically replicating each other on the board.

(As an aside, I'd take Marcus over Simon. But that's not the issue here)

I know it's easy to take potshots from the outside looking in, but that kind of selection criteria can only make one wonder

Welcome additions but too many, much sameness, and too much deadwood. As previously mentioned, people need to be moved on via sunset clauses or re-election.

I would like to see all directors stand for re-election every 3 years, whether there is opposition or not. Otherwise there is no sense of accountability once you are on the board. Last time Simon Wilson was up for re-election there was no opposition, so he has continued on. This year the opposition was average so the again the incumbents continued on. Under the current system, quality of opposition is the criteria for re-election rather than the individuals performance.

_________________
Scott, things aren't as happy as they used to be down here at the unemployment office. Joblessness is no longer just for Philosophy majors - useful people are starting to feel the pinch.

What the hell?

Twelve members on the board??

BHP have eleven on their board!!

http://www.bhpbilliton.com/bb/aboutUs/c ... rBoard.jsp

If there's no opposition for a Director's seat, it does not necessarily mean that the Director in question is entrenched or that he's not valuable.

The bigger the board the slower decisions are made.
Hence why it is said that "Democracy = Anarchy"

However, if the board is cohesive and is full of smart, progressive visionaries with lots of good contacts for the club, then there's really no problem with 12 imo.

Spread the work load of volunteers. It can work.

At this stage, I have no problem with 12 Directors of our Footy Club.
I would be concerned if we couldn't muster at least half a dozen good candidates.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

A bit like the Victorian Liberal Party

_________________
Ecclesiastes 1:4, "One generation passes away, and another generation comes: but The Blues abide forever."

I see it a little differently, for two main reasons:

Firstly, group dynamics get seriously compromised as the numbers creep up. While differences of opinion are good, I reckon it's almost impossible to have efficient decision-making with a dozen opinions around the table. From 8 to 12 is a 50% increase, and with that comes problems.

Sure it'd be great if all those 12 defied the odds and actually worked efficiently. But I really doubt that they could.

Secondly, I think we should differentiate board members and (for wont of a better term) professional volunteers. You don't need to have a seat on the board to be a connected, talented individual who is prepared to give his/her time, influence and talent to the club.

More to the point, I think there's something wrong if a club feels they need to offer people a seat at the board table to get such people involved.

The board is there to set the direction. There can and should be dozens of extremely capable volunteers from the business community willing to get involved and assist the club in its endevours. But they don't need to be board members, do they?

As I previously noted: 2 barristers, both with the same professional skillset, on the board? No-one can justify such a duplication. And it's this "the more the merrier" mindset that's led to such a blowout in numbers.

In fact (and it's a bit off-topic) I'd question exactly what a barrister with no experience in managing teams larger than 3 people, or running a firm (they're effectively self-employed contractors) adds to a Board. It should be more than just representing players at the tribunal - that's a functionary job that you bring people in for when and as required.

Hey, it's not life or death. It just doesn't seem all that smart to me, that's all.

I see where you are coming from JohnM

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

If we could garner a better understanding of the various sub-committees and projects that the board were working on we'd get a much better feel for why there are now 12 on the board. I can think of 2 who have probably run their course, however not being privy to the workings of the board in 2010 - i'd be stupid to criticize details of which I know nothing about.

That doesn't make sense.

_________________
T E A M

Having been Secretary to a Board consisting of 8 people at a $30million company about 5 years ago, I can only say how sorry I am for that Jason Reddick guy (I think that's his name) and how tough it must be to take the minutes! Yikes

We are essentially a defacto privately owned club and while I dont have a problem with new people on the board we have too many on the board IMHO and the process of getting the last two on was flawed. The members must vote all board members on...but like I said its a privately owned club with agendas....Ruffy G will be the next president and while I dont have a problem with getting the best people involved I dont like the process and the lack of transparency.
Richard Pratt saved the club and I'm grateful but I want the club run on democratic lines and not with one family and their yes men controlling everything.

_________________
"When you have the attitude of a champion, you see adversity as your
training partner."
- Conor Gillen

Clubs promote directors all of the time without going to vote, we are hardly robinson crusoe here. The advantage that i see with it is that we get to see what they can bring to the board before voting for them at the AGM this year. Personally i know sweet FA about these guys so how could i have an informed opinion of them to vote on. They're hardly high profile people. What they do between now and the end of the year is how i'll evaluate my decision.

If we don't like them then we don't vote for them at the next AGM.

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

I see your points and agree with them, but how are you going to know what they've done between now and then to be any better informed?

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

We need a reality TV show like The Apprentice...
(not sure who gets to say 'you're fired' though....

_________________
That’s not a political statement — it’s a harsh reality, and we must act,” she said. “He is a clear and present danger to the things that keep us strong and free. I support impeachment.”

And that's the whole problem with the members voting board members on/off.

From the outside, you can judge the performance of the board and the executive as a whole, but it's almost impossible to know exactly who's contributing, and who (if any) are passengers.

That's why the whole voting thing scares me. Put to a popular vote, the favourite ex-player will always get elected by the members.

If i'm not informed of what they do then i won't vote for them and i'll keep the status quo we had before they joined because i believe the current board are doing a reasonable job.

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

This was my thinking with regard to the appointments: a transition period.

As for having lawyers in the mix, it presents a regular and motivated legal opinion at a low cost to the Club. What more can you ask for?

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.