Under the circumstances as they were, I think you’re right.
I also think it ignores how those circumstances came to be.
It was the correct decision at the time.
But the fact that it was the correct decision was a failure of some at the club, and a success for at least some others.
Including some here, although not so much anymore.
Can a candidate run with ‘head hunting caracella’ please?
Good governance would suggest it should only be decided when the new board is known so the role can fill gaps.
No. That would be short sighted and reactive.
Jumping the gun and preemptive
Twaddle, Darli, twaddle.
i disagree. It would be entirely in keeping with the stated purpose of appointed directors.
Actually it wouldn’t, and isn’t. Timeframes also dictate it must be done prior to the AGM.
Where the process falls down is that they don’t announce it prior to the elections thus members are kinda voting blind.
For example let’s say Wally Blogs was running, who had a strong background in finance, yet the board had already secured someone who had a stronger background and experience at board level. So the members vote for Wally and we end up with a duplicate skill set. Sure it’s not the worst thing that could happen but it does seem as pointless as it is avoidable.
But to be clear, wasn’t it a vote to accept Hirds resignation, not to get rid of him? If Hird honestly said he thought it was time) and I have NO fricken idea if he did or didn’t) then voting to refuse his resignation would be silly.
The idea of appointed directors are they fill talent holes in the existing board. How do you do that if you don’t know who is elected, and what gaps are? Kate has already said they had no idea that Wellman was running. If the new appointee is an ex-player then we’ll have three if Wellman is elected. If Gai and Kate lose we’ll have no women. If Kate and Paul lose we’ll have lost the social media knowledge.
It makes sense - and good governance- to fill the holes after you know what the hole is!
This is getting into saga thread territory, so it’ll be my last post on the subject in the AGM thread, but the reporting at the time was that Hird had been informed that a majority of the board had flipped over into the camp that had been trying to backstab him for two years, and that he was going to be sacked if he didn’t resign. He resigned rather than be pushed. I still believe that any board members who opposed the way he’d been treated had an ethical obligation to vote to refuse to accept his resignation - ESPECIALLY if they campaigned on resisting unfair pressure both internal and external to remove him. If you don’t want him gone, don’t vote for him to go. After all, the woodworm on the board had given no thought to club unity in their crusade to be rid of him, they don’t get to turn around and sanctimoniously preach it once they’ve won while the blood’s still wet on their hands. Sometimes you’ve gotta do the right thing even if it looks like being futile.
Others might disagree, of course, but that’s my opinion and it’ll inform how I vote.
Possibly Darli and others know the identity of the new director - I agree the name of the nominated director should be released before the election.
So to summarise - the EFC board is selected and appointed by the club, to address every skill set the board feels it requires to function well. The remaining two spots are thrown open to the members to vote on, and these members have strictly limited knowledge about the skills needed, or lacking, on said board. The board does not involve itself, advocate or comment on the nominees up for election by the members, other than to set criteria for nomination. The percentage of members who vote is extremely small.
So basically - if the club-elected board does not have all the skills necessary before the election, then it isn’t doing it’s job well. Anyone elected by the members is a…bonus. A nominee that has superior communication and/or social media skills is far more likely to be elected by the members, than, say, someone who lacks these skills but has excellent alternate talents, football-playing fame aside.
Does this sound correct?
I’ve resisted for a long time on this and would rather not talk about it, I’m not sure it’ll do anyone any good and I won’t be getting into a big back and forth on it, but…
I stood by James, stood in front of him too. Supported him before I got there, while he was there, and after he left. On the day he left he found me and very graciously thanked me for my support in an inspiring private conversation I’ll never publicly share, but also told me how important he felt I was for the future of our club. Reiterated his thoughts months later too. Given that, the suggestion that I didn’t support him is pretty offensive, as is the suggestion that I ran purely on a ‘stand by Hird’ campaign in the first place, I’d encourage anyone to go back over my first Q&A on the site for reference on that, I’m sure it’s still available.
If anyone doesn’t believe I did absolutely everything in my power to support James at our club, honestly and please at this point, ask him. If you think otherwise based on your own deductions or rumor, you’re wrong. I understood the raw emotion at the time and that it was my job to quietly take it in the teeth so I did, but folks we’re two and half years on and the man himself has openly and publicly talked about it many times now. He’s a champion of our club and someone I both respect a great deal and care for personally, the ongoing suggestion from a few that I deserted him in some way is just completely wrong.
My tenure so far has been about a lot more than that one period of time, but I’m proud of my entire time at the club, including that, and am incredibly excited about our future.
Always value your input on this site @Paul_Cousins
But for that one, a very special thankyou.
For sure someone will come in here and tell you that sharing it may not have been appropriate… but I personally greatly appreciate being given that small insight.
I miss the great man.
I just submitted my votes in for Katie and Paul. good luck guys!
Thanks! Appreciate the vote of confidence in the work we’ve been doing. My god I cannot wait for the footy season…
The board is made up of 9 directors - 6 elected, 3 appointed. Both elected and appointed serve 3 year terms, elected need to stand for re-election every 3 years if they wish to stay on meaning 2 come up for re-election every year, while appointed can serve a maximum of 2 concurrent 3 year terms before needing to stand for election themselves. If no one challenges the two sitting elected directors then there is no election necessary (as with last year), if people do then we have an election as with this year.
Heff has served 2 concurrent terms in an appointed seat and decided he didn’t want to run for election against myself and Katie, so is stepping down. So he will shortly be replaced with an a new appointed director. For clarity, that person won’t be anyone who is challenging the incumbents at this election, or they wouldn’t be running.
The board won’t comment on the candidates publicly and will not involve itself in the election process at all, other than to provide the incumbents some clarity pre-nomination on whether the board as a group wants them to run again or feels they should step aside. To be very clear here, if the board didn’t want me to run again I absolutely would not have, as is expected.
We’re fortunate at this point that the board has an exceptional mix of skills that has the board desired skills matrix completely covered. That of course could all change in the next week or two, but if there is a gap identified at any point in the skill set of the board that can be addressed in a future appointed seat.
Hope that makes some sense.
It does, thanks 
Thanks for your honesty and clarification, @Paul_Cousins. It must be difficult to hold it all in.
I’m still finding that I get emotional whenever James is addressed in context of EFC and I don’t know if or when it will ever pass.
My votes went in last week for both you and @Catherine_Lio.
@samwoods I miss Hirdy too.