It would be worse than now, because it means that the board members would appoint four of their own cronies to the board rather than have them elected. “The 10th spot will only be filled as required,” you say. I’m betting that the 10th spot will be “required” to be filled whenever it is vacant. What are the requirements and who decides on them ?
I believe there should be eight members elected and a maximum of two appointed if necessary.
You mean by letting the heirs to the stuff-up kings appoint more pusillanimous stuff-up merchants in their own image and likeness ? After the Board’s dismal performance during the Saga — a mixture of faint-heartedness and ineptitude — why should we ever trust a Board again unless we, the Members, have full control over it ?
There is no evidence to show that a Board with an overwhelmingly elected membership would behave any worse than the one we had through the Saga, run by a succession of self-interested businessmen who paid lipservice to the Club, but whose actions and inaction belied their altruistic claims. In fact, I believe that a 10-person Board with eight elected members would behave a lot more ethically than one with only six.
And you believe that an ex cop and an ex politician are per se incapable of being manipulative businessmen ? Come off the grass !
Sean Wellman was a favourite of mine on the footy field. I used to go to matches just to see him at CHB. Nowadays he’s a businessman; he organises home loans. A mortgage broker — In old-fashioned language, he’s a moneylender.
There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as he runs his business ethically, and I’m sure he does. There can be no doubt that his business ethics are streets ahead of Combank, NAB & co.
In fact, he’s just the sort of person you would want on the Board - and he was elected by the Membership !