See article here:
clicky
So, I may elaborate on the story later, but let me give you executive summary…
Over the years, I have moaned to many that that our "Member Elected" Board position had become a farce. The Board would put up an ex-player and we, the members, would fold because we knew that challenging a champion ex-player was, at best, tilting at windmills.
Last year, I nominated for the member-elected board position. As soon as I did so, the Club tried to talk me out of nominating. In a nutshell, their argument was, “You won’t win against Peter Bell” and “The election process will cost the Club $30,000”.
I nominated anyway. I explained that this Board-nominated ex-player strategy could not continue unchallenged.
On the cusp of the election, a member of the Board rang me - no, I won’t say who - and asked me to withdraw. The Board member said that if I stood against Peter Bell, knowing that I was likely to lose, they would think less of me for doing so. This was a member of the Board saying they didn’t want to work with me.
I wrote to Steve Rosich and formally retracted my nomination. But I pulled out of the election on the proviso that the Board stopped nominating ex-players to the Member Elected Board Position. I said that I wanted it in writing, and got that in an email from Steve Rosich - they recognised that this wasn't right and would take action to correct this. To the Club’s credit, they have been working on this over the past twelve months and come up with a better arrangement.
Will it work? I don’t know. It may need some further tweaking, but I believe that the Club has accepted the criticism and put in place a fairer process.
There are a few people on Docklerland who know this story and more of the details I have left out. If you are one of those, please don’t expand. Let us allow the Club to take the first steps to improve their processes.