Please see below an update from the Melbourne Football Club Board to its members:
You may have heard that over recent months, we have been in dialogue with a member, Peter Lawrence, regarding the election process for Board members.
The Board is committed to a fair and equitable election process that provides members with high quality candidates.
After the last election, the Board conducted its annual review of the election rules and processes. As part of this review the Board consulted with a wide range of member groups to gauge the views of the membership on the nomination and election processes. The Board worked closely with Mr Lawrence to hear his concerns.
The review was positive and overarchingly supportive of the current processes and systems. Some recommended changes were proposed to the Board as part of the review and have subsequently been adopted.
Despite these changes Mr Lawrence still elected to pursue legal action against the club because the Board did not adopt all his changes, even though some of them were in direct conflict with the clear views of member feedback collected throughout the review.
Your Board would like to stress that it worked as hard as possible to try to mediate a solution with Mr Lawrence, but unfortunately, he could not be persuaded to accept the outcome of the member review.
As such, the club was required to attend the court to defend the action.
Today the court handed down its judgement in favour of the Melbourne Football Club. The judge found that the Directors of the Club had “acted bona fide…(and)…had regard to relevant considerations, and they balanced the interests of the members of the club as a whole as against the interests of a particular member (here, Mr Lawrence).”
The Board is pleased with the court’s decision and strongly agrees the changes previously made to the election rules balance the views of the club’s membership.
The impacts on the club from both a time and financial perspective have been significant, and it is disappointing that despite the Board’s best efforts the club was unable to avoid the implications of a legal process. The club will now seek recovery of its legal costs from Mr Lawrence.
Additionally, Mr Lawrence has sought access to the email and postal addresses of voting members for the purpose of contacting them regarding the outcome of the court proceedings.
Under the Corporations Act, the club is required to provide him with access to these addresses.
The Board understands that some voting members will be frustrated with this. We are acutely aware of the sensitivities around privacy and data and want to reassure all members that it will only be voting member email and postal addresses that are provided, as is the legal requirement of the club.
Regards,
Kate Roffey on behalf of the Melbourne Football Club Board
