Overview of how PLC manages misconduct:

At present, PLC has a sound multi-step approach to managing perceived or actual misconduct, that is transparent, fair, and ethical. What constitutes misconduct and how it is managed is defined within the constitution and more broadly within the conditions of entry, which sets out basic behavioural standards that are reasonable and common for a licensed venue.

The Basic Behavioural Standards

Hold a valid ID & show it if you’re asked, drink responsibly, don’t do or sell drugs, keep your hands to yourself, watch your language, pay your bill, don’t steal, dress respectfully and keep your kit on. All of which contribute to not breaking the broader standards, which are: not disrupting the enjoyment and safety of other members and their guests and not putting the PLC liquor and gaming licences at risk.

The Current Adjudication Process

* If a member is caught or reported for breaching any of these standards, then the board has the power to conduct a formal review of what happened measured against what shouldn’t and decide diplomatically on an appropriate consequence.

*  The offending member is given notice of the board’s intention to conduct a review, why its necessary, the opportunity to respond, provide witness statements and subjective suggestions for appropriate penalties.

* Then by way of formal resolution the board decide what happens next, which can include: nothing, a formal written reprimand, suspension, or termination of membership.

The Proposed Change

While the basic description of this one is pretty self explanatory; it’s the steps within it that make it untenable. The proposed independent panel requires PLC and its Board to:

* Delete the constitutional clauses that set out the current adjudication process (4.16 & 4.17) and any reference to them in other clauses clauses; the replace these clauses with a new clause that sets out “Disciplinary Proceedings Against a Member”.

* Receive, assess and conduct preliminary investigations when misconduct allegations arise and recommend penalties. But they will need to refer their findings to a Disciplinary Panel for formal adjudication and enforcement of penalties.

*  Engage 3 Barristers (specialisation unspecified) who must also be a professional member of the Resolution Institute of Aus (RIA), on a two-year fixed term agreement at PLC’s expense. These 3 RIA accredited Barristers are engaged to act as a “disciplinary panel” and will be responsible for deciding whether The Board’s referral and proposed penalty are reasonable and then approve or deny the boards request.

* Only one of the panel members will be required to adjudicate each misconduct referral. The requirement to pay 3 people is to ensure someone is always available when needed.

* The adjudication proceedings conducted by the one panel member in the presence of the PLC Secretary, the alleged offender and their optional representative/support person; is similar to the current adjudication process. Except proceedings are to be informal while observing procedural fairness, and panel are assessing The Board’s assessment and not just the incident itself.

Conclusion

The current system is fair, responsible, and representative of the kind of robust safeguards you would expect to be present at any respectable licensed venue. I am finding it difficult to verbalise my views on this proposed new process in writing without potentially contravening multiple constitutional behavioural standards as a result. In summary: the proposed changes are unwarranted, unrealistic, contradictory, and costly.

VOTE NO – AGAINST

What is Clause 4.3?

4.3  sets out the approval process for adults wishing to become members who have submitted an endorsed application for consideration. For reference 4.1 discusses the application form completion and endorsement, 4.2 discusses the Application fee.

The current process (how 4.3 is applied)

Endorsed application forms are considered and approved via vote during a Board or appointed Committee meeting. Approval requires a three-quarter (75%) favourable majority from Directors or Committee members present and voting. The board is not required to provide reasons when a membership application is rejected.

Side note: I recently supported my sons first membership. He submitted the form at club reception and paid a reasonable fee. He was allowed immediate provisional membership to enjoy the facilities and received a member welcome email confirming his successful application about a week later. My first membership was pre-internet, but I don’t remember it being difficult. The only difference was that I got a welcome letter in the mail with a discount dinner voucher and it took 4 weeks to get approved. Those were the days.

The Proposed Change

The change calls for Clause 4.3 to be replaced, but technically it adds additional sub-clauses to the current 4.3, which requires consequential amendments to other Ordinary Member clauses. These changes in summary call for PLC to be required to provide unsuccessful applicants with a formal written notice of rejection that includes:

* the specific reason/s for the application rejection

*  any information, advice or evidence considered when reviewing the application

* Procedural factors, if relevant

The proposers argue that these changes are a necessary governance improvement to ensure transparency and procedural fairness for the applicant and accountability for PLC. However, they do not consider PLC’s existing obligations and protections under State, Federal and Common law. These safeguards underpin robust governance, providing protections to applicants where possible, while ensuring any decisions made by The Board are governed by regulated processes.

Conclusion

Currently Clause 4.3 is a sound and lawful with widely accepted norms commonly found in constitution documents for clubs or associations, with reference to managing membership admissions through the application of regulated safeguards. Industry data shows it is rare for membership applications at Australian leagues clubs to be unsuccessful, because clubs depend on member volumes for income and social standing. Although there is no detailed data available on specific reasons for unsuccessful applications, the broad data shows applications are not commonly refused without legitimate reasons, such as genuine safety concerns, legal & regulatory requirements, or club rules that are supported by these factors.

VOTE NO – AGAINST

What is Clause 9.3?

9.3 sets out Director Eligibility with a commonsense approach that assesses whether proven past personal and/or professional actions can prevent a person’s appointment or re-appointment as a Director.

What proven past actions might prevent someone’s eligibility?

* Disqualification from managing a Corporation

* Corporate or financial Misconduct

* A criminal conviction within the last 15 years that is serious enough that it might warrant a custodial sentence

* Bankruptcy (past, present or pending)

* A written finding from an administrative body or authority, or any court entity created or bound by law that declares the person as, not a fit and proper person to be considered eligible for this type of or comparable appointments

* A criminal conviction where the offence contravenes any of the following Acts (Registered Clubs Act, Liquor Act, Gaming & Machines Act, Liquor Administration Act).

The Proposed Change

While it claims to establish a clearer and coherent way forward using strict objective safeguards that protect member democracy, the reality is that it removes any reference to assessing suitability against the findings of an Administrative Body or Authority, drastically reduces bankruptcy provisions, and mushes whats left into three vague categories open to an unacceptable level of subjective interpretation.

Conclusion

The current process is solid and safe. In a world that keeps showing us that people in power can abuse that privilege, often without immediate consequence, it’s more important than ever to ensure that PLC Directors are chosen against a comprehensive set of criteria. The kind that measures a person’s suitability based on factual and substantiated information about a person’s past and present criminal, professional and personal activities. The proposed amendments seek to change recent improvements that were comfortably approved by members, administrators and regulators alike. The proposed provisions are far too vague and broad to be considered an appropriate replacement for current robust measures. Clarity has been replaced by buzz words intricately placed to distort the purpose of the clause and confuse the reader. This proposal is an insult to the positive changes the club has made and to all eligible, fit and proper candidates and members.

VOTE NO – AGAINST

What is Clause 8?

Clause 8 and its sub clauses set out the process for conducting Ballots.

The current process

8.3 stipulates that The Board appoints an officer or employee of the NSW Electoral Commission (NEC) to conduct the ballot, or in the absence of such, states the PLC Secretary can be appointed officer. The appointed ‘Returning Officer’ assumes the responsibility of facilitating the proper coordination of Clause 8 and any sub clauses that reference how the ballot should be managed

The proposed change

This changes of this proposal mostly apply to sub-clause 8.3 and its relevant powers as opposed to replacing clause 8 in its entirety. The proposed change stipulates that the appointed returning officer must be an NEC officer or employee. The change also proposes other process changes that purport to standardise the polling procedures, locations, and security protocols in the Constitution itself. The proposal attempts to justify these changes by insinuating without any substance that the current process is unjust.

Conclusion

There is no evidence to suggest the current process is being mishandled. Amending a process of such importance without warrant or proper planning creates an increased risk that the integrity of the the process could be negatively impacted. Furthermore, the suggestion that only AGM attendees should be allowed to vote defeats the purpose of the eligible member imposed priveledge to contribute to how PLC is governed. The majority of members including myself, currently vote using alternative methods to AGM attendance, such as electronic and postal voting. To only count the votes of a minority does not accurately reflect the views of the members as a whole which defeats the primary purpose of member voting rights.

VOTE NO – AGAINST