 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | yin-YANG wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | ^
As jackass already said, conflicts of interest are declared as part of good and due governance. Why would you rule out what may be the best potential candidate because of a relationship issue that is declared?
That's just dumb. |
I disagree - just because you declare a conflict of interest does not make it good governance. Declaring what is glaringly obvious does not mean it should then be acceptable to do whatever you want.
This is what happens with lots of these boards - and now our own pure cronyism!
Not a good look and a black mark on the board and Eddie for letting this go through and ruin what should have been a good news story.  |
But Pert is not on the board and didn't make the decision, the board did.
Without examining the selection process for the supplier and the governance put into it, making assumptions of cronyism based on a relationships to someone who didn't participate in the selection is IMHO just stupid.
I would expect that, given the people on the board, this company would have had to tick more boxes to ensure probity than anyone else would have. |
Most CEO's are considered to be on the Board due to the close link with the Board. I must say it is a bit odd that the board made the decision, rather than focus on big picture stuff however that is not the issue here, the main issue or question raised relates to services paid to Pert's wife
and lets get real stui - the CEO and any Board are very close. The CEO, even if not on the board for some decision-making is the Board's official link to the club.
Where do you draw the line? what is not OK if a spouse is deemed all clear?
The back scratching and jobs for mates that goes on in corporate circles needs to be scrutinised - even at our great club. We should not allow corruption to become the norm - look at the shady characters that have been getting their noses in the trough with FIFA
it happens when good people look the other way and as a Collingwood supporter and member I have the right to demand better and at least ask questions!
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You absolutely have the right to ask questions, you can't demand better until the questions are answered and you have facts rather than supposition.
And yes, the Board does work very closely with the CEO but it's not always/only the CEO who puts recommendations to the Board.
I have no problems with asking questions but I'd rather not grab the pitch forks and torches and go after Pert just yet.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't get this "raise the issue at the AGM or shut up" response. Why shouldn't we discuss this here? Nobody's even claiming that laws have been broken, they're just asking whether it's all above board a fairly reasonable thing to ask, I would have thought.
Frankly, I find it astounding that the company of the partner of the CEO just happened to be the best option available in this case. Do people not think it might have been a slight factor in the decisionmaking process?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I don't get this "raise the issue at the AGM or shut up" response.
|
Ummm, which orifice did you extract that from? I must have missed that response.
| Quote: |
Why shouldn't we discuss this here? Nobody's even claiming that laws have been broken, they're just asking whether it's all above board a fairly reasonable thing to ask, I would have thought.
|
Of course we can discuss it here, but if people want answers to the question whether it's all above board, they ain't going to get them here, are they? All they're going to get is speculation.
| Quote: |
Frankly, I find it astounding that the company of the partner of the CEO just happened to be the best option available in this case.
|
Considering you have zero experience in a corporate environment in the first place, I'm not surprised
| Quote: |
Do people not think it might have been a slight factor in the decisionmaking process? |
It's worth asking the question about governance, certainly. People can draw all sorts of different conclusions over a single piece of data with no supporting facts but while everyone is entitled to have an uninformed opinion, it doesn't mean it's correct.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't think it is that complicated Stui!
The information presented seems pretty clear to me - please inform me if I have it wrong because you seem to have an issue with the speculation that there is something not quite above board - when in fact it may very well be something underhand!. 
1) Gary Pert is Collingwood CEO
2) Gary Pert's wife is now also being paid by CFC for consulting work
I don't think anyone needs experience in the corporate world to smell something is a bit off with this arrangement.
As David indicated there may be no laws broken with this arrangement - however that is also true for many of the corporations paying little or no tax in Australia - still stinks though!
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Stui, the AGM reference is to jackcass's post on page 2 and Lazza's on page 1.
As for your second question, it's actually possible that we could have an informed discussion here about appropriate corporate practice drawing upon relevant legislation and conventions. Even if only to demonstrate that CC's concerns are unfounded. I see no reason why we shouldn't have that discussion.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| yin-YANG wrote: | I don't think it is that complicated Stui!
The information presented seems pretty clear to me - please inform me if I have it wrong because you seem to have an issue with the speculation that there is something not quite above board - when in fact it may very well be something underhand!.
1) Gary Pert is Collingwood CEO
2) Gary Pert's wife is now also being paid by CFC for consulting work
I don't think anyone needs experience in the corporate world to smell something is a bit off with this arrangement.
As David indicated there may be no laws broken with this arrangement - however that is also true for many of the corporations paying little or no tax in Australia - still stinks though! |
My argument is that yes, we know 1 and 2. What we don't know is what process was followed for 2 to happen and that's what can and should rightfully be questioned.
Simply 1 and 2 alone does not mean that something is a bit off, if the appropriate processes and governance were followed. My thought is that given the obvious apparent conflict, appropriate processes would have been followed to ensure no impropriety.
To simply not select the best supplier because their is a potential conflict would be poor form. The trick is to make sure that conflicts of interest don't impact on decision making, not erase them.
I don't see anything wrong, whether ethically or legally, in selecting Perts wife to deliver a service, provided it can be shown that the selection process was clean, transparent and not impacted by Pert.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | yin-YANG wrote: | I don't think it is that complicated Stui!
The information presented seems pretty clear to me - please inform me if I have it wrong because you seem to have an issue with the speculation that there is something not quite above board - when in fact it may very well be something underhand!.
1) Gary Pert is Collingwood CEO
2) Gary Pert's wife is now also being paid by CFC for consulting work
I don't think anyone needs experience in the corporate world to smell something is a bit off with this arrangement.
As David indicated there may be no laws broken with this arrangement - however that is also true for many of the corporations paying little or no tax in Australia - still stinks though! |
My argument is that yes, we know 1 and 2. What we don't know is what process was followed for 2 to happen and that's what can and should rightfully be questioned.
Simply 1 and 2 alone does not mean that something is a bit off, if the appropriate processes and governance were followed. My thought is that given the obvious apparent conflict, appropriate processes would have been followed to ensure no impropriety.
To simply not select the best supplier because their is a potential conflict would be poor form. The trick is to make sure that conflicts of interest don't impact on decision making, not erase them.
I don't see anything wrong, whether ethically or legally, in selecting Perts wife to deliver a service, provided it can be shown that the selection process was clean, transparent and not impacted by Pert. |
How can the selection process be clean? She is the wife of the CEO! Did she have insider info re the role did she have insider info re the culture of the club?
The board was involved in the decision - do any of the members know her already - have they met with her over the last few years at various Collingwood functions? most likely!
Is that an even playing field - no!
Who reviews her contract and if she has delivered? Probably not the board that task seems too low level for a board to be concerned with - more likley Pert or most liklly one of his staff. Are you going to tell him the truth or are you going to keep in mind that this is the wife of the CEO when a performance review is due? Who did make up the contract details?
I would prefer if she was left out of the process due to a conflict of interest - pure and simple - it stinks! Gary and many others are conflicted while she is hired by CFC and he is the CEO!
My partner had a similar experience working for a design company as Director when one of the partner's kids was hired to work as a designer. Hired by the partner... It was very hard not to keep in mind that this was the bosses kid. Massive issue for the other staff members! It happens but it should not happen. The Collingwood football club is not Gary's play thing - nor Eddie or any other Director! They are accountable to the members - and this conduct is not clear or clean - it is very murky!
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Stui, the AGM reference is to jackcass's post on page 2 and Lazza's on page 1.
As for your second question, it's actually possible that we could have an informed discussion here about appropriate corporate practice drawing upon relevant legislation and conventions. Even if only to demonstrate that CC's concerns are unfounded. I see no reason why we shouldn't have that discussion. |
I still happily say that if people want to actually KNOW the answers instead of merely stirring up an entire pot of mere speculation and innuendo on this site, ask the club FFS
Discuss all you bloody like or till the cows come home (whicher happens last!), however after all is said and done, there will be FAR more said than done as usual on Nick's without a skerrick of an answer 
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Wow three pages and I'm still not sure what's she's consulting on
What I've learnt is apparently collingwood have 10 female employees presumably apart from the shop staff, the ceos wife is now employed she has something to do with blackmores which apparently for some is a Nono although the most potent supplement they have us probably protein powder
As a women just let me say this
Who $Ł$%^%%$ cares? Just get your shit together and win a $Ł$%^%%$ premiership!im so over all this PC crap
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| yin-YANG wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | yin-YANG wrote: | I don't think it is that complicated Stui!
The information presented seems pretty clear to me - please inform me if I have it wrong because you seem to have an issue with the speculation that there is something not quite above board - when in fact it may very well be something underhand!.
1) Gary Pert is Collingwood CEO
2) Gary Pert's wife is now also being paid by CFC for consulting work
I don't think anyone needs experience in the corporate world to smell something is a bit off with this arrangement.
As David indicated there may be no laws broken with this arrangement - however that is also true for many of the corporations paying little or no tax in Australia - still stinks though! |
My argument is that yes, we know 1 and 2. What we don't know is what process was followed for 2 to happen and that's what can and should rightfully be questioned.
Simply 1 and 2 alone does not mean that something is a bit off, if the appropriate processes and governance were followed. My thought is that given the obvious apparent conflict, appropriate processes would have been followed to ensure no impropriety.
To simply not select the best supplier because their is a potential conflict would be poor form. The trick is to make sure that conflicts of interest don't impact on decision making, not erase them.
I don't see anything wrong, whether ethically or legally, in selecting Perts wife to deliver a service, provided it can be shown that the selection process was clean, transparent and not impacted by Pert. |
How can the selection process be clean? She is the wife of the CEO! Did she have insider info re the role did she have insider info re the culture of the club?
The board was involved in the decision - do any of the members know her already - have they met with her over the last few years at various Collingwood functions? most likely!
Is that an even playing field - no!
Who reviews her contract and if she has delivered? Probably not the board that task seems too low level for a board to be concerned with - more likley Pert or most liklly one of his staff. Are you going to tell him the truth or are you going to keep in mind that this is the wife of the CEO when a performance review is due? Who did make up the contract details?
I would prefer if she was left out of the process due to a conflict of interest - pure and simple - it stinks! Gary and many others are conflicted while she is hired by CFC and he is the CEO!
My partner had a similar experience working for a design company as Director when one of the partner's kids was hired to work as a designer. Hired by the partner... It was very hard not to keep in mind that this was the bosses kid. Massive issue for the other staff members! It happens but it should not happen. The Collingwood football club is not Gary's play thing - nor Eddie or any other Director! They are accountable to the members - and this conduct is not clear or clean - it is very murky! |
I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. At least not completely, I do in part.
First problem is that the semblance or perception of impropriety can be as big an issue as actual impropriety. We don't know, hence the speculation. My approach in this is that I'm prepared off the bat to assume the club has done the right thing, others take the reverse view. Glass half full or half empty.
Now, to your arguments and examples.
From what I can see, Collingwood has decided to offer a leadership program to 10 selected female staff. What that actually consists of is rubbery but typically could be anything from a 3-5 day residential or a program spaced over a couple of months containing some facilitated focus groups, a few 1/2 day group sessions, homework assignments, some 1 on 1 coaching and some kind of group finale.
They've contracted a company that Perts wife started and is obviously a key figure in, to deliver this program. Something which is their area of specialty, so the first box is ticked. Does the company provide the service they're buying? Yes.
As consultants/facilitators, the relationship is totally different to that of hiring a relative as a member of staff, even if it's Perts wife who delivers the service. It's a fixed term arrangement to deliver a service, being a leadership program. There's no issues with the CEO's wife being hired to perform the same role as a bunch of other employees and all the issues that would come with that. (Agree the partner hiring their kid in your example is wrong)
Who reviews the performance? Good question actually, if you figure out a good set of metrics to review the successfulness of a leadership course, let me know. We'll go into partnership, make a buttload and then spend it hiding from all the pissed off leadership consultants who are suddenly being held to account. 
The usual way is to get direct participant feedback via questionnaires. Yes, these could be biased because of the relationship but there's any number of other things that can also prevent an accurate response irrespective of who delivered it. The best assessment is of the participants over time following the course in regard to their behaviour, and that's subjective as hell. (you may be forming the opinion that I think leadership courses are generally a massive load of wank. That's a reasonable opinion to form. I also think consultants are someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time)
Finally, how can the selection process be clean? Quite simple.
Targeted RFQ detailing the requirements, criteria and selection panel determined up front, Pert recuses himself from the process due to potential conflict of interest, assessment of quotes conducted in accordance with the criteria, totally objective and fair.
That's assuming they followed a process like that. If Eddie just yelled out, "oi, Perty. Your missus does leadership stuff for women doesn't she? get her to pull together a program for 10 of our staff" then I do have problems, but given the size, duration and purpose of the arrangement, I could get over them. We're talking about a $10-15k leadership course, not a million dollar+ ongoing arrangement.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Sheesh.
All I did was welcome a new CEO to the Collingwood board who was named as CEO of 2015 in a few top places.
Welcome Blackmores boss to the Board.
BTW: Does our membership entitle us to discount Blackmore products?
_________________
âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Dunno, but it might entitle us to some discount leadership for women sessions.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Dunno, but it might entitle us to some discount leadership for women sessions. |
_________________
âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Fatui Attata
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | yin-YANG wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | yin-YANG wrote: | I don't think it is that complicated Stui!
The information presented seems pretty clear to me - please inform me if I have it wrong because you seem to have an issue with the speculation that there is something not quite above board - when in fact it may very well be something underhand!.
1) Gary Pert is Collingwood CEO
2) Gary Pert's wife is now also being paid by CFC for consulting work
I don't think anyone needs experience in the corporate world to smell something is a bit off with this arrangement.
As David indicated there may be no laws broken with this arrangement - however that is also true for many of the corporations paying little or no tax in Australia - still stinks though! |
My argument is that yes, we know 1 and 2. What we don't know is what process was followed for 2 to happen and that's what can and should rightfully be questioned.
Simply 1 and 2 alone does not mean that something is a bit off, if the appropriate processes and governance were followed. My thought is that given the obvious apparent conflict, appropriate processes would have been followed to ensure no impropriety.
To simply not select the best supplier because their is a potential conflict would be poor form. The trick is to make sure that conflicts of interest don't impact on decision making, not erase them.
I don't see anything wrong, whether ethically or legally, in selecting Perts wife to deliver a service, provided it can be shown that the selection process was clean, transparent and not impacted by Pert. |
How can the selection process be clean? She is the wife of the CEO! Did she have insider info re the role did she have insider info re the culture of the club?
The board was involved in the decision - do any of the members know her already - have they met with her over the last few years at various Collingwood functions? most likely!
Is that an even playing field - no!
Who reviews her contract and if she has delivered? Probably not the board that task seems too low level for a board to be concerned with - more likley Pert or most liklly one of his staff. Are you going to tell him the truth or are you going to keep in mind that this is the wife of the CEO when a performance review is due? Who did make up the contract details?
I would prefer if she was left out of the process due to a conflict of interest - pure and simple - it stinks! Gary and many others are conflicted while she is hired by CFC and he is the CEO!
My partner had a similar experience working for a design company as Director when one of the partner's kids was hired to work as a designer. Hired by the partner... It was very hard not to keep in mind that this was the bosses kid. Massive issue for the other staff members! It happens but it should not happen. The Collingwood football club is not Gary's play thing - nor Eddie or any other Director! They are accountable to the members - and this conduct is not clear or clean - it is very murky! |
I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. At least not completely, I do in part.
First problem is that the semblance or perception of impropriety can be as big an issue as actual impropriety. We don't know, hence the speculation. My approach in this is that I'm prepared off the bat to assume the club has done the right thing, others take the reverse view. Glass half full or half empty.
Now, to your arguments and examples.
From what I can see, Collingwood has decided to offer a leadership program to 10 selected female staff. What that actually consists of is rubbery but typically could be anything from a 3-5 day residential or a program spaced over a couple of months containing some facilitated focus groups, a few 1/2 day group sessions, homework assignments, some 1 on 1 coaching and some kind of group finale.
They've contracted a company that Perts wife started and is obviously a key figure in, to deliver this program. Something which is their area of specialty, so the first box is ticked. Does the company provide the service they're buying? Yes.
As consultants/facilitators, the relationship is totally different to that of hiring a relative as a member of staff, even if it's Perts wife who delivers the service. It's a fixed term arrangement to deliver a service, being a leadership program. There's no issues with the CEO's wife being hired to perform the same role as a bunch of other employees and all the issues that would come with that. (Agree the partner hiring their kid in your example is wrong)
Who reviews the performance? Good question actually, if you figure out a good set of metrics to review the successfulness of a leadership course, let me know. We'll go into partnership, make a buttload and then spend it hiding from all the pissed off leadership consultants who are suddenly being held to account.
The usual way is to get direct participant feedback via questionnaires. Yes, these could be biased because of the relationship but there's any number of other things that can also prevent an accurate response irrespective of who delivered it. The best assessment is of the participants over time following the course in regard to their behaviour, and that's subjective as hell. (you may be forming the opinion that I think leadership courses are generally a massive load of wank. That's a reasonable opinion to form. I also think consultants are someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time)
Finally, how can the selection process be clean? Quite simple.
Targeted RFQ detailing the requirements, criteria and selection panel determined up front, Pert recuses himself from the process due to potential conflict of interest, assessment of quotes conducted in accordance with the criteria, totally objective and fair.
That's assuming they followed a process like that. If Eddie just yelled out, "oi, Perty. Your missus does leadership stuff for women doesn't she? get her to pull together a program for 10 of our staff" then I do have problems, but given the size, duration and purpose of the arrangement, I could get over them. We're talking about a $10-15k leadership course, not a million dollar+ ongoing arrangement. |
Great post Stui. Even if I disagree with you on the value of leadership courses (not all).
But, really, that's a corker of a post.
_________________
I'm not the pheasant plucker I'm the pheasant plucker's son, and I'll be plucking pheasants til the pheasant plucker comes! "Try saying that with a mouthful of peanuts!!" Lou Richards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
