"Transparency" at the ARU

[mark_s]

Spiro needs a "buyer beware" disclaimer at the start of his articles. This week's was really a continuation of the same story he has been running for many months now, I guess the only thing that was different is he crossed a line and so needed to withdraw it and apologise or face legal action.

(Small) qudos to him for posting an apology, others in the media wouldn't have and would have forced the ARU to start messy legal action which would have only made things worse and provided Spiro with mountains of more content for many months to come.

But the damage done by his original article, in the context of his ongoing campaign, isn't undone by his apology.

 

[fatprop]

I don't think they thought Spiro would publish the content of the fake email just allude to its content.

It is some epic trolling by the unit who created the fake email

It highlights the Spiro's confirmation bias, he appears so pleased to find evidence that confirms his own beliefs he didn't bother being a journalist and doing some fact checking

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It is some epic trolling by the unit who created the fake email

It highlights the Spiro's confirmation bias, he appears so pleased to find evidence that confirms his own beliefs he didn't bother being a journalist and doing some fact checking

Spiro needs moderators who can identify trolling and stop it or warn him.

Spiro needs a "buyer beware" disclaimer at the start of his articles. This week's was really a continuation of the same story he has been running for many months now, I guess the only thing that was different is he crossed a line and so needed to withdraw it and apologise or face legal action.

(Small) qudos to him for posting an apology, others in the media wouldn't have and would have forced the ARU to start messy legal action which would have only made things worse and provided Spiro with mountains of more content for many months to come.

But the damage done by his original article, in the context of his ongoing campaign, isn't undone by his apology.

This was a bridge too far: the whole premise was I've seen these hate lists before and it is conclusive proof of dysfunction.
The damage the article to my view of the ARU was completely undone by the apology: I won't ever trust another word he writes.
It has to be a set up to achieve that very outcome and the marginalise his commentary in the ARU. It's worked.

 

[Gnostic]

Its an interesting episode because whilst Spiro has been burnt big time from this, and I do think he should be required under apology to disclose the lying source, there should be consequences to actions, so many were ready to believe the article because the ground is fertile for it.

When you create an us and them situation in an organisation (looking at Australian Rugby as one body) it breeds this sort of thing.

The next step is the conspiracies as outlined by myself last week thinking the EGM was a set up (and I still do to some extent) and the post by IS above.

It really doesn't matter what they do now, there will be fault in it, because very few trust their motives or processes. They have no standing of integrity with their stakeholders and everything and anything they do can be legitimately resisted because of this. That is how to create not a dysfunctional system but one that is paralysed and non functional

 

[kiap]

So we are getting into the swing of things now with a new CEO. Is Raelene Castle on the Rugby Australia board?

Clearly, the expected answer should be yes, but is she a voting member at board meetings - just a quick question for those that might know.

 

[lou75]

So we are getting into the swing of things now with a new CEO. Is Raelene Castle on the Rugby Australia board?

Clearly, the expected answer should be yes, but is she a voting member at board meetings - just a quick question for those that might know.

a very good question - do we really have three vacancies?

 

[Strewthcobber]

So we are getting into the swing of things now with a new CEO. Is Raelene Castle on the Rugby Australia board?

Clearly, the expected answer should be yes, but is she a voting member at board meetings - just a quick question for those that might know.

New board members following resignations etc will be voted for at the AGM. Currently there are only 6 directors with the recent resignations

All directors get a vote at a board meeting.

Voting members are a different thing and are the state unions/super teams/Rupa

 

[lou75]

Does anyone know if the new directors will be able to read the past Board minutes? This could be very interesting and could be why they have not yet found replacements yet. It is strange that they haven't voted for replacements - what would have happened if the last 6 had resigned? There would be no board.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Does anyone know if the new directors will be able to read the past Board minutes? This could be very interesting and could be why they have not yet found replacements yet. It is strange that they haven't voted for replacements - what would have happened if the last 6 had resigned? There would be no board.

Think you are reading too much into this Lou. The board needs at least 6 members, and 5 present for a quorum.

The vacancies will be filled at the AGM next month after the nominations committee comes up with the candidates.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[kiap]

the nominations committee comes up with the candidates.

Who is on the nominations committee?

- C. Clyne
- J. Sukkar
- A. Nother
- A. T'Other?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Who is on the nominations committee?

- C. Clyne
- J. Sukkar
- A. Nother
- A. T'Other?

Peter Heerey + John Massey

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[half]

Most boards are by their nature secretive, and most boards seek to increase their control over key issues.

RA in this aspect is not that different to a typical board. Good governance today wants nay demands more information and a less secretive board.

My reading of the tea leafs is those that vote the board members in, and those that choose these people need to led by example and demand more openness.

AS for RC, way to early to be in any position of judgement however it looks from a distance she is there to carry out RA boards policies and instructions. How much she can change things without RA permission is to be seen over the next 12 to 18 months.

 

[kiap]

Peter Heerey + John Massey

Apparently, this guy gets a seat

Marc L'Huillier. Marketing bloke that came out of Melbourne.