[Travis de Jonk]

Good to see the truth come out about this. And to think of all the crap Christian received because he broke the true story months ago! The truth should have been told at the beginning. The lies were unnecessary. Even though there would have been criticism, the community would have understood.

[Christian Taylor]

of course, as steph said, it's all about "sponsorship arrangements" these days, not putting them in jeopardy... of course, lying puts a lot more in jeopardy!

[Christian Taylor]

and i have to say - well done to steph for telling the truth, and it's a shame it took so long to come out. it's also a shame it had to come out AFTER the board was re-elected.

[Joal]

Corrupt bureaucracies. Grrr

[Dsquare]

Mistakes happen, however it probably would have been good to be upfront about it in the first place.

They should think very seriously about the idea of not having a chair though. Trying to coordinate eight people to make and agree on every little decision is likely to end up in a lot more mistakes.

[JoshOnTheBus]

Steph was brave to face the members in David Imrie's place. She had to answer the hard questions on behalf of someone that reportedly broke away from the agreed-upon official communication about the split. She did a great job and I wish the new board (which is, in fact, an old board) the absolute best of luck.

[CeeJay]

Yeah but if you look at the annual report, if it wasn't for the increase in sponsorship by nearly half a million, NMG would have made a substantial loss (well over $100k). I think the organisation is still in a very vulnerable position.

Festival & Fair Day lost money, the parade cost $15ok more, profit from parties was down over $300k.

I'm not that concerned about the number of proxies, as having the AGM at 6pm on a weeknight in Kensington seriously limited the number of members who could attend (myself included). Considering the amount of discussion leading up to the AGM, having only 80 members turn up is a bit sad.

Hopefully the new/returning board will work hard to re-engage the members and community.

[jerry_h]

All Festivals need sponsorship, it's nearly impossible to sustain a festival without it.

[Travis de Jonk]

Agreed CeeJay. All of Australia's Gay and Lesbian festivals are on financial thin ice. It just takes one bad year to bring it down. Sure it's important to balance being critical with being pro-active and making festivals etc what we as a community need them to be. The truth is, we would NOT be better off if these festivals didn't exist. They are important, not just politically, but socially and culturally... they are a vital part of queer heritage.

[Marcus Bourget]

I received the following email from Christian Taylor at 11.36am seeking my response to a few questions arising from last night’s NMG AGM. Seeing as Travis’ first post to the thread occurred at 12.04pm that gave me 28 minutes to read and answer Christian’s email. Unfortunately, I have been in a management meeting until now but take the time now to answer the email.

Seeing as Christian couldn’t be bothered to wait for my reply before publishing his story, I’ll respond publicly.

Christian’s email read as follows:-

“Hey Marcus,

Hope you're well.

I am writing up a story about last night's AGM and our source who was there last night said that you suggested that voting on the new board took place before questions were taken from members.

If this is the case, I'm curious:

1. as to why you suggested this?
2. if this is the way AGM's normally run? Is this unusual?
3. if you feel that this move favoured the previous board, given that it later came out from Steph that the parade / party split was infact a cover up? This could have certainly affected voting.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.”

My response

“Dear Christian,

It seems a little odd that you would want to write an article about the NMG and not attend the event in person. Perhaps you were unable to attend. However your ‘source’ seems to have provided you with very little information as to the circumstances behind my request which I think were self evident to all and sundry who attended.

To answer your questions

1. as to why you suggested this?

Following the debate regarding the proposed constitutional change regarding membership consultation, which took the meeting to approximately 8.30 – 8.45 Tony Knight made the comment that the Studio at NIDA was only available till 11pm. At that point, having experience of just how long the vote counting process can take, I moved a point of order to suggest that we move to the candidate speeches and election as the next agenda item to allow the returning officer, company secretary and myself (who were responsible for the vote counting) to start the counting process in order to be able to announce the results prior to the end of the meeting.

This suggestion was put to the meeting by the chair of the meeting. No objections were moved from the floor and the suggestion was adopted. Specifically, no one suggested that the general questions on the Chairman’s report be heard before the election.

As it stood, it meant we were able to announce the election results at 10.45pm, 15 minutes before we had to leave building.

2. if this is the way AGM's normally run? Is this unusual?

I’m not sure what you mean by this question. As people who were in attendance last night can confirm several points of order were raised on a number of issues. It’s all part and parcel of the AGM process.

3. if you feel that this move favoured the previous board, given that it later came out from Steph that the parade / party split was infact a cover up? This could have certainly affected voting.

Unfortunately, I was back of house counting votes during the General Q&A session so I didn’t hear Steph’s comments. Could the decision have favoured the board? Well that’s a question for everyone else who was there. As I said no one to my knowledge expressed publicly at the time – either before or after the Q&A session - that they were concerned about the change in the agenda. Having heard the candidate speeches first hand, I can say it didn’t change my own voting preference. As for everyone else, well, you would need to poll them. It certainly wasn’t my intention to commit any form of skulduggery.

Which brings me to my final point. If my response sounds narky, that’s because I’m really disappointed in the undercurrent (whether you intended it or not) that there was something more or undeclared in my request to the meeting chair. I note your comments on this thread and also the way you have framed the relevant paragraph in your story.

‘According to Same Same’s source at the AGM, in an unusual turn of events, former Chair Marcus Bourget suggested that questions from the floor be deferred until after the election of the new board. It was only after this that Steph Sands admitted, after a lengthy Q&A session, that the parade party split was in fact the result of a scheduling error, an issue that New Mardi Gras had vehemently denied up until now.’

Factually correct yes but with an undeniable undercurrent that something more was afoot. I find it disappointing that you would take this angle and I’m especially fucked off with the insinuation (whether intended or not) regarding my own honesty and motives and a potential collusion with Steph's announcement. I can categorically state this was not the case.

Irrespective of the fact that Same Same updates stories that are published, I also find it disappointing and pretty piss poor professionally that, having sent me an email asking for a response, that you would publish the story without allowing me a decent amount of time to respond to your questions - especially given the insinuations.

Regards

Marcus

[danny corvini]

Yes, they fucked up (and David Imrie should be quite ashamed of himself for blatantly lying to the public he sought to represent). However, Mardi Gras could falter and die without our support, so for 2010 at least we may as well enjoy the experience of the parade and party being over two weekends....

[Barrin]

I was at the meeting, there was substantial discussion about the parade/party split before the election. I can't for the life of me believe there were any revelations in the later Q & A that would have altered anybodies vote. As with most electoral/political situations the discussions probably reinforced the opinions people walked in with rather than influenced them to change their mind.

[Christian Taylor]

Originally Posted by Marcus Bourget

I received the following email from Christian Taylor at 11.36am seeking my response to a few questions arising from last night’s NMG AGM. Seeing as Travis’ first post to the thread occurred at 12.04pm that gave me 28 minutes to read and answer Christian’s email. Unfortunately, I have been in a management meeting until now but take the time now to answer the email.

Seeing as Christian couldn’t be bothered to wait for my reply before publishing his story, I’ll respond publicly.

Christian’s email read as follows:-

“Hey Marcus,

Hope you're well.

I am writing up a story about last night's AGM and our source who was there last night said that you suggested that voting on the new board took place before questions were taken from members.

If this is the case, I'm curious:

1. as to why you suggested this?
2. if this is the way AGM's normally run? Is this unusual?
3. if you feel that this move favoured the previous board, given that it later came out from Steph that the parade / party split was infact a cover up? This could have certainly affected voting.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.”

My response

“Dear Christian,

It seems a little odd that you would want to write an article about the NMG and not attend the event in person. Perhaps you were unable to attend. However your ‘source’ seems to have provided you with very little information as to the circumstances behind my request which I think were self evident to all and sundry who attended.

To answer your questions

1. as to why you suggested this?

Following the debate regarding the proposed constitutional change regarding membership consultation, which took the meeting to approximately 8.30 – 8.45 Tony Knight made the comment that the Studio at NIDA was only available till 11pm. At that point, having experience of just how long the vote counting process can take, I moved a point of order to suggest that we move to the candidate speeches and election as the next agenda item to allow the returning officer, company secretary and myself (who were responsible for the vote counting) to start the counting process in order to be able to announce the results prior to the end of the meeting.

This suggestion was put to the meeting by the chair of the meeting. No objections were moved from the floor and the suggestion was adopted. Specifically, no one suggested that the general questions on the Chairman’s report be heard before the election.

As it stood, it meant we were able to announce the election results at 10.45pm, 15 minutes before we had to leave building.

2. if this is the way AGM's normally run? Is this unusual?

I’m not sure what you mean by this question. As people who were in attendance last night can confirm several points of order were raised on a number of issues. It’s all part and parcel of the AGM process.

3. if you feel that this move favoured the previous board, given that it later came out from Steph that the parade / party split was infact a cover up? This could have certainly affected voting.

Unfortunately, I was back of house counting votes during the General Q&A session so I didn’t hear Steph’s comments. Could the decision have favoured the board? Well that’s a question for everyone else who was there. As I said no one to my knowledge expressed publicly at the time – either before or after the Q&A session - that they were concerned about the change in the agenda. Having heard the candidate speeches first hand, I can say it didn’t change my own voting preference. As for everyone else, well, you would need to poll them. It certainly wasn’t my intention to commit any form of skulduggery.

Which brings me to my final point. If my response sounds narky, that’s because I’m really disappointed in the undercurrent (whether you intended it or not) that there was something more or undeclared in my request to the meeting chair. I note your comments on this thread and also the way you have framed the relevant paragraph in your story.

‘According to Same Same’s source at the AGM, in an unusual turn of events, former Chair Marcus Bourget suggested that questions from the floor be deferred until after the election of the new board. It was only after this that Steph Sands admitted, after a lengthy Q&A session, that the parade party split was in fact the result of a scheduling error, an issue that New Mardi Gras had vehemently denied up until now.’

Factually correct yes but with an undeniable undercurrent that something more was afoot. I find it disappointing that you would take this angle and I’m especially fucked off with the insinuation (whether intended or not) regarding my own honesty and motives and a potential collusion with Steph's announcement. I can categorically state this was not the case.

Irrespective of the fact that Same Same updates stories that are published, I also find it disappointing and pretty piss poor professionally that, having sent me an email asking for a response, that you would publish the story without allowing me a decent amount of time to respond to your questions - especially given the insinuations.

Regards

Marcus

My apologies for upsetting you Marcus - it was not my intention, and I apologise for how this came across in the story. I did have to make a decision to publish before hearing back from you because of time constraints, but I should have double checked the paragraph you cite above. I will amend, and again my apologies.

[Marcus Bourget]

Apology accepted and thank you for amending the article.

[bindieye]

glad we're sorted out. Very civilised, all.
But the split event weekend(s) is FUCKED UP.
Such a terrible, terrible shame after a long history of great parade and parties!!!!

[Joal]

Originally Posted by bindieye

glad we're sorted out. Very civilised, all.
But the split event weekend(s) is FUCKED UP.
Such a terrible, terrible shame after a long history of great parade and parties!!!!

I think change is always a good thing. Maybe the split will be amazing? Two weekends of outrageous parties? But, yes, they shouldn't have lied.

[TheOldie]

Well I have friends from inter-state that stay with me and they have already said
its the Party weekend only for them. No Parade.
They dont want to stay an extra week in Sydney and dont want to be paying out for
2 lots of airfares ie one for each weekend.

Us Sydneysiders can do the 2 weekends but tourists may have to make a decision on which weekend to be here.

[JoshOnTheBus]

Apologies if this sounds like a 'sore loser' response, but I definitely would've voted differently had the omission come before the election. And I'm doubtful I'd be the only one.

[Barrin]

Why? And exactly what was said after the election that made a difference?

[JoshOnTheBus]

Originally Posted by Barrin

Why? And exactly what was said after the election that made a difference?

It was only after the election that the 'former' board admitted they had lied to their members about the party/parade split for six months.

[Barrin]

I think you're being a bit naive. Way back in May when the story broke David Imrie was asked directly if there was a scheduling error and he denied it. At Wednesdays meeting Steph Sands clearly stated it was a scheduling error. "Cock-up" was the term she used. That was well before the election. I assumed everyone went into that meeting knowing that the board had been withholding information from us. The only question I have is did David Imrie take it upon himself to be blatantly dishonest or was he voicing a position the whole board had decided to adopt? Either way it wouldn't have changed my vote.

[JoshOnTheBus]

Originally Posted by Barrin

I think you're being a bit naive. Way back in May when the story broke David Imrie was asked directly if there was a scheduling error and he denied it. At Wednesdays meeting Steph Sands clearly stated it was a scheduling error. "Cock-up" was the term she used. That was well before the election. I assumed everyone went into that meeting knowing that the board had been withholding information from us. The only question I have is did David Imrie take it upon himself to be blatantly dishonest or was he voicing a position the whole board had decided to adopt? Either way it wouldn't have changed my vote.

I appreciate your feedback, Barrin.

But I also think that had the board revealed they had been actively deceiving their members before requesting their proxy votes, the outcome maybe - just maybe - would've been a bit different.

[Barrin]

Are you aware Josh that virtually all those proxy votes were for just one of the candidates? I think that reveals more about him than the outgoing board. I was there to support two friends who were candidates - only one was successful. I also cast a vote for you and Mohamed because you both impressed me with your speeches. But like so often in elections it's what you're voting against rather than voting for.... In other words if the mardi gras parade ends up on William Street I had no influence in it!

[crazzymikey]

I think everyone is forgetting that mardi gra does not just belong to them, but to all of us! It is not their job to lie and deceive the community on major cock ups or changes. We have just as much right to know the truth from the beginning! They have lost all credibility now as they are lying, irresponsible fools. I certainly will think twice about believing anything they say for now on. This could very well be the year that wrecked mardi gra as a tourist attraction.

[si_mon80]

look, I understand that people are pissed off about the parade / party split and about being lied to and all the associated issues that go with it. it's an entirely valid response. but here's the thing - at the agm, the board answered every question with as much detail as they possibly could without breaching their obligations as directors to their commercial partners. steph did a really, really good job. there's nothing that can be done now about the split and each member of the new board indicated on the night that their focus from here on in will be consultation with the members and the wider community. this was clearly demonstrated by their full support of the constitutional amendment that was ultimately voted against by the members. the board could not have been clearer about their intentions.

and now that all that has happened, we have to focus on this - the Sydney community, although prominent, is actually quite small compared to some gay communities around the world and the only truly community wide gay event we have is Mardi Gras. it doesn't matter how many new parties or events are put on throughout the year, Mardi Gras is it. it's the focus of our community's recent history and every year it reminds me of how truly fortunate I am to be a gay man in this city. and so we need to all put the negativity behind us - that means individual members of the community and the gay media, even if sometimes scandal makes a better story - and irrespective of whether we think the split is a good idea, make sure that the end result is an awesome Mardi Gras. the only way to do that is to ensure that every gay man and woman we know becomes a member of Mardi Gras, volunteers for Mardi Gras and goes to as many Mardi Gras events as possible, so that even if it does look like there will be fewer interstate and international visitors because of the split (which we don't even know is the case) there are more than enough locals to make up the difference.

it's really easy to criticise. sometimes, that criticism is totally valid. but often, that criticism is made for its own sake and serves no-one's purpose but the person making the criticism. now that the parade / party split issues have been addressed, let's all start actively and postively contributing to the organisation that from the number of posts on this issue, is clearly hugely important to so many people.

[jayboy]

it will be interesting to see how the split thing works, cause like it or not, it's now a fact, and maybe it will be a good thing and stay!! I never went to both the parade and party cause it was impossible to do both, but now i can!!