Was anyone there?
What happened?
AGM
Re: AGM
I wasn't there. I've tried to find out how the voting on the motions went, but I can't find it on the CTC web-site.
I'm not all that competent with web-sites, so there could be something that I don't know, but I've clicked on everything that I think could be relevant............and it isn't.
I've e-mailed CTC asking for the information, but no response so far. Mind you, it was less than an hour ago!
Perhaps there should be an award for the first member who wasn't at the AGM to find out how the voting went?
I'm not all that competent with web-sites, so there could be something that I don't know, but I've clicked on everything that I think could be relevant............and it isn't.
I've e-mailed CTC asking for the information, but no response so far. Mind you, it was less than an hour ago!
Perhaps there should be an award for the first member who wasn't at the AGM to find out how the voting went?
Re: AGM
I had this reply (below) to my query :
"......the details and results of last Saturday’s AGM.......my appropriate colleagues currently working on preparing it for publication on our website and any other relevant forms of media.
It will be available on our website over the coming days If it has not appeared by close of business tomorrow, then it will be the early part of next week.
Alternatively, or in addition, please let me know if you would like me to drop you a line to confirm when it is available".
Can't say fairer than that, can we?
"......the details and results of last Saturday’s AGM.......my appropriate colleagues currently working on preparing it for publication on our website and any other relevant forms of media.
It will be available on our website over the coming days If it has not appeared by close of business tomorrow, then it will be the early part of next week.
Alternatively, or in addition, please let me know if you would like me to drop you a line to confirm when it is available".
Can't say fairer than that, can we?
Re: AGM
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: AGM
The detailed results indicate, inter alia that in motions 5 and 7 the sum total of votes actually cast 'for' the motion exceeded the votes 'against''
The chairman used the votes vested in him to reverse the vote and defeat the motions.
I submit that the only indication available to the meeting of the wishes of the membership was the votes of those who had (bothered to) voted. The chairman knowingly used the votes vested in him to defeat those motions against the wishes of the members, as far as those wishes were available to him.
That's all legal and constitutional, it's all above board, no suggestion of anything improper - but particularly in the case of Motion No. 5, I believe that we will all eventually regret it.
I've beefed and bellyached about this method of defeating motions previously, and it's boring and probably aggravating for others. With the caveat that I don't know what is the point of voting, I will not post along these lines again. There is no point. My personal conclusion is that this is no longer a member organisation.
Adios.
The chairman used the votes vested in him to reverse the vote and defeat the motions.
I submit that the only indication available to the meeting of the wishes of the membership was the votes of those who had (bothered to) voted. The chairman knowingly used the votes vested in him to defeat those motions against the wishes of the members, as far as those wishes were available to him.
That's all legal and constitutional, it's all above board, no suggestion of anything improper - but particularly in the case of Motion No. 5, I believe that we will all eventually regret it.
I've beefed and bellyached about this method of defeating motions previously, and it's boring and probably aggravating for others. With the caveat that I don't know what is the point of voting, I will not post along these lines again. There is no point. My personal conclusion is that this is no longer a member organisation.
Adios.
Re: AGM
The chair's direction of votes have been hotly debated before.
I view it like this: anyone who hands over their vote to the chair is either saying "I trust you to do what is best" or "I don't understand the issue/can't spare the time to look into it, so I will trust the chair to vote as he sees fit". Thus, IMHO (YMMV) the chair should cast these votes as he feels is correct in his opinion as that is what the voters have asked him to do.
It has been argued that the chair ought to cast these votes according to the way that the majority of those who have actually used their own vote have gone, but I do not believe that this is the understanding of those who give the chair the power to direct their vote when they elect to do so.
Thus I see nothing wrong with what the chair does. If we do get the wrong decision on any issue then it could be argued that it is either the fault of a system that allows the chair to do this, however, I would say that it is really the fault of those voters who either didn't bother voting or couldn't be bothered to understand the issues and cast their vote the 'correct' way. However, defining what the "wrong decision" is is another kettle of worms...and just because you or I might not agree with a decision does not make it wrong.
I should declare an interest - I know the chair, and very much respect him although I don't necessarily agree with all of his views....but he does tend to talk a lot of sense.
I view it like this: anyone who hands over their vote to the chair is either saying "I trust you to do what is best" or "I don't understand the issue/can't spare the time to look into it, so I will trust the chair to vote as he sees fit". Thus, IMHO (YMMV) the chair should cast these votes as he feels is correct in his opinion as that is what the voters have asked him to do.
It has been argued that the chair ought to cast these votes according to the way that the majority of those who have actually used their own vote have gone, but I do not believe that this is the understanding of those who give the chair the power to direct their vote when they elect to do so.
Thus I see nothing wrong with what the chair does. If we do get the wrong decision on any issue then it could be argued that it is either the fault of a system that allows the chair to do this, however, I would say that it is really the fault of those voters who either didn't bother voting or couldn't be bothered to understand the issues and cast their vote the 'correct' way. However, defining what the "wrong decision" is is another kettle of worms...and just because you or I might not agree with a decision does not make it wrong.
I should declare an interest - I know the chair, and very much respect him although I don't necessarily agree with all of his views....but he does tend to talk a lot of sense.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: AGM
Anybody entitled to vote at a meeting can appoint a proxy and they can give them specific instructions or leave it to the proxy. I think it's fair to say that the usual reason for giving a proxy discretion is so that they can vote on things like amended motiuons where it would be impossible to give precise instructions because the detail of amendments is impossible to predict. ie Without this discretion - and remember this affects all proxies, not only the chair - then there might as well only be postal votes as an alternative to personal attendance.
Giving somebody discretion to act as they think fit means pretty much that. I believe there are some rules about how a chair should cast a "casting" vote to decide a tie, which I believe means they have to preserve the status quo but this is quite different.
FWIW, I think it's time to recognise that the decision to convert to a charity was taken some time ago, it's irreversible so anybody who doesn't like it has to live with it or move on.
Giving somebody discretion to act as they think fit means pretty much that. I believe there are some rules about how a chair should cast a "casting" vote to decide a tie, which I believe means they have to preserve the status quo but this is quite different.
FWIW, I think it's time to recognise that the decision to convert to a charity was taken some time ago, it's irreversible so anybody who doesn't like it has to live with it or move on.
Re: AGM
Si wrote:It has been argued that the chair ought to cast these votes according to the way that the majority of those who have actually used their own vote have gone, but I do not believe that this is the understanding of those who give the chair the power to direct their vote when they elect to do so.
Would the chair know how others had voted before casting those votes invested in him?
If he did and there was an expectation that he would cast them in the same way as the already existing majority it would seem absolutely pointless to have them. I see handing your vote over to the chair as a vote of confidence and trust, and I think it somewhat disrespectful to those who did so to think they didn't know what they were doing. A quick look at the motions and it was entirely predictable which way the chair would vote, I thought the idea of letting him place them for you instead of doing so yourself was that if he heard something on the day that was persuasive enough to change his mind it was also likely to have changed yours.
Re: AGM
The way I see it is that Council published it's view on each resolution in the Agenda. This was circulated with the voting papers.
In past years the Chair has cast the discretionary votes vested in him in line with Council's published view. He did so again this year. I can't imagine that came as a great surprise to those who opted to give him that discretion, nor to anyone else.
In past years the Chair has cast the discretionary votes vested in him in line with Council's published view. He did so again this year. I can't imagine that came as a great surprise to those who opted to give him that discretion, nor to anyone else.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: AGM
I'd not expect them to.
The 2015 AGM agenda contains a section labelled Minutes of 2014 AGM. It's a summary of the resolutions and the votes cast.
Whilst a more comprehensive set of minutes may be available, I'd still expect it to be a summary of events rather than a verbatim report; "Chris Juden spoke to the meeting at length".
The 2015 AGM agenda contains a section labelled Minutes of 2014 AGM. It's a summary of the resolutions and the votes cast.
Whilst a more comprehensive set of minutes may be available, I'd still expect it to be a summary of events rather than a verbatim report; "Chris Juden spoke to the meeting at length".
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
