Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AGM Proposal: SGM notice periods and running of SGM meetings
OK Jim. Partly right. So partial apology follows.. Smile

First though, I wasn’t making ‘an allegation’ as such Jim. My point was meant to be that the CWP shouldn’t have had this flexibility - not to blame you for using it.

You are right in that the first part of what I said IS wrong. I thought it (ability to tactically vote down one of your own sections) flowed from management having the proxy totals. But the ability to use the proxies to vote tactically only arose because they hadn’t already been counted – NOT because the CWP had a count of them (though management did), but because the members didn’t. Apologies for the inaccuracy and any aspersions taken, though none meant – my comments relate to the process with the happenings of the SGM as illustrations.

“Management did not pull any section out. The one section that was pulled (Eligibility) I personally proposed it without consultation of the CWP, or anyone else, and this proposal was seconded by a non CWP member which the SGM then approved. I decided this, of my own volition, since I felt there was some confusion created by the uncertainty of the FIDE 'SCO' code at the meeting and this was sufficient grounds for my proposal take it out Eligibility and have a rethink.”

Hamish suggested it first and you offered to propose it. Perhaps you missed it, but Andy told us a few days later the proxy totals for my amendment on eligibility (19 vs 4). There were only 14 people at the meeting – the eligibility section of the Constitution was pretty much doomed from the start. It could of course be that the right hand (the president) didn’t know what the left hand (the exec director) was doing or seeing (sorry, mixed metaphor!). I’m not actually making that accusation – they were able to pull it, and effectively did by us not having the proxy vote totals. The situation couldn’t occur if enough time was allocated to each stage of the process (as per my proposal) as then the proxy totals for the amendments would probably not even need to exist and in any case total votes cast for amendments would have been already published (assuming this isn’t illegal!).

“Management did not remit it to themselves, it was returned to the originators (CWP + Walter Buchanan) for rework and reintroduction at a later date either as an Operating Procedure or possibly an addition to the Constitution. No timescale was set.”

Thanks – bit in brackets not appeared in the minutes yet though....the Operating Procedures bit (disputed that this was said) was the long-argued attempt to place the criteria for the determination of ‘Scottishness’ under management control. My amendment intended to place this determination with the membership. Despite this being effectively voted for, it's not there yet Jim is it? Sad Smile

To John McNicholl

Hi again John, you asked:

“Oh, and how do you publish proxy vote totals before the vote is called for?”

I wrote:

“1. No need to take it as read John - the proposal suggests ‘on the CS website’ does it not?
2. Not the total number of proxy votes, the totals – John the proposal does say “Proxy vote totals shall be published”.

So yes, the totals for amendments and resulting effects on motions. Perhaps total votes outcomes of amendments would be better - thanks.”

Sorry John, I mistook your first question as being separate - about how they would be published. You didn’t mean that, of course!

But you then explain what you do mean – i.e., what totals?

My proposal says in the note:

“Day 21 Proxy votes in on the amended proposals.”

and says

“Proxy vote totals shall be published (eg on the CS Noticeboard) at least one day before the meeting.”

You are asking, is it just

(i) the total number of proxy votes,
(ii) the number of proxies for each amendment ,
(iii) the number of proxies for and against each motion

My response:

(i) Already answered – no, motion says totals.
(ii) There aren’t really proxies FOR amendments as people are voting electronically and have a week to see them. If there were some small number of these for some reason they would be of little interest. So, no.
(iii) Yes that’s what I meant.

The main thing I was trying to achieve is a clean, final vote on clear proposals (that are free from any further amendments in advance of the meeting) with any counts known to everyone.

Thanks for input.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)