23-07-2015, 08:53 PM
Andy Howie Wrote:Just realised that we are talking about Section 16. I thought we were talking about section 5.
If this is the motion I think it was, if memory serves me correctly was it not suggested (by the chair?) that Dereks motion was not a proper motion, it was a list and only Walters could go through? The meeting voted on this and it was unanimous. I may have this mixed up with something else but that is my recollection.
Does this strike a chord Walter?
Um, not in Section 16 Andy. There was a criticism from the floor (Alan Borwell I think) that Derek’s Section 16 amendment (which was the status quo) had bad wording but this was only because he (Derek) had quoted from the existing list of criteria guidelines - which aren’t in the existing constitution, and were very roughly formed. The list was only there for information - of course they could not go straight in like that, but that was a minor problem. It would be kind of ridiculous to reject the status quo as improper because of its bad wording.
There was a unanimous vote on my amendment versus Derek's in favour of mine, but I don't believe that the proxies were referred to - this might have been an oversight of course.
What would help the present dispute that Derek has raised is to know how the proxies were distributed on Section 16 and the 2 amendments. Cheers