08-08-2015, 07:37 PM
I'm going to have my tuppence worth now. In my experience this proposal, as it stands, should probably be declared incompetent due to being improperly worded and lacking sufficient detail to allow a discussion to take.
As to why, lets take the 7 day period for discussing amendments, at least 7 days shorter than now ( why so rushed?) which would mean, as I see it, there is no point in discussing any actual proposals until it is known how many or any amendments are to be proposed. And then only another 7 days to discuss any approved amendments before the proxy has to be registered, again 7 days shorter than what we have now, at least.
Then we have a vote. But there is no detail as to how we would have a vote. Is it electronic, snail mail, or an actual meeting? if the latter then surely this a waste of effort.
In my research of broadly similar organisations and their constitutions ( a surprising number are actually registered as companies) I can find no other precedent for this extra meeting. I would wish a lot more detail than it just being something that popped into someone's head. I want to know exactly why an extra meeting or vote improves the process.
I read the first vote as a vote which does not allow proxy votes, unless it is a SGM of some description, no, wait, can't be needs 4 weeks notice, so no proxies allowed? Why not? Very undemocratic. If proxies are to be allowed then the motion should say so, you cannot take anything as read.
Oh, and how do you publish proxy vote totals before the vote is called for? Or is this something else that has been taken as read, is it just the total number of proxy votes, the number of proxies for each amendment , the number of proxies for and against each motion, oh wait, can't be that that's illegal.
I fail to see any advantage to any of these scenarios
I also note that the things like time limits and such like only apply to SGM, why not AGM as well?
You shouldn't really have different ways to run what is essentially the same type of meeting.
That stuff should all be in the Standing Orders we don't have, preferring to bloat the constitution instead, but that's another issue.
As to why, lets take the 7 day period for discussing amendments, at least 7 days shorter than now ( why so rushed?) which would mean, as I see it, there is no point in discussing any actual proposals until it is known how many or any amendments are to be proposed. And then only another 7 days to discuss any approved amendments before the proxy has to be registered, again 7 days shorter than what we have now, at least.
Then we have a vote. But there is no detail as to how we would have a vote. Is it electronic, snail mail, or an actual meeting? if the latter then surely this a waste of effort.
In my research of broadly similar organisations and their constitutions ( a surprising number are actually registered as companies) I can find no other precedent for this extra meeting. I would wish a lot more detail than it just being something that popped into someone's head. I want to know exactly why an extra meeting or vote improves the process.
I read the first vote as a vote which does not allow proxy votes, unless it is a SGM of some description, no, wait, can't be needs 4 weeks notice, so no proxies allowed? Why not? Very undemocratic. If proxies are to be allowed then the motion should say so, you cannot take anything as read.
Oh, and how do you publish proxy vote totals before the vote is called for? Or is this something else that has been taken as read, is it just the total number of proxy votes, the number of proxies for each amendment , the number of proxies for and against each motion, oh wait, can't be that that's illegal.
I fail to see any advantage to any of these scenarios
I also note that the things like time limits and such like only apply to SGM, why not AGM as well?
You shouldn't really have different ways to run what is essentially the same type of meeting.
That stuff should all be in the Standing Orders we don't have, preferring to bloat the constitution instead, but that's another issue.