25-08-2013, 02:29 PM
Pat,
First of all, let me make clear I fully accept the results of the AGM elections yesterday.
However, there are questions that need to be answered.
How did the membership Secretary acquire 56 proxy votes? Did he collect them as MS? If he did, then the election should be void, as CS did not offer me the same opportunity to reach the membership. That does not make for a fair election.
Other CS officials also carried substantial proxy votes such as the treasurer.
I myself carried no proxy votes.
There is also the question of what instructions the Proxy carriers were given in regards to the agenda.
You also said that you think that this is an outstanding team to take CS forward. I cannot agree with this. The only one I was impressed with was David Deary. The others definitely not, in particular the new IJD. When asked about alcohol yesterday in relation to a head of delegation drinking, he said it was ok in moderation.
That was a horrifying response to the question.
The meeting was very poorly handled by the President. He allowed the MS to tell a member to shut up when he tried to question him. The President should have ruled the MS out of order for saying that, but he did not.
He also suggested that the MS should be a member of the working party for the reform of the constitution,
I raised an objection and to his credit the MS withdrew.
I suspect that there will be an attempt to re install him on the working party.
The treatment meted out to Andy Muir was disgraceful. It was the exact same as I endured at the AGM in 2009. To me this shows that CS in generally intolerant of those who speak their own minds.
The elections for the for individual members were a total farce. The people nominated were nominated as individuals but were voted as pairs. This procedure was a disgrace and destroys the credibility of CS.
The Standards Committee : This committee in my view has no credibility as long as directors and officials are serving on it. I have said this from the day it was formed, As long as they do, the decisions will be open to challenge. If the committee is to be independent, then it must also be seen to be independent and it will not be whilst we have the current situation.
The agenda was not presented in its original format.
First of all, let me make clear I fully accept the results of the AGM elections yesterday.
However, there are questions that need to be answered.
How did the membership Secretary acquire 56 proxy votes? Did he collect them as MS? If he did, then the election should be void, as CS did not offer me the same opportunity to reach the membership. That does not make for a fair election.
Other CS officials also carried substantial proxy votes such as the treasurer.
I myself carried no proxy votes.
There is also the question of what instructions the Proxy carriers were given in regards to the agenda.
You also said that you think that this is an outstanding team to take CS forward. I cannot agree with this. The only one I was impressed with was David Deary. The others definitely not, in particular the new IJD. When asked about alcohol yesterday in relation to a head of delegation drinking, he said it was ok in moderation.
That was a horrifying response to the question.
The meeting was very poorly handled by the President. He allowed the MS to tell a member to shut up when he tried to question him. The President should have ruled the MS out of order for saying that, but he did not.
He also suggested that the MS should be a member of the working party for the reform of the constitution,
I raised an objection and to his credit the MS withdrew.
I suspect that there will be an attempt to re install him on the working party.
The treatment meted out to Andy Muir was disgraceful. It was the exact same as I endured at the AGM in 2009. To me this shows that CS in generally intolerant of those who speak their own minds.
The elections for the for individual members were a total farce. The people nominated were nominated as individuals but were voted as pairs. This procedure was a disgrace and destroys the credibility of CS.
The Standards Committee : This committee in my view has no credibility as long as directors and officials are serving on it. I have said this from the day it was formed, As long as they do, the decisions will be open to challenge. If the committee is to be independent, then it must also be seen to be independent and it will not be whilst we have the current situation.
The agenda was not presented in its original format.