Posts: 1,000
Threads: 94
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
Until online voting comes in I suggest meeting on 21st May makes some decisions by a show of hands:
1. (a) current proxy system (b) impose a cap of 2-3 proxys per attendee.
2. (a) current 1 year term for directors (b) 3 year term
This will decide system in place for August AGM and to sign off the constitution.
Posts: 940
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
unfortunately proxy votes are a necessity due the large area covered by Chess Scotland. At the risk of chicken and the egg scenario , we need online voting in place and passed before it can be used, At the moment proxy votes are sent to the executive director and registered before the AGM. I havent heard any issue with this therefore the online voting issue isnt as important as the issue or the right of the person (proxee/delegate) carrying the proxy. What needs to be decided is whether the delegate represents the specific requests of the voter on specific agenda items by voting accordingly, or whether the delegate should also carry the voting of any items which may require voting on at the AGM. My understanding is that it is the latter which is the case, therefore there is no point going on about online voting although I personally would like to see introduced in a bid to engage more members.
If a member gives his vote to a delegate then he is trusting his delegate to vote accordingly. I have never seen a delegate to act inappropriately and the delegate wouldnt be allowed to anyway.
The basic question is whether a delegate be restricted to vote on agenda items alone assuming the voter has already instructed how to vote. In my opinion the voter , by giving his proxy to the delegate has indicated his level of trust to the delegate. The potential issue is that in the past that solicitation of votes has taken place. However that is the name of the game in politics and if its good enough for our democracy its good enough for Chess Scotland
Posts: 403
Threads: 57
Joined: Feb 2012
StevieHilton Wrote:George,
What is your solution about proxy votes?
we have heard nothing from you on this.
Personally I'd support onlne but, since you ask, I see no need for "a solution" because the current situation does not need fixing. Not one person who complained their their proxy has been misused. The only people complaining are the people who lost out in a vote.
Posts: 41
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
0
So proxy votes are operating as they should be and in line with best practice. Move on.
John Watkins
Posts: 41
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
0
The draft constitution states the following:
5. Voting
5.1. The following are each entitled to one vote at a general meeting, subject to the additional
regulations contained in 5.2 to 5.7
(i) Every Individual Member;
(ii) Every named eligible individual within a Family Membership
(iii) A single nominated representative of each member Club and Affiliate organisation.
5.2. Each member Club and Affiliate member may nominate a single representative to the Executive
Director at least 7 days before the general meeting.
5.3. Member voting rights, for all meetings, are not extended to:
(i) Members whose membership fee is in arrears by more than 1 month at the date of the
meeting.
(ii) Members who have joined within 2 weeks prior to the meeting date.
5.4. At COUNCIL, Board or Committee meetings, voting is restricted to members of COUNCIL or the
relevant Board or Committee and each member shall have only one vote unless under
circumstances defined within the appropriate operating procedures.
5.5. Votes may be cast in the following ways:
(i) by personal attendance at the meeting;
(ii) by on-line submission via a system established on the Chess Scotland website;
(iii) by proxy vote via a representative entitled to vote and in attendance at the meeting,
notified to the Executive Director at least 7 days beforehand.
5.6. Proxy votes are only valid in respect of specific motions or nominations, and may not be used
for purposes other than those for which the proxy is granted. Proxy votes may be transferred to
support a minor amendment agreed by the original proposer (or nominated deputy).
5.7. In the event of an equality of votes the chairman will have a casting vote, in addition to his
personal deliberative vote, to resolve the tie.
As someone who advises companies, charities and associations on their constitutions in their day job, the above ticks all the proper boxes from a democracy point of view. Move on.
John Watkins
