Page 1 of 3
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:50 am
by justmalc
Having just received the summer newsletter I thought now might be the time to discuss the proposed changes.
As discussed earlier I am in favour of almost all the proposed changes but have some concern about;
1. Proxy rather than postal voting.
2. The proposal to deny members access to the minutes of Council meetings and,
3. The proposed number of Council Members - although the new proposal of nine members seems fine.
I'd like clarification on some statements made in the news letter if possible please.
On page 2 the news letter states that "These updates must be accepted if the DCS is to be inline (sic) with the 2006 Companies Act." The words "must be accepted" are underlined in the text for emphasis. Can anyone tell me - Is this true? Which elements are currently illegal. Surely not all proposed changes fall within this category? Is this statement untrue?
On page 2 under proxy voting the newsletter states "postal voting is open to manipulation". Please can anyone tell me how this is the case? Proxy voting relies on finding someone who is going to the meeting in question. Postal voting allows everyone to vote.
Will the EGM be able to vote on changes individually or will it be a block yes or no?
The format of Council paragraph states that 3 of the steering committee are willing to stand for Council for a 1 year term - please can you explain the benefits of this proposal and confirm that other members can also choose to stand for a one year term?
I hope that we can discuss these issues with some degree of calm.
Malcolm Robinson
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:45 pm
by Rutherford
Justmalc, I am all for discussion here, but if you are asking for definitive answers to your questions you should be writing to the steering committee.
Beryl (Woodmagic)
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:56 pm
by justmalc
Beryl,
Thanks, you may be right. I just thought that there may be others interested in these points and happy to discuss the pros and cons of the issues coming up for vote. I think that many of the steering committee are members of this site anyway - although I think we can all discuss the issues. Don't you have a view on any of these issues you're willing to share with us please?
Regards,
Malcolm.
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:28 pm
by Chris Downward
Malc,
I agree with your comments in the main;
I am always suspicious if someone tells me that this must be done because it is the law-------it could be the case but it normally means something else--in this case probably not but I don't knoe.
1. I would much prefer postal to proxy---I would say that proxy is more open to manipulation than postal--------anyway who on earth is going to do this? ---is there a Dexter mafia at work trying to subvertthe whole process? --if so they should get out more!!
2. Why any sort of secrecy? --I see no point in it--if I am helping to pay a salary why should I not now what it is?
3. We must be able to vote on line items, not just a blanket vote.
4. I don't understand this "I will stand for just 1 year" thing. My answer is stand or don't, the silly nonsense of "I'll only do a little bit" is daft-------it is like the PM saying i only want to be elected for 1 year?--nonsense.
Lets have clear elections with no weird arguments--if there is a problem let the new council sort it out-----I think I said this 6 months ago.
Are you standing for election?
regards
Chris
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:58 am
by Rutherford
I stand by my original response, I have virtually no knowledge of the Companies Act, and I do know the Steering Committee spent weeks working through our Constitution painstakingly with the aid of legal advice. Are they the ‘mafia trying to subvert the process’ Chris? I know I have bred more Dexters than anyone else using this site, and therefore would claim to know something on the subject, and I am happy to immerse myself in it. Where my knowledge isn’t so great I reckon it is better to defer to someone who does know. All the points raised by justmalc have been extensively examined by the SC, and they have come up with reasoned answers, if they are to be discussed further here, I suggest a sensible starting point would be the reasons they settled on those answers. We will not then be going over old ground.
Far from criticising the offer to stand for one year, the attitude of some makes me wonder at their forbearance. I would point out that it allows for the gradual replacement that you need for future elections, and provides some continuity.
Beryl (Woodmagic)
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:14 pm
by Broomcroft
I'm not on the SC and I didn't see the letter until it dropped through my letterbox, but I think I know the answers to the key questions.
Proxy voting was the preference of the DCS lawyers. They said steer clear of postal voting. That could be just because they have experienced problems. To me, postal sounds much easier but either way at least everyone will have a vote instead of just the people who've got the time and ability to turn up physically at meetings. Beryl will have a vote......at the moment she doesn't, and I will, and effectively I don't at the moment either. Even if you prefer postal (and I do also), I would get the new rules in and then it is easier to change to postal next year. That's what I feel. I've thought of it as a two-stage process.
Deny members minutes I don't know the detail or how it developed but the intention was just to allow privacy on sensitive issues; i.e. issues that if public could harm the society or an individual for example (as a director/trustee it is against the law to do something that could harm the society). This is where the main conflict is with the law I feel.
Reduced Numbers was largely to keep costs down and give the ability to realistically teleconference and perhaps ease decision-making a little. Teleconferencing reduces costs, and I think allows or indeed encourages people from further afield to become trustees.
The society needs to get it's costs down. I am working on accounts and financial planning as we speak and these plans will help make the elected council make decisions instead of walking round in the dark. The plans aren't just adding up; they are trying to take into account the possible effects of (for example), the drop off in bull registrations which we have discussed on this board hopefully to great benefit of the DCS.
No doubt I'll be corrected if I've got something wrong again 
.
Edited By Broomcroft on 1216037779
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:45 pm
by Sylvia
I don't fell qualified to comment on this given my current circumstances, but taking a general commonsense view I can't see a problem with postal voting (quite the reverse) if fact. Transparency seems essential, things should be seen to be done properly. Secrecy allows conspiracy rumours to multiply. Every club needs to watch its expenses and keep costs down as far as possible, a good committee of 7 is more acceptable than an indifferent one of 12 or whatever. If any of these clash with the legal position it is very unfortunate and, back to transparency, members need to be told exactly why.
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:59 pm
by CarolineL
As a new member I have found the Steering Committee/Council discussions rather overwhelming but would like to offer my unbiased, just-come-into-it opinion:
1. When you have livestock it is sometimes difficult to get to AGM's if they are not local to you, and as a new member without contacts in the breed society (other than this forum) who would you get to act as Proxy? With postal voting at least everyone gets a chance to have a vote.
2. Can't see any need for not allowing members access to minutes - put them somewhere secure like a members only section of the DCS website - can't imagine a member of the DCS would want to cause harm to the society by distributing sensitive info. Transparency has to be a good thing.
3. If reducing the number on the SC to 9 reduces costs while still keeping a broad range of knowledge it sounds like a good plan.
I do hope the Steering Committee/Council issues can be sorted so the DCS can focus on promoting the delicious Dexters we all love! And good luck and best wishes to all those involved in the Steering Committee/Council for moving things forward.
Thanks
Caroline
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:17 pm
by CarolineL
Having just re-read my post it seems I'm not quite clear on the difference between the Steering Committee and the Council.
Can anyone advise about the difference or direct me where I can find the info?
Thank you!
Caroline
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:13 pm
by Chris Downward
Beryl,
The point I make about "stand or don't stand" I think is still valid. We currently have a society that probably in reality isn't divided but when it comes to A/EGm's cannot pass changes. The only way for this to change is to have elections that are plain and simple, no pre ordained agendas, no "I will only stand if"--just plain simple elections.
The point I made about a mafia refers to nobody but it does seem as though half the society think the other half is out to subvert matters and that everything has an underlying plot!
Finally I stress again that postal voting is far more suitable than proxy voting--who would I ask to vote on my behalf unless it was a totally independant person--all seems far too complicated--give me a question, ask me to vote, i'll pay for the stamp--then we count up the numbers.
I shall really be glad when this is all over.
regards
chris
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:24 pm
by Pennielea
I have not yet had a news letter but as we have had a bank holiday weekend without post until Wed. that is probably why.
On the subject of proxy voting. Every PLC in the country has an AGM just as the Society does. Every shareholder of that company is invited to attend or to appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf, which is proposed for the Society. Why there is not a straightforward postal vote, I do not know. And I have searched the Companies Act and cannot find the relevant part but there are something like 1400 paragraphs.
You may appoint someone of your choice to vote on your behalf or the Chairman of the meeting which is the common practice. That person must vote as instructed, yes,no or abstain on each resolution proposed. It is in effect a postal vote.
I was sceptical about some of the proposals at the EGM and I am sure will continue to be when I finally receive them, but on this issue of Proxies I am satisfied.
Ian
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:57 am
by AlastairC
This is brilliant. We seem to be having a rational discussion without the personal abuse. There must be hope for the Society after all.
My real four penerth(?) is to be in favour of postal voting. I would be very happy to try and take a more positive role in the workings of the Society but have none of time knowledge experience or expertise to offer. But, offered a vote, I would use it to the best of my ability. Mind that our wonderful Government has found that postal voting still doesn't get them the answers they want and might lead to bribery and corruption - or something like that. I am sure that a reasonable level of secuity would be needed
Alastair Cook
Austwick, North Yorkshire
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:22 am
by Rutherford
Chris, what I don’t appreciate is how you propose to retire them. If you have those three standing for one year, that will actually mean they will have served for two, it gives the opportunity for three to be elected in their place the following year. If all are to be elected for three years, they are all retiring together. It can be done on the basis of vote numbers of course, but in the first instance I would have thought the preference was for all to have served a minimum of two. One year really doesn’t give time to provide much input.
Beryl (Woodmagic)
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:30 am
by AlisonKirk
Whatever was put forward in the revised Constitution, there will always be someone out there saying something should be done differently. That's only human nature. The work of the Steering Committee during these past months and the revised Consitution provide a platform for the future. Nothing is set in stone.
Take a look at your own businesses, work, home life, whatever. At the outset, routines, plans and systems have to be in place - we all have a starting point. Further down the line we may decide to change the way we operate to ensure efficiency or go with the flow (and as we're all involved in livestock this happens too regularly with new rules and regulations!). It may only be a minor adjustment, but it may make life easier.
The Steering Committee have taken advantage of modern technology by holding teleconference meetings and using e-mail to communicate. This is certainly the way forward and a huge difference from the Council meetings Rob used to attend in the late 1990's, when it meant a whole day away from the farm and me having to take a day off work to feed stock and during the spring be midwife to sheep and cattle!
Those members who have strong views should seriously consider putting their names forward for Council.
Alison Kirk
Boram Dexters
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:16 am
by Saffy
I don't think it matters greatly if it is decided on a postal or a proxy vote, I certainly won't complain either way although I would find postal easier.
However may I suggest this - if a postal vote is going to be much easier to organise for the uninitiated like me and would mean many more people bothering to vote - does that make it a better option simply for that reason?
Stephanie