New Constitution - Debate on the proposed changes

AlisonKirk · Post by **AlisonKirk** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:46 am

Caroline

For details / history re Steering Committee visit: www.dextersteer.co.uk

Hope this will provide an answer to your posting yesterday.

Alison Kirk
Boram Dexters

Broomcroft · Post by **Broomcroft** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:17 am

Caroline - The SC and the Council are the same thing. The SC was called that simply to differentiate it from a normal, elected council. The Council is also the Board of Directors, and a trustee is a director. The society is both a limited company (not-for-profit) and a registered charity.

You asked who you would ask to act as proxy. What Ian (who advised on the rules) has said is that you can just send the proxy form into the office or wherever it says and ask the chairman of the meeting to cast your vote for you and he or she must vote as you direct. Or you can chose someone else who is going to the meeting if you prefer. So it is a postal vote.

monica waltho · Post by **monica waltho** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:00 pm

So why not have a postal vote? We elect the council with a postal vote so what is the difference?

CarolineL · Post by **CarolineL** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:53 pm

Thank you Alison, Clive for info on the Steering Committe/Council.
Thank you also Ian, Clive for clarification on Proxy voting - if we can send our vote to the DCS for the Chairman to act as proxy that sounds a good compromise.
Caroline

justmalc · Post by **justmalc** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:36 pm

Thanks for the debate everyone.

One thing occurs to me though - Is there any option/mechanism for changing the current draft (for example proxy to postal or allowing access to minutes) or is the current version now unchangeable ahead of the vote?

Malcolm.

Pennielea · Post by **Pennielea** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:41 pm

Good question Malcom. Anything can be changed if the will is there in the Steering Committee to do so. The draft you refer to is I presume the one on the DCS website which was voted on and turned down at the EGM in May. At present there are no formal proposals as these will not be finalised until they appear as proposed resolutions in the formal notice of business to be considered at the EGM on 11th October. It would appear from the Summer Newsletter (which has finally arrived) and as you pointed out, that the proposals will take a different format, whether the content differs from that which was turned down remains to be seen.

Ian

Broomcroft · Post by **Broomcroft** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:13 am

I thought the type of proxy voting in the rules was in effect a postal vote. i.e. you just send your card into the office for the chairman (or whoever) to vote as you direct, unless you want to nominate someone else who was going to carry your vote. I believe the DCS lawyers were against a normal postal system, so would a change be an unnecessary hurdle to cross? Don't want to be negative, just thinking of the cost of a change and what the benefit is.

Edited By Broomcroft on 1216365268

Rutherford · Post by **Rutherford** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:58 pm

I am open to correction but I understood from the circular that there would now be three votes: legalities, proxy voting and Council numbers.
In common with many I would have preferred a postal vote, but proxy as outlined is that adopted by many institutions and would at least give better representation than the present position, where decisions are taken on the vote of no more than a tenth of the total membership.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:59 am

With proxy voting I hope there is another option from that mentioned above where a member can give a voting right to someone else to cast after hearing any arguments/debate on the subject in question. There may be issues bought up at the meeting that could effect the way people would vote, those not attending would not hear of this until it was to late as their vote would already be counted.
This is why I am against a postal vote as some will be less informed than others and could vote in ignorance of the issues in question.

Rutherford · Post by **Rutherford** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:45 am

Martin my sentiments are similar, and I therefore would have preferred a postal vote. A lot depends on posing the questions correctly and Canada does this very well, I felt even on the other side of the pond I could have made an informed vote.
I understand the proxy vote will not allow for manoeuvre; but if it did, with the vastly increased membership today, many newer members will not know anyone attending well enough to feel secure in leaving them to make a decision on their behalf.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

Peter thornton · Post by **Peter thornton** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:54 pm

I believe that proxy voting can be set up to allow the person with the vote to ask someone else to either:
1. Cast the vote in a particular way.
or
2. Listen to the debate and decide which way to cast the vote.

Clearly, if you went for option 2 then you would have to have a lot of trust in the person casting your vote whereas option 1 is a mere matter of procedure. Voters using option 1 will often give their proxy to the chairman.

Pennielea · Post by **Pennielea** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:07 am

Peter
Both options are available. Examples at para 8.7 and 8.8 on the draft amendment proposals on the DCS website.

Ian

Pennielea · Post by **Pennielea** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:38 pm

It is amazing what we can find out when driven indoors by torrential rain.

Companies Act para 324 Rights to appoint Proxies.
'A member of a company is entitled to appoint another person as his proxy to excercise all or any of his rights to attend and to speak at a meeting of the company'

All this debate as to whether we should pass a resolution to approve proxy voting is irrelevant. It is already in the Act and it is our 'right'. It is probable that we could insist on appointing our proxies to the EGM/AGM wouldn't that put a cat amongst the pidgeons.

Ian

Broomcroft · Post by **Broomcroft** » Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:46 am

Ian, do you know whether the right surpasses anything that might be in the constitution? I would hope it does, because it seems unreasonably unfair to me, that someone can lose their right to vote just because they cannot attend a meeting.

Edited By Broomcroft on 1217663227

Broomcroft · Post by **Broomcroft** » Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:01 am

Ian

Just found this on a large solicitor's website re section 324:

"Under the New Act all members have the right to appoint a proxy and this right cannot be excluded by a company’s articles. Proxies have the right to attend, speak and vote at meetings. Proxies appointed to vote may also demand or join in demanding a poll. Notices of general meetings must now contain new statements regarding these enhanced proxy rights."

Edited By Broomcroft on 1217664145