+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Public Area (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Chess Scotland Forum (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-28.html)
+--- Thread: New constitution (/thread-1257.html)
Re: New constitution - WBuchanan - 23-07-2015
Now you mention it Derek, I don't remember these being tallied in the vote for eligibility. What were the proxies then, Andy !? (I assume you aren't busy with work or anything unproductive like that
)
Re: New constitution - Andy Howie - 23-07-2015
I am at work at the moment (yep I do that sometimes). Yes Dereks Proxies were counted for his motion
Re: New constitution - Derek Howie - 23-07-2015
Andy Howie Wrote:I am at work at the moment (yep I do that sometimes). Yes Dereks Proxies were counted for his motion
So the minutes are wrong?
Re: New constitution - Jim Webster - 23-07-2015
Derek Howie Wrote:So the minutes are wrong?No
Re: New constitution - Derek Howie - 23-07-2015
Jim Webster Wrote:Derek Howie Wrote:So the minutes are wrong?No
So why were my proxies not used in support of my proposals?
Quote: the Meeting agreed unanimously that the Derek Howie suggestion should fall
Surely my proxies should have been used to support my "suggestion"?
Or are those members of the CWP who were running the meeting ignoring proxies by introducing motions which were not on the agenda thus preventing those not attending from having their votes registered?
Re: New constitution - andyburnett - 23-07-2015
Derek Howie Wrote:Jim Webster Wrote:Derek Howie Wrote:So the minutes are wrong?No
So why were my proxies not used in support of my proposals?
Quote: the Meeting agreed unanimously that the Derek Howie suggestion should fall
Surely my proxies should have been used to support my "suggestion"?
Or are those members of the CWP who were running the meeting ignoring proxies by introducing motions which were not on the agenda thus preventing those not attending from having their votes registered?
I wasn't there, but I'm reading the minutes/forum replies as... 'Walter's motion' gained more support then 'Derek's motion', inclusive of proxies?!
Re: New constitution - Jim Webster - 23-07-2015
Derek Howie Wrote:Or are those members of the CWP who were running the meeting ignoring proxies by introducing motions which were not on the agenda thus preventing those not attending from having their votes registered?
I find the above remark absolutely disgraceful and totally without foundation.
You are discrediting the integrity of the President AND the Executive Director.
I'll leave any further responses to them - I'm saying no more.
Re: New constitution - WBuchanan - 23-07-2015
The minutes do say the meeting agreed unanimously; Andy might have known the proxies would have made no difference on the choice of amendment but I don't think they were actually mentioned. Derek is entitled to query this.
Regarding the removal of the elgibility item I have a related question but I think the SGM outcome/minutes needs its own thread - has the one that was started disappeared?
Re: New constitution - Jim Webster - 23-07-2015
WBuchanan Wrote:Derek is entitled to query this.The voting intentions of those utilizing a Proxy vote are kept confidential and not publically available. If Derek, or any one else for that matter, wishes to know details whether or not those votes were cast according to their instructions it has to be taken up privately and certainly not on an open public forum.
Re: New constitution - WBuchanan - 23-07-2015
That can't be right Jim - it's only a query about the numbers
Basoc principle of democracy - you count the votes