+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: AGM Candidates (/thread-661.html)
Re: AGM Candidates - robin moore - 08-08-2013
Four members of the same club on one page of a topic with different independent thoughts and input! A record?
Re: AGM Candidates - Jim Webster - 08-08-2013
Would it not be possible to send an email voting to all active members and ask that these be returned by a specific deadline so that they can be counted (independently) and presented at the AGM on a candidate or issue as each arises. It is too late for this years AGM, but it is possible it could well appear as a motion under AOB at the AGM =|
Each member can also be given, on the same form, an option, to delegate their vote(s) to a proxy holder.
I really don't agree with individuals canvassing for votes for their "preferred" candidate and turning up at the AGM with a pocketful of proxy votes to achieve their own political aims.
Each proxy should in fact be verified that it is by a legitimate member on the day of the AGM, before that vote is eligible to be counted.
Re: AGM Candidates - robin moore - 08-08-2013
Jim,
A couple of things..
Why just active members on the email part? Did you actually mean all members?
"On the day of the AGM"... The constitution has guidelines in place on when proxy votes are submitted and copied to the Executive Director (ie a week before the Agm). This would need a constitution change but I see where you are coming from.
Re: AGM Candidates - Jim Webster - 08-08-2013
Quote:Why just active members on the email part? Did you actually mean all members?
I did mean actually mean those who are registered members on the day of the AGM, not active as in playing members but rather as active subscriptions.
I also think that we should tighten up on who is eligible to hold proxy votes. In my opinion to be a proxy vote holder that member should be a continuous member for a minimum period of - say 2 years.
(Another proposal for the AGM I think)
Re: AGM Candidates - Andy Howie - 09-08-2013
Just to clarify, the only motions that can be voted on are those that have been submitted already. Items can be brought up under AOCB but they cannot change the constitution as there has not been sufficient notice of the item.
Re: AGM Candidates - Derek Howie - 09-08-2013
KMcGeoch Wrote:I am eligible to attend AGM although don't intend to do so. I'll list reasons here.
1. First of all from my understanding main purpose of AGM is to elect office bearers. Since there are currently no contested seats I have a choice of one candidate (or in some cases zero candidates) to vote for so outcome is a foregone conclusion.
2. Even if I did turn up I don't really know all of the candidates nor what they stand for. If we hypothetically had a second candidate for any post only criteria I would have is do I like the guy and failing that have I heard of him. Things like how they would approach position and the ideas they intend to implement don't even enter decision process despite that being a critical issue.
1. The position of President is being contested. It's a little concerning that you didn't realise. Perhaps it is due to the layout of the list?
2. That is why I called for the 2 candidates to realise statements and make themselves available for questioning earlier in this thread. Hopefully they are both considering this.
Re: AGM Candidates - Patrick McGovern - 09-08-2013
Given that one of the presidential candidates could not even get an uncontested post in a previous agm then I hope he is afforded more respect this time round.
Re: AGM Candidates - Patrick McGovern - 09-08-2013
i may have missed something but has someone been soliciting proxy votes? I understood that the action would come from the member who could not attend, got someone to vote on their behalf. Actively seeking proxies seem a bit off and smacks of desperation.
Re: AGM Candidates - Phil Thomas - 09-08-2013
Alex McFarlane Wrote:I believe that more than one person has been seeking proxy votes.
I would say that it is acceptable to say "I am going to the meeting if you want me to act as proxy." to known people. It is much less appropriate to say something like "Give me your proxy even though you don't really know me" especially if this happens in what is effectively a spam email.
.
I know of 4 people who are actively seeking proxy votes.
2 of these are members of the Greenwood club canvassing for Hamish.
I would not say this smacks of desperation. I would say that in any viable democracy people stick to the rules in force.
Other sets of rules are available.
But if they don't get put proposed officially at agm or Council they won't be adopted.
Re: AGM Candidates - Linda McCusker - 09-08-2013
Patrick McGovern Wrote:i may have missed something but has someone been soliciting proxy votes? I understood that the action would come from the member who could not attend, got someone to vote on their behalf. Actively seeking proxies seem a bit off and smacks of desperation.
As Alex and Phil have stated there is more than one person soliciting proxy votes. In fact, I know of at least one CS member has directly e-mailed parents who are non-members asking for their children's proxy votes.