08-07-2015, 11:29 PM
Hi John
Good to hear you’re in fine fettle! It’s near my bed time, so I’ll be brief and general.
I’m sure the SGM will resolve this through discussion/debate. But, juniors are only one aspect. What is at stake here in my view - and what is not being addressed - is the use of correct protocols. It cannot be right that a representative can turn up at a SGM/AGM in control of multiple proxy votes - adult or junior. If sufficient “proxies” are deployed, there won’t be any point in having a general meeting at all. Just organise a poll online and be done with it.
The same principle (I will come to this) applies in respect of one of the proposed amendments (in Proposal 1, I think). This urges that any member should be allowed to vote regardless of when he becomes a member of CS. Proposal 1, I think without checking, also urges that all it takes is for the proxy/representative to be registered in advance with the Executive Director. (Maybe wrong job title, but its officialdom that is intended. ) This sounds OK as far as it goes. If any one member/representative is seen to be acquiring a large number of “proxies” then officialdom can respond. How is not spelled out. (And, a variation of this scheme could be deployed instead: don’t allow the representative on the floor to deploy the proxy vote but restrict this function to a CS official appointed for the purpose.)
I suggest that this could all be resolved by reference to, and applying the principles of the electoral roll. To be able to vote, an eligible citizen/CS member would need to register by a set cut-off/deadline ahead of the election/SGM or AGM. (No last minute action!) Likewise, no representative can cast proxy votes beyond a set figure/cap. (Oh for a secret ballot! Sadly, probably impracticable.)
I am also quizzical about how this SGM has been set up. Members have not been allowed nearly enough time to digest and respond to the draft Constitution. One view is that the provisions of the existing Constitution compels - not the CWP, but the Executive Committee to adhere to this timetable. That may be true when the initiative for the SGM comes from the floor so to speak. But, when the initiative is coming from the Executive Committee - not the CWP - this argument is thin. We should be able to expect the Executive Committee to show some lateral thinking. What is wrong with circulating a Paper(s) in advance of setting a date for the meeting itself? After all, the Executive Committee has nothing to hide and has the discretion to act.
Is this too radical? Why? Perhaps too many senior members of the Executive doubled up on the CWP, blurring their respective (EC/CWP) roles?
Past my bedtime now, John. Good to hear from you!
George
Good to hear you’re in fine fettle! It’s near my bed time, so I’ll be brief and general.
I’m sure the SGM will resolve this through discussion/debate. But, juniors are only one aspect. What is at stake here in my view - and what is not being addressed - is the use of correct protocols. It cannot be right that a representative can turn up at a SGM/AGM in control of multiple proxy votes - adult or junior. If sufficient “proxies” are deployed, there won’t be any point in having a general meeting at all. Just organise a poll online and be done with it.
The same principle (I will come to this) applies in respect of one of the proposed amendments (in Proposal 1, I think). This urges that any member should be allowed to vote regardless of when he becomes a member of CS. Proposal 1, I think without checking, also urges that all it takes is for the proxy/representative to be registered in advance with the Executive Director. (Maybe wrong job title, but its officialdom that is intended. ) This sounds OK as far as it goes. If any one member/representative is seen to be acquiring a large number of “proxies” then officialdom can respond. How is not spelled out. (And, a variation of this scheme could be deployed instead: don’t allow the representative on the floor to deploy the proxy vote but restrict this function to a CS official appointed for the purpose.)
I suggest that this could all be resolved by reference to, and applying the principles of the electoral roll. To be able to vote, an eligible citizen/CS member would need to register by a set cut-off/deadline ahead of the election/SGM or AGM. (No last minute action!) Likewise, no representative can cast proxy votes beyond a set figure/cap. (Oh for a secret ballot! Sadly, probably impracticable.)
I am also quizzical about how this SGM has been set up. Members have not been allowed nearly enough time to digest and respond to the draft Constitution. One view is that the provisions of the existing Constitution compels - not the CWP, but the Executive Committee to adhere to this timetable. That may be true when the initiative for the SGM comes from the floor so to speak. But, when the initiative is coming from the Executive Committee - not the CWP - this argument is thin. We should be able to expect the Executive Committee to show some lateral thinking. What is wrong with circulating a Paper(s) in advance of setting a date for the meeting itself? After all, the Executive Committee has nothing to hide and has the discretion to act.
Is this too radical? Why? Perhaps too many senior members of the Executive doubled up on the CWP, blurring their respective (EC/CWP) roles?
Past my bedtime now, John. Good to hear from you!
George