23-07-2015, 08:20 PM
Perhaps Derek’s wording is pointed or hasty but you have a point Andy B, about unsatisfactory (for Derek) answers.
Here is Derek’s offending remark:
(Derek) “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?”
However, on the eligibility section
1) A motion WAS introduced that was not on the agenda
2) Just prior, Derek’s proxies were apparently ignored (though Andy H may have known they were insufficient, he’ll clear that up for us I’m sure).
3) Responses to Derek’s queries have been contradictory; for example according to Jim proxies were not ignored and the minutes weren’t wrong - but the minutes refer to the meeting ‘agreeing unanimously’ that his suggestion should fail.
Here is Derek’s offending remark:
(Derek) “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?”
However, on the eligibility section
1) A motion WAS introduced that was not on the agenda
2) Just prior, Derek’s proxies were apparently ignored (though Andy H may have known they were insufficient, he’ll clear that up for us I’m sure).
3) Responses to Derek’s queries have been contradictory; for example according to Jim proxies were not ignored and the minutes weren’t wrong - but the minutes refer to the meeting ‘agreeing unanimously’ that his suggestion should fail.