16-05-2016, 09:16 AM
Greetings George,
As a member of the CWP perhaps I can respond to some of the comments raised. Hopefully, this will clarify some issues and perhaps assuage some of your concerns.
There is no comma required after 'Member' because this refers to the single vote allocated to each Member Club or each Affiliated Organisation. The procedure here is exactly the same as at present. Clubs and Affiliates nominate their representative beforehand. The principle is that by doing so it is assumed their representative then carries the wishes of the Club/Affiliate . It is possible for representative to have a different personal stance than the Club/Affiliate and thus can cast one vote in opposite directions. Why is the 7 days required? Well first it means that someone does not turn up at the meeting and then decide to also claim the Club/Affiliate vote on the day (no check possible). Also it indicates that the Club has (hopefully) debated the issue(s).
I am not sure quite what abuse you refer to. If you mean that people have a free rein to cast the votes of others as they see fit on the day then I agree totally. I can only think of one situation where that has occurred (but even that is one too many). Hence the need for any proxy vote(s) to be specific to a candidate and/or motion.
The proposal is for strict control and each proxy vote will be for only one candidate or motion. So if a non-attendee wishes to vote on several matters then each will need to be notified separately. The mechanics of this will be defined within the relevant Operating Procedure but there are good precedents for this relating to previous voting. Of course the Operating Procedure will also need to be approved by the membership so there will be opportunity to ensure this is as good as we can make it. For many AGMs in the past people not able to attend were able to inform the Executive Director of their wishes and he cast the votes on their behalf. These were also proxy votes, just via a different route.
If all the votes are properly obtained it does not matter whether they are held by a member or are sent to the ED. Clearly it is important that a statement relating to the candidate/motion is attached to the proxy but examples of the wording can be given in the relevant OP so that they are cast and used under very controlled conditions. I would point out that at some meetings people held proxy votes for different candidates or for and against a specific motion, which shows how the system can be used correctly. This is also the principle that I adopted in that I asked people to vote but hoped they might support my preferred candidate/motion. I was more concerned about involving more of the membership than 'forcing' through my individual preference.
Of course if on-line voting is introduced then the impact of combined proxy votes will diminish (but not disappear entirely). Currently on-line voting is not permitted, we have no tested system in place, nor any experience of success or flaws within the system. So we need to have both options (proxy and on-line) available in the revised Constitution for the immediate future.
Yes, this includes all Council members in order to overturn an EC decision. This seems fair in that we need the input of all Council members and not just those who may be able to make it to the meeting. If there is a contentious matter then either on-line or some form of proxy vote (to ED for example) is possible to ensure the matter is either over-turned or at least re-examined. If you stand for Council then surely it is expected that you should express your views, either in attendance or by some form of proxy or on-line submission. Between General Meetings, Council is the voice of the membership and needs to reflect this.
You raised a number of other issues which may also be discussed at the meeting on Saturday. If not then we can discuss these later.
Thanks for your interest
Gerald
As a member of the CWP perhaps I can respond to some of the comments raised. Hopefully, this will clarify some issues and perhaps assuage some of your concerns.
Quote:5.2 should read: Each Member, Club, and Affiliate may nominate a single representative to the Executive Director at least 7 days before the general meeting. Would this revision be correct? If not, and the real intention is to restrict this limitation to Clubs and Affiliates - excluding individual members - then it has implications bearing on how Proxy Votes are to be cast in the case of individual members? See Clauses 5.5 (iii) and 5.6
There is no comma required after 'Member' because this refers to the single vote allocated to each Member Club or each Affiliated Organisation. The procedure here is exactly the same as at present. Clubs and Affiliates nominate their representative beforehand. The principle is that by doing so it is assumed their representative then carries the wishes of the Club/Affiliate . It is possible for representative to have a different personal stance than the Club/Affiliate and thus can cast one vote in opposite directions. Why is the 7 days required? Well first it means that someone does not turn up at the meeting and then decide to also claim the Club/Affiliate vote on the day (no check possible). Also it indicates that the Club has (hopefully) debated the issue(s).
Quote:5.5 (iii) and 5.6 - as they stand - are (unintentionally) controversial. For years, the abuse of Proxy Votes has been a major bugbear.
I am not sure quite what abuse you refer to. If you mean that people have a free rein to cast the votes of others as they see fit on the day then I agree totally. I can only think of one situation where that has occurred (but even that is one too many). Hence the need for any proxy vote(s) to be specific to a candidate and/or motion.
Quote: The suggestion that 5.6 prevents such abuse appears innocent. Members need to be informed why the President places such faith in 5.6. On what model does he rely? Not electoral law where the use of proxy vote is very strictly controlled.
The proposal is for strict control and each proxy vote will be for only one candidate or motion. So if a non-attendee wishes to vote on several matters then each will need to be notified separately. The mechanics of this will be defined within the relevant Operating Procedure but there are good precedents for this relating to previous voting. Of course the Operating Procedure will also need to be approved by the membership so there will be opportunity to ensure this is as good as we can make it. For many AGMs in the past people not able to attend were able to inform the Executive Director of their wishes and he cast the votes on their behalf. These were also proxy votes, just via a different route.
Quote:As drafted, 5.5 (iii) and 5.6 will perpetuate the abuse to which Andy Muir and Steve Hilton refer for the proxy vote will deteriorate into a bloc vote, something that electoral law is designed to prevent. No representative should be allowed to attend an AGM or SGM armed with multiple proxy votes.
If all the votes are properly obtained it does not matter whether they are held by a member or are sent to the ED. Clearly it is important that a statement relating to the candidate/motion is attached to the proxy but examples of the wording can be given in the relevant OP so that they are cast and used under very controlled conditions. I would point out that at some meetings people held proxy votes for different candidates or for and against a specific motion, which shows how the system can be used correctly. This is also the principle that I adopted in that I asked people to vote but hoped they might support my preferred candidate/motion. I was more concerned about involving more of the membership than 'forcing' through my individual preference.
Quote:How is 5.5 (iii) to be implemented? Does the individual member notify the Executive Director whom he has nominated as his representative, or does the latter notify the Executive Director of all the members’ particulars whose proxies he holds? Whose responsibility is it to declare in advance to the Executive Director what the proxies relate to? How will members communicate/authorise proxy votes to a representative? What will proxy votes comprise? Oral or written, vague or detailed, communication? Just how much work is the Executive Director expected to carry out before it is considered that he is overburdened?Actually this is exactly what the ED does anyway. All proxies (and the direction of the vote) is formally sent to ED beforehand so that he can check. So there is no change in procedure from that currently in operation. As an example, for the election of the previous President I carried the proxy votes to the meeting. For the election of the current incumbent I asked people to send their vote directly to the ED, but provided them with the appropriate template to properly cast their vote. Either works well and would be defined precisely in the Operating Procedure (remember the Constitution is an enabling document, the fine details of implementation are given elsewhere e.g. in Standing Orders or Operating Procedures).
Of course if on-line voting is introduced then the impact of combined proxy votes will diminish (but not disappear entirely). Currently on-line voting is not permitted, we have no tested system in place, nor any experience of success or flaws within the system. So we need to have both options (proxy and on-line) available in the revised Constitution for the immediate future.
Quote:Does 8.2.6.1 need to explain what “a majority of all COUNCIL members …” means? Of those in attendance only? Or the full complement, including absentees?
Yes, this includes all Council members in order to overturn an EC decision. This seems fair in that we need the input of all Council members and not just those who may be able to make it to the meeting. If there is a contentious matter then either on-line or some form of proxy vote (to ED for example) is possible to ensure the matter is either over-turned or at least re-examined. If you stand for Council then surely it is expected that you should express your views, either in attendance or by some form of proxy or on-line submission. Between General Meetings, Council is the voice of the membership and needs to reflect this.
You raised a number of other issues which may also be discussed at the meeting on Saturday. If not then we can discuss these later.
Thanks for your interest
Gerald