20-08-2017, 09:56 PM
I was planning to stay out of this after my first post, but I need to clarify points.
Quote StevieHilton: -
"My first sentence is not flawed, because the proposer and seconder did hold positions within CS.
They are members of course but officials."
First and foremost the proposer and seconder are CS members and have an absolute right to express an opinion and to put forward motions to the AGM. I do not accept the point that officials are barred from freely promoting their own personal views at any AGM. It is up to the AGM to decide the acceptability of their motion - not individuals who disagree, for whatever reason, with a correctly formed, proposed and seconded motion.
Are you really saying that when members become officials they cannot have the right of free expression and to promote their own beliefs?
"I still think the decision is wrong for the reasons I outlined and will continue to speak out against"
That is your prerogative.
I should point out however CS works on a democratic principle that decisions made by the majority at an AGM are sacrosanct and even the Management Board has no power to change the will of the voters.
"AGM is sovereign and always will be??. "
Absolutely - and we are also duty bound to comply with the conditions of the Constitution.
"Then why are post that are meant to be filled left unfilled. The AGM could have filled them"
Let me remind you of the pertinent Constitution paragraphs, just to make it crystal clear.
8.2.5. To fill any vacancy among Directors by appointment.
12.6. Nominations for elections must be received by the Executive Director in writing (including e-mail) at least three weeks before the meeting, and must be proposed and seconded by current members, and confirm the consent of the nominee to serve.
Quote StevieHilton: -
"My first sentence is not flawed, because the proposer and seconder did hold positions within CS.
They are members of course but officials."
First and foremost the proposer and seconder are CS members and have an absolute right to express an opinion and to put forward motions to the AGM. I do not accept the point that officials are barred from freely promoting their own personal views at any AGM. It is up to the AGM to decide the acceptability of their motion - not individuals who disagree, for whatever reason, with a correctly formed, proposed and seconded motion.
Are you really saying that when members become officials they cannot have the right of free expression and to promote their own beliefs?
"I still think the decision is wrong for the reasons I outlined and will continue to speak out against"
That is your prerogative.
I should point out however CS works on a democratic principle that decisions made by the majority at an AGM are sacrosanct and even the Management Board has no power to change the will of the voters.
"AGM is sovereign and always will be??. "
Absolutely - and we are also duty bound to comply with the conditions of the Constitution.
"Then why are post that are meant to be filled left unfilled. The AGM could have filled them"
Let me remind you of the pertinent Constitution paragraphs, just to make it crystal clear.
8.2.5. To fill any vacancy among Directors by appointment.
12.6. Nominations for elections must be received by the Executive Director in writing (including e-mail) at least three weeks before the meeting, and must be proposed and seconded by current members, and confirm the consent of the nominee to serve.