Proxy Votes

[Gary McPheator]

I think the main problem cs should be focusing on about agms is how few attend them!

[David Deary]

One issue with proxies is how they can be applied to amended motions. It is not unusual for the discussion at a meeting to reveal flaws in the original motion and that amendments are proposed for this or other reasons. There may need to be a degree of negotiation to find something acceptable. If there is not enough flexibility to deal with this, there is a danger of impractical decisions being made or of the meeting being unable to make any useful decision.

Ken does that not work both ways? IE - any change to proxies could bring about the following scenario:

You propose a motion with 30 proxies backing it up.
I suggest an amendment to your motion (subtle or otherwise) and then declare you cannot use your proxies for the amended motion as that’s not what your proxies signed up to?
Thus I amend your motion and dilute it when your 30 proxies wanted a genuine change. That doesn't seem right to me either.

Thus we have 1 person's vote counting more than 31 votes as the proxies are almost void when an amendment is proposed to the original motion. This is a dangerous road to go down... I am sure this is not what you are proposing and this is where the negotiation would need to come.

[Alex McFarlane]

David my example was deliberately 'stupid' but I could put forward such a motion and people would assume that it was certain to fail.

I think that Ken was trying to show that you could have a situation where everyone at the meeting agreed that an amendment made sense but the number of proxies cast for the original motion meant that it was carried even though the amended version was better. Or alternatively the motion was defeated because of proxy votes but that the proposed amendment would have been an acceptable compromise that virtually everyone would have been happy with.

[Jim Webster]

I think that Ken was trying to show that you could have a situation where everyone at the meeting agreed that an amendment made sense but the number of proxies cast for the original motion meant that it was carried even though the amended version was better. Or alternatively the motion was defeated because of proxy votes but that the proposed amendment would have been an acceptable compromise that virtually everyone would have been happy with.

The way round this is that the orginal proposal is passed, then an amendment is proposed, discussed and voted on. In effect it means that the proxies do not have a vote on the amendment since they cannot instruct on items raised at the AGM.

Proxies can, and should, only be allowed to vote on published agenda items prior to the AGM. Proxy cannot be a carte blanche authorisation to vote however the nominee wishes, only as instructed on the proxy voting form - this should list all relevant voting items and a check box for/against the motion which is the vote to be cast.

[Jim Webster]

I think the main problem cs should be focusing on about agms is how few attend them!

I'm with Gary on this one!

[Andy Howie]

People tend to attend when there is something contentious. If we were to put a motion at the AGM to bring in say compulsory membership then we would probably have every member there...

[Andy Howie]

I think the main problem cs should be focusing on about agms is how few attend them!

There is a more fundamental problem than that. Look around you at Congress and League chess. We are desperate to get more Arbiters, Tournament Directors and so on...

I would say that was more of a concern at the moment

[Gary McPheator]

I think the main problem cs should be focusing on about agms is how few attend them!

There is a more fundamental problem than that. Look around you at Congress and League chess. We are desperate to get more Arbiters, Tournament Directors and so on...

I would say that was more of a concern at the moment

I agree that cs should focus on those problems more than proxy votes and agm attendance, just as I think cs should focus on agm attendance more than proxy votes.

[Andy Howie]

However I was asking peoples opinion on the issue as it has been raised as a concern by members. As members drive the policies I am duty bound to see if there is something we can do

[Gary McPheator]

However I was asking peoples opinion on the issue as it has been raised as a concern by members. As members drive the policies I am duty bound to see if there is something we can do

Of course you do Andy, although it shouldn't preclude cs from offering up policies of their own.

With regard to proxy votes, my remark about agm attendances wasn't totally unrelated. The fewer in attendance, the more proxy votes can swing votes as would for instance supporters of a particular motion turning up en masse.

I would be in favour of a virtual agm lasting for say a week, where motions can be discussed with set timetables for tabling amendments and votes itself with people only being able to vote for themselves.