Posts: 1,929
Threads: 263
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
I have come to the conclusion that 2 heads are better than one. As many of you know, we have been looking at the issue of proxy votes and how to stop the AGM from becoming meaningless to the people who are there. There are no simple solutions there that don't seriously disadvantage people.
So I am throwing the question out to the notiveboard dwellers.
Simple question, difficult answer. What would you do about proxy votes at the AGM?
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Posts: 21
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2011
Andy, What is the situation at the moment? Have there always been proxy votes and is it always a bad thing to have them? The good work that people do for the good of chess in Scotland I think should not be undermined by a stakeholders share of one vote proxy or not.
I do what I can for the club here in Glenrothes but I am concerned that I could scuttle any similar good work at the AGM by a proxy vote.
Posts: 408
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2011
Ban proxy votes but enable computer based voting via the internet??
This would be especially good if the AGM can be broadcast live, so that one could listen to the debate before casting a vote.
For those who tend to fixate on only one part of things I suggest
may I stress that I would only ban proxy votes if there is an alternative that enables non-attendees to contribute.
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Mike Scott Wrote:Ban proxy votes but enable computer based voting via the internet??
This would be especially good if the AGM can be broadcast live, so that one could listen to the debate before casting a vote.
For those who tend to fixate on only one part of things I suggest may I stress that I would only ban proxy votes if there is an alternative that enables non-attendees to contribute.
Hi Mike, that would only be a replacement for a proxy whereby someone could connect to the internet and cast their vote whilst watching the AGM live. If you cannot get to a computer or are out of the country unable to attend/watch the AGM you should still be able to cast a vote. I like your idea but as I was informed previously when trying to have all members contacted by email some members do not have email addresses and those same people probably wouldn't know how to watch the AGM live and cast an online vote. So there would be a risk (however small) of disenfranchising some of the membership.
I am not a huge fan of proxy votes either but within the principle of one member one vote if you cannot attend the AGM there should still be a means for you to cast your vote. Proxys aren't great but I know of no tangible alternative that would still allow members to vote if they cannot attend the AGM.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 408
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2011
David
My feeling is that the vast majority of people do not attend the AGM because they do not perceive it as worth their while. If you make it easy to do so virtually then I would hope that you would be getting more people involved the decision making process than you would be excluding by removing proxy voting. Especially if you consider that one can access computers relatively easily even if you do not own one (local libraries, cyber cafes etc).
Perhaps the proxy votes should be then limited to those most likely to be PC-Phobic: the seniors!
Posts: 457
Threads: 53
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
3
Doesn't changing the Proxy vote mean a change to the constitution?
Then a motion would have to be proposed -- and all those who wish to use their proxy vote can vote against it.
Perhaps the Proxy vote could be made more effective if it was advertised more, and/or a message sent to all members (email perhaps) informing them of their options.
Using the Proxy and getting people to vote is better than having everything decided by only those who are able to attend the AGM and some, like myself who now have ill partners to look after, feeling that their membership rights not taken away. Which is what removing Proxy voting does - it's an indiviual members right to elect to use it after all.
Many large companies send out voting forms prior to their AGM, to all eligible voters and part of that form has a Proxy delegation section. There is obviously a cost implication in sending out forms to all members on our limited resources, and perhaps the answer is to more publicise the AGM and its motions to the members throught the website, clubs and email.
I personally don't agree with removing the Proxy option, but I haven't used it before either - again that is my choice though. To support this posting I will use it this year.
Posts: 455
Threads: 46
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
Andy is trying to be tactful (I think). One potential (and I emphasise potential) problem with the current proxy system is that it can be misused.
If I wanted to introduce a rule which stated that IAs who had controlled in Russia should receive an honorarium of £20000 per year from Chess Scotland then all I would need to do is to obtain approximately 30 proxy votes and it would be passed due to no-one having sought a similar number of proxies to overturn the motion!!!
The current system makes it easy for someone to gather proxies from others and turn up on the day with an overwhelming majority of votes. I do not believe this has ever been done but the potential exists.
It is difficult to see how you can keep the proxy system without overly complicating procedures. A potential method would be to only allow 'postal' votes for proxies ie remove the right to delegate your vote.
All proxies suffer from the problem that the person has not been able to hear the debate taking place at the AGM which might make them change their minds. So if large numbers of proxies are to become the norm then the arguements for and against the motion would need to be circulated well in advance.
Posts: 1,929
Threads: 263
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
Alex McFarlane Wrote:The current system makes it easy for someone to gather proxies from others and turn up on the day with an overwhelming majority of votes. I do not believe this has ever been done but the potential exists.
No but we have been very close to this situation on several occasions
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
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.
Related to this is whether the voter by proxy delegates the proxy to vote in a particular way or gives the proxy freedom to decide. Here there are some differences from the large company situation mentioned by David Deary in that with a company the shareholder normally appoints the chair of the meeting as proxy and specifies how to vote, and it is one share one vote, not one person one vote.
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Sorry Alex but your example is a little far fetched. There is the potential that I get flattened by a bus when crossing the road but that doesn't stop me from crossing the road.
Am I correct in assuming that business cannot be added to the agenda at the actual AGM? If it can remove the ability to do so and then the above cannot happen whereby someone turns up with a suitcase full of proxies and adds items to the agenda for their own individual benefit.
A proxy vote exists for a specific reason to allow members who cannot attend the AGM to cast their vote through a proxy and means that their vote/voice/say is not lost. Removing proxy votes verges on being undemocratic in my opinion and if the above scenario is anything to go by I will vote against a proposed ban on proxy votes. (by proxy!
) Most if not all organisations allow proxy voting (in some form) at AGMs and it would be a step backwards to remove them. Revise the rules or introduce online voting by all means but to remove proxies is unthinkable. (no one likes them but they have a place much like CS's standards code =o)
I am somewhat surprised that CS is giving time to worrying about proxies rather than promoting chess in Scotland. What is CS there to do? We are discussing ifs,buts,hypotheticals lets discuss reality and the here and now instead of fanciful scenarios that potentialy could happen if this that and the next thing maybe occurs... :\
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
