We had a very interesting constitutional anomaly appear at the AGM this week. Apparently two years ago the trustees had debated and approved a change to our constitution that allows members to give anyone, normally the Chairman of Trustees, the right to vote on their behalf at an AGM. (If I was involved in this I apologise for not being my more usual pernickety self.) Further the proxy power did not require the members to state what vote they wished their nominee to exercise. So this meant that the nominee had towards two hundred votes which they could use for whatever purpose they wished and apparently did. This is nothing other that the old fashioned block votes at political conferences where vast number of votes could be assigned to any motion that the nominee supported. Interestingly it appears that the current public legislation for proxy voting at elections is that no nominee may exercise this for any more than two people, hardly a block vote. My view is firmly that this clause in our constitution is undemocratic and that it gives unwarranted power to the nominee to completely overturn the views of those actually attending and voting at the AGM, as seems to have happened on this occasion, though we were not given the details. I would propose that we veto this practice. Perhaps we may have to allow some form of proxy voting for those too ill to attend, etc. But the proxy voting must: 1. Specify what the vote should consist of. No powers of carte blanche are to be allowed. 2. Not give more than two proxy votes to any one nominee. 3. Be specifically authorised in advance requesting particular nominees to vote for particular motions in a particular way. Preferably the nominee and the requestor should get together beforehand to ensure that no nominee is even asked to vote for more than two people. If there is a motion put to the next AGM on this matter, I would also propose that it be put as near to the top of the agenda as possible to prevent any further undemocratic proxy votes being made beforehand. Any views anyone? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Hi Tim it does seem a bit of an odd arrangement when I get voting papers from other organisations they usually give you a choice of listing who you want to vote for OR allowing the Chairman to vote as they see fit but the voter has the choice would something similar be suitable do you think ? cheers Jean Wilby

On 30 Jun at 14:59, J F Wilby <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tim > > it does seem a bit of an odd arrangement > > when I get voting papers from other organisations they usually give > you a choice of > > listing who you want to vote for > OR > allowing the Chairman to vote as they see fit > > but the voter has the choice > > would something similar be suitable do you think ? The problem is that of the block vote. I do not think anyone should have the right to decide the votes of more than one person, thereby exercising a block vote. Carte blanche choice by a nominee is undemocratic in a member based social organisation where each memebr has the same amount of votes. Note that the nominee at SoG AGMs does not have to be the Chairman of Trustees, it can, I understand, be anyone and this is what happened, to a small extent, at the AGM. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

I was shocked, as were many others (certainly those whom I spoke to after the meeting) by the proxy vote and its repercussions. I, a newish trustee, was caught totally unawares. Among the effects of the Chairman's choice of candidates to vote for are:- a)* the loss of a dynamic chairman of the Society's education committee*whom I believe all members of the committee respect in his role as chairman. (The chairman of the committee has to be a trustee.) During the last year of the Education committee one of the major achievements was the launching of the online SoG/Pharos intermediate certificate course in Family History, a forward looking project that is already viewed as successful. The chairman of the education committee did much to bring this to fruition. He also fought vigorously to introduce new blood to the committee. b) *the raising of the average age of trustees* by losing the youngest and only trustee in his 30s. The chairman of SoG made a statement relating to gender representation following the discussion at last year's AGM but, while gender representation is very important so also is having as wide an age representation as possible. At 66 I am below the median age of the trustees; this can't be healthy. About half the trustees are in their eighth decade and now none is below their fifth decade! c) *possibly cowing trustees of a different viewpoint to the chairman*. When I come up for re-election by rotation in 2 years time and if I have been of a different viewpoint on issues to the chairman it is possible that I might not gain his/her exercised proxy votes. The chairman over a few years could substantially mould the trustees. I vote in other organisations (charities like SoG) and often assign my proxy vote for business matters to the chairman. I do not assign my proxy vote for candidates for positions because I am given the opportunity to vote by post and/or online having had circulated to me the candidates' statements. This is not SoG practice for the proxy form sent to us only gives an option to appoint a named proxy or the chairman as proxy. Voters at the AGM have a short statement from each candidate to consider; this could easily have gone to members with the other AGM papers. Clearly this issue will come up at the next trustees' meeting. Michael On 1 July 2011 16:35, Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 Jun at 14:59, J F Wilby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Tim > > > > it does seem a bit of an odd arrangement > > > > when I get voting papers from other organisations they usually give > > you a choice of > > > > listing who you want to vote for > > OR > > allowing the Chairman to vote as they see fit > > > > but the voter has the choice > > > > would something similar be suitable do you think ? > > The problem is that of the block vote. I do not think anyone should > have the right to decide the votes of more than one person, thereby > exercising a block vote. Carte blanche choice by a nominee is > undemocratic in a member based social organisation where each memebr has > the same amount of votes. > > Note that the nominee at SoG AGMs does not have to be the Chairman of > Trustees, it can, I understand, be anyone and this is what happened, to > a small extent, at the AGM. > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] > for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Michael It's nice to see a trustee put their head above the parapet:-) I think it goes further than this. With respect at your first meeting you have to choose the chairman. Do we really want a chairman who exercises such poor judgement when the problem was pointed out to him before the vote? As the matter was obviously not discussed by the Trustees prior to the notice of AGM being sent to members, I can only assume it was determined by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman and probably vice-chairman. Without seeing the chairman's rationale for choosing the candidates, I can only assume that it was that the trustee not re-elected was at odds with the views of the chairman. At the 2009 AGM, I was the only one who voted against the new Articles of Association - there was no opportunity for debate and there were a number of points that I was and still are unhappy about. When I was vice-chairman of the Guild of One-Name Studies, we changed the constitution of GOONS by an SGM purely for that purpose. Boring I know, but every changed clause was voted on individually after discussion. It certainly produced a much more robust and democratic constitution which was agreed at an SGM in 1996 and apart form some very minor tinkering in 2006 has stood the test of time - Seems to me that ours has fallen at the first hurdle... I think we need a constitutional working party setup that consists of trustees (not the chairman and vice-chairman), members of staff and ordinary members such that a balance is achieved to give the trustees power to set policy, the CEO to be allowed to manage the day to day operation without interference and protect any abuse of members rights and to somehow put right this current wrong without too much expense to the Society. Alec At 22:01 01/07/2011, you wrote: >I was shocked, as were many others (certainly those whom I spoke to after >the meeting) by the proxy vote and its repercussions. I, a newish trustee, >was caught totally unawares. > >Among the effects of the Chairman's choice of candidates to vote for are:- > >a)* the loss of a dynamic chairman of the Society's education >committee*whom I believe all members of the committee respect in his >role as >chairman. (The chairman of the committee has to be a trustee.) During the >last year of the Education committee one of the major achievements was the >launching of the online SoG/Pharos intermediate certificate course in Family >History, a forward looking project that is already viewed as successful. >The chairman of the education committee did much to bring this to fruition. >He also fought vigorously to introduce new blood to the committee. > >b) *the raising of the average age of trustees* by losing the youngest and >only trustee in his 30s. The chairman of SoG made a statement relating to >gender representation following the discussion at last year's AGM but, while >gender representation is very important so also is having as wide an age >representation as possible. At 66 I am below the median age of the >trustees; this can't be healthy. About half the trustees are in their >eighth decade and now none is below their fifth decade! > >c) *possibly cowing trustees of a different viewpoint to the chairman*. >When I come up for re-election by rotation in 2 years time and if I have >been of a different viewpoint on issues to the chairman it is possible that >I might not gain his/her exercised proxy votes. The chairman over a few >years could substantially mould the trustees. > >I vote in other organisations (charities like SoG) and often assign my proxy >vote for business matters to the chairman. I do not assign my proxy vote >for candidates for positions because I am given the opportunity to vote by >post and/or online having had circulated to me the candidates' statements. >This is not SoG practice for the proxy form sent to us only gives an option >to appoint a named proxy or the chairman as proxy. Voters at the AGM have a >short statement from each candidate to consider; this could easily have gone >to members with the other AGM papers. > >Clearly this issue will come up at the next trustees' meeting. > >Michael > >On 1 July 2011 16:35, Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 30 Jun at 14:59, J F Wilby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Tim > > > > > > it does seem a bit of an odd arrangement > > > > > > when I get voting papers from other organisations they usually give > > > you a choice of > > > > > > listing who you want to vote for > > > OR > > > allowing the Chairman to vote as they see fit > > > > > > but the voter has the choice > > > > > > would something similar be suitable do you think ? > > > > The problem is that of the block vote. I do not think anyone should > > have the right to decide the votes of more than one person, thereby > > exercising a block vote. Carte blanche choice by a nominee is > > undemocratic in a member based social organisation where each memebr has > > the same amount of votes. > > > > Note that the nominee at SoG AGMs does not have to be the Chairman of > > Trustees, it can, I understand, be anyone and this is what happened, to > > a small extent, at the AGM. > > > > -- > > Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] > > for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Tim, While I support the principle behind your suggestion, I'm unsure as to its practicality. I presume that, if a nominee has conflicting requests, then they cast the associated numbers of votes in each direction. That's easy. However, what I'm concerned about is the limit of two. If I was to require the Chairman (for example) to vote for option A, and there were a hundred others requesting voting for the other options, then I would expect the Chairman to place all the votes - e.g. 20 for option A, 40 for B and 40 for C - plus his own choice. Why limit to two? Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Powys-Lybbe Sent: 30 June 2011 12:23 To: [email protected] Subject: [SOG-UK] Proxy Voting at the Annual General meetings We had a very interesting constitutional anomaly appear at the AGM this week. Apparently two years ago the trustees had debated and approved a change to our constitution that allows members to give anyone, normally the Chairman of Trustees, the right to vote on their behalf at an AGM. (If I was involved in this I apologise for not being my more usual pernickety self.) Further the proxy power did not require the members to state what vote they wished their nominee to exercise. So this meant that the nominee had towards two hundred votes which they could use for whatever purpose they wished and apparently did. This is nothing other that the old fashioned block votes at political conferences where vast number of votes could be assigned to any motion that the nominee supported. Interestingly it appears that the current public legislation for proxy voting at elections is that no nominee may exercise this for any more than two people, hardly a block vote. My view is firmly that this clause in our constitution is undemocratic and that it gives unwarranted power to the nominee to completely overturn the views of those actually attending and voting at the AGM, as seems to have happened on this occasion, though we were not given the details. I would propose that we veto this practice. Perhaps we may have to allow some form of proxy voting for those too ill to attend, etc. But the proxy voting must: 1. Specify what the vote should consist of. No powers of carte blanche are to be allowed. 2. Not give more than two proxy votes to any one nominee. 3. Be specifically authorised in advance requesting particular nominees to vote for particular motions in a particular way. Preferably the nominee and the requestor should get together beforehand to ensure that no nominee is even asked to vote for more than two people. If there is a motion put to the next AGM on this matter, I would also propose that it be put as near to the top of the agenda as possible to prevent any further undemocratic proxy votes being made beforehand. Any views anyone? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Why have proxy voting anyway? Presumably the agenda, including any proposals to be voted on, is made known to members in advance of the AGM, so it seems to me that even if you are willing to leave it to the chairman you will still have to communicate that fact to the Society. You might just as well send your votes. Regards George Bush