On 5 Jul at 21:04, MILLARD A.R. <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Tim Powys-Lybbe Sent: 05 July 2011 18:35 > <snip> > > Clause 40 of the Articles of Association provides for the Election > > of Trustees: > > > > "In the event of there being more candidates at an Annual General > > meeting that the number for which there are vacancies on the Board > > of Trustees at such meeting the election of candidates shall be > > determined in such manner as is prescribed in the appropriate > > Standing Orders" > > The AGM papers did not state that there were more candidates than > vacancies. One had to be sufficiently au fait with the Articles and > current membership of the trustees to realise that. Hence I did not > bother to vote as I did not realise there was a contested election. And there is no means that the Articles allow for voting for elections by people not at the meeting. There is no suggestion that it could even be allowed. Whereas Resolutions are explicitly allowed to be voted on by non-attendees. > Not that a proxy vote would have been meaningful without (a) any > information about the candidates, and (b) the ability to specify how > my vote was caste. <snip for brevity> > The non-existence of Standing Orders seems to me to be they only > possible procedural problem here. If the procedure was not valid, > that problem presumably applies to last year's election as well. That > could leave us quite short on trustees. There has not been a competition for quite a few years. Sometimes not enough people have been elected to fill all the vacancies. And it was only in 2009 that Proxy voting for Resolutions was introduced, and we have never had to use that at all as we have never had a contest over any resolutions. Similarly this year: loads of Nem Cons. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/