Hi I was at the AGM (but haven't been on this list for a while) and have to say I was and still am very concerned as to the conduct of the meeting. I actually suggested to the SoG Chairman (not our president who chaired the AGM) prior to the meeting that he should abstain the proxies as he would be determining the outcome of the vote and effectively no one else. I have no axe to grind for or against any of the candidates but do believe in democracy in action which in my view hasn't happened in this case. Firstly it states in the Articles of Association - article 40 that the conduct of an election should be held according to Standing Orders. I requested said Standing Orders, There is nothing in them relating to the conduct of an election for trustees. That in itself should have rang an alarm bell somewhere and at least have been discussed by the Trustees prior to the AGM - not so according to the Trustees I have spoken to. Secondly Article 27 gives two forms of proxy, the form sent to members and another type which allows for members to instruct their proxy how to act i.e. for whom to vote for. This raises a couple of very serious questions, Why wasn't this form used in this case, as it is in every other charity, building society and company in which I have shares, when electing the trustees/board? Secondly even more serious - if not the election of our trustees, what circumstances would the current trustees use this second form of proxy if at all?? Thirdly because of the change in the Articles that took place in 2009, it was necessary to send a form of proxy to every member. But it would be interesting to note if many members had picked up on the fact of an election from the notice of AGM which accompanied the proxy.It doesn't indicate that fact at all. In all probability, if I was not attending myself ,I would have given my proxy to someone without realizing this fact. It is obvious from the voting that the Chairman had around 180 proxies. It may not have made any difference to the vote but did mean that it was effectively pointless those members attending voting at all (not sure of the numbers but it must have been over 60). It would though be interesting to know the Chairman's rationale for choosing the candidates he selected as the unsuccessful candidate was chairman of the education sub-committee and from the members on that committee that I have spoken to - he did a very good job. I would like to say what I think it was ..... but until I have spoken to my solicitor am not prepared to do so in open forum. He is currently away on holiday. I will though happily email anyone privately. The conduct of this election was abhorrent to me and must never happen again. The Articles must be changed to, at the very least, remove article 27 (2) and standing orders changed to have a conduct of an election section that can be referred to by Trustees in the future. If you wish to look at the Articles they can all be found at http://www.sog.org.uk/governance/governance.shtml as well as the form of proxy and AGM notice Alec Tritton Former Chairman of the Federation of Family History Societies At 16:37 01/07/2011, you wrote: >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 > > >------------------------------- >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

On 1 Jul at 17:19, Alec Tritton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi I was at the AGM (but haven't been on this list for a while) and > have to say I was and still am very concerned as to the conduct of the > meeting. I am delighted to see that you are participating in this discussion and hopefully action. I must also acknowledge that you it was who originally alerted me to this problem so that I was able to participate and register my objection at the AGM. <snip for brevity, of relevant and important matters> > Secondly Article 27 gives two forms of proxy, the form sent to members I have compared the wording of the form sent to members with that in the Articles of Association clause 27.1 and I think it can be said that the form used was not approved, nor was it factually accurate nor, from your note, did the Board debate or agree on the revised version. This then leads me to the tendentious suggestion that the election could be void. > and another type which allows for members to instruct their proxy how > to act i.e. for whom to vote for. > > This raises a couple of very serious questions, Why wasn't this form > used in this case, as it is in every other charity, building society > and company in which I have shares, when electing the trustees/board? > Secondly even more serious - if not the election of our trustees, what > circumstances would the current trustees use this second form of proxy > if at all?? My reading of this clause is that the normal form to be used is the first one giving the nominee carte blanche and the second one was only to be used if it was decided that members be given the opportunity to specify how the nominee should vote. It looks like the latter was not decided. <more snip> > The conduct of this election was abhorrent to me and must never happen > again. The Articles must be changed to, at the very least, remove > article 27 (2) and standing orders changed to have a conduct of an > election section that can be referred to by Trustees in the future. Agreed in principle. It might be useful to continue the (hopefully democratic) debate here on what form the amendment should actually take. Undemocratically this mailing list only reaches, I once heard, 500 or so members; I wonder if there is any means of mirroring this debate onto some part of the Society's web-site and thereby reach a few more? > If you wish to look at the Articles they can all be found at > http://www.sog.org.uk/governance/governance.shtml as well as the form > of proxy and AGM notice Many thanks for pointing that out, very useful. Is it looking like an EGM is needed to regularise all this? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/