Tim Why not follow standard company rules and offer either individual voting or extend vote to Chairman - why should we have something more complex ? Regards Mike Say

On 2 Jul at 8:04, mike say <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim Why not follow standard company rules and offer either individual > voting or extend vote to Chairman - why should we have something more > complex ? This is the problem. Companies are owned by shares not by people and their practice of block voting is even more iniquitous than ever; most shares are held these days by nominee companies which are controlled by investment companies and not by the beneficial owners of the dividends. So we have relatively junior people in massive investment companies wielding vast numbers of votes. They probably scratch the Chairman's back if he promises enough to them. It's a big racket! My view is that block voting is iniquitous. No one person should be given a free hand to wield large numbers of votes as they think fit. Anyhow this is where it gets interesting. Some people may also be against block voting, others may be in favour. So we discuss it and then perhaps devise a motion to be voted on and finally vote, but hopefully without any block voting in that vote! As an aside you refer to the 'Chairman'. The Society's Constitution refers to the Chairman of the AGM who happens normally to be the President of the Society. Should it be he that exercises the block vote? Or should it be the Chairman of the Trustees, who is described as such in the constitution and who is appointed by the Trustees and is not elected by the members? In any case, the current version 1 Proxy form does not mention any Chairman at all, much as the form offered with the agenda did include mention of a Chairman. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/