Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Interesting thought! Unlikely I suggest as the vote to amend would only require a simple majority whereas the amened special resolution requires a 75% one.

 

It's either an ordinary motion or it's not. Its content is not relevant.
Again, you seem to want the rules rigidly enforced when it's a members action, but only loosely applied when it's a management action.

 

Proxies almost certainly wouldn't count as I assume it would just be a vote of people in the room. I think proxies only come into play if a poll vote is held?

 

Understood. But in this situation we have a position from the board that no further motions can be added, and proxy papers that have been issued to address specific motions.

You expressed entirely reasonable concerns about clarity and order in an earlier post; such a proposal would not help the conduct of the meeting by introducing further confusion.

However, in focusing on this error (how many more?), we risk losing focus on the wider defects in these Articles. On that, I can’t better @jamessquared’s indictment of a governance approach that protects a membership based charity from members trying to force it to act outside its remit by granting self perpetuating powers to an inner circle to be able to run it as their own club.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

As for all votes proxy holders have one vote on a show of hands regardless of the number of proxies held but those are counted if the there is a legitimate demand for a poll.
In reply to Ghost's point the meeting should be conducted in accordance with the law and recognised good governance practice which includes the ability for members to vote to correct typos in a tabled resolution.

 

As I’ve said earlier, I believe this is the key point. Not only that but I also believe that if these resolutions are passed at the EGM it will not make things better - it will make things worse for years to come.

 

In which case we need to go a lot further back than how a hypothetical corrective motion might be handled.

 

But do they, if the proxy giver has not given them discretion specifically about a situation which, at the time of giving the proxy, was unknown anyway?

 

But what happens in the situation where the holding of proxy votes forms part of the determination of whether the meeting is quorate or not?
If the number of physical attendees is less than the quorum, so the meeting is only quorate only once proxy holdings are taken into account, then how can you have a vote that is taken only by an inquorate number of attendees?

 

Meanwhile, the subject of the L&BR 'troubles' has come up in passing on another forum to which I belong and there have been a couple of messages posted there from people who appear to have the view that the (only) issues are (a) members unhappy about the lapse of the planning consents and (b) the activities of "two disgruntled Directors". It would appear that more work may be needed to educate the wider membership on the true extent of all the underlying problems and counter some of the media hype put about by the 'official line'.

 

There is a saying about horses and water...

 

That's simple. The Articles set the quorum based on physical attendance. A proxy holder is only one attendee regardless of the number of proxies held. In practice it's almost inconceivable that the meeting would be inquorate as the level is 10 members present.

 

The articles also count proxies. And the number present can change if members arrive or leave during the meeting.

 

Sorry, but I must disagree. I quote M&AoA Clause 7:-

"No business shall be transacted at any meeting unless a quorum is present in person or by proxy. Ten persons entitled to vote upon the business to be transacted, each being a member or a duly authorised representative of a member organisation, or three percent of such persons for the time being, whichever is the greater, shall constitute a quorum."

So IMHO (a) proxies are counted and (b) you need the 3% of the membership as clearly that will be greater than 10.

 

So based on the oft quoted membership of 3000, that's 90 people.

 

Yes. Much depends therefore on how proxies are handled at the meeting, especially if attendance changes.

 

I think at the first WSRA EGM (@RailWest ) will remember, during the meeting, enough members walked out so that the meeting became inquorate. That meant that the business could not be transacted and the meeting was adjourned.
@Lineisclear will confirm, but i believe CA2006 only counts individuals in the room for a quorum, and no matter what they say, a company's articles cannot overide the Act.

 

Many of us have zero confidence about how meetings of this organisation will be conducted.

 

That sounds like an interesting precedent should there be any unhappiness about the conduct of the EGM. (It seems likely that those who feel most strongly will probably be those who will attend on the day.)
For those of us who are distant and/or cannot make the EGM would there be any opportunity to vote on any “motion to correct”? I’m not clear how that would happen within the timescales.

 

Oh dear, if only I could :-( To be honest, it was a bad time long ago in a different world (or so we hope) and - until now - probably best forgotten.