WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

You have the procedure correct.

I would suggest that you photocopy the form for your proxy holder to take with them.

But wait for a day or so as a new proxy firm is on its way to you, with a full list of candidates and I understand that a statement on how the voting on respect of the election is to be handled is due shortly.

The current procedures have not been well thought thought through. On normal circumstances all would have trust in the Chairman to act with complete procedural propriety. A shameful feature of the present difficulties is that such trust and respect has been lost.

Kind regards

Robin White

 

Photocopying is a good idea and send to your proxy, as Robin suggests. It maybe advisable to note on it photocopy of proxy sent to WSRA office on........... Thoughts from others? I did suggest a long time back that the opening and counting of proxies should be in the presence of scrutineers to avoid any later conflict or allegation.

 

What I find completely staggering is that this situation was inevitable yet not predicted! The WSRA articles call for ten trustees, of whom a third retire by rotation each year. So it is an absolute certainty that each year either three or four vacancies will require filling. In any healthy organisation you would hope that such vacancies would be contested, so clearly you need an electoral system that allows for the fair election of multiple positions from a larger field. A vote by show of hands is fundamentally unable to deliver that. Writing the rules for a system that could deliver a fair election can be done in about half a dozen lines ...

Tom

 

For information: a statement just issued about proxy forms and joint memberships is now on the news page of the WSRA website www.wsra.org.uk

"A number of members have asked for clarification on how the proxy voting system works for joint memberships. The same system has been in place for many years, and the position is as follows...

• Joint members have one vote each. If both members in a joint membership wish to vote for the same resolutions, then put one tick against the resolution(s) for which you are voting and under a joint membership this will count as two votes.

• If the two parties to a joint membership want to vote differently, then they must put a second tick against the resolution that the second person wishes to support.

Photocopies of forms are not acceptable. If a member loses a proxy form, please apply to the Association Secretary for a replacement at manager@wsra.org.uk

If any member returns the original proxy form in error, the Secretary will contact the member/members to request the correct version of the proxy form be filled in and re-submitted.

Susan J. Kaufman
Manager, WSRA
"

(Note the comment about photocopies.)

Steve

 

This is now a send-in-the-clowns thread. Did Sir Tim Berners-Lee labour so that members of the WSRA could share with us and the rest of the world how little they understand their own Constitution? I have a "thought from others", very ably expressed by paulhitch some time ago and before what was a simple catfight became the Idiot's Guide To Proxy Votes & Other Petty Tedium. Just stop it. Now. Please. You have all ceased to be even slightly entertaining. None of you show any signs of proper leadership at all. Pfffft...

 

The suggestion of photocopy is for the proxies information, and ability to check the original has been received and counted.Bear in mind a member may be unaware of such or have multiple proxies. The articles do not advise the proxyholder on their use of the delegated vote at the AGM. Maybe Steve www can get WSRA to issue a statement on the action of proxy holders at the vote, he might succeed where others have failed. Thanks in advance.

 

HelloAll, what a debacle (might have spelt that wrongly could be debate)..... as Alice said, "Curiouser and curiouser". Faol

 

This to my mind only muddies the water as the bit that is still not answered by this is the election trustees they way it reads to me is that if you both want to vote for one candidate you put tick in the box but if you want to vote for different candidates then you put a tick against each one.

How is anyone going to know who gets the 2 votes and who gets the one vote.
It is beyond belief that this woman was a serving officer in the USAF I am sure that she could have made it more confusing if she tried.

 

This is, with respect, gobbledegook, or at least very poor drafting. We lawyers are easy to deride but we are trained to write very, very clearly.

It should refer to voting 'on' resolutions, not for and against. It makes no provision for a member's right to abstain, or in the case of the elections, not to use all their votes.... I can see a number of ways in which pairs of joint members with different intentions might follow these instructions and come up with the same form.

I see that this has gone out under SK's name but I would dearly like to know which Trustee(s) considered / approved this. I guess I will be asking.

Grrrrrr

kind regards

Robin

 

and what would happen if people with joint membership agreed on say two candidates, but not the others? this could lead to having six ticks on the form for eight votes...?

 

One begins to feel that we've fallen down the rabbit hole. This whole thing becomes stranger by the minute.

 

Exactly. Or joint members, one of whom wished to abstain. They get one set of marks on the paper that get counted twice, against the wishes of the person wishing to abstain.

Really, this isn't rocket science:

1) Each voting member is given a single ballot paper listing all candidates. Joint members, members holding proxies etc are given one ballot paper for each valid vote they control. Handing out of ballot papers is controlled by the membership secretary, with reference to the membership list, at the point that members sign in to the meeting. Validity of proxy declarations is checked at the same time.

2) Members mark their preferred candidates in numerical order, up to a maximum of the number of vacancies. If desired, members can vote for fewer than the number of candidates, but more votes will be deemed a spoiled ballot paper and discarded, as will ballots marked with an X, tick etc. Completed ballot papers are deposited in a sealed ballot box.

3) The number of marks given for each candidate is counted without reference to expressed preference, to give a count for each candidate. The candidate with the most votes is declared the winner and elected to the first vacancy, the candidate with the second most votes is elected in second place and so on. Candidates are elected into the vacant trustee positions until all positions are filled.

4) In the event of a tie, the candidate with the most first preference votes is ranked highest of the tied candidates; if the first preferences are equal, the second preferences are used to separate candidates and so on until all preferences are accounted for. If two candidates can still not be separated after taking into account all preferences, their finishing order is determined by drawing lots.

5) The whole process is overseen by one or more scrutineers appointed by the chairman. The scrutineers are not members of the WSRA nor affiliated with any trustee or officer of the association or company that acts as a supplier to or user of WSRA services.

OK, I'm sure a legal eagle can improve on the drafting. But really - how complex can this be?

Tom

 

I have heard back from my PLC Company Secretary colleague and he has confirmed that his normal expectation would be that a Poll is undertaken using a Ballot paper. He has in recent years twice been the major scribe in re-writing Charity Articles, so is used to dealing with the "what ifs" of such circumstances.

He has also pointed out that there is quite a lot of admin involved in even a show of hands. Memberships need checking on the way in, and ideally, especially if non-members are admitted (spouses for example of non-joint memberships), then a simple card to be raised by those entitled to vote can assist.

If it is attempted to deal with resolutions (and the election is effectively 11 resolutions of "Do you wish X to be appointed as a Trustee", with only 4 "yes" votes permitted!) by show of hands, it only takes 5 members to call for a ballot (or, indeed, the Chairman can do so if the show of hands is not clear), so the ballot papers for a poll will really need preparing anyway to avoid the Chairman being left with no choice but to adjourn if these are not available. Given that it isn't a postal vote, adjourning to a later date would be very controversial as it would potentially disenfranchise anyone who had traveled for the original date but couldn't make it back for a reconvened meeting.

The Companies Act right to call for a poll cannot be over-ridden by the contents of a Company's Articles.

So, it seems ballot papers and probably an advance and publicised decision to vote by ballot is the only real way forward.

My colleague's final comment was "Sounds like they are going to face an administrative headache!"

Steven

 

In my example of proxy vote use in 2011, the chairman had 70 or more proxy votes to enact. The notion of his having to make out this number on the day is mind boggling if using James's method-ideal though this method may be. ..In effect, the made out proxies seem to act as postal votes, and should be ,processed under scrutiny by an independent person. In Steven's s method, they would be added to an individual poll total. Thanks both of you,for thinking of ways forward.

 

Don't see why that number would be a problem. On the Bluebell, our quorum is 200 and in recent years we have typically had around 225 - 275 people attend AGMs. The ballot boxes close 1/2 hour after the meeting starts(*) and a result is declared before the end of the meeting, no more than about 2.5 hours later. 70 proxies sounds like small beer to count ...

(*) In our model, voting takes place before the meeting starts; it is part of the "signing in" process. But that isn't inherent in the methodology: you could have a hustings in the meeting and then adjourn to allow everyone to complete their ballot papers and vote.

Tom

 

You allow that long for an AGM? Oh, don't let me loose as a Bluebell Officer (Those who regularly attend the NYMR AGM will know why - give the GM and me a couple of hours to kill and we'd be in paradise!)

Seriously, what business and presentations does the AGM cover? We tried to make the NYMR's wider ranging and more interesting this year and just ended up running pout of time (I may not have been entirely innocent in this)

Steven

 

I have heard back from my PLC Company Secretary colleague and he has confirmed that his normal expectation would be that a Poll is undertaken using a Ballot paper. He has in recent years twice been the major scribe in re-writing Charity Articles, so is used to dealing with the "what ifs" of such circumstances.

He has also pointed out that there is quite a lot of admin involved in even a show of hands. Memberships need checking on the way in, and ideally, especially if non-members are admitted (spouses for example of non-joint memberships), then a simple card to be raised by those entitled to vote can assist.

If it is attempted to deal with resolutions (and the election is effectively 11 resolutions of "Do you wish X to be appointed as a Trustee", with only 4 "yes" votes permitted!) by show of hands, it only takes 5 members to call for a ballot (or, indeed, the Chairman can do so if the show of hands is not clear), so the ballot papers for a poll will really need preparing anyway to avoid the Chairman being left with no choice but to adjourn if these are not available. Given that it isn't a postal vote, adjourning to a later date would be very controversial as it would potentially disenfranchise anyone who had traveled for the original date but couldn't make it back for a reconvened meeting.

The Companies Act right to call for a poll cannot be over-ridden by the contents of a Company's Articles.

So, it seems ballot papers and probably an advance and publicised decision to vote by ballot is the only real way forward.

My colleague's final comment was "Sounds like they are going to face an administrative headache!"

Steven


There is a postal vote as this is where the proxys come into play so we have one vote in the room and another by post which need to be combined during the AGM meeting. Where is Jon Snow when you need him to explain how it works!
I think I will just turn up on the day because in aint half getting complicated and we cant figure out how to fill in the proxy correctly. Anyone know what the car parking is like at the hall and decent Pub.


Know All

 

Well, about two hours are spent faffing with the PA so the people in the cheap seats can hear properly

More seriously, there is normally a fairly long bit about finance, talking through the company accounts - although it is the society AGM, that generally involves a long presentation about PLC finances, seeing as the PLC is effectively owned by the society. That normally generates the most questions from the floor. There's normally a bit about fundraising initiatives and a section about the Trust activities. Over the last couple of years, with the run-up to East Grinstead, the infrastructure director has normally given an update - there is talk that the loco and C&W directors should do likewise. Then there are any other motions up for debate; for example debating the long term plan a couple of years ago. Interestingly, voting for trustees is never a major part of proceedings, even when the election is contested. We haven't in my experience ever had a hustings; I suppose it is assumed that electioneering has gone on before and people attend the meeting with their minds made up.

There's also normally a mid-session Q&A, and presentation of long-service awards. It soon adds up! My experience over the last few years is that AGMs start at 7.30pm and typically wind up round about 10.30pm, including a longish mid-session interval.

Tom

 

You were a Chairman of the WSRA in the near past. You changed the M&A's I understand. Why didn't you change the M&A's on voting. You are partly (not wholly) responsible for this

 

Er, no.

I was Chairman until February 2009.

The M&A's we have now date from 2010, as revised in 2013.

kind regards

Robin