Proxy voting

[Bill McCarthy]

Cost of postage can't be an issue. I received an application form today from the association inviting me to take up an LAA credit card. I suspect there would be greater than 90% thrown in the bin.

[Mike Mold]

The credit card is a painless and cost-free way of supporting the Association. Use it, pay it off every month and the LAA gets a kick-back.

[Chris B]

they may already be planning to give every member a postal vote without the need to change Rules at the AGM.

How could this happen? The EC must comply with the rules in the same way all members must.

John,

Try Rule 17j

Chris B.

[John Dean]

That would seem to do the job. Problem solved.

[John Brady]

I think most members would want everyone to have the opportunity to vote on major issues that could change the association. Unfortunately, whilst Rule 17j governs how a postal ballot would be managed, it does not govern when it may be used. That is in 8c (election to EC) and 17g (voting at general meetings). 17g is only applicable when the EC so decides following a disagreement between the EC and the members present at a general meeting (I paraphrase here).

We need to resolve this, perhaps so that the EC could also order a ballot on matters it considers of major importance to the future of the association.

But to do this would need a rule change and that needs a general meeting. I have a cunning plan that could deal with this and I discussed it with the Chairman last night.

I hope to be able to discuss somthing next week so any more ideas or suggestions as to how members would like votes of significance handled would be welcome as we try to take this forward.

[Mike Cross]

Our aim is to put this proposal to our members later this year

I suspect they meant by means of a resolution at the AGM, which is what you would expect. I certainly don't read it as a commitment to a postal ballot.

There are quite a few ways to handle absent voting. The main requirement is to be able to verify that the person casting the vote is entitled to do so. Currently for example you have to provide your membership number to register on here. Matching membership numbers to names is reasonably OK if you have confidence in the confidentiality of the membership list. Another way would be to send a registration number by e-mail or post to the member's registered e-mail or postal address if he requested a postal vote. He would then need to quote that number when casting his vote and it would be verified before his vote was counted. That method would only require the confidentiality of the numbers to be maintained for the duration of hte voting process. A new set of numbers would be generated the next time.

[Peter Harvey]

Hi folks
Some excellent ideas within the forum on the voting position.
I haven't checked the rules as yet, but perhaps the principals are more important at this stage anyway:
1) The more fundamental the decision, the greater the % of membership opinion required to ensure happy bunnies all around (I haven't time to rewrite that coherently, but you get the drift).
2) The rules are here to support and protect our democratic process, whilst allowing freedom for the day to day activities. Rules work for us, not the other way around. If they constrain, or hinder, they need adjustment, but only after careful, informed consideration.
3) Proxy voting works, but only if the proxy holder really does represent the view of the other member(s).

So, if I may offer a personal opionion here (no, not policy, not discussed with EC, etc):
I'd like to see maximum INFORMED coverage on the issues regarding amalgamation (and lots of other stuff too).
I'd like a system of maximum individual representation so the mandate is more robust and representative.
I'd like to keep costs contained.
All the above, whilst ensuring fairness, accuracy, timeliness and avoiding complete disruption to the 'normal' office activity.

I'll do my best to provide as much communication and information as possible. It's a bit of a balancing act, since a bit of information is useful, but can be misconstrued without the full facts. In this soundbite world, few folks have the patience or time to describe the full position and fewer still the time to listen! Misinformation is endemic.

The web is direct, fast and cheap. We write to every member, every month and I bet 90%+ have email. There's got to be a way of doing this well. We're working on it.
I read the forum lots and you've got my email. I'm thinking of running a blog for communication. Feedback gratefully received.
Pete Harvey (LAA CEO)

[email protected]

[mikehallam]

Peter Harvey,

I think there are a great many Luddites who prefer snail mail & in the short time before a great debate on BMAA+LAA, I think easier concepts exist to achieve an acceptable vote of some wider democratic base than a mere show of hands at the EGM.

The Rules are not very widely drawn as I read them, but surely within them there must be some mechanism for a ballot & some alternative to the one & only laid down system ? They appear to go straight from the sublime to the ridiculous with no intermediate facility in between.

Perhaps the E.C. could deal with that lacuna now, by updating or rectifying that [possibly historic] anomaly. As I said earlier, maybe taking a leaf from the BMAA voting system ?

Either way the LAA web BB appears to consist of a self selecting small group of contributers (like me !) which often however loud they shout do not really represent the majority.

A simple postal Ballot or Proxy is an arrangement satisfactorily well demonstrated for shareholders' votes, universally used in business.

[Nigel Hitchman]

I think some kind of postal votes, perhaps as proposed by Mike Cross would be the best idea, but keeping cost to a minimum, thus sent out with the magazine and pay your own postage back.
Proxy votes would be ok if you gave your proxy to any other member you like and then they vote at the AGM, although this still favours "locals"- although at AGMs Ive attended there have been quite a lot of people from quite far away!

EAA's system of proxy votes seems to be that you give your proxy to a certain person to vote on your behalf, perhaps the EAA secretary, thus is great for the status quo and supporting the directors, but wouldnt work very well if there was a genuine debate and choice to be made perhaps.
I havent been to an EAA AGM, but passing by when they are happening there are never many people there and reading the minutes, it would seem they have less atendees than us. Most of the motions and elections are also passed by vast majorities due to one person having all the proxy votes.
However EAA is a totally different concept from the LAA being a private company engaged in making a profit (but still doing a great job for their members) rather than an association run for the benefit of the members without the profit element.

[Pete]

In point of fact, we have always had proxy voting - at least I hope that the Strut reps on the NC represent the views of their struts.

I am full of confidence that having a CEO who is an internet friend will greatly increase the number of active BB members to the point that the BB is seen as representative.

I still remain convinced that it is representative, the 300 odd members are those that have anything to say. At the average strut meeting it is the same old folks who speak up, and as there are probably less than 1000 strut attendees, there are probably only a couple of hundred who ever speak, so the numbers are roughly similar.

I am really pleased to see that out of this thread action seems to have sprung, and we are moving towards better representation, hopefully some of the less well considered rule changes will now get better scrutiny

[Mike Mold]

[quote: I do like the idea that, instead of the LAA providing free postage, it would be at the cost of the member.]

Displaying your, now customary, treasury prudence![/quote]

[Pete]

No - the reps role is to come up with ideas and proposals to present to the membership

Well doesn't that just confirm the view that in fact the BB is as representative as the NC.

If all NC "REPRESENTATIVES" take your attitude - ie they are not there to represent, but to spout off there own views, then it's no surprise that we get some stupid resolutions.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick sir.