Proxy voting

[Steve Brown]

I did highlight that as a logistical issue too.

It is surely wrong to have a voting system that inherently relies on voter apathy / not everyone turning up. That might be the historical precedent but one shouldn't rely wholly on it.

The companies (with millions of shareholders - all entitled to turn up at a venue) get around this issue by hiring a hall based on historical precedent attendance + a safety factor , but with proxy voting available they are safe in the knowledge that even if (say on a highly publicised, vital or important issue) everyone wants to vote and is indeed determined to do so, a large proportion will use the alternative available proxy system instead of travelling to the AGM itselfs and swamping it. None the less this has happened in the past.

[leiafee]

I agree with the principle of widening the capability of members to have their say but postal voting is expensive and often the inevitable low return % means that a proportion of money spent is wasted.

In bog standard "normal" political voting you have to ASK for a postal or proxy vote is my understanding.

If you care, and know you're no going to be able to make it to the meeting, you should be able to ask for and get a proxy or postal vote.

No need to blitz everyone who doesn't give a toss with voting forms...

Surely if people are enthusiastic and interested enough to want a postal vote when they can't make it that's a GOOD thing -- they're not the "lazy ones who can't be bothered to get there". Odds on, the "lazy ones who can't be bothered" wouldn't return a postal vote anyway...

[Pete]

If take the PFA name change as an example, this was a major issue, it was only publicised one month before the AGM. As a consequence there was insufficient time for folks to explore the pros and cons, there was only a single mag issue. Members were given Hobson's choice, either attend the AGM or accept the executive proposals.

Given that the inner sanctum seem to have made up their collective mind before the name change was proposed to the membership, I suspect that this was a deliberate act to make sure that there was only limited debate.

This was to mind an example of a high minded attitude that seems to exist at the top our association.

I would like to propose that all proposals that are to be put to the membership should published at least 15 weeks before the AGM.

I would further propose that members should be given the right to demand a postal/email vote - say where 40 members request that right.

My last suggestion is that any vote on amalgamation of the 2 associations should NOT be taken at the AGM. The issue should of course be discussed, but members should certainly be given more opportunity to think through the implications.

Regarding claims by certain folks that this Forum is unrepresentative, that may be true, but we are probably far better informed than the rest of the members. If the rest of the members were as well informed, there could well be ten times as many dissidents.

[Rod1]

“My last suggestion is that any vote on amalgamation of the 2 associations should NOT be taken at the AGM. The issue should of course be discussed, but members should certainly be given more opportunity to think through the implications. “

Perhaps it could be debated at the AGM. A set of minutes published in the mag together with a postal voting slip, and then we could all vote with all the facts at our disposal. Reasonably green solution and very democratic.

”Regarding claims by certain folks that this Forum is unrepresentative, that may be true, but we are probably far better informed than the rest of the members. If the rest of the members were as well informed, there could well be ten times as many dissidents.”

There are 367 members currently active on this forum and rising. I would guess this is far more than would turn up for an average AGM.

Rod1

[Brian Hope]

Peter, you are perfectly at liberty to propose your ideas as motions for rule changes at the AGM. The procedure for doing so will appear shortly in the magazine.

[mikehallam]

In which case, Pete Diffey, you are prime material to join the LAA Web Strut. And so, of course, is your worthy suggestion just the sort of serious subject the Strut could work on.
BUT I doubt you'll do that as most folk get their dander up and spark off then disappear. From the 20 or so who originally voted on the poll for the web strut, only two have put their heads above the parapet. (Look at the thread).

Yet the WEb Strut will grant 'us' direct represenattion to the executive.

Let Apathy reign ! OR ?

AND no doubt that EXACTLY why our Executive know they have to get on with things without asking for an O.K every 5 minutes.

AFIK The BMAA do have some form of postal ballet so if theirs is an economical scheme we could copy that arrangement. Why reinvent the wheel !
On the other hand there have been very expensive PFA all member votes where each member dead or alive was mailed and the remote Electoral something or other society made sure it wasn't a fiddle. Now that was far too pricey to use all the time.

Lastly if one has representation, then let them jolly well get on with it. You can't really run the LAA where anything at all criticisable has to go to the member 4 months early !! Anyway who decides what's ballotable and not ?

[Certainly HMG has avoided asking us about the back door acceptance of all the EEC rules despite several other countires [we weren't allowed !] saying 'NO'.]

[Chris B]

Rod1, I agree.

What I would like to see is a coherent case for the amalgamation being put to members as soon a s possible, and done in such a way that there is no need for endless debate on this BB in the run up to the AGM. We (the BB users and the EC) need to have learnt something from last year.

Given a coherent case, we will then have to trust the EC when they make decisions on what the Rules of the new Association are, where the HQ will be, subs, magazine etc. etc.

I hope that something was learnt from the name change last year.

Two examples of how communication works on the BB:

1. As soon as I posted that the Chairman had asked me to look at the difficulties of Rule 13b, the thread virtually stopped. i.e. message received.

2. The Press Release was issued here at the same time as anywhere else. Response has been positive. Usually we complain when we are the last to know - and it goes downhill from there.

It is all about communication and keeping members informed.

Regards,

Chris B

[flyin'dutch']

Hear hear

[Gary M]

I prefer proxy voting to postal for the following reasons:

As Brian correctly points out, postal voting involves a decision before the public debate.It also requires a form that is specifically tailored to each proposal.

Proxy voting means the final decision can be made by the proxy holder after hearing the debate. The form is generic.

One proxy form can be issued to all members and can remain in force for so long as the holder is willing to assume the responsibility of attending to hear the debate, (several, years hopefully)

As for whether or not some kind of remote voting should be allowed; I genuinely believe it would be very healthy to allow it.

If someone wants to second the motion for Proxy Voting it requires a change of the rules and must be tabled several months ahead of the AGM. At this stage I do not want get bogged down in how it is implemented, rather just define the requirement; what not how.

If I have a seconder please contact me directly.
Regards,

Gary

[mikehallam]

A cautious support to the request for a seconder..........................

Except I already wrote to the office today:-

"Could the EC in advance of the LAA/BMAA amalgamation vote, introduce an economic way of postal or proxy voting. In particular this should ensure a reasonable number of votes & defuse complaints from those too far from and/or unable to attend the EGM.

The BMAA do have an acceptable system ready made & in these circumstances well worth mirroring.

AFIK Their members write in for a ballot paper, which means all who wish can vote but have no excuse to complain later on that they hadn't had the chance. It's done in house and this method reduces costs considerably.

Alternatively our light aviation mail out sheet [which embodies each discrete member's number] could carry a form to sign & return with his/her proxy request.

This ought to be cheap & reasonably bullet proof ! "

[Tony Harrison-Smith]

Mike,

The BMAA put a postal voting form in the magazine that has the details of the AGM. The member can then fill it in and post it back to the BMAA. From what I remember it is not even freepost, so there is no cost to the BMAA except the cost of printing one piece of paper per member and then counting the replies.

I would heartily recommend this system. You do not get a very high percentage using the postal vote but EVERYBODY does have the chance to have their say. What it does mean is that the magazine does have to have articles in it for and against the motion so that a balanced view is put forward.

[mikehallam]

Exactly so.

That's where the magazine mailing cover slip with membership number could simply be used: each is unique.

[Chris B]

Mike H,

The PRESS RELEASE says, "Our aim is to put this proposal to our members later this year and, with their support, enter 2009 as a single association of nearly 12,000 members."

Perhaps the initial question to HQ should have been how they intend to put the proposal to the membership? You never know, they may already be planning to give every member a postal vote without the need to change Rules at the AGM. The existing Rules are likely to change as a result of the amalgamation anyway.

I guess that Proxy voting will be an issue for the LAA and BMAA as the amalgamation continues and included in the ALABAMA Rules from 2009.

Regards,

Chris

[John Dean]

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.