Brian etc.
We fellows, who want more than AGM/EGM attendees voting, do not really fear EC 'conspiracy' !
More that, regretfully, the EC hadn't been sufficiently alert & already taken care of the existing Rules' obvious deficiencies in this area.
I do note a certain proposal for a wider group of delegates in the May magazine, but with respect there are several probably better tried & tested methods that other mutual organisations find acceptable. These weren't mentioned, so the EC may need to think a bit harder & listen to the lay membership who otherwise see themselves disenfranchised.
Proxy voting
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
mikehallam
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: West Sussex
- Contact:
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Mike, I was up at the office today and rest assured the issue of postal voting is on the agenda.
The new EC candidate proposal is presented as an arrangement that would be more representative of the membership. There are specific segments within the association, microlights, homebuilts, vintage/classic, C of A and enthusiasts, and most members have one segment as their main focus of interest, though of course many of us are interested in most if not all of those segments. The proposal suggested that there would be an EC member from each of those specific segments. At present it is pot luck whether or not there might be EC members elected who cover each and every segment as their major interest.
Personally I think this proposal would give us an EC that was more representative of the membership, as a microlighter for instance, you would have somebody from your segment who would be a focal point for microlighting issues, sort of your local MP. However, by all means suggest some alternative EC nomination ideas, that is why the idea was published, to get some feedback and alternative suggestions.
The new EC candidate proposal is presented as an arrangement that would be more representative of the membership. There are specific segments within the association, microlights, homebuilts, vintage/classic, C of A and enthusiasts, and most members have one segment as their main focus of interest, though of course many of us are interested in most if not all of those segments. The proposal suggested that there would be an EC member from each of those specific segments. At present it is pot luck whether or not there might be EC members elected who cover each and every segment as their major interest.
Personally I think this proposal would give us an EC that was more representative of the membership, as a microlighter for instance, you would have somebody from your segment who would be a focal point for microlighting issues, sort of your local MP. However, by all means suggest some alternative EC nomination ideas, that is why the idea was published, to get some feedback and alternative suggestions.
-
mikehallam
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: West Sussex
- Contact:
I think you'll find Gary Miller is already saying something along those lines and seconders have posted too.
The Rules are fine but contain a void, possibly as their writers all those years ago never knew the BMAA would be formed let alone that umpteen years later the PFA/LAA might wish to amalgamate with them !
Hard work by the EC et al is widely acknowledged, but not to the extent that we gag ourselves from offering constructive opinions. It is indeed their wisdom in grasping the electronic comm's age that we do have these fora.
The Rules are fine but contain a void, possibly as their writers all those years ago never knew the BMAA would be formed let alone that umpteen years later the PFA/LAA might wish to amalgamate with them !
Hard work by the EC et al is widely acknowledged, but not to the extent that we gag ourselves from offering constructive opinions. It is indeed their wisdom in grasping the electronic comm's age that we do have these fora.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
There you go again Cirrus, claiming that the current system is not democratic - WRONG. Just because there is a low turn out it does not mean that the system is undemocratic, what it actually means is that 99% of the membership isn't particularly bothered about the AGM, or is reasonably content that the EC is running things OK so they'll let them and the few members that do turn up get on with it.
Jodel owners do have a choice between St Omer and the AGM (which has actually been at Hucknal for the last two years rather than Turweston), and this one attends both.
Good news is that a proposal for a rule change to allow the balloting of members is being worked up at this very moment, a draft of which has already been circulated within EC for comment. Whether the final motion needs to be made at an EGM or an AGM will depend on the progress or otherwise of ongoing LAA/BMAA merger discussions and whether a proposal comes from them to put to the two memberships. The required scenario is that the ability to ballot the members must be in place before a vote on a merger proposal is required.
Which ever course of action unfolds, it is very unlikely that the AGM and St Omer will clash this year, a touch or irony if an earlier EGM has voted through the ballot procedure and you will be able to vote without attending the AGM anyway. BUT, if it is the AGM that has to vote on the balloting motion, I wonder if you will make the effort to attend and support an argument that you are apparently so passionate about.
Incidentally, though EC has not discussed the balloting proposal officially, that will happen at the next EC meeting in early June, the vibes via the emails suggests that it will give pretty well 100% support for the motion. Does that mean that if an AGM votes it through it will have been an undemocratic decision, or that the EC has railroaded it through, or that a cohesive argument was not presented, or that the EC took 'advantage' of a low turn out.
Or does that only happen when you disagree with a motion that has been passed? Hey guys, it's a serious question, I'm not being sarky, honest!
Jodel owners do have a choice between St Omer and the AGM (which has actually been at Hucknal for the last two years rather than Turweston), and this one attends both.
Good news is that a proposal for a rule change to allow the balloting of members is being worked up at this very moment, a draft of which has already been circulated within EC for comment. Whether the final motion needs to be made at an EGM or an AGM will depend on the progress or otherwise of ongoing LAA/BMAA merger discussions and whether a proposal comes from them to put to the two memberships. The required scenario is that the ability to ballot the members must be in place before a vote on a merger proposal is required.
Which ever course of action unfolds, it is very unlikely that the AGM and St Omer will clash this year, a touch or irony if an earlier EGM has voted through the ballot procedure and you will be able to vote without attending the AGM anyway. BUT, if it is the AGM that has to vote on the balloting motion, I wonder if you will make the effort to attend and support an argument that you are apparently so passionate about.
Incidentally, though EC has not discussed the balloting proposal officially, that will happen at the next EC meeting in early June, the vibes via the emails suggests that it will give pretty well 100% support for the motion. Does that mean that if an AGM votes it through it will have been an undemocratic decision, or that the EC has railroaded it through, or that a cohesive argument was not presented, or that the EC took 'advantage' of a low turn out.
Or does that only happen when you disagree with a motion that has been passed? Hey guys, it's a serious question, I'm not being sarky, honest!
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Sorry Welshman, I didn't realise every one of our members lived so far away from the AGM location that it was impossible for them to attend. That must be the reason then.
Doesn't the fact that a ballot system is being discussed by EC and a motion prepared mean that we are listening to the members? I thought it patently demonstrated that, but again, I accept that I might be wrong on that one too. Help me out here mate, what can we do to satisfy you.
Doesn't the fact that a ballot system is being discussed by EC and a motion prepared mean that we are listening to the members? I thought it patently demonstrated that, but again, I accept that I might be wrong on that one too. Help me out here mate, what can we do to satisfy you.
"Good news is that a proposal for a rule change to allow the balloting of members is being worked up at this very moment, a draft of which has already been circulated within EC for comment. "
It seems a bit odd that I have posted here that I am going to propose a motion and I have several possible seconders and all of a sudden after 60 years, someone , not named has already drafted an alternative version and circulated it to the EC.
Just to be clear then; the version that has been drafted and circulated is not mine. Mine will propose that all matters that apper on the AGM Agenda and require a vote can be voted on by all members present or not.
-----
"A fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure is that decisions are not made by less than a majority"
I respectfully disagree that a vote by 80 members in a room that can only hold 1 or 2 % of the membership is democratic. There are definitions in place for most democratic bodies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_requi ... iamentary)
(paste it in)
It seems a bit odd that I have posted here that I am going to propose a motion and I have several possible seconders and all of a sudden after 60 years, someone , not named has already drafted an alternative version and circulated it to the EC.
Just to be clear then; the version that has been drafted and circulated is not mine. Mine will propose that all matters that apper on the AGM Agenda and require a vote can be voted on by all members present or not.
-----
"A fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure is that decisions are not made by less than a majority"
I respectfully disagree that a vote by 80 members in a room that can only hold 1 or 2 % of the membership is democratic. There are definitions in place for most democratic bodies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_requi ... iamentary)
(paste it in)
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
"A fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure is that decisions are not made by less than a majority"
Yes indeedy Gary, that's just how we do it at the AGM. The ones with the most votes win.
Your interpretation is wrong , assuming you think this means that a majority of every single person elligible to vote is necessary. If that were the case nobody running the UK government or local councils would have a mandate, let alone our lil ole association.
"Might we see it then?"
I thought I'd made it perfectly clear that EC is currently discussing a first draft - so there is no properly defined 'it' at the moment. When there is, and that will probably not be until after the June EC meeting, the proposal will be presented to the membership for comment.
Yes indeedy Gary, that's just how we do it at the AGM. The ones with the most votes win.
Your interpretation is wrong , assuming you think this means that a majority of every single person elligible to vote is necessary. If that were the case nobody running the UK government or local councils would have a mandate, let alone our lil ole association.
"Might we see it then?"
I thought I'd made it perfectly clear that EC is currently discussing a first draft - so there is no properly defined 'it' at the moment. When there is, and that will probably not be until after the June EC meeting, the proposal will be presented to the membership for comment.
-
Nigel Hitchman
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm
- Location: Hinton in the hedges
I agree postal voting would be a good idea. I also see Brian's point of this almost making pointless a vote at the AGM as the result would already be decided by the postal vote (assuming enough postal votes) However this doesnt really make the AGM pointless as it can still be a forum to ask the EC questions etc.
I think by putting any AGM motion on the Bulletin Board and in the magazine the required time in advance, should give plenty of opportunity for a good debate. Even though only a small percentage of the membership uses the BB at present, they all have the possibility of using it, even those without computers can go to the library if they want to. However, like turning up at the AGM, Im sure the majority of the membership wont bother and thats fine.
Using the BB would allow a lot better debate of the subject, but the proposer would have to agree to monitor and contribute to the thread!
As for turning up at AGMs, distance may be a problem for a few who want to come, but I think apathy, lack of interest, better things to do is far more of a reason. The AGMs Ive been to have had quite a few people from long distance, always seems to be a good turnout from Devon strut and Mid Kent strut, who arent exactly close to Cranfield, Turweston, Hucknall where its been held, but there are very many members a lot closer who dont come.
If we merge with the BMAA, then it would be great to follow their lead and have the AGM at the Splash show at the NEC.
Definitly want it to be in the winter out of the flying season.
I think by putting any AGM motion on the Bulletin Board and in the magazine the required time in advance, should give plenty of opportunity for a good debate. Even though only a small percentage of the membership uses the BB at present, they all have the possibility of using it, even those without computers can go to the library if they want to. However, like turning up at the AGM, Im sure the majority of the membership wont bother and thats fine.
Using the BB would allow a lot better debate of the subject, but the proposer would have to agree to monitor and contribute to the thread!
As for turning up at AGMs, distance may be a problem for a few who want to come, but I think apathy, lack of interest, better things to do is far more of a reason. The AGMs Ive been to have had quite a few people from long distance, always seems to be a good turnout from Devon strut and Mid Kent strut, who arent exactly close to Cranfield, Turweston, Hucknall where its been held, but there are very many members a lot closer who dont come.
If we merge with the BMAA, then it would be great to follow their lead and have the AGM at the Splash show at the NEC.
Definitly want it to be in the winter out of the flying season.
Hi Brian,
I don't want to be at all contentious but I didn't make an interpretation; it was just a quote, so it's not wrong. The full passage quoted reads:
"A fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure is that decisions are not made by less than a majority.[3] Mason's Manual explains, "If powers were given to a minority, the question immediately would arise as to what minority. In any group there can be but one majority, but there may be many different minorities." To grant a specific minority power to make decisions on behalf of the group amounts to a delegation of power, which a public body cannot do.[4] "
My suggestion is quite simply that more people are eligible to vote on all matters, not define the majority or minority.
As per the old adage "No taxation without representation" - Currently, if I'm not there at the AGM I do not have representation but I still have to pay the LAA to fly. That is not Democratic in my book. Just a personal opinion - and you are free to disagree but please, don't declare it wrong just because you disagree.
Best regards,
Gary
I don't want to be at all contentious but I didn't make an interpretation; it was just a quote, so it's not wrong. The full passage quoted reads:
"A fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure is that decisions are not made by less than a majority.[3] Mason's Manual explains, "If powers were given to a minority, the question immediately would arise as to what minority. In any group there can be but one majority, but there may be many different minorities." To grant a specific minority power to make decisions on behalf of the group amounts to a delegation of power, which a public body cannot do.[4] "
My suggestion is quite simply that more people are eligible to vote on all matters, not define the majority or minority.
As per the old adage "No taxation without representation" - Currently, if I'm not there at the AGM I do not have representation but I still have to pay the LAA to fly. That is not Democratic in my book. Just a personal opinion - and you are free to disagree but please, don't declare it wrong just because you disagree.
Best regards,
Gary
-
John Brady
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:39 pm
Postal Voting
There is a substantial amount of intellect being applied to the questions of democracy and voting systems. Please can I ask your advice on something I cannot resolve.
If we go for postal voting, either for big issues or all issues that would otherwise be decide at the AGM, how do we get proper debate and presentation of views for both sides? The problem I see for Postal voting is that some proposal has to go to the membership to vote yes or no. How do we get the debate out to all members? The BB may or may not be representative of the membership but it cannot be said to be a communication means for all membership or even a small part of it. So we seem to need something else.
The current rules on postal voting requires that views for and against be presented with ballot papers and that is possible as currently a postal ballot can only follow an AGM discussion.
Anyway your views on how this could be put together would be very wellcome.
JB
If we go for postal voting, either for big issues or all issues that would otherwise be decide at the AGM, how do we get proper debate and presentation of views for both sides? The problem I see for Postal voting is that some proposal has to go to the membership to vote yes or no. How do we get the debate out to all members? The BB may or may not be representative of the membership but it cannot be said to be a communication means for all membership or even a small part of it. So we seem to need something else.
The current rules on postal voting requires that views for and against be presented with ballot papers and that is possible as currently a postal ballot can only follow an AGM discussion.
Anyway your views on how this could be put together would be very wellcome.
JB
-
mikehallam
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: West Sussex
- Contact:
You're absolutely right, there is no easy way to get debate followed by vote if the voting by post is presented fait accompli to an EGM. So a better fix may need to be wrought.
The present system, which may well be being addressed from what Brian writes, allows the pro's cons ONLY after a debate which ends in stalemate to be postal voted. BUT the 'Rules' at present don't allow any flexibility in permitting this as an option. Moreover if the Chairman decides there's a quorum a very small number of attendees can effect a mandate.
With the major BMAA/LAA discussion on the cards a timely 'Rules' update is required and this BB has helped ventilate matters. I accept too that the BB subscribers are self selecting [like me !] and not a fair cross section but never the less it does represent the concerns of those that do contribute. Both Executive and Lay members have expressed BB views, largely favourable to a revised 'middle way'.
I am swayed by your view that only after EGM debate should the postal voters get their chance, if they can't be bothered then, it's their look out !
The present system, which may well be being addressed from what Brian writes, allows the pro's cons ONLY after a debate which ends in stalemate to be postal voted. BUT the 'Rules' at present don't allow any flexibility in permitting this as an option. Moreover if the Chairman decides there's a quorum a very small number of attendees can effect a mandate.
With the major BMAA/LAA discussion on the cards a timely 'Rules' update is required and this BB has helped ventilate matters. I accept too that the BB subscribers are self selecting [like me !] and not a fair cross section but never the less it does represent the concerns of those that do contribute. Both Executive and Lay members have expressed BB views, largely favourable to a revised 'middle way'.
I am swayed by your view that only after EGM debate should the postal voters get their chance, if they can't be bothered then, it's their look out !