Proxy voting

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:57 pm

So is there a view emerging here that the current representation arrangements (ie through the NC) are not as effective as they might be? The NC comprises reps from struts and clubs and get together periodically to discuss the association, to hear what the EC has been doing and to voice opinion. What would we have instead?

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:27 pm

Pete

I represent the European Luscombes on the NC. As they are not a membership organisation (other than being registered users of a forum like this one) it would not be possible to say how many LAA members I represent. I do know that we have a number of registered users in the USA and that we also have users who do not own Luscombes. I also know that not all G-Reg Luscombes are administered by LAA (some are on C's of A).

I very much suspect the same applies to the Vintage Pipers, who are also represented on the NC.

Cirrus272's idea is in fact probably nearer to the mark than your own. Like an MP the representatives are there to represent their constituency. Like an MP they are available to their constituents who may have concerns they wish to raise. However they are not there to cast block votes.

I also sit on the Members' Working Group of AOPA UK. I don't see the purpose of either of these roles as being to "spout off" my own views, rather I am putting my time and skills (such as they are) into the pot.

Mach2
Not sure what you mean by "effective". In any organisation the members appoint the executive to run the show. The AGM is where the executive report back to the members and the members have the opportunity to change things. If enough members are dissatisfied with how things are run they can call an EGM. It strikes me that the NC is a useful way for the EC to keep in touch between AGM's and it's a source of ideas and suggestions. If the EC is to be directed by the members it should be done by resolution at an AGM or EGM.

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:24 am

Mike,

Generally well expressed but for major changes of direction, & even a reconstitution forthcoming, we do need more than the usual channels. The current Rules seem to jump from a show of hands vote at the A/EGM to an expensive postal ballot BUT ONLY if the former fails. [Expensive due to the cumbersome and so far ONLY way permitted of conducting a remote vote].

So really something does need doing to update us to the 21st Century rather than stay a bit like a 1950's Gentlemens' Aviation Society.

In view of the BMAA/LAA thing it's got to be attended to PDQ !

Such massive changes ought to be catered for by a rule adjustment (copy other clubs here).

e.g. If a major change is planned a certain specified number of members could write to request a postal ballot or proxy vote (depends on what you think is best). Then as earlier posts on this thread suggest it's a lowish cost democratic transparent device.

Only interested parties would vote - we know that !

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:17 pm

No disagreement from me Mike, I too would welcome the use of absentee voting, whether by proxy or by post.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:52 pm

regardless of disagreement on semantics, I think we all agree that the members one way or another should have greater opportunity to voice concerns around issues.

Regarding my naive view regarding NC members - it was said slightly tongue in cheek.

Given that AGM decisions are generally decided on a ballot of less than 100 voters, would not an internet ballot be likely to make a larger vote.

It cannot really be much less representative.

I dare say we could even organise sufficient PCs and modems to allow strut members to vote at their struts - well again perhaps that's naive

Gary M · Post by **Gary M** » Thu May 01, 2008 10:45 pm

I'm glad the question provoked a good debate, but as the rules stand it will take a motion to be raised, a seconder, a proposal in writing to arrive 3 months before the AGM and a vote based on a show of hands at the next AGM before we can CHANGE THE RULES that exist now. So for the 3rd time - gentlemen, please can I have a seconder ?

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Fri May 02, 2008 11:25 am

I will be happy to second the motion, will pvt you with my contact details

macconnacher · Post by **macconnacher** » Fri May 02, 2008 9:47 pm

If you wonder why PFA/LAA has never had proxy voting it was for the following reasons
1 we did not want to follow the EAA way of doing things. There on your membership application you are encouraged to sign a general proxy for the President and very many do. In my day in EAA that was Art Klips and Paul Poberezney. I attended an AGM at Oshkosh in the 70's it was a farce. Various people put forward motions all were defeated except those from Paul P who on each occasion stated that he had 20,000+ proxies, I guess it still goes on.

2 It encourages small presure groups and proxies tend to favour the EC. So far people who make the effort to attend do so out of a keen interest in their Association have mostly made the right decision for the development of the association, incuding stopping stupid ideas that emenated from the EC on occasions. Postal votes have the advantage that they are restricted to the issue whereas proxy votes can be used for votes for which the original member may not have wanted.

Jim Gale · Post by **Jim Gale** » Sun May 04, 2008 2:02 pm

Cirrus. I think you mean less than 1%. No wonder we have problems with our accounts!
Joking apart, I think there's not much wrong with postal votes or, as has been suggested before, use your NC member to lobby EC/represent you at AGMs
Jim.

Gary M · Post by **Gary M** » Mon May 05, 2008 12:06 am

Thanks for the offers for a seconder (3 now)
I called the BMAA and was put through to Geoff Weighell who kindly explained the whole process they have for Postal Voting. After that conversation and others, I intend to ask for postal rather than proxy voting.
The BMAA procedures have to include checks on the currency of the membership for each ballot paper and the results are entered onto a simple spreadsheet as they come in. They only do postal votes on extarordinary issues like new council members and special issues, whereas I am looking for remote voting on any issue that requires a vote at the AGM.

I think this will force people who bring issues to the AGM to have a cohesive argument available and it will encourage members to take part in the debates and issues because they rightly feel that at last they can make a diffrerence, despite not being able to attend AGMs of local Strut meetings. That said; it is much better to attend and meet fellow members if at all possible. On that front, it would be better to hold the AGM at one of the most popular fly-ins.

Gary

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Mon May 05, 2008 9:52 am

It would appear that the BMAA set up is not that far removed from the one we have already then!
EC member voting by post has, in the past, often yielded quite low responses, and I fear that when (if) we go to postal voting on all AGM motions we will fair no better, worse in fact as I hope members will have to pay their own postage on the ballot papers. The freebie post for EC elections is always badly abused, instead of sending off their ballot papers, many members use the freepost envelopes to send in their permit renewals etc.
Notwithstanding the above, I look forward to reading your cohesive argument Gary. To think we have managed to survive so long without so much as a single cohesive argument. Blimey!
The cynic in me now just has to ask, if we have postal ballotting, is there any purpose served in attending the AGM? I will listen and possibly take part in a live debate, but my vote will be meaningless, the result having already been settled by the postal voters who haven't actually listened to the live debate!
You may think I am against a postal vote, but in fact I am not. On the face of it it sounds more democratic, but then so does the EAA saying a motion passed by X number of thousands of votes.
I simply have yet to be convinced that it will produce better decisions.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Tue May 06, 2008 6:37 am

I'm just pointing out that there is no ideal system, and with smoke and mirrors you can make your particular favourite system appear to be the best by far.
I do not go with the railroading theory one iota, in fact I'm offended by the suggestion that it has ever been a deliberate ploy by an EC to 'get their own way. If you think for a moment, those that expound such a theory conveniently decide not to follow the idea through to its ultimate conclusion, and that is that a low turn out AGM is just the opportunity any faction can take advantage of. There was a very active debate on the BB about the name change for instance, and the railroading allegation was proffered then. Had all the antis turned up at the AGM then they might well have defeated the motion.
Historically, people who are opposed to something will make more effort to vote against it than those who are supportive, just look at the result of mid term council elections for instance. Nobody in their right mind would rely on a low turn out to get a motion through.
As I recall there was a form of ballot over the Old Warden HQ issue, a major decision for the association. The results were used to justify the future HQ decision, a not unreasonable scenario.
I have no doubt that full consultation with the membership will be a prime requisite of any LAA/BMAA merger proposal. Anything less would be unacceptable.