Congrats to the EC for making a small step into the 21st century.
I am pleased that EC members have responded to BB suggestions, it does demonstrate the value of the BB. I hope the EC continues to react to members comments.
Proxy voting
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
Hi JB,
I think this is why many systems use proxy rather than postal and proxy was my original choice. Then I spoke to Geoff Weighell at the BMAA and they have a form of postal voting, similar to the LAA. So I thought postal voting would gain wider support from BMAA and LAA members.
But there is a valid argument for proxy voting - hearing the debate first etc. It may be that people will prefer to give their vote to the EC member or another person that they trust to represent their views. If each segment of flyers is now to be represented on the EC then we can give the EC a wider mandate by giving them our proxy. I know ... that brings us almost full circle back to what we have, assuming that the full EC is always present at the AGM or EGM. Almost, but the difference is that the full membership has a vote that they can give to someone whose judgement they trust on a specific issue, not necessarily an EC member.
This potentially makes us more active rather than passive members and gives the individual member more incentive to raise matters of importance for consideration by a more widely enfranchised audience. If we can then say that x thousand members voted that they oppose Mode S or an increase in charges etc., then the CAA are more likely to listen than if 82 bods in a room raised their hands.
If postal voting is the way to go then there is no harm in the proposer of a motion writing their case and it being published on the website and the magazine before the AGM as is the case when new and old members are running for re-election to the EC.
I think this is why many systems use proxy rather than postal and proxy was my original choice. Then I spoke to Geoff Weighell at the BMAA and they have a form of postal voting, similar to the LAA. So I thought postal voting would gain wider support from BMAA and LAA members.
But there is a valid argument for proxy voting - hearing the debate first etc. It may be that people will prefer to give their vote to the EC member or another person that they trust to represent their views. If each segment of flyers is now to be represented on the EC then we can give the EC a wider mandate by giving them our proxy. I know ... that brings us almost full circle back to what we have, assuming that the full EC is always present at the AGM or EGM. Almost, but the difference is that the full membership has a vote that they can give to someone whose judgement they trust on a specific issue, not necessarily an EC member.
This potentially makes us more active rather than passive members and gives the individual member more incentive to raise matters of importance for consideration by a more widely enfranchised audience. If we can then say that x thousand members voted that they oppose Mode S or an increase in charges etc., then the CAA are more likely to listen than if 82 bods in a room raised their hands.
If postal voting is the way to go then there is no harm in the proposer of a motion writing their case and it being published on the website and the magazine before the AGM as is the case when new and old members are running for re-election to the EC.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Gary, we'll have to agree to disagree on what is and isn't democratic. You seem now to be saying that because you do not turn up at an AGM - your choice - it is undemocratic to expect you to pay LAA charges.
On that basis If you do not vote at the next general election, do you think it undemocratic to have to pay government taxation?
You have the elligibility to vote and choose not to use it, I cannot see how that makes the system undemocratic. Anyway, you think it does and I do not, we'll leave it at that as I doubt either of us will change our minds.
John, whilst the BB has the advantage of immediacy and plenty of space, it is not currently used by a very large majority of members. And though the magazine does go out to all the members, it would not be practical to print every last argument for and against, and once you have a process of selection you can very easily stand to be accused of bias.
Members will have to make up their minds on a less than ideal debate, but many would argue that the current system of low turn out AGMs is also far from perfect. Maybe we have to accept the fact that we will be proposing to change one imperfect system to another.
On that basis If you do not vote at the next general election, do you think it undemocratic to have to pay government taxation?
You have the elligibility to vote and choose not to use it, I cannot see how that makes the system undemocratic. Anyway, you think it does and I do not, we'll leave it at that as I doubt either of us will change our minds.
John, whilst the BB has the advantage of immediacy and plenty of space, it is not currently used by a very large majority of members. And though the magazine does go out to all the members, it would not be practical to print every last argument for and against, and once you have a process of selection you can very easily stand to be accused of bias.
Members will have to make up their minds on a less than ideal debate, but many would argue that the current system of low turn out AGMs is also far from perfect. Maybe we have to accept the fact that we will be proposing to change one imperfect system to another.
".....have the AGM at the Splash show at the NEC.
Definitly want it to be in the winter out of the flying season.
Nigel, I raised this at the last AGM and having established with the company secretary that the financial reporting rules would allow the AGM to be as late as November, it's been minuted several times at NC meetings.
Definitly want it to be in the winter out of the flying season.
Nigel, I raised this at the last AGM and having established with the company secretary that the financial reporting rules would allow the AGM to be as late as November, it's been minuted several times at NC meetings.
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Mike, I certainly want to know more than it says on a proposal before I make my mind up. There are always pros and cons, and somebody proposing a motion is not going to tell you the cons. Only when you have heard the viewpoints of people who oppose a motion can you see the big picture and thus make a reasoned judgement.
You actually do this subconsiously with parliamentary elections, the media bombarding you from all directions with party policies and counter claims.
Anyway, on to another point. I was driving home from the strip after a great day out at Henham Park fly-in (thanks to the guys who organised a superb event) when, saddo that I am, I got to thinking about the AGM. What is to stop me voting by postal ballot, and then turning up at the AGM and voting again. The vote at the AGM is by a show of hands, no names are given or register kept. Expecting AGM attendees to bring the ballot paper from the magazine would be a bit clumsy, and anyway I could easily get a second ballot paper from a mate. Bit of a conundrum. Unless Gary knows otherwise, democracy is not letting some people vote twice!
You actually do this subconsiously with parliamentary elections, the media bombarding you from all directions with party policies and counter claims.
Anyway, on to another point. I was driving home from the strip after a great day out at Henham Park fly-in (thanks to the guys who organised a superb event) when, saddo that I am, I got to thinking about the AGM. What is to stop me voting by postal ballot, and then turning up at the AGM and voting again. The vote at the AGM is by a show of hands, no names are given or register kept. Expecting AGM attendees to bring the ballot paper from the magazine would be a bit clumsy, and anyway I could easily get a second ballot paper from a mate. Bit of a conundrum. Unless Gary knows otherwise, democracy is not letting some people vote twice!
-
mikehallam
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: West Sussex
- Contact:
Good point.
Except the proposed double votes, for Strut rep and type rep, plus AGM hands show = 3 ?
Means more caveats to be stitched into the Rules ?
BTW the much demanded Web Strut, which would have IMHO provided a useful service to distant enthusiasts, has had almost no responses from would be members, total last week being only 7.
If this is s'thing you've meant to follow up or are unaware of have a peek, it's under the sub heading LAA Struts
Except the proposed double votes, for Strut rep and type rep, plus AGM hands show = 3 ?
Means more caveats to be stitched into the Rules ?
BTW the much demanded Web Strut, which would have IMHO provided a useful service to distant enthusiasts, has had almost no responses from would be members, total last week being only 7.
If this is s'thing you've meant to follow up or are unaware of have a peek, it's under the sub heading LAA Struts
-
Tony Harrison-Smith
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:17 am
- Location: Essex
- Contact:
Brian, Re the double voting. One of the organisations that I belong to stops it this way.
Postal votes must be in by 7 days prior to the AGM. At the AGM, you 'register' by showing your membership card. Your card number is quickly checked against a list of postal votes received and if you have not voted by post you are automatically given a coloured card that you hold up to vote. If you have already done a postal vote you can still join in at the AGM but cannot vote as you do not have the correct colour card to hold up. It is actually a very simple system that has worked for many years.
Tony
Postal votes must be in by 7 days prior to the AGM. At the AGM, you 'register' by showing your membership card. Your card number is quickly checked against a list of postal votes received and if you have not voted by post you are automatically given a coloured card that you hold up to vote. If you have already done a postal vote you can still join in at the AGM but cannot vote as you do not have the correct colour card to hold up. It is actually a very simple system that has worked for many years.
Tony
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
The current state of the BMAA rules is that two thirds of the total membership; not just those voting must vote in favour of the motion to merge the BMAA with the LAA.
It is common practice that an abstention is counted as a no vote.
Given the current apathy in the LAA towards voting and the diverse views on voting systems it seems that a common voting system for the two parties members is quite important and that personal views on what is democratic or representatative could have a very important effect on the outcome of the merger negotiations.
It seems like an EGM may be required to establish a common voting system betwen the BMAA and the LAA and that the current requirement at the BMAA for 2/3 rds of ALL members is a very high hurdle for the LAA; especially if the EC hold the view that a majority of 1% of the membership voting in a room is sufficient endorsement.
It is common practice that an abstention is counted as a no vote.
Given the current apathy in the LAA towards voting and the diverse views on voting systems it seems that a common voting system for the two parties members is quite important and that personal views on what is democratic or representatative could have a very important effect on the outcome of the merger negotiations.
It seems like an EGM may be required to establish a common voting system betwen the BMAA and the LAA and that the current requirement at the BMAA for 2/3 rds of ALL members is a very high hurdle for the LAA; especially if the EC hold the view that a majority of 1% of the membership voting in a room is sufficient endorsement.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Gary, I do not see that LAA needs to adopt the same voting system as BMAA, only that we have a system that allows fair debate, and every elligible member an opportunity to vote without having to attend the AGM or an EGM. A simple majority should suffice, and no 'for' or 'against' should be allotted to the non voters. How you can have a proposal's outcome based on non voters and call that democratic is beyond me. 3000 members vote YES, 250 vote NO and the motion is lost because 4000 members that didn't vote are counted as NOs. Absolutely ridiculous. I haven't reviewed the BMAA system but I hope you have that bit wrong. I do know they need a 75% YES vote to adopt a motion but I hope that is only 75% of those that vote.
If the merger goes ahead then we would have to consider a system for the new association, but for now LAA should adopt a system it sees as appropriate to its own needs.
If the merger goes ahead then we would have to consider a system for the new association, but for now LAA should adopt a system it sees as appropriate to its own needs.
An abstention is different from a no show voter and not relevant to the BMAA system -It is just a UK parlaimentary fact and a common principle.
However the BMAA rules do require a 2/3rds majority of all voters to carry this motion according to the CEO and KN posts on their forum. That means that BMAA non voters are voting no according to their current system and calling their system absolutely ridiculous is not what we need coming from an EC member right now.
I am not sure if the present LAA rules address this point - but since they are likely to be changed to deal with the merger it is a point that needs to be proactively addressed and it would be neater, but I agree not mandatory if the two systems were jointly adjusted to the define the same measure of a majority. The definition of a majority is laid down in the rules of an association and changing them requires a vote by the current rules. The BMAA CEO is open to discussion with the BMAA membership on their definition of a majority, perhaps worth a call to discuss?
It's not anyones personal views that matter here. it is what is in the rules that needs to be addressed.
However the BMAA rules do require a 2/3rds majority of all voters to carry this motion according to the CEO and KN posts on their forum. That means that BMAA non voters are voting no according to their current system and calling their system absolutely ridiculous is not what we need coming from an EC member right now.
I am not sure if the present LAA rules address this point - but since they are likely to be changed to deal with the merger it is a point that needs to be proactively addressed and it would be neater, but I agree not mandatory if the two systems were jointly adjusted to the define the same measure of a majority. The definition of a majority is laid down in the rules of an association and changing them requires a vote by the current rules. The BMAA CEO is open to discussion with the BMAA membership on their definition of a majority, perhaps worth a call to discuss?
It's not anyones personal views that matter here. it is what is in the rules that needs to be addressed.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Gary, EC member or not I am entitled to a view, and my example clearly shows that to count each elligible voter that does not vote as a NO is patently undemocratic. It would be utterly ridiculous if LAA did this, or anybody else for that matter.
With the current LAA procedure, YES, NO and abstentions are counted. Those that abstain make a positive contribution to the voting process by turning up and showing by raising their hand that they are neither for nor against a motion. It would therefore be wrong to attribute their vote to either side. My guess is that the BMAA system has a similar modus operandi, lodged abstentions only being counted and thus forming part of the voting process and therefore being a constituent part of the 100% of voters from which the 75% majority must be achieved. In effect this means that they do in fact get counted as NOs, because more YES votes are required to gain 75% of the total. Is that fair - certainly not in my book, abstainers are clearly not voting NO so they should not inflict a penalty on the YES voters.
Does it bother me, not at all, but it certainly would if the LAA adopted such a system.
To clear this matter up, maybe somebody from the BMAA heirachy could comment on exactly how their system works.
With the current LAA procedure, YES, NO and abstentions are counted. Those that abstain make a positive contribution to the voting process by turning up and showing by raising their hand that they are neither for nor against a motion. It would therefore be wrong to attribute their vote to either side. My guess is that the BMAA system has a similar modus operandi, lodged abstentions only being counted and thus forming part of the voting process and therefore being a constituent part of the 100% of voters from which the 75% majority must be achieved. In effect this means that they do in fact get counted as NOs, because more YES votes are required to gain 75% of the total. Is that fair - certainly not in my book, abstainers are clearly not voting NO so they should not inflict a penalty on the YES voters.
Does it bother me, not at all, but it certainly would if the LAA adopted such a system.
To clear this matter up, maybe somebody from the BMAA heirachy could comment on exactly how their system works.
-
Nick Allen
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Oxford
- Contact:
