Is the average person up to the job?

[drossall]

I made my point badly. I suggesting we should do away with all elections in both the selection of goverments and other bodies, because the general population does not have the knowledge and experance to select the most able candidates.

Possibly why Churchill reflected that democracy is the worst form of government known to mankind, except for all the others that have at various times been tried (although he was quoting an unknown person who originally said that).

It seems this evidence was largely dismissed by Churchill's chief scientific advisor pretty much on the grounds that we hadn't invented anything like that so nobody else could either.

Whilst Arthur C. Clarke said that, "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

[gaz]

There is still the unanswered point should the CUK do away with elections by members but insteaf let the board of trustee make the decision who up to the job. Whilst at it lets do away with the AGM . There is no legal requirement for a charity to have AGM. We would have to change the articals , that would a easy process with proxity voting.

The point is answered. The Trustees are legally obliged to act in the best interests of the Charity. When the Trustees drafted the new Articles they believed that in the best interests of the Charity the Members should elect (most) Trustees (after the Nominations Committee have decided who is up to the job) and that an AGM remains important.

Those are the arrangements in the revised Articles that they put to the Membership and which the Membership approved. If the Trustees thought that having no member involvement in the election of Trustess and no AGM were in the best interests of the Charity that's what the amended Articles would have called for and, in your own opinion, such changes would have sailed through by proxy voting.

[bertgrower]

Given at the 2017 AGM only 17 members attended.
Therefore please explain
why is the AGM inportant?

[Cunobelin]

I made my point badly. I suggesting we should do away with all elections in both the selection of goverments and other bodies, because the general population does not have the knowledge and experance to select the most able candidates.

This is where the Press and Media often try and interpret things and get it so wrong

Whenever there are local elections, it is seen as a measure of the Government's popularity and performance

This'll often be skewed as in a local election voting is more likely to be for the individual rather than Party

[gaz]

Given at the 2017 AGM only 17 members attended.
Therefore please explain
why is the AGM inportant?

The turnout was closer to 2600, attendance by proxy is no less valid than attendance in person. You don't have to get up as early and it helps to avoid overcrowding in the room .

Since there were almost 2600 Members taking part in the AGM I don't feel any need to explain further.

[bertgrower]

Come on how can you say 2600 proxiy/postial votes are taking part. Often the result in the meeting is different to the vote proxity/postial vote.
Even so even when the motion is passed by the membership, it is ignored by CUK hq and the trustees.

Therefore what is the point of a AGM?

[mjr]

The turnout was closer to 2600, attendance by proxy is no less valid than attendance in person. You don't have to get up as early and it helps to avoid overcrowding in the room .

I hope the means that you know that's nutmegs. Voting turnout is not attendance. A large number of proxy authorities given to one person is a sign of a failing democracy, isn't it? After all, if Theresa May was proxy for 99% of UK voters, loads of people would be crying foul... (AFAIK that's not currently possible for the simple physical reason that you have to visit the polling station of each voter who you are proxying for.)

[[XAP]Bob]

Given at the 2017 AGM only 17 members attended.
Therefore please explain
why is the AGM inportant?

The turnout was closer to 2600, attendance by proxy is no less valid than attendance in person. You don't have to get up as early and it helps to avoid overcrowding in the room .

Since there were almost 2600 Members taking part in the AGM I don't feel any need to explain further.

So how many votes did the chair therefore wield?
Are proxy votes not returned considered as votes for the chair to use as they see fit?

At which point there is no point to the AGM again - because you are never going to get a large proxy vote turnout.

[gaz]

... Often the result in the meeting is different to the vote proxity/postial vote. ...

Result in the meeting? There is no result until all the votes are counted.

I hope the means that you know that's nutmegs. Voting turnout is not attendance.

The means I know bertgower will consider it to be nutmegs. Provision for proxy voting is a legal requirement. Voting is clearly not attendance, it is most certainly participation.

A large number of proxy authorities given to one person is a sign of a failing democracy, isn't it? After all, if Theresa May was proxy for 99% of UK voters, loads of people would be crying foul...

I'm surprised you haven't given that a as you know it's nutmegs. If undirected proxy voting were the only option at either the General Election or Cycling UK's AGM then I'd cry foul, but it's not the only option.

Are proxy votes not returned considered as votes for the chair to use as they see fit?

No. A Member can choose not to vote (their vote remains uncast), to vote by directed proxy, to vote by undirected proxy or to attend and vote in person. In practice the Chair is typically given a significant number of undirected proxy votes.

[thirdcrank]

In a national organisation, it would be unfair to the majority of the membership if it was only possible to vote in person at what would inevitably be for them a distant location. It would be open to voting coups by a few hundred well-organised members with a common policy turning up at the AGM. The majority giving an undirected proxy to the chair is rational, in that if they weren't satisfied with the individual somebody else would be in the chair. It is, of course, difficult to differentiate between satisfaction and apathy.

As a member of a building society, I receive postal voting papers with the notice of AGM. Presumably in order to enhance the credibility of the process, I'm promised that for every vote cast (personally or by post) a donation will be made to charity. I don't really get that because as a mutual organisation, it's partly my own money being given to charity to encourage me to vote.

With regard to Cuk, it's now a charity and many of the predictions made by the "No" faction are coming to pass. All water under the bridge. The die is cast. The democratic vote was for conversion to a charity and that's pretty much it because there's no mechanism for undoing that.

PS Although this is in the Tea Shop, it should be in one of the Cuk bits of the forum.

[[XAP]Bob]

So apathy doesn't default to an undirected proxy - that's good.

Can the chair cast his undirected proxies in 'batches' to match the general split, or does the chair inevitably cast them all in one direction? If the latter are there usually enough to make everything a basically foregone conclusion?

[thirdcrank]

I think that one important point is that the chair's broad position is clear; nobody giving an undirected proxy to the chair need be any doubt of their position, if they read the other stuff setting it out. An undirected proxy gives the proxy the ability to respond to amendments submitted at the meeting while a directed proxy is a vote one way or the other on motions as they appear on the agenda. Accepting the point I made earlier that holding the elected office of chair implies the support of the membership, then it's rational to authorise the chair to deal with amendments in the interests of moving things on, rather than deferring everything for another postal vote. Remember, similar rules apply to the general meetings of organisations like limited companies running businesses which cannot faff about indefinitely.

[gaz]

... or does the chair inevitably cast them all in one direction? If the latter are there usually enough to make everything a basically foregone conclusion?

The Chair of the AGM is a Trustee and legally bound to act in the best interests of the Charity. Undirected proxy votes vested in the Chair are therefore inevitably cast in one direction, which as TC states is well publicised in advance.

The 2017 AGM ERS voting report did not include any breakdown of the directed/undirected proxy votes, the 2016 figures show the Chair had roughly one undirected proxy vote for every two directed proxy votes.

[mjr]

In a national organisation, it would be unfair to the majority of the membership if it was only possible to vote in person at what would inevitably be for them a distant location.

There are things that can be done to reduce that unfairness, such as using a vaguely central location and holding the AGM in the afternoon, to give maximum time to travel there before and home after - but CTC's was in one corner of the country at 10am, almost exactly the opposite.

The majority giving an undirected proxy to the chair is rational, in that if they weren't satisfied with the individual somebody else would be in the chair. It is, of course, difficult to differentiate between satisfaction and apathy.

Isn't it pretty clearly apathy when only 2500ish of 60000+ use their vote, even as an undirected proxy?

With regard to Cuk, it's now a charity and many of the predictions made by the "No" faction are coming to pass. All water under the bridge. The die is cast. The democratic vote was for conversion to a charity and that's pretty much it because there's no mechanism for undoing that.

I'm pretty sure it can be undone but it would be fairly painful because CTC would effectively restart with no non-charitable funds initially: start New-CTC Ltd to accept memberships and buy the shares of the current CTC and its subsidiaries, then merge the current CTC with CDF or operate it as a CTC Charitable Foundation subsidiary of New-CTC, similar to how CDF used to be.

There isn't really any need to do it, either. Most of the problems could be fixed while remaining a charity. Nothing in charity law requires a committee vetting trustee candidates or that you don't inform members about how the democracy works or that you make AGMs awkward to attend and largely impotent, for example. The problem isn't the charity registration.

An undirected proxy gives the proxy the ability to respond to amendments submitted at the meeting while a directed proxy is a vote one way or the other on motions as they appear on the agenda.

That distinction rarely matters in practice in CTC as far as I can tell - it seems very rare for the AGM to change the chair's opinion on any vote.

[[XAP]Bob]

So assuming a plain majority is needed then you actually need a >75% majority in returned votes to overturn the pre-announced position...