Steady rider wrote:Council ask for motions then mislead in replies, use the Chairs discretionary votes to cause motions to fail, have a bias system in place that allows unnamed Chairs when all other proxies have to be named. The system is quite poor and fails to get the best outcome.
The proposer of a motion makes comment in support, Council makes comments either for/against. Every member is free to draw their own conclusions from those statements alone or to make whatever additional research they wish before deciding how to vote.
The Chair's discretionary votes are member votes, it is the result of all member votes cast that determine whether a motion is passed or fails. I do not understand why you feel some votes should be more equal than others, it certainly would not be democratic.
There is no bias in the system. The Chair can be appointed to cast directed proxy votes. If you could not appoint the Chair then only members who know someone who plans to attend the AGM would be able to appoint a proxy. You can't seriously be suggesting that would be democratic for a club of 67,000 members where recent AGM attendance is in double figures.
The system is driven by our legal obligations under the Companies Act 2006 and is demonstrably more democratic than anything you seem to be advocating.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...