Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

[Steady rider]

How do member know who is to attend? Council members perhaps, proposers of motions likely, but members have to consider all these issues, and may be enquire if the proxy will accept their vote.
Far easier to tick box 'Chair'. In most events proxy votes will be spread between divided opinions. The system strongly favours the Chair and Council, who have had an hand in saying what is included and how it is worded, together with supporting details via Cycle or the web. We have this system and it is hard to find a better way. In any event probably 80%+ of members will not bother to vote.

[gaz]

How do member know who is to attend?

It is up to each member to decide if they wish to attend the AGM in person, to choose and appoint a proxy to attend and vote on their behalf or not to take part in the AGM at all.

The Chair of the AGM is given as a choice of proxy because every member can be confident that the Chair of the AGM will be present. If a member wishes to appoint anybody other than the Chair to act as their proxy they are free to do so, they need to be confident that their chosen proxy will attend.

Every valid member vote vested in any chosen proxy who attends the AGM will be cast in accordance with the individual members instructions; "For", "Against", "Abstain" or "At the discretion of my chosen proxy". Each member makes their own choice, all choices have equal validity and all votes cast are equal.

The majority of members make the choice not to participate at all.

[thirdcrank]

gaz

If you have something waterproof to cover the place where riders without mudguards get a wet stripe, that's a succinct explanation.

My building society's AGM is approaching and they've sent the usual bumph including the attempt to increase the vote and with it their credibility with the offer that "they" will donate to charity if we - the membership - vote. Especially with interest rates rock-bottom, it's strange that they think that shelling out members' £££ to charity is an inducement. But I digress.

Turnout at many AGM's - including postal - voting is low. IMO all we are seeing now in some of these discussions is continuing resentment at the charity conversion. In particular, there's confusion over the chair casting the different types of proxy vote vested in him. Give the chair discretion and it's hardly surprising that they will exercise it and it's naive to grumble when they do. Otherwise give the chair a directed proxy or appoint a proxy whose discretion you trust to be in accordance with your thinking and who intends going.

[gaz]

I feel much of the grumbling is about the very existence of an option to give voting discretion to a proxy, with some secondary grumbling that the Companies Act requires provision of a proxy voting system .

[belgiangoth]

Best find a way to contact Colin Clarke then...

[Steady rider]

Should be easy to find on the web and at the AGM.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns/righ ... lin-clarke

[BarcodeUK]

I don't seem to have a list of potential proxies ... just the chair ?

Well that would be a list of every single CTC member, how big is your letterbox?

While true I think the point being made is that there will be other officers on the top table and perhaps they would not wish to support the chairs view.

[landsurfer]

I don't seem to have a list of potential proxies ... just the chair ?

Well that would be a list of every single CTC member, how big is your letterbox?

While true I think the point being made is that there will be other officers on the top table and perhaps they would not wish to support the chairs view.

Thank you Barcode, thats exactly what i meant ......

[PH]

I don't seem to have a list of potential proxies ... just the chair ?

Well that would be a list of every single CTC member, how big is your letterbox?

While true I think the point being made is that there will be other officers on the top table and perhaps they would not wish to support the chairs view.

No doubt there'd then be complaints that it only included those from the "top table"
The choices are
The chair - a pretty universal option in many organisations, not a named individual and the only way to be sure your vote is cast at the meeting. There's postal and online options to inform them they've been nominated and how to place your votes.
Any one else - You have to write their name in, it's also your responsibility to communicate with them, both informing them they've been nominated and how you'd like your vote cast.
Attend the meeting in person

It seems pretty simple to me. What purpose would be served by making it more complicated?

[Steady rider]

http://www.jws.com.au/en/legal-updates- ... ut-a-proxy
Some procedure to allow proxy names to be listed on line, e.g all council members name separately,
all proposers of motions, others. 'Other' would need to put their name forward at the same time as motions.
In this approach the Chair would not be included, only named individuals. Currently only the Chair gains the big advantage of having a tick box on line. Options and proposals concerning proxy voting would need to be considered and see how practical and legal or if changes to legislation was needed.

The voting procedure discussions distract from the more important issue of the merits or otherwise of the motions and the motions not included.

[thirdcrank]

It is simple. I think it's also worth pointing out that it's one member, one vote. It's not like a plc where a couple of shareholders typically will hold enough shares to decide the outcome of everything on the agenda.

In Cycling UK and the CTC before it, AFAIK the chair is elected on a ballot of the whole membership and candidates explain where they stand on policies like charity conversion. Many members don't vote and the assumption in terms of democracy must be that they are satisfied to let others decide. Unlike parliamentary and local govt elections, those who are totally dissatisfied can walk away from membership. If a chair is elected with a known policy, then it's not surprising that their discretion will be in favour of that policy. To do otherwise without an exceptionally good reason would be dishonest.

FWIW, I think there's been confusion between proxies naming the chair, and the chair's casting vote ie the extra vote given to the chair to act as a tiebreaker. There's a tradition that the chair should then vote in favour of the status quo but that's not the same thing.

(I was against conversion and made that view clear at the time but the vote eventually went the other way and that's that. I only use it as an example because it's still behind a lot of the quibbling IMO.)

[gaz]

While true I think the point being made is that there will be other officers on the top table and perhaps they would not wish to support the chairs view.

If you are directing your proxy to cast your vote "For", "Against" or "Abstain" the personal view of your proxy is irrelevant. The Chair and any other appointed proxy can only cast such votes exactly as instructed, their own views don't have any bearing.

That leaves the "At the discretion of my chosen proxy" option, where it is important to know that you trust the judgement of your chosen proxy.

The Chair's view is the "collective view" of the Board of Trustees as published in Cycle. It is easily established before deciding to appoint the Chair as your proxy.

Once the Board has reached a "collective view" there is "collective responsibility" to follow that course of action. I cannot imagine all twelve Trustees seeking to publish their personal view on each of the 15 AGM Motions in Cycle. It is not unheard of for a Trustee to consider abstaining on a matter at AGM that does not have their personal support, I do not know if any Trustee has ever gone so far as to vote against the Board as a whole at AGM.

If another Trustee was named on the voting papers* how would you know whether or not their personal views were aligned with the Chair?


*Leaving aside the issues that arise if that Trustee is unable to attend the AGM on the day.

[gaz]

Currently only the Chair gains the big advantage of having a tick box on line.

Let's look at a real world scenario, Motion 14 of the 2016 AGM (Close Passing).



The "tick box" to appoint "the Chair" as proxy gave no advantage in respect of all the members who chose not to participate (discounting the possibility that any member chose not to participate becasue of the existence of the "tick box" to nominate "the Chair" as proxy).

The "tick box" to appoint "the Chair" as proxy gave no advantage in respect of all the members who chose to direct their proxy on how they will vote or chose to give an undirected proxy to someone other than "the Chair".

In the published knoweldge that "the Chair" was against the Motion, 881 members gave "the Chair" discretion as to how to cast their vote. What would they have done in the absence of that "tick box"? Not voted, abstatined, supported the motion, or voted against?

It seems reasonable to believe they would still have voted, after all not voting is even easier still. It seems reasonable to believe they would not have abstained, overall abstentions are very few. That leaves two voting options.

In order for "the Chair" to have obtained a significant advantage at least 233 of those voters, a little over 1 in 4 of those giving "the Chair" discretion on how to cast their vote, must have somehow either misunderstood "the Chair's" view or misunderstood the workings of the voting system and believed their vote would be cast by "the Chair" in favour of the Motion.

IMO the "tick box" to appoint "the Chair" as proxy gave no significant advantage, YMMV.


As discussed upthread the arrangement has a huge advantage in facilitating proxy voting. "The Chair" will always be present at the AGM and members appointing "the chair" as proxy know their votes will be cast.

Imagine the arguments if a hundred or so proxy votes remained uncast because snow or rain or heat or gloom of night (or even a puncture) stayed a Trustee from attending their appointed duty on the day of the AGM.

[PH]

As discussed upthread the arrangement has a huge advantage in facilitating proxy voting. "The Chair" will always be present at the AGM and members appointing "the chair" as proxy know their votes will be cast.

I don't think this can be emphasised enough, though no doubt if it was clearer on the voting forms there's be more complaints of bias.
Even among those who fully participated in last years AGM, several including me had already appointed the chair as proxy.

[Steady rider]

Those voting for the chair to be their proxy have the added advantage of knowing if one chair does not attend another will step in. Tick box and no name, two major advantages over anyone else trying to get motions passed and not supported by Council.

The system could be reviewed by an independent outside academic and assessed in terms of fairness.

Motion 14 would have passed except for Council putting people off with there claims. They said 1.5 may not be sufficient and they did not want to specify a passing distance. This year they are paying for mats showing a passing distance of 1.5m (passing clearance of about 1.2m). Blind leading the blind perhaps.