CTC AGM 2020

[Philip Benstead]

No! If a member who isn't going to be at the meeting wants to vote on any resolution he has to appoint a proxy and unless he knows someone who will be there he has to appoint the chair as proxy.
Any resolution he actually votes on online or on the paper are cast as per his instructions but any resolution where he does not positively vote for against or abstain is a vote he has not allocated. These are unallocated votes used by the chair to dominate the vote on that resolution. The member hasn't positively asked the chair to vote for him on that resolution. It happens by default. The only way he can stop that happening is to positively vote on it himself.

What I want to know is how many of the 2075 votes FOR resolution 4 were votes cast by the member and how many were votes where the member had not bothered to vote so the chair had chosen to pile those votes into the FOR basket to outweigh the 1418 actual members votes AGAINST. 1418 votes against is a very high vote against a board sponsored resolution. The difference between FOR and AGAINST was only 657. I find it incredible that more than 1418 members had actually chosen to vote FOR resolution 4 rather than just not bothered to vote on this issue.

Allowing the chair to outvote all the members who actually cast their vote is an abuse of the voting system worthy of Belarus.

We are talking about a situation where the member has nominated the chair as his/her proxy and has left it to the chair's discretion as to how to use that proxy vote. As I said, you might not like it but it's normal practice at AGMs in the UK. It is not an abuse of the voting system, it's how corporate governance works. It's not something Cycling UK invented. If you own shares in any companies, try reading their AGM documents when you next receive them..

Let say there is UK general election I ask you to vote me and tell you to make the decision who to vote for because you understand politics/ issuas better than me.

[Jdsk]

Yes, there are different rules of procedure in different elections.

That's a very long way from showing that there was anything irregular in this one. As above:

1 It's a widely used procedure.

2 Individuals were free to cast their own votes rather than use the proxy system.

Jonathan

[Philip Benstead]

Yes, there are different rules of procedure in different elections.

That's a very long way from showing that there was anything irregular in this one. As above:

1 It's a widely used procedure.

2 Individuals were free to cast their own votes rather than use the proxy system.

Jonathan

But principal stands some people may say that the chair/trustee have better judgement because they deal with it more. The next step give the job of decision to the staff there are there more. Let remove voting rights from the members and be done with it.

[lescargo]

Was the motion to remove pensioners concessionary discount carried?
If yes CTC prepare for the biggest exodus since Moses left Egypt!!

[Philip Benstead]

Was the motion to remove pensioners concessionary discount carried?
If yes CTC prepare for the biggest exodus since Moses left Egypt!!

Yes

[gaz]

Let say there is UK general election I ask you to vote me and tell you to make the decision who to vote for because you understand politics/ issuas better than me.

Whilst there are limited circumstance in which you may appoint a proxy to vote on your behalf in a UK general election, ultimately your proxy will cast your vote at their own discretion.

You can give your proxy whatever direction you wish, they stand alone in the polling booth and put their cross in the box they choose to cast your vote.

[Philip Benstead]

Let say there is UK general election I ask you to vote me and tell you to make the decision who to vote for because you understand politics/ issuas better than me.

Whilst there are limited circumstance in which you may appoint a proxy to vote on your behalf in a UK general election, ultimately your proxy will cast your vote at their own discretion.

You can give your proxy whatever direction you wish, they stand alone in the polling booth and put their cross in the box they choose to cast your vote.

You do not get it. I am saying you on my behalf but I am saying you may the choice for me. Would you like to decide on behalf mentally slow indervidals?

[gaz]

You do not get it.

One eligible member, one vote. The votes have been cast and tallied. All motions at the 2020 AGM were carried by a vote of the members.

Do you get it?

[Philip Benstead]

You do not get it.

One eligible member, one vote. The votes have been cast and tallied. All motions at the 2020 AGM were carried by a vote of the members.

Do you get it?

Would you like less than 5 % of UK voters to decide the results of an election that could a government in power for say 20 years?

[thirdcrank]

...Would you like less than 5 % of UK voters to decide the results of an election that could a government in power for say 20 years?

There's no comparison.

[Philip Benstead]

...Would you like less than 5 % of UK voters to decide the results of an election that could a government in power for say 20 years?

There's no comparison.

Should the chair or anybody else have such power to direct the CTC.

It one thing for a group of club mate asking fred blogs to vote for them but another for the chair to have hundreds or even thousands of votes in their back pocket as happen for the vote to convert to a charity particlary the chair moved the motion

[gaz]

... as happen for the vote to convert to a charity particlary the chair moved the motion

Before your begin a re-enactment of Motion 8 of the 2010 AGM please remember that we've already had one with the Poll of the Whole Club in 2011.

Straight postal ballot, no proxies, no discretionary votes. I needn't remind you of the outcome.

[thirdcrank]

It's already been explained that this is the legal way, as in "in accordance with the law," that business is carried out in this country. It's hard to see any other straightforward way of doing it. If the entire electorate gets an opportunity to vote, then it's hard to see a way of making them all vote.

Saying that it's already been explained reminds me that proxy voting caused some protests at the time of the charity conversion votes and was explained then. Also during the charity debate, things like the role of charity trustees was also covered in some detail. Nobody who paid attention then should be surprised at what's happening now.

A democratic decision was taken to convert and since then anybody who has been unhappy has been free to move on. In case anybody missed it, the decision was effectively irreversible so they cannot work to revert to the status quo.

(gaz beat me to it.)

[Philip Benstead]

Now we have had democratic to remove the agm please explain how the trustee are able to alter the membership fees ?

See artical 11

[thirdcrank]

You've caught me there. From the voting details you posted on another thread - kindly re-posted by somebody else in a form I could read - I understood the motion covering the change in membership fees had been approved by a vote at the agm.