AndyK wrote:MattHodges wrote: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.