On 22 Mar 2011, at 18:43, Geoff Wicks wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "John Taylor" <j_taylo...@btinternet.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:18 PM > To: <ql-us...@q-v-d.com> > Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Quorums > >> >> On 22 Mar 2011, at 16:57, Geoff Wicks wrote: >> >>> A Quanta member has sent the committee some suggestions for amending the >>> constitution to provide for the situation where an AGM is inquorate. >>> >>> I raised this question at the 2008 AGM and John Mason said that "proxy >>> votes count towards a quorum". (The quotation comes from the minutes of the >>> meeting.) I tend to disagree with John on this point, but I am unable to >>> prove that he is wrong. Equally I am unable to prove that he is right. >>> >>> I spent some time researching this last night and came across a lot of >>> contradictory opinions, but no definite legal argument or opinion either >>> way. I wonder if there is anyone with experience of this problem who could >>> point me to a legal source or similar authority that could give a (more or >>> less) definitive answer to the problem. >>> >>> Should it be possible for proxy votes to count towards a quorum and should >>> Quanta wish to do that, it would seem sensible to include it in the >>> constitution so that there is no misunderstanding should an inquorate >>> situation occur. >>> >>> As one of the people who has offered to help in the drafting of a >>> constitution I would be unhappy about including anything about which I was >>> not legally certain, >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Geoff >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> QL-Users Mailing List >>> http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm >> >> Geoff >> >> The Charities Commission publishes a model constitution which you can get as >> a PDF file. >> A quorum must be PRESENT. Present is the operative word. >> As proxies are unable to take part in any debate, I would say that there is >> no case for what JM claims. >> Have you asked him what his authority is for such an exaggerated claim. >> The Quanta constitution does not support the idea anyway and that is what he >> was operating under at the time. >> > > This is more or less my opinion, but some people apparently argue that a > proxy is a "pseudo-presence". > > One of the arguments used by those in favour of counting proxies as part of > the quorum is that some companies use this in their members and shareholders > meetings. Others counter this by saying "but not in their board meetings", > > Best wishes, > > > Geoff > > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Geoff Such arguments are nothing more than an advanced form of political correctness. A sort of intellectual one up man ship. John Taylor _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
