----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hall"
To: "QL Users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Quanta AGM
I was surprised that there had been no comment re. the special resolutions - I think that the new clauses 5.3 - 5.6 are a very bad idea and will be voting against the resolution.
(If I was a conspiracy theorist I might read something into the fact that they are not mentioned in the relevant section of the Chairman's Report...)
I am also surprised that there has not been more discussion of the constitutional amendments. I am not sure what John infers by his conspiracy theorists comments. I was intending to remain silent but, in the absence of official Quanta comment, here is some background information.
The first that I and other committee members heard of the amendments was when we were confronted with them at the committee meeting on 5th February 2005. The chairman assures me, and I have no reason to doubt his word, that he had sent the proposals to the Secretary before 1st February in accordance with article 8.3 of the constitution. This does raise the question about why the proposals were not circulated to committee members well before the meeting.
At the meeting no formal vote was take, but my impression of the consensus was that members felt the proposals merited more detailed discussion within both committee and wider membership and should lie on the table until the 2006 AGM.
I was therefore surprised to find the motions on the 2005 AGM agenda and on 24th February I emailed all members of the committee giving my objections. Only the chairman reacted to this email.
In a long telephone discussion with the chairman on, I believe, 25th February we reached a substantial measure of agreement. Namely that whatever the misgivings of the committee members at the meeting, they had had ample opportunity to think about the resolutions and no one had raised any further objections. To be absolutely sure about this the chairman offered to email all members of the committee allowing them to again object to the proposals. This he did on 26th February and no member of the committee reacted to this email.
I am therefore satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that the special resolutions are committee resolutions and that my five committee colleagues actively support them. I shall expect them all to vote for and support the resolutions at the AGM.
As the single dissenter on the committee I am allowed some leaway. I shall vote against special resolution 1 and for special resolution 2.
I can see some theoretical merits in special resolution 1. Indeed I have tried to persuade other committees I have been on to adopt similar procedures, although I would have preferred elections for a 2 year term with half of the committee to stand down each year. In practice however, given the present reluctance of members to stand for the committee, I find the proposals idiotic and unworkable.
Special resolution 2 is the reverse position. I loathe it theoretically, but believe we have no alternative in practice. Given the small size of the present committee the present quorum is unrealistic. I should add that the present proposal is an amendment of an earlier version, and, as it is my amendment, I am duty bound to support it.
One final point. At the committee meeting no member of the committee was aware that constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority.
On another issue, I think members should be aware that, whatever the outcome of the AGM, the new committee could be confronted with a major crisis. They have to find a new editor for the magazine, and if this proves difficult or impossible, it could have serious repercussions for the implementation of many of Quanta's aspirations for the future,
Best Wishes,
Geoff
_______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
