--------------------------------------------------
From: "Lee Privett" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:42 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Quorums
To add my two penneth for what its worth, I am reminded of the film 12
Angry Men with amongst others Henry Fonda, and his influence and process
on a jury where a significant decision is swayed and reversed by argument,
proxy has no real input to that situation.
To ask a question as a re-newbie to this current thread, is this a typical
level/content of discussion preceding the AGM?
I am not sure what to make of this question, but it deserves an answer.
Quanta's AGM quorum is 10 members. In 2006 the attendance was 15 members and
in 2007 14 members. As attendance at both meetings was dangerously near the
quorum, in 2008 I thought it appropriate to raise the question of how we
would handle an inquorate situation. I was a little surprised by the answer,
but no one challenged it at the AGM.
The raising of this question is not so much a pre-AGM discussion, but part
of the discussion concerning a new or revised constitution. The present
clause in the constitution concerning proxy voting is minimal and to my mind
doesn't provide sufficient security on proxy voting. Quanta has a well
established procedure for proxy voting, and it is a good procedure, but it
is not constitutional. In effect I have suggested to Quanta making it
constitutional.
Finally thanks to everyone who has replied. Unless there are postings to the
contrary the consensus appears to be clear,
Best Wishes,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
