🚀 go-pugleaf

While I am not in agreement with many of the actions of the board, the
denial of proxy voting makes sense.  Most ot the organizations which I have
been involved with do not have proxy voting (the Baptist churches I am or
have been a member of, the Young Republicans in the United States, etc).
Given that we have a mail in ballot for the SGM and that none of the motions
can be amended, there is really no need for a proxy vote.  I frankly would
not want to be in the positition of having to validate the proxies.  If the
motions could be amended and the mail-in ballot deadline were 1 - 2 weeks
after the meeting, I could see the point in making an effort to allow
proxies.  Incidentally, the problem with the mail-in ballot deadline being
before the meeting was inherent in the call that I signed along with the
other people who called for the meeting so we at least share any blame with
the board for the basic structure of the meeting where no amendments can be
made to the motions. I am not happy with the limited amount of time for the
meeting.  Since I will be en route from Detroit to Halifax at the time of
the meeting and the majority of votes (including mine) will already have
been cast, this is more a personal reaction.   I believe that it could have
been helpful to allow as much time as the members collectively wanted to
take to discuss the issues.  On the other hand, most of the discussion will
have already taken place, either on the web site, at section meetings or on
cips-l.

Clark Morris,  a member of CIPS Bluenose who is unable to make the meetings.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Ruta <rutat@cadvision.com>
To: CIPS-L@LISTSERV.UNB.CA <CIPS-L@LISTSERV.UNB.CA>
Date: Saturday, February 20, 1999 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Proxy Voting by Society Members


>Ken Chapman <chapmank@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>..
>>As you know, the procedures for the SGM were approved by the National
Board.
>Care to comment as to why those procedures  appear to
>contrary to RRoO?
>
>Tom