BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Aaron Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:12:16 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
> We all know about 'the takeover'...but where in the heck did the
> elimination of the right to vote by proxy come from?


There was no subterfuge in the vote to r
emove proxy voting (PV).  PV is discouraged in *Roberts Rules of Order,
Newly Revised*.

 The rationale is that voters should attend meetings, as the goings on
may sway one to vote differently that they might if not present.  Removing
PV was discussed long (a year or more) before the bylaws amendment was
introduced.  Prior to incorporation ESHPA bylaws made no amends for PV.  PV
quickly got way out of hand with members showing up with pockets full of
proxies, some valid, some not.  Proxies proved to be very disruptive.  The
first step to remove PV was to seek legal advice from the lawyers who
advised ESHPA during incorporation to see if PV is requisite for
incorporation.  Hefty legal fees later, ESHPA was advised that PV was not
necessary for incorporation and removing PV from the bylaws would have no
legal repercussions on the incorporation.  So it was resolved to remove PV,
and the proposed amendment to the bylaws was published with the requisite
30 day notice prior to the vote.  All discussions in the process were in
agreement to do away with PV due to their disruptive nature; no one ever
considered disenfranchising any members.  It was all according to Hoyle.

Anticipation was for a whole boat load of proxies to be presented to defeat
the amendment to remove PV.  Then, having defeated the amendment the same
proixies would be cast to sway the election.  In actuality there was only
one proxy presented, and the holder chose not to use it.

 I didn't hear a word
> of opposition to this, nor any discussion of how this came about.

There was no opposition voiced in the year plus process, by anyone.  It
was a rare ESHPA moment

when there was unanimous agreement.

Aaron Morris - thinking there are plenty of smoking guns, but proxy voting
isn't one of them.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2