Proxy Vote Attendee Needed for Ex AGM

[sarachambers]

I would put a very large amount of money on Mr Bobbett

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Blah

 

[RobertBeard]

I assume that he voting was based on the proxies.

How many actually attended the meeting?

Mr Newton has not attended a General Meeting since 2009 and his Board attendance is patchy to say the least. 

The South West don't seem to be very well represented although I notice that Marion Voller both takes the Board minutes and is the South West Regional Secretary so perhaps the SW Committee have a ready alternative.

 

[** Pending Removal **]

I vote for Blameme.....

 

[maddmatt]

So 6% of the total membership voted, 6%!!!!

Regardless of the changes the Board surely should be looking at that and thinking, what would we do if an alternative was available to the other 23,000 who didn't vote?

 

[** Pending Removal **]

I notice that Marion Voller both takes the Board minutes and is the South West Regional Secretary so perhaps the SW Committee have a ready alternative.

Er...not anymore I believe...

 

[ips]

I think that maybe a lot of us just don't understand the politics and that's the main reason that votes are low.

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Oh never mind folks....I am sure that all in the garden will be rosy........

And tomorrow is Sunday.....we can all go shooting :laugh:

 

[maddmatt]

Sometimes, just sometimes fate will deal a hand that none of us expect and sometimes can lead to new horizons.

 

[** Pending Removal **]

It will certainly be new horizons.....for the few still interested..... :wink:

 

[shootinguru]

:fie:  Well thanks Nicola for going and all that you have done!

I can now relax and know that the CPSA is in "safe" hands? :fie:    As I am in my twilight years my shooting days are numbered, I have had the best of clay shooting since I first started in 1968!

As for the tossers who did not bother to vote, put up with what you get in the future! you were warned! :fie:

 

[Jan Powell]

So 6% of the total membership voted, 6%!!!!

Regardless of the changes the Board surely should be looking at that and thinking, what would we do if an alternative was available to the other 23,000 who didn't vote?

You're right, but they don't. Apathy suits their interests and has served them well in recent years. They say, quite rightly, we've done as much as we can to publicise the proposed changes. If 94% of members can't be arsed to vote that's their problem.

The truth is, the members get the governing body they deserve, a very poor one.

 

[Jan Powell]

I think that maybe a lot of us just don't understand the politics and that's the main reason that votes are low.

I don't think so. The members, by and large, aren't stupid, they know when their being shafted. The problem is one of laziness rather than a lack of understanding.

Anyway, it's too late now, the damage has been done. The CPSA can now rule by diktat without having to refer itself back to the membership and unless we vote with our feet, there's no way back.

 

[Jan Powell]

Prehaps im being a bit naive,

But...  does it matter if the vote goes the wrong way?  

If you donlt like the outcome can you not vote with your feet?    what  hold do they have over the sport? 

Look at all the other sports that set up there own.

Darts -

Rugby -

Boxing has 4 sanctioning bodies

Wrestling has multiple organisations

Also isnt there the option to call an EEGM if enough members want, could a vote of no confidence be motioned?

Mart

Are you kidding! The members can't be bothered to put a cross on a form and walk to the postbox, nevermind consider the virtues of a rival organisation!

 

[Santa2512]

Prehaps if the vote was ..

A- ) Mandatory -   no vote - no membership 

B -)  Online  - cost saving & quicker

It may have made some difference.  

One question for my regional directors is -    how many people who are registered, actually use the comps side.

It may be 24,000 members,  but only 5000 who shoot comps     these are potentially the only ones who have any interest

And of those, we have seen the true level of interest

I'd demand a recount   .

mart

 

[Jan Powell]

Now we see the board has promoted a Terry Bobbett to Chairman, the worst possible outcome.

The leading article on the CPSA website conveniantly ignores the numbers, that only a tiny minority bothered to vote. Anyone would think there had been a 100% turnout. They spin the truth better than a political party!

 

[maddmatt]

Surprised there isn't something in the Articles of Association that stipulates what the absolute minimum number of members vote needed to make any changes to the Articles is.

 

[Salopian]

Have you checked the numbers?

I find it very hard to believe that Humberside, Merseyside, Isle of White  and many others voted 100% in favour .

But apparently numbers do not lie .

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Surprised there isn't something in the Articles of Association that stipulates what the absolute minimum number of members vote needed to make any changes to the Articles is.

There is.

It is 75% of the vote.

 

[maddmatt]

I mean minimum percentage of the membership, surely 6% would not meet that criteria