Maybe it would be clearer if you use power of attorney instead of proxy. At a meeting to which you are entitled to attend and vote, but you could not attend and instead gave your friend power of attorney to attend and vote, for say yes on the first 3 items on the agenda and no on the subsequent 2 items on the agenda. A lone voice at the meeting then accused your friend of a serious allegation and demands a vote on such allegation. Now, you tell me, what should be done, by the Chair-he is also Chair of the meeting and should ensure that it be conducted in accordance with the agenda-and by the board? Such disruptions in their misguided belief on riding the moral high ground, if allowed, will only mean that meetings can never be conducted properly. There are other avenues to bring your morality crusade before the meeting. To drop it as an unscheduled "parachute bomb", except for a genuinly overlooked item, is itself ungentlemanly. If it is so important why not put it on the agenda, that is if it is an item important enough to be on an AGM's agenda? Then everyone knows there is no ambush around the corner and will vote properly, yes including those directed proxies who will now indicate yes or no in their proxy. Directed proxies are stakeholders too and would feel short-changed if there are non-agenda items to be voted on.
Important matters sometimes crop up in too short a time and also a meeting's agenda maybe controlled (ideally an "impartial BWF civil servant" should have control in these matters) by vested interests. An EGM a more appropriate avenue? Perhaps.The BWF constitution apparently allows such an ambush/parachute as you called it at AGM. The vote as it happened was very close (I understand a majority in favour but not sufficient admittedly??) - hence the discussion about carte-blanche (?) proxy votes being used and legitimate questions about stakeholders' real views. I have no problem with proxies: it is obviously a reasonable though imperfect solution generally and I have no problem with proxies used by management to vote on management issues raised because of the confidence by stakeholders in management. I have some reservations about management using a carte blanche proxy to block a prima facie "probity" of management issue (which in probability if the stakeholder knew beforehand would change trust in management/proxy?) - you have eloquently put the legal and practical position and I don't have a perfect answer but I can see a problem in this respect. I wonder if there is appetite to force an EGM: Council has acknowledged the problem and formed a committee to look at the issue. Is it enough?
Technically, it is possible for as low as 10% of stakeholders or votes to seize control of a company with this unannounced "parachute bomb" resolution startegy. It will then be a real coup de-tat, which is defined as an unlawful seizure of power. But such a coup will not last for long as stakeholders will quickly convene an EGM to reverse it. That is why an agenda is so important.
If it was 10% there would be no real debate here. The AGM was well attended looking at the voting nos and I think about half of ALL BWF members backed the measure. Parliaments usually don't allow proxy voting though so its obviously not seen as a cure all for perfect representation.
You can have half of the BWF members backing the measure, but what is the weighted votes for and against? There is a difference between voting by a show-of -hand and voting in accordance with the statutes or constitution. I have actually attended an AGM recently in which a resolution was passed even though it was not on the agenda, and it was passed by a show-of-hand by 2 to 1 ratio (20 people for and 10 against). It was quickly overturned two months later by an EGM in which the voting was conducted in accordance with the constitution and not by show-of-hand. This time it was 20,000 votes versus 2,000 votes to rescind the earlier "parachute" resolution.
BWF has 150-160 country members I understand and the at recent AGM the vote was 95-87 (182 total votes - I understand the BWF complex voting structure allows bigger country assoc have more than 1 vote on some issues) with the motion defeated by proxy votes. I don't know how many stakeholders actually attended, but it seems at least 87 votes are there to support discussion of the letter that was introduced at AGM. That's a lot of concern from a lot of stakeholders. Your examples does reflect the proportions involved here quite so fairly.
Well, if you think it has such widespread support, it seems strange that it was never brought up as an agenda item for the last AGM held in England. It is really very simple to include it as an AGM agenda item. All it needs is for one member country to come up with the proposal, which, however, must be endorsed by that country's Continental Federation and then seconded by two other country members. That is all that is required. So why the "ambush" strategy? This is what perplexes me. Why not let everyone know what is coming? However, it is not all lost. It can be put in as an agenda item for an EGM, if important enough, or for the next AGM. This way it is more business-like instead of "ambushing" by surprise, which will not achieve anything except controversy.
Political elections and parliaments should not be mixed up with business meetings. If AGMs of corporations follow the rules and constitution of political elections in casting votes, there will be chaos and WTO will not be workable. Politics is local. Business can also be local, that is provided they are non-incorporated corporations. But WTO business is international, and your one man- one vote will see huge corporations seized by thousands of shareholders who each own only one share. Can you imagine Microsoft being seized by thousands and thousands of one-share shareholders? It will create a new class of corporate raiders, or rather thieves, who will specialize in this grand theft of the corporate world. The world economy will collapse.
Badminton: Governing body set to sack president AFP - Monday, December 17KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 16, 2007 (AFP) - Badminton's world governing body on Sunday said it would seek the removal of its president early next year, following months of infighting. The Badminton World Federation's (BWF) council said it would recommend sacking Kang Yoong Jong after confirming a previous vote of no-confidence against him. "Council members expressed grave concerns about the president's ability to provide effective leadership of the BWF and settle the internal tensions to which he was contributing," it said in a statement after a meeting here. Council members had an "extended discussion" with Kang over the World Badminton Foundation he established in 2007, which is not under the jurisdiction of the BWF. "The council was concerned that it was competing with the International Federation, it was circulating documents critical of the BWF Council," the statement said, adding an extraordinary general meeting would be held early next year. "Council will recommend to members at this meeting early termination of Kang Yoong Jong in the role of president," it said. Kang claimed he was the victim of a "coup d'etat" by his deputy Punch Gunalan after the vote of no-confidence in August. He said the power struggle threatened badminton's Olympic status. Badminton's governing body relocated to Malaysia from its historical home in England in 2005 but has endured a rocky season this year with senior officials at loggerheads and the suspension of its chief operating officer in June. A showpiece finale to the inaugural Super Series, initially scheduled for this week, has been thrown into chaos after organisers in Qatar failed to find sponsors. Email StoryIM StoryPrintable ViewBlog This Most Popular – Sports Viewed **** case in UAE highlights AIDS taboo Small group of US experts insist global warming not man-made Tevez puts Man Utd back on top with win over Liverpool Banks must own up to subprime losses to keep fear at bay: analysts Climate deal runs straight into trouble with US View Complete List » -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Singapore Pte. Ltd. (Co. Reg. No. 199700735D). All Rights Reserved.
