Voting on a Special Resolution | Another day in paradise | Flat Chat Forum: Your Questions Answered




A A A

These posts are now organised with the most recent post at the end. If you have already read the rest of the posts, to skip to the end, use the little bent arrow symbols to take you there. You must be registered and logged in to reply to posts or post new topics.

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
Voting on a Special Resolution
Avatar
PeterC
Canberra
StrataGuru
Members

Full Members
16/05/2012 - 2:19 pm
Member Since: 19/04/2011
Forum Posts: 510
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think that NSW is harder for advocates of a Yes vote/easier for No advocates all round. If you want to get your special resolution passed and there will be 25 No votes you need to get >75 Yes votes to win. In the ACT if there will be 25 No votes you need >25 Yes votes and >50 taking part in the meeting to win.

A few years ago we encouraged members to take part in a vote, even if they were ambivalent, even if they would be formally included in the meeting but then abstain. Like on many issues, every person in the minority who opposed the proposal was going to vote. Others whose support for the proposal was less than passionate could not be counted on to show up. Then there were a few who were happy to go with the majority either way and very unlikely to take part. Those opposing were outraged at the tactic of encouraging members to take part in the democratic process! The vote went 51 yes, 34 No, 3 Abstain. 34/88 is >1/3 so the motion failed.

 

`` We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state.  For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things, whilst those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders.  This indifference arises in part from fear of their adversaries who were favoured by the existing laws, and partly from the incredulity of men who have no faith in anything new that is not the result of well-established experience.  Hence it is that, whenever the opponents of the new order of things have the opportunity to attack it, they will do it with the zeal of partisans, whilst the others defend it but feebly, so that it is dangerous to rely upon the latter.''

Niccolò Machiavelli
The Prince

 

The proposal was a complete 'no brainer' good idea and the ACT Unit Titles Act was under review shortly after.  The Act was amended, in part due to our experience. Since 31st March the same sort of proposal only requires an ordinary resolution. So we put a revised version of the same proposal to a meeting two weeks ago. This time it got up 77:13 (and 3 abstains that didn't matter because it was an ordinary resolution this time).

Forum Timezone: Australia/Sydney

Most Users Ever Online: 518

Currently Online:
33 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

kiwipaul: 613

scotlandx: 528

PeterC: 510

struggler: 457

Billen Ben: 233

Austman: 228

considerate band fair: 167

Kangaroo: 167

FlatChatFan: 147

Millie: 146

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 239

Members: 3458

Moderators: 1

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 45

Topics: 3241

Posts: 15481

Newest Members:

Thuhong46, boveri, stratastrata, Dcjd77, robin powell, Christine Kinsela, beaver, HTroy53, whitethistle, nancyp2035

Moderators: Whale: 1529

Administrators: JimmyT: 3292