Proxy farming – what’s your vote?

Jimmy T says; “Nominated voting – where your proxy form has a yes or no option for each item on the agenda – seems more democratic but it undermines a major function of the AGM: discussion of the issues. How can the vote of someone who hasn’t heard arguments for and against a motion be as valuable as someone who has sat through a debate?”

That is an interesting point. Think of it in terms of a local government election, a State election or a Federal election. How many punters go in blind without having shown an interest in any debate, I,d guess the majority. Is the major function of the AGM discussion or is the major function of the AGM resolution; I vote (by postal vote) it is resolution by discussion and of the two, discussion and resolution, only resolution is a must have.

Jimmy goes on to say: “The postal vote might be encouraged but only if arguments for and against the items on the agenda are sent out with it.”

I often wonder why the arguments for and against are needed for postal votes. I feel people can make up their own mind in the case of postal votes and if they want more information then they can always contact other people. Perhaps those proposing motions can put a case for the motion but who gets to present the negative argument?

I do not think AGMs should be events dominated by sales pitches like some Federal election; if people care they will make inquiries. A lot of owners in my SP do not read and consider the agenda of the AGM prior to the meeting.  They often show up on the day and go with the flow.

One option from the open forum was mandatory voting in person or in writing (postal), no proxies, and fines if one does not show up to vote, or mail in their vote.

There are concerns that can be expressed with both nominated voting and postal voting but both are better than the current situation.

I acknowledge that Strata Executive Committees can look like self-perpetuating cliques, but there can be more to it than meets the eye. I chair an Executive Committee whose average age is probably over 60; some of us are retired, others approaching retirement. Membership is rarely contested at successive AGMs. If only it was! Our building has a high rate of owner-occupancy, and some of the owners are in the young to middle-aged category with professional or management backgrounds — just the type that I have in the succession plan that I like to think about. In the run-up to each AGM, I try to make the point to my fellow owners that the management of probably the largest single component of their personal wealth is at stake. Unfortunately, the ones that I want to see on the Executive are busy building careers and relationships, and respond to entreaties by saying what a good job we are doing.

We do not “proxy farm”. Far from being a self-perpetuating clique, we would like to see new talent coming on board. When I see political leaders being “rolled” by former mates, my reaction is “why not me?”.

Of course, encouraging readers of Flat Chat to take an active role in their Schemes’ management is probably preaching to the converted. Readers and, especially, participants in the Forum are already committed. Inertia among the rest is hard to overcome.