On 11 April 2013 18:48, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11 April 2013 18:33, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Yes, you're right that due to a drafting problem one particular combination
> of votes at the EGM would result in an unanticipated result - we would
> effect a change in the voting system, but would not have a specified maximum
> number of directors.

There are several combinations that result in problems. Pretty much
anything other than all passing and all failing is problematic to
varying degrees.

By "anything" you mean "3 but not 2 (irrespective of 1)". If 3 doesn't pass we'll still be returning a total of 7 new and continuing trustees at the AGM.

> That is a bit irritating but it could be remedied with a motion at the AGM
> to introduce a maximum number of directors. If the maximum of 11 Directors
> proposed to the EGM was rejected we would clearly have to have a further
> debate about how many Directors was the right number.

It is more than irritating to not know the number of seats being
elected until a few minutes before the election...

The number will be published on the agenda, which is released at the same time as the candidate list. Although there's no constitutional guarantee of how far ahead of the meeting the agenda must be published, "a few minutes" is highly unlikely.

As I've said many times before, the debate should come before we try
and vote on things. Then we know what we actually want to vote on.

> So - some imperfect drafting, despite the many rounds of amendments - but no
> crisis.

Many rounds of rushed amendments with no proper discussion taking
place, yes. Is anyone really surprised that a rushed job gave a poor
quality result?