|
|
Post by midway on May 12, 2018 23:28:17 GMT 12
I see one of the changes being considered in the first SGM is that all remits will be subject to legal review before being presented to the delegates for voting. I think such a measure is a very good idea. So an independent judge free from the influence of others and self reliant will be acting ??,very interesting in deed ... |
|
|
|
Post by Wingnut99 on May 16, 2018 8:24:13 GMT 12
I see one of the changes being considered in the first SGM is that all remits will be subject to legal review before being presented to the delegates for voting. I think such a measure is a very good idea. So an independent judge free from the influence of others and self reliant will be acting ??,very interesting in deed ... The remit will be referred to thier QC not legal aid... |
|
|
|
Post by Nigel on May 17, 2018 9:19:24 GMT 12
Nigel, I take your point but I don't agree with it. Just because the President is on the Board of Directors does not mean the President is a Director. Many company boards have the CEO as a board member yet the CEO is not a Director. In the company I work for we have a 5 person board of which I am a member. We have only 2 directors on our board of directors. Section a), b), c) and e) refer to "President and elected members" or "President and Directors" which indicates to me they are not one and the same. In any case it's a bit of a non-issue and we probably shouldn't bog down this thread with our interpretations! Yes Dear!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 19:42:31 GMT 12
I've been doing a bit of reading, and it doesn't particularly affect me as I'm nothing but an interested observer from the outside. It could however open a bit of a hornets nest if the way I read things is correct. If not I will gladly concede to someone else's superior knowledge.
So there is an SGM before the AGM, where possible changes to the constitution will be made. Now the part that concerns me is the proposed amendment to C 8 (b) & (d). (b) changes the term of President & director to a term of 3 years instead of 2 years, and critically from the election in 2018. This is were it gets interesting as it relates to the changes in (d). The rule (d) currently says that those standing for President must have served on the board for 2 of the last 6 years. The proposal is that be changed to the President must have served as a director for the previous term.
Now we go back to the OP on the thread and there are only two nominations. Should this amendment be passed in the SGM, an I right in thinking that it will be congratulations Marty Jones SNZ President elected unopposed?
I don't have a problem if that happens. I know and like the bloke and sure he will do a good job. Just seems odd that someone goes to the trouble of being nominated for election to high office then just hours before the vote he suddenly becomes ineligible to stand, while others, previously ineligible to stand suddenly become eligible, except of course they couldn't be nominated 60 days beforehand.
Can anyone clarify I have this right or am I barking up the wrong tree?
|
|
|
|
Post by midway on May 20, 2018 22:30:16 GMT 12
Your could trying to ring bark the tree by getting your teeth into the subject ..
|
|
|
|
Post by chris13w on May 21, 2018 11:28:48 GMT 12
I've been doing a bit of reading, and it doesn't particularly affect me as I'm nothing but an interested observer from the outside. It could however open a bit of a hornets nest if the way I read things is correct. If not I will gladly concede to someone else's superior knowledge. So there is an SGM before the AGM, where possible changes to the constitution will be made. Now the part that concerns me is the proposed amendment to C 8 (b) & (d). (b) changes the term of President & director to a term of 3 years instead of 2 years, and critically from the election in 2018. This is were it gets interesting as it relates to the changes in (d). The rule (d) currently says that those standing for President must have served on the board for 2 of the last 6 years. The proposal is that be changed to the President must have served as a director for the previous term. Now we go back to the OP on the thread and there are only two nominations. Should this amendment be passed in the SGM, an I right in thinking that it will be congratulations Marty Jones SNZ President elected unopposed? I don't have a problem if that happens. I know and like the bloke and sure he will do a good job. Just seems odd that someone goes to the trouble of being nominated for election to high office then just hours before the vote he suddenly becomes ineligible to stand, while others, previously ineligible to stand suddenly become eligible, except of course they couldn't be nominated 60 days beforehand. Can anyone clarify I have this right or am I barking up the wrong tree? So, you're assuming that anyone would vote for a 3 year term, as based on recent events that is highly unlikely... And note, there is also a second SGM called by the tracks where there is an amendment proposed to simplify the eligibility, and also for a potential vote of no confidence in the board - meaning they all have to stand down if it is triggered. If passed those revised criteror won't be in affect for the following election, but the right to call a further SGM and apply a vote of no confidence would - meaning the board can be dismissed at anytime if enough people want that to happen. |
|
