RE: [registrars] Proxies at Montreal RC meeting.
Dear all - sometimes these threads, particularly regarding constituency governing documents, lead to misunderstandings. We will address this briefly at the meeting and post a more comprehensive explanation to the list after the meeting.
From: Jim Archer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Fri 20/06/2003 8:12 PM
To: Robert F. Connelly; Registrar Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] Proxies at Montreal RC meeting.
--On Friday, June 20, 2003 12:11 PM -0700 "Robert F. Connelly"
> Rick has pointed out that the by-laws require that votes not be taken at
> our face to face meetings. However, we *do* take "Straw ballots" at
If the bylaws prohibit voting at the in person meetings, then how can we
justify taking a "straw ballot" ?? If I understand correctly, the purpose
of prohibiting voting at these meetings is so that registrars not in
attendance are not disadvantaged. In the past, at meetings I have
attended, we have taken these "straw polls" or whatever they are called
with the understanding that they would not have any significant meaning,
but rather were to simply gauge the sentiment of the registrars in
attendance at that time. Still, the results of this straw ballot are
recorded and end up being cited by somebody.
For example, I recall that a straw ballot was taken on WLS at a meeting.
Later the results were used as evidence that that the resolution adopted by
the entire constituency (after notice was given and formal voting was
conducted) was no longer valid.
Regardless of what we choose to call it, if people are raising their hands
and someone is counting then that's a vote. If the bylaws prohibit it then
we should not do it.
For the record, I will be in attendance in Montreal. I have adopted this
position in the past, and continue to hold it, regardless of whether or not
I attend meetings.