#80812
SaltyOne
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    Thanks to everyone who replied.  The principal reason for sorting the issue out has now disappeared, but it will have to happen eventually.  I’m pretty sure the OC has never approved pre-meeting electronic voting (other than under Covid provisions) because the SM has never been able to show me the minutes where it was decided, I can’t find any reference in the copies of minutes I have (which might be incomplete), the explanations that have been provided during the latest argument have been devious and erratic, and the two meetings where pre-meeting voting forms were provided used quite different procedures. I can’t examine the OC records for myself because the SM will only accept credit cards for the fee!

    There is no critical issue to be decided – I am just trying to get everything done right and established as a standard going forward.  The agenda for the meeting had the form for the written votes embedded, and I had hoped we could get it re-done properly when the agenda was re-issued.  I had thought it was going to be re-issued because the SM didn’t turn up on the date originally scheduled, and I assumed that the process would start over with the new meeting date.  But after the discussion about what was wrong with the original agenda, and a 3-week delay, the SM simply issued a notice that the original meeting had been adjourned to the new date, thus avoiding any need to acknowledge the problems with the original agenda and issue a new one.  How a meeting that never happened got adjourned is a mystery.

    The bigger issue for the current meeting is that the SM has never provided a S55 statement. That might be interesting.