I realise this thread is a little old, but it’s quite an interesting one.
The responses sound pretty right for the most part, but after reading Section 34, I’ve got a couple of questions … and I’m not sure it’s necessarily correct that it doesn’t allow for using a stand-in as a proxy – in effect, a quasi-proxy or proxy proxy.
First though, is it right that 34 (1) and (2) mean only owners can serve as acting SC members? Whereas, from memory, anyone (owner or not) can be proposed (by an owner) for election to the committee. I wonder why it’s tighter for acting members. Perhaps because the entire OC doesn’t elect them?
Second, I’m not sure that each meeting has to approve the acting member, if that’s what “Ethicsfirst” was asking. As per “Scotlandx”, although an acting member has to be approved in advance by a fair dinkum SC meeting (ie, one that had a quorum), it looks as if they could be proposed and approved for, say, the next three meetings or maybe for, say, the next two months – while Jim (an elected SC member and the proposer) is off using up his Qantas credits.
Re the potential for an acting member to be a proxy proxy: if a soon-to-be absent member sends along someone – pre-approved by the SC – to act for them, that’s pretty much a proxy, isn’t it?
Further, (3) says the proposed acting member can even be someone who is already on the SC. In which case, (4) says they get two votes: their own as an elected SC member plus that of the absent member for whom they’re acting. Which sounds even more like a proxy, no?
Apologies if I’ve missed the point completely and lost sight of the forest for the trees. It’s quite an interesting section anyway – well, up to a point, Lord Copper.
<!–more–>