#12915
Billen Ben
Flatchatter

    I can accept the arguement of Jeremy @ Newcastle but it would mean the number of candidates, if less than 9, then determines the maximum number of EC members in the determining motion of clause 17(3).

    BUT recall that 17(3) places no restriction on the number of EC members. If “ghost vacancies” were meant to be prohibited it should have been picked up in 17(3). Perhaps it was an oversight by the legislators.

    Clause 4 of Sch 3 is generally about filling a vacated position, not a ghost position. Cl 4(2) of Sch 3 is not necessarily restricted to the circumstances of cl 4(1) but I can see Jeremey arguing that 4(2) is clear the new member serves for the rest of the term of his/her predecessor and a ghost is not a real predecessor therefore there is no clear mechanism to full the ghost vacancy. I would accept that.

    I can follow Jeremy's line of thought and it is a good case. I would agree that until the Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeal, make a statement the matter will remain an unresolved debate.

    Until then the best practice would be to respect the wishes of the AGM as long as it is not something that obviously breaks the Act or Regs and i don't feel there is an obvious breach; but Jeremy is on to something.