› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Proxies – blind faith or good sense? › Proxy Votes at General Meetings › Current Page
I would just clarify the following;
According to Horsley owners would have the right to propose amendments, at the meeting, within the scope of the principle that the amendment not alter the nature of the motion. If someone proposed an amendment and the Chair did not allow the meeting to pass or fail the amendment then from what appears in Horsley it is likely the decision on the substantive motion would be in jeopardy.
The Chair has a great deal of power and discretion at an AGM. Generally speaking; if the Chair feels an amendment breaches the “nature of the motion” principle then the Chair can refuse to put the amenedment motion to the meeting but it appears, from the Horsley text, that the Chair is obliged to put amendments to the meeting that do not suffer from such a defect. If there is contention over whether or not an amendment crosses the line it places the Chair in a difficult position.
In the example given by Jimmy about a by-law and no pets. The Chair is placed in a position where the Chair can allow or disallow the amendment and the Chair could decline to put the substantive motion to the meeting.
It is a tough gig being a Chair at an AGM when things get a little grey.