I indicated that I was going to propose something, but as I began to put something together, I realized that this idea can go off in a number of different directions. Because we can come at this from a number of angles, we could get a number of competing proposals and they might all go down in flames. Better that we come up with something that we can agree on and get behind.

First of all, to Steve Kennedy's credit, he's already announced that he's not going to carry proxies for any other clubs at the next AGM. I think that's an excellent decision, but that doesn't handle the problem of huge voting blocs in the hands of a few. At the last AGM, there were delegates who held enough proxies to be about 20% of the vote. Other delegates had as little as 4% of the voting power of the big proxy holders.

The solution can go one of four ways.

1. There's no problem and no solution is needed.
1. Reduce the number of proxies.
2. Restrict the number of proxies a delegate can carry.
3. Restrict when proxies can be used.

Each has it's benefits and problems.

My initial proposal addresses the problem by reducing proxies. This is my rewrite of Article III, Section 7. Representation: The right to address and vote at the AGM or any special meeting shall be limited to two (2) delegates from each JCNA group in good standing. These delegates represent the interests of the general membership of each JCNA group. Each JCNA group may cast a total of two (2) votes via delegate(s) or one (1) vote via proxy. Each officer and each director shall have the rights and privileges of a delegate, and shall be entitled to one (1) vote.

English translation: If a club sends two delegates, each would have a vote. If a club sends one delegate he or she would have two votes. If a club didn't attend, they could assign one proxy vote to a another delegate.

My logic here is that the delegates at the AGMs listen to and participate in the debates and will have a better understanding of the matters being discussed. They should therefore be granted greater proportional representation compared to a club that hands off their vote and doesn't participate. It will reduce by half the number of proxy votes.

The downside is that clubs who do follow the debate, but for whatever reason are unable to send a delegate, get half the representation.

Option 3. Limit the number of proxies a single delegate can carry.

There are a couple ways this could be achieved. It could be a number, like 10. That's easy to administer.

Currently, some delegates proxy-shop. They pro-actively contact clubs and ask for their proxies. There's nothing wrong with that. The downside to this proposal is that once they reach their 10, there might not be any other similarly motivated delegates in the region. At that point it would be up to the clubs to find a delegates to carry their proxies. That might not happen, and the club wouldn't be represented at all. Of course if they don't take the time to educate themselves on the issues and express an opinion to their proxy holder, is that so terrible?

Option 4. Restrict the proxy usage.

In this option, proxies could be exercised on votes on items that were published in advance of the AGM. If amendments were offered from the floor or new proposals were up for a vote, only the delegates present could vote. No proxy votes would be permitted.

Again, the clubs who didn't send delegates lose representation, even if the possibility of a last minute proposal was discussed in advance, or if a diligent delegate could contact the club before the vote.

Personally, I think the best compromise is the first option, but that may be because I've already written it up. It encourages participation by giving the incentive of an extra vote to the clubs that show up. In in my experience, many (most?) of the clubs that don't send delegates don't seem to follow the JCNA issues very closely. Before anyone yells at me, I didn't say "all." There are certainly some passionate folks on these lists who have been unable to attend AGMs.

Of course the best solution would be to have all the clubs send their own delegates. Then we wouldn't have to worry about proxy reform. If you have strong feelings about JCNA issues and you can't attend, start bugging your fellow club members. Find one who agrees with you and get them on the plane. Encourage your club to assist with travel expenses.

Yeah, the AGM can be like fingernails on a chalkboard, but I find it interesting in a perverse, wonky sort of way.

Submitted by kairys@cfl.rr.com on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 14:39

Actually, the professional camera and operator is not an option in most hotels. They are unionized and require these services to be unionized or at the very least require that you use their service. You still need to have two way communications since all delegates have the rite to speak on an issue, that means that the remote delegates need to have a mike and probably a web-cam as well (not expensive these days in any case), but they too would have to have a broadband connection (dial-up and even some of the lower cost DSL/Cable connections won't work). I hate to throw all this up to you, but the old bit, "Been there, Done that, Got the Tee shirt" applies here.

Submitted by NE08-35179J-J on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 14:29

Yowza Mr. Kairys,

You make some very good points. I disagree with what is needed as far as camera's. I agree it wouldn't be a "little web-cam" but a single camera and an decent audio feed would suffice. Two camera's for convenience, maybe.

Vetting/voting, could still be done using the member's current e-mail address unless that doesn't offer enough security, but then I'd have to ask what does, in any case?

Server time can be rented, like most things for the occasion.

Don't have all the answers maybe someone else could illuminate the subject.

Thanks, Bob Lovell

Submitted by kairys@cfl.rr.com on Sat, 12/13/2008 - 13:13

Great idea, except how are we going to pay for it? Are you aware of what goes into a web-cast? First of all you need a professional camera and an operator (your little web-cam cannot cope with a meeting situation). Secondly, you would need a broadband connection on the size of a T1. Third, you need a web-cast server separate from our web-server. Forth, you need some sort of vetting system to make sure only authorized voting was taking place. Fifth, you would need provisions for two way communications available to all of the present and remote delegates (all delegates have a rite to speak on all issues) . All this cost big bucks that the JCNA treasury does not have. How do I know this? I was part of the installation group that put such a system into the City of New York (we used fiber rather than take of space on our T3's).

Submitted by NE08-35179J-J on Sat, 12/13/2008 - 12:52

Yowza All,

And the reason we could never use a video link to attend a meeting AND vote is what?

Link the individuals JCNA number with a vote. One membership, one vote.

Those that choose not to vote have only themselves to blame for their non-participation, just like in the real world.

Not to whip a dead horse, but why is this not possible? You'd get participation and the members would get a voice.

We can put a man on the moon, map our own fuel injection systems, but this is beyond our abilities,................................please. Companies have been doing this for years.

I agree with Mr. Kairys, as it would be great to get more participation, but how exactly would you manage to do it if even 50% of the membership showed to an AGM? What would the logistics look like for for dealing with issues then?

Seems to me, we wouldn't be moving to a larger venue to hold the AGM and the above suggestions would most likely hold the key.

Good Health, Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays to All, Bob Lovell

Submitted by kairys@cfl.rr.com on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 13:52

Edited on 2008-12-12 9:58:54

Well, first of all let me reiterate, I voted against the trailering rule as it finally construed. One of the problems at the AGM, many of the people who are in attendance are not those that run the events. When we debated rally rules, only five people in the room had actually run an SCCA type TSD rally, and I was the only one who had actually worked one (I had been a ralleymaster and had run "sweep" many times). I am trying to find a way of encouraging attendance. We should never have to resort to proxies. Its not asking too much to require one member to give up one day (the minimum required) once every ten years to attend. I have herd the excuse of it being too far, well all four Florida Clubs made it to Seattle (the two South Florida members actually drove!) and that is about as far as you can be (given the club locations). I personally have never voted proxies and don't because I am not as familiar with each clubs attitude to-wards an issue, especially those that come up during the sessions. I don't see how forcing the clubs to do what they have committed to do in the first place is in the realm of the "I'm from the gov" department. Your right to vote is taken away if you fail to vote in X number of elections, and you must re-register to gain the vote (this is true of both local and Federal elections. If I put up real blocks to that I could get only my opinion passed then yes, but I am trying to open it up to all ideas. We want attendance and diversity of opinion. As for how many of the clubs have responded to my emails, very few no matter how their membership drives are going. It can be very frustrating to do this job, but that is the way it is. However, the point was that those doing the worst in membership are apparently not even trying to better their club. That to me is disturbing. I am acutely aware of the economic situation, but it could be a mixed blessing as we can be a cheap alternative for entertainment if presented correctly. Yes sales are off in the Auto industry, but XF sales are up and we need to attract these people.

Submitted by NE08-35179J-J on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 13:13

Yowza Mr Kairys,

Does this rule apply to the clubs whose memberships have increased or stayed level in the past? Seems to me "fair" application of this rule fails on that metric alone.

Until Jaguar comes up with an "entry level" automobile the ranks are going to continue to diminish as older members shed their mortal coil and their vehicles go into private hands/collections that care little for SOME of the nonsense we call Concours.

The Enthusiasts Division seems to be gaining ground. Do you plan on limiting their ability to vote in the future?

Having a National Club with the voting majority being made up of the Enthusiasts could initiate change at a level you've never seen before or maybe appreciate.

Just for the record, you mention "none of the 11 clubs that have lost membership never responded to your e-mails" , did you indeed get responses from the rest or did some of them also choose not to respond, for whatever reason? Seems to me that statement needs clarification as it only tells part of the story.

The amazing thing is that what you propose doesn't address the core issue of what the discussion of this thread was originally. Did the Clubs who gave their Proxy have any knowledge of that issue or give guidance to how they wanted to vote?

Mr. Kairys, you must be from the "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help" school of thought. Draconian isn't a strong enough term, I thinking something with a "Putin" and a hypen might be more appropriate.

I purposely stayed away from this subject after realizing that any rule could very easily "morph" into something so big and unwieldly as to impossible to enforce.

The Trailering Issue was not on the Agenda anywhere for Clubs to read and form an opinion to be submitted in their vote.

Simplicity is the way to approach this issue not page upon page of every possible contingency spelled out to be ammended the next year as people exploit the loopholes that always exist.

Good Health to You and All, Bob Lovell

Submitted by kairys@cfl.rr.com on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 07:35

Actually, I was thinking (yes, I know that's dangerous), maybe a single proxy per year. After say four years they loose the rite to a proxy and after say six years they go on probation, and after say ten years they are gone. Surely in ten years they can find someone to come. As you know on Friday I will be making my presentation to the BOD on membership. There are eleven clubs that have lost double digit (percentage wise) membership over the last year (one 59% in two years). Don't they notice the lack of membership? Non of these clubs have responded to my emails about how to increase membership. We need to do something to get them involved. That's one way to shake them up.

Submitted by mark1mark@jagu… on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 03:47

Lou made some insightful comments on proxy reform over on the "Proposals at the AGM" thread. Just to keep the discussions separate, I've copied them over here and responded below.

"The proxy question is different. Maybe we should have one vote per club, lower quorum requirement, and ban proxies all together. I have herd distance used as an excuse. Well all four Florida clubs made it to Seattle and that's about as far as you can travel and stay in the lower Forty-Eight (no disrespect to our Canadian and Mexican clubs intended). So if distance is not a problem, surly time cannot be. You don't have to be there for the Friday or Saturday night activities (although you will be loosing a lot), just be there for the Saturday AGM. Then you are talking about a one night plus transportation (both South Florida delegates drove to Seattle). Even in the small clubs, I cannot believe that all of their members are too busy to spend one day away from home. I personally have never voted proxies for another club, as I feel I don't know how that club would react to a particular item. There is not really any way to learn all of that unless you are either a member of that club as well. I would hate to say it but maybe a requirement for membership by an affiliate club include attending the AGM and if they miss "X" number of AGMs they lose their affiliation. I know that latter is controversial to say the least, but we need the clubs to start being more proactive in the Continental affairs. That's my two cents for what is it worth."

Lou
-=Ôëí?ú¤âuÔëí=-
Membership Chairman

Lou,

I agree with what you are saying about proxies, but I think eliminating proxies altogether is a bit Draconian. I've carried proxies and I actually e-mailed the clubs the agenda and asked how they wanted me to vote. One club officer was pleasantly surprised that I would take the time to find out what their club's thoughts were. At the AGM, there were a couple instances where I voted against myself because that was what the clubs wanted.

It's a sad state when a club can't find one member interested enough to make the trip. We should reward the clubs who do attend but not disenfranchise the clubs who don't. If a delegatey queries the club or the club makes their wishes known to their stand-in delegate, they should have a place at the table. That's why I proposed that if a club can't or doesn't want to attend, then they only get to send one vote via proxy.

It makes sense when you think about it. Even if their delegate knows their wishes, they aren't there to hear the arguments pro and con and they aren't able to change their mind if there is new information presented that they hadn't considered. If a new motion is made, a proxy-carrying delegate is left without any direction from on whose behalf he is voting. The delegate is now voting their preferences rather than representing his newly aquired constituents.

The delegates on the floor listening to the debate and representing their home clubs are the best informed voters and their clubs' wishes should be given extra consideration. Likewise, delegates representing clubs other than their home club should not be given voting power far in excess of the single vote delegate. By cutting the available proxy votes in half, we strike a balance. We don't disenfranchise clubs that are unable to attend and we reward the clubs that do, at the same time reducing the effect of the bloc voting that can allow a few delegates to effectively control the AGM.