[UK-TUG] Obtaining a clear outcome from the SGM

[Paul Stanley]

It's obviously very much for the chair (or the meeting on a procedural 
motion) to decide how to proceed. But for what it's worth (and I think I 
am agreeing with David Saunders):

* I don't understand why "continue" motions come first (or even really 
need to be put at all ...) Continuation is the default: the *vote* 
required is to dissolve.

* The main question is whether to dissolve. How to dissolve is 
secondary, because there is a default constitutional provision which 
applies unless a majority has a different view.

* I would therefore favour the following:

1. A single dissolve vote (which forms part of DS1, JH1, JF3)

2. If the dissolution motion fails, a decision in principle on whether 
to amend the constitution as HV1 suggests. But that would really only be 
a decision in principle, because there is not I think any draft before 
the meeting, so in practical terms it's a question of "SGM with a draft 
amended constitution" or "SGM without one" (if, given the business of 
the meeting, the Chair considers those motions to be in order, which 
some might doubt).

3. If the dissolution motion passes, a decision on each of the motions 
that the funds be distributed (a) to TUG and Dante (DS1) or (b) in 
accordance with individually expressed wishes. If neither of those 
motions passes, then the default position obtains, and it is for the 
committee to distribute. They could either be put one by one or, if the 
constitution permits it (I'm not sure it does, though it would make 
sense ...) by a preference vote, where each voter's first preferences 
would first be counted, the least favoured eliminated, and the second 
preferences then redistributed.

Although the constitution requires any vote on what is to happen to 
funds to be made before or at the same time as the vote to dissolve, I 
think that "at the same time" means "on the same occasion" i.e. in the 
same meeting, so it would be OK to vote on dissolution first. But if 
there was any doubt on that, then one could put motion (3) first ("If we 
dissolve ...") and then motion 1.

On 15/10/2021 09:56, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Dear Member
>
> SUMMARY: How can we achieving a clear decision on continuation and 
> dissolution.
>
> ASIDE: I'm happy for this discussion to be moved to some other place, 
> provided it is publicly viewable.
>
> My goal is to develop a process for the SGM that is harmonious and 
> which achieves a clear outcome. This might be dull reading unless 
> you're a mover of a motion or the Secretary. Please forgive me if in 
> seeking clarity I lose concision. I welcome Joseph's opinion on these 
> matters.
>
> Here's a summary of the six motions, which is adequate for my present 
> purpose.
>
> DS1: Dissolve and distribute to TUG and DANTE.
> HV1: Continue and draft constitution and distribute to TUG and DANTE.
> JH1: Dissolve.
> JF1: If dissolve, distribute by individually expressed wishes.
> JF2: [Continue and] SGM in 2022.
> JF3: Dissolve.
>
> The SGM voting for both continuation and dissolution is not a clear 
> outcome. How can we avoid that, and with the most harmony. There are 3 
> dissolve motions, 2 continue motions and 1 other (which I will ignore 
> for now).
>
> I believe that in an in-person meeting the process used would be:
> a) choose a continue motion
> b) vote on the continue motion
>
> If the chosen "continue" motion passes, then all the 
> "dissolve" motions fall. The SGM has chosen to continue.
>
> If the chosen "continue" motion falls then I believe the process would be:
> c) choose a dissolve motion
> d) vote on the dissolve motion
>
> If the chosen "dissolve" motion passes then UK TUG will be dissolved. 
> If the "dissolve" motion falls then the SGM will have taken no 
> decision on continuation or dissolution, and so UK TUG continues.
>
> Traditionally the choosing of the "continue" and if needed "dissolve" 
> motions is done in a way that maximises support for the outcome. This 
> is similar to transferable votes in elections.
>
> I think this is enough for now. I hope Joseph can give some insight 
> into the voting procedure for the SGM.
>
> Thank you for getting to the end.
>
> best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
-- 
Paul Stanley QC
Essex Court Chambers
24 Lincoln's Inn Fields
London WC2A 3EG

T +44 20 7813 8000
D +44 20 7147 7340

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board

The contents of this message and any attachments are confidential. They may also be subject to legal professional privilege. If you have received this by mistake, please delete it unread and let me know. Thank you.