How many Actually Voted - 2010 AGM

[Barry Fox CAN262]

Attached is a page that shows how many people actually took the time to cast their vote this year.

[Hiljoball]

These stats are both scary and appalling. The disinterest in the class rules is a warning for the future. You get the rules you deserve, either by action or, in this case by neglect. While some of this year's motions were housekeeping, there were 4 really important and significant items, yet few showed enough interest to participate.

I have several thoughts relative to the voting system that we now have ( sometimes called an electoral college system) vs the defeated proposal for 'one owner one vote'.

1. The voting in the larger member nations was amongst the lowest turnout. Yet they still get to cast the full weight of their electoral college votes. This system makes it harder to get a rule changed and tends to encourage stability for the class rules. There is little penalty for inaction.

2. The turnout for smaller member countries was in some cases amongst the highest. Whether they are more keen, or it is easier for a couple of 'movers and shakers' to mobilize the members to get out the vote, everyone knows everyone - peer pressure.

Based on this year's turnout, a one owner-one vote could allow the more active, smaller countries to influence the class rules more. However such a system could motivate more of the lazy skippers around the world to vote.

John

[RoyL]

This depressingly low turnout clearly demonstrates that contrary to what has been claimed by some, the current electoral college system doesn't protect smaller countries--it gives undue power to big countries and a few voters. I can't see how the current system can be defended.

If you are interested enough to vote, then your vote should count equally regardless of where you are from. Hopefully, next time the drafting mistakes will be corrected and one owner/one vote will pass.

[Tony Edwards]

I am sure that it is hard work running an International Class Association and very disappointing for those immediately involved when there is such a low vote. However, without wishing to upset the Executive (again) I do feel that the wrong conclusion is being drawn here.

The vote that has recently taken place was quite (too) complicated, basically too ambitious for one meeting and I suggest there are lessons to be learned:-

1. There were simply too many motions 17 in all - for ordinary members the process was just too daunting. For a member coming to the vote cold it was not possible to undertake the necessary research, form a decision and vote in one evening.
2. Key, potentially Association changing motions were interspaced with straight forward no brainers. Once you came across a key motion you could not "trust" any of the others to be straight forward.
3. The process of engaging the membership was not begun soon enough. Members need to consider and have the necessary information to hand well before so they can decide how to vote.
4. I suspect that the Exec have lived with these motions for some time and know them inside out but members have not and most are new to the detail of the topics.
5. Getting all the information together from different sources required time and considerable effort for members. The information was not all available in one place. The number of members willing to dedicate the time and effort to research each of the 17 topics and then vote was reflected in the low vote. Several members who I would normally expect to vote said to me they started, spent most of an evening and then lost the will to live.
6. The general membership needs to be able to engage with the Exec - perhaps the Exec ought to issue a quarterly bulletin to give the membership an idea what is being considered, debated and what topics are upcoming for decision.

It is not easy to engage a very diverse membership which ranges from the dead keen and fully informed to those who just sail IOMs because "its the class that is sailed at the local pond". But, before we start changing the voting system it might be worth looking at some of the other reasons for the low vote.

[Hiljoball]

Hi Tony,

I think you are overlooking one important fact. The Secretary, Barry Fox posted all the resolutions as individual topics on the forum under the general heading of 2010 Agenda resolutions in mid-September. This was a great help and allowed debate on the more complex items for almost 2 months prior to the vote. Some of us posted items on various forums around the world with links to these topics to try to engage a larger audience.

The motions and discussion were out there!

I think there is an argument on complexity and understanding for non-English speaking members.

Yes, there was a lot of complexity in some motions. Perhaps the way we do motions is the problem. One major issue is that there is no mechanism to 'fix' a flawed motion with an amendment. An alternative method would be that member motions be in the form of a statement of intent and we vote on the intent. Then allow the executive to wordsmith the intent into the core documents after a motion is approved.

One thing that I did not see and would have liked to see, was more activity by the National member reps to bring these motions and discussions before their members.

John

[Bruce Andersen]

as one of the authors of the complicated motions, I should comment:

The "big" motions (one owner = one vote, eliminate the "electoral college" style of vote counting, and eliminating 2 classes of voting owners) certainly suffered by attempting to be too encyclopedic and specific.

One option is to simply vote on the fundamental idea of a motion, then let someone else get specific with the verbiage to fit into our governing documents. In the past, the Permanent Committee of the RSD performed this job (not sure how the new PC of IRSA feels about it). It is a rather big job (particularly for motions like these that change multiple references in our documents).

The other option is to keep the motions encyclopedic but discuss the motions on-line so inadvertent effects (like changing voting requirements for regular and special resolutions) can be picked up early enough to the amended prior to NCAs sending out their ballots. We tried this on the US NCA board, with very few comments. Unfortunate for these motions that the negative comments were posted late in the sequence.

Perhaps better luck next time - many owners feel the motions have merit but were fatally flawed in their execution this time.