Will the committee ever consider electronic voting? This would allow a larger audience to have their say as opposed to only those that go to Salcombe Week. All members have a voting right but cannot always get to, or wish to attend due to other commitments, finanacial constraints,etc,etc. Banks and Building Societies offer such elctronic voting system so why cannot the MROA offer similar? Food for thought, as I believe there are a lot of members who wish to exercise their voting right but cannot do so which leaves fundamental decisions such as those in Richard Parslow's thread being approved or rejected by the minority.

A neat idea, you can of course already give your proxy to anyone actually there.

I don't see anything in the rules allowing proxy votes.
Had I thought this to be the case, I would have done so!
'Voting in favour is 3/4 of members present'
Please could someone give  a definitive answer?
Chris Iles 3442.

You could vote online....but you'd be doing so after missing out on the important presentation of information and debate just before the vote is called. Yes, some information could be published in advance online and in the magazine, but there's always stuff going on at the last minute that might be important to hear before you cast your vote.

how did the votes go? thanks

Whilst I agree with the sentiment here, there is another issue. The AGM voted in the amendment to the Class Rules so that the Chairman can accept amendments to any resolution that does not change the spirit and intent of the resolution. So if you are not there, you might miss out on the opportunity to tweak the proposal, or even know what you are voting for / against.

That said, I am all for giving more people the opportunity to put forward their views. There were about 70 full members at the AGM, out of 500+ total members. Is that a representative sample?

Surely Andy this forum is somewhere where views can be expressed and matters discussed, as it was after Richard Parslows somewhat belated post last week, of course depending upon your own personal views and predudicies you may not like or agree with what what others say, but hey thats healthy, you may even be persuaded to believe it possible that you might be wrong!
If the committee were perhaps to invite open discussion on things they were thinking of (There are so very few things that are truly needing secrecy.) to the wider audience it might help. 
I can understand that it may be considered a good idea to limit such discussion to members with PIN numbers though as that is used and having read through a lot of those on this site that are thus restricted, I wonder why.
As to the number of attenders no it is not representative, but possibly as good as you'' get, it is 14% its not even all the members who are in Salcombe this week. But where to hold the AGM? Dragging back in time to when it was held at Ranelagh the same weekend as the Dinner Dance and the RTYC Autumn Trophy (Often 80+ starters!) it seemed rather better attended, numbers did not increase when it was moved to the Championship Week. 
The argument for that was that those attending were perhaps keener, but these days with so many professionals and works teams one wonders.
Finally providing given in writing proxys are OK at the discretion of the chair in any meeting.

An interesting one about proxy votes.

The fact or otherwise that conduct of meetings is done in a certain manner elsewhere is not relevant however it is a useful guide to interpretation.

The word "proxy" is not found in the current rules, nor in the ammended version from approximately 7.30 9/July 2011.

However, Members are allowed to vote at the AGM/EGM but Rule 6 determines that the voting outcome is by "members present".  That would imply that proxy status is marginal in its interpretion and difficult to administer formally.  (two beer mats?)

Personally, I think that some form of proxy system must be the appropriate way forward but is forseeably fraught with issues.  eg, following an ammendment by the Chairman, now permitted, is it presumed that the proxy represenative has the right to still vote on the transferors behalf?
If a definite letter to the Secretary (as the proxy) is the default then effectively a postal vote is created. But the same issues arise, this time with potentail substantial block votes thru the Secretary.

Do I detect another "Owners Association Rules" ammendment next year?

Electronic voting was proposed two years ago, but has fallen by the wayside in the latest ammendment achievements. But the same process issues apply.  Could we conduct these electronic Members as "present" if we have a conference call aspect to the Meeting?

Regards to all,
and thanks for voting on the ammendments at the AGM.  They have already proved useful.

This is a revisit of something that I suggested some time ago. If you use membership number against name, it should be fairly secure and give a fairer representation of the membership thatn just those attending Salcombe. Where you have potentially major decisions that may bring about a change in directions uch as the moulds, this should be for the wider audience. We have used it in the B14s worldwide for the last 6 years to great effect. Instead of a few voting we get a 90%+ response and true representation of the membership. The results may be no different, but it will give others the feeling of inclusion. This can not be understated and is the way forward. How the AGM retains its position is the annual cycle is another matter and the corum may need redefining. possibly by defining what goes to vote etc.
Await further discussion with interest.
Bye for now