Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
No, it is not a limited company, just a society formed of family historians, mostly amateur, but some (like myself) professional in the sphere or retired
No. The original constitution appears to have been adopted about 40 years ago, framed by members, but obviously with the advice of a solicitor. We are members of the Federation of Family History Societies, and may use the Federation's legal expert (a solicitor) for advice, but nothing more dramatic than that.
I have already sent my reply to your question: I repeat -
OK, I'll wait. I am assuming that there is no easy answer. I can only guess at present that the legislation making proxy votes compulsory merely involves such companies, etc, that have shareholders or similar. With our family history society we simply have members who pay an annual subscription and receive services for their membership - website, journal, advice, research - nothing as complicated as that offered by those registered with Companies House. It's just that a member had come up with this gem that we are obliged to offer proxy votes. In reality, it's bound to cause us problems, particularly as many members live abroad - but, of course, there is the fear that we may be in breach of the law if we ignore it. Many thanks for your help so far. I'm looking forward to a result, one way or another.
I have spent £33 for an answer to this question. There must be an answer, surely? Or otherwise I've wasted my money. If no discernible answer - which seems incredible - then how about an opinion, which will obviously be regarded as an opinion and not as fact?
The money has been spent. I'll continue in the hope of getting an answer.
Yes - it encompasses six and a half A5 pages of text
No, I am talking about the revised version that replaces the original (which was written about 40 years ago). The revised version is still being debated and, of course, brings up a few issues, including this one. There is no mention of proxy votes in the original, naturally, and the compiler of the revised version has added this in - because other versions of constitutions (I don't know which) he has seen contain such proxy votes for electing members for the executive committee, etc. There have been several objections to having proxy votes because of possible abuses, but one member has stated quite vehemently that we have to have proxy votes "because it's the law" - and, of course, most others have taken this on board. The trouble is we have enough "barrack-room lawyers" in our society to make the world go round. I am opposed to the idea, but, if it is the case that we have to accept proxy votes then we have to accept them. However, browsing through the internet I can see no clear-cut answer to this matter. I didn't expect it to be so complicated, and I apologise if I am causing some trouble here. It may very well be that we'll have to accept proxy votes, but I and some others feel it could be quite dangerous and may be open to abuse. I think you may understand my concern, even though this may even be a trivial matter. I am grateful for your assistance in this matter.
No, the old constitution does not even mention proxy votes - it was made about 40 years ago, hence the need for revision in our modern world.
A society, yes - not a company