Note, this document was rendered out of date as from 1 January 2022 following the incorporation of BRPS as a company limited by guarantee.
Postal votes were last debated at the 2002 AGM when the Society discussed
some core issues, including postal voting, that had arisen during the review of
the Society's rules. Postal voting had been allowed until the late 60's/early
70's when some corrupt practices had been unearthed (postal votes were being
filtered so as to give a result that the management favoured). At that point,
the Society changed its rules to ban postal votes.
A draft rule book was published in 2001 in a consultation exercise, and
members were invited to give feedback to the ideas contained within it. At the
end of that process, there were three main areas of concern, of which postal
voting was one. The 2002 AGM document set out the arguments as
follows:
Election Arrangements
This subject provided more comment from the membership as a whole than any
other. There were many calls for postal balloting in the process of the election
of officers. Again, there are three options:
- One is to make no change to the present arrangements. There are some very
powerful arguments for the status quo, mainly to do with the way in which the
management accounts for the state of the Railway. The greatest sanction is to
turn up at AGM and ask awkward questions in public. If a system of voting were
introduced which reduced the number of members at an important meeting which
complies with the rules, democratic control of the Railway would suffer.
- A second option is to move to a system of full availability of a postal
vote. Members are disenfranchised if they cannot undertake an arduous journey
to an evening meeting, which makes a very long day or an overnight stay
inevitable.
-
The third option, preferred by the Committee, is to move to a system of
partial postal voting. In reality most members live within 35 miles of any
likely venue of an AGM. The committee feels that members disadvantaged by
excessive distance should have some influence by being able to apply for a
postal election vote. Most attendees travel to the AGM, within an hour, by car
however, and rail attendees are able to reach Haywards Heath from most local
stations in the immediate area, with relative ease There are some good
arguments that a postal system would place considerable administrative burdens
on part-time membership staff, apart from the potential cost. The committee
sees this as a reasonable compromise.
The Society was invited to support Motion 3: "That the BRPS in Annual General
Meeting is resolved to move to an election system that is partially postal."
The minutes of that meeting record the discussion, thus:
"13 Motion 3 (Election Arrangements)
Mr Pearce said that the subject of postal voting had created more
correspondence than anything else. Those members advocating postal votes tended
to live a long way away as they felt disenfranchised. Others argued that postal
votes were undemocratic because votes were cast before all the arguments had
been heard and they acted as a disincentive to attend the general meeting and
hold the top table to account. Postal Voting also carried the risk that the AGM
would not be quorate. Accordingly, the Trustees felt that a system of partial
postal voting was preferable. Anyone living more than 35 miles away, in effect
outside the TN, RH, BN and CR postcode areas, would be eligible for a postal
vote. The Motion was seconded by Robert Prescott.
Mr Resch said we needed to think carefully about the mechanism we use to
implement this proposal. When postal voting was allowed in the past, there was a
perception that votes were "lost" if they did not accord with management views.
We needed an independent count. Mr Roberts considered that 35 miles was too
close. He travelled 80 miles to work on the railway and attend the AGM, Mr Darby
felt that we needed safeguards to prevent some-one from voting by post and
attending the meeting and voting a second time. Mr Hillman said he was against
postal voting as it was important for the members to come together for one
evening during the year. The AGM was not just about voting. Mr Pickup said that
any concern about the security of votes could be overcome by using the services
of the Electoral Reform Society. Responding to the debate, Mr Pearce said that
the Membership Secretary's computer system would be used to determine who was
eligible for postal votes and whether or not a postal voting form had been sent
to them. Reiterating his initial argument, he said that we could either have
full, partial or no postal voting and the Trustees believed this was a good
compromise.
On a vote the motion was lost with 25 votes For, 125 Against and 6
Abstentions."
The new draft rules were sent to members with the Notice of the 2003
Extraordinary General Meeting which had been called to adopt the new rules. The
Notice also invited members to submit amendments to the proposed rules and the
opportunity was there to float the postal voting issue again, but nobody did so.
The rules for EGM's are different in that proxy votes are allowed.
It is open to any member to propose an amendment to the rules, provided this
is submitted in accordance with the rules and received by the General Secretary
by the date specified in the AGM Notice. However, any proposal to allow postal
voting ought to consider, pari passu, whether the quorum requirement ought to be
relaxed, otherwise there is the risk - and consequent wasted costs - that the
AGM might not get enough members attending for it to proceed.
Gavin Bennett
General Secretary
March 2011
Page prepared by Gavin Bennett and uploaded 31 March 2011 by Richard Salmon. Updated 1 January 2022.