LAWN TENNIS ALTERATION TO RULES

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26451, 19 June 1951, Page 4

LAWN TENNIS ALTERATION TO RULES

REPRESENTATION ON COUNCIL VOTING POWER OF BIG CLUBS REDUCED A decision which will have the effect of reducing the voting power of the three largest affiliated clubs on the council of the Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association and at the annual meeting of the association. was made at a special general meeting of the association last evening. The meeting was called to consider a number of amendments to the rules recommended by a committee headed by Mr J. K. Burtt. Most of the committee's recommendations were adopted without alteration. The new basis of representation (rule 21) will be:—clubs consisting of not more than 50 members, one delegate; 50 and not more than 100, two delegates; 100 and not more than 150, three delegates; 150 and not more than 200, four delegates; more than 200, four delegates for the first 200 members and x>ne delegate for every additional 100 or part thereof. The representation for clubs of up to 200 members is unchanged, but the old basis for larger clubs was four delegates and one vote for every 50 members or part thereof. Speaking to the committee’s proposed amendment, Mr W, G. P. Cuningham (Elmwood) said that the last clause, providing for only one delegate for every 100 members over 200, was inconsistent. Moving a further amendment, that one delegate be appointed for every 50 members over 200. he said that this would be the only democratic way of appointing delegates. His club’s voting strength would drop from 12 to eight if the committee’s recommendation was adopted. The clubs affected by this clause, said the secretary (Mr A. C. Felton), were:— Elmwood (558 members), United (253), Shirley (223), and Waimairi (264). When the chairman (Mr J. Mercer) called for a vote on Mr Cuningham’s amendment, Mr Cuningham asked for a poll. (Rule 24 of the old rules stated: "Where less than the number of delegates representing any club or sub-association are present, the delegate or delegates so present may. on a poll being taken, exercise all the votes to which his or their club or sub-association is entitled.’’) Mr Mercer, quoting the existing rule which provides that a poll may be taken on the request of not fewer than six delegates put Mr Cuningham’s request to the meeting. Only four delegates were in favour of a poll, and Mr Cuningham’s amendment, on being put to the vote, was lost on the voices. Th*a committee’s amendment (providing for one delegate for every 100 members over 200) was then put to the vote, and declared carried. Rule 24 of the old rules, dealing with polls, was deleted and another, providing for the appointment of proxies for delegates to council meetings and annual meetings, was substituted.

The purpose of the amendments to rules 21 and 24 is to eliminate the existing confusing rules providing for ‘block voting by the use of polls, to ensure a greater and more regular attendance at council meetings by delegates, who should b £. Property instructed by clubs and other affiliated bodies, and to ensure that delegates are conversant with the detailed domestic requirements of the club and other affiliated bodies which they represent,’* said Mr Burtt. Several of the amended rules dealt with the constitution of the reconstructed Canterbury junior association. Life members are now entitled to attend and vote at ge ” er ® 1 meetings and to attend meetings of the management committee, but vot ®, the committee. An old OWed th^ m to attend management ngs ’ Delegates from the as6O fi a tion and the umpires* aspresent entitled to attend M v«tl rnent committee meetings, but not to vote—are given voting powers.