VOTING BY PROXY

Hawera Star, Volume L, 5 August 1930, Page 5

VOTING BY PROXY

ABOLITION REJECTED

HAAVERA: DAIRY COMPANY

After a protracted discussion at the annual meeting of the Hawera Cooperative Dairy Company, Ltd., yesterday a proposal .to abolish proxy voting was defeated for the fourth time in the company’s history.

In accordance with notice Mr S., J. Bennett moved to amend! the articles of association of the company so as to provide for the abolition of representaC tion and voting by proxy at meetings of the company. Mr Bennett considered that proxies were not in the best interests of dairy companies. He contended that the system was open to abuse, though he could not say whether such had been the experience of the Hawera Company. He had known of cases where directors of companies had' gone round the country canvassig for proxy votes because of a personal grievance. Resulting from proxy voting directors were sometimes elected who should not have been. Voting should, in his opinion, be confined to those who gave evidence of their interest in the company affairs by attendance at the annual meetings. Mr A. C. Lovelock seconded the motion.

Mr C. Ogle said the man who gave the proxy was responsible for the abuse if any existed.

A crossfire between the mover of the motion and Mr Ogle was interrupted by the chairman (Mr J. R. Corrigan).

RIGHTS GIVEN BY LAW

The Chairman said the rights of proxy voting were given by law to allow representation to those who could not, or did not wish to, attend the company meetings. The right was one which he thought should not be sacrificed. The proposal had been before the company on three previous occasions and on each the shareholders had, by their decisions, given the opinion that the retention of the_ system was required l . In his experience the system had not been abused by the Hawera company, which was to-day in a sound position. He gave a warning that danger rested in the abolition of the system. Referring generally to the voting system Mr Corrigan said, “I think we are the most democratic, in the system of voting, of any company in Taranaki.” He supported the contention by comparison of voting powers conferred hv contemporary organisations. . Supporting the motion, Mr F. ‘ Gawith pointed out that other large companies had dispensed with proxy voting. “If you want the company run in a democratic way by shareholders cut the proxies out.” said Mr Gawith. “If you want the company run by a minority leave them.” •OUT-OF-DATE' ’ SYSTEM.

M r Lovelock considered that tlie system of proxy voting, was out of date, teuppaiers could, in his opinion,, rest assured that the move proposed was a forward one. Mr H. L. Batten said that the mot'ioii seemed to presuppose that tlie giver of a proxy did not know what he was doing. He could not. agree to that, and would oppose the motion. Mr Bennett urged that the abolition of proxies would not adversely affect |the stability of the company one iota. He ridiculed the chairman’s suggestion that it would. "‘lf tlie principle of altering -systems is wrong, why was it necessary to alter the system of handicapping hv the Trotting Association?” he inquired of the chairman. ”1 can’t see in what way the spoirt *of trotting and daily company 'business is anaiagous,” said the chairman in reply. If' it was necessary to alter the existing system he would support it, but it had not been shown that any benefit would result, or that the amendment was required. Two further speakers supported the motion. Proxies had been received at the meeting from 43 shareholders, said the chairman in reply to a question from Mr Bennett.

Replying to an interruption of Mr Gawith, the chairman said the company had had previous exhibitions of proxy

voting with Mr Gawith. Mr Gawith: You’ve made a charge against me and I want to reply. The "chairman: Sit down. I’ve got the floor. Mr Gawith (advancing to the front of the meeting) ; You’ve made a charge and must give me the right of reply. The chairman: I’ve nob made any charge and I’ll not give, any right of reply. I must again ask you to sit down. _ di r Gawith complied with the. request. On being put to the meeting, the motion was defeated on a, show of hands bv -12 votes to 22. For the amendment of the. articles of association a. majority cl’ 75 per cent, of votes would have, been required.