PROXY VOTING QUESTION

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1930, Page 12

PROXY VOTING QUESTION

DEBATE AT DAIRY MEETING. ' HAWERA TO RETAIN SYSTEM. For the fourth time shareholders of the Hawera, Co-operative Dairy Company on Monday voted against a motion to do away with proxy voting, The discussion , at times was heated. ’ Notice of motion had been given by Mr. S. J. Bennett, and when he was called upon yesterday to move that proxy voting, be abolished the chairman (Mr. J. R. Corrigan) stated that the onus was on Mr. Bennett to prove that proxies had been abused. Mr. Bennett said that in his experience proxy voting was not in the best interests of a company. He could not say whether proxies had been abused in the Hawera Dairy Company or not, but he knew that they had been in others. They were open to abuse. In his opinion a man giving a proxy might just as well not vote at all. Hd knew of cases of directors canvassing the district for proxies, What interest had a dry shareholder except in supporting the proxy system? By doing away with the proxies they would create more interest in the dairy company. Mr. A. C. Lovelock seconded the motion. Mr. C. Cgle held that the man who gave his proxy away was the man to blame. Let him please himself. Mr. H. E. Johnson asked how Mr. Bennett would deal with sick people. Mr. Bennett: I may be sick next time and my vote can go by the board. The chairman, Mr. J. R. Corrigan, said that the right of proxy was given by law. Were the shareholders’ rights to be whittled away ? The company was in a sound position. Often, too, proxies were needed to establish quorums. There was, again, a possibility of litigation. On three occasions the proposal had been defeated, and he advised the meeting to vote against it. Hawera was the most democratic of any factory. He was the largest shareholder, but he had only five votes, the same as most shareholders. On the basis adopted by some other factories, which had done away with proxy voting, he would have from 47 to 114 vote®. •Mr. F. Gawith said the chairman had raised all the old objections to the abolition of proxy voting. There was not much chance of litigation. He could remember the days when he and Mr. Ccrrigan practically controlled the company because they held the majority of the proxies. One by one the other big companies had cut out proxies. He personally had been known at one time as the “outside director” because of his proxies. Did they want the company run by Mr. Corrigan and an “outside director”? Mr. Lovelock considered proxy voting was antiquated and undemocratic. The suppliers could rest assured that the motion was a forward move. Mr. Bennett said there were a number of uninterested shareholders, who gave their proxies without any stipulation. They had to make forward movements. Mr. Corrigan said it was his duty to advise the' shareholders, and while he was chairman he intended to do sp. ; If they. wanted to 'keep the company' going .on lthe present ii'fies'‘wliy bother to filter 'the sys-”

tern and start experimenting • with a “fad” ? It might be detrimental to th« company, which could certainly not be.ini’ proved upon. If he wanted any more voting power for himself he would support the proposal. ‘ A shareholder said he saw no reason why the voting strength should be altered. . Mr. Gawith, who had interjected several times, rose to speak again on the abuses of proxy voting, when the chairman said that the less said by Mr. Gawith about proxy voting the better. They had seen exhibitions of it. Mr. Gawith rose to reply, but Mr. Corrigan said he was still holding the floor. Mr. Gawith: You made a charge against me. Are you going to give me a chance to reply?. Mr. Corrigan: lam not. I have already let you speak several times. I made no charge against you. I would remind you that I am conducting the business of thia meeting. The motion was lost by 42 votes to 22. Mr. Gawith demanded a poll, but he was not supported by a sufficient, proportion of share capital. Mr. Corrigan congratulated the shareholders on their decision.