CONTESTED ELECTION.

Wairarapa Age, 8 October 1936, Page 5

CONTESTED ELECTION.

I THE W.F.C.A. BOARD. I - POLLING BY PREFERENCE SHAREHOLDERS. FOUR CANDIDATES FOR TWO POSITIONS. Considerable interest was taken in the election yesterday of two directors to represent preference shareholders on the board of the Wairarapa Farmers’ Co-operative Association Ltd. The election took place at a meeting of preference shareholders which followed immediately on the company’s annual general meeting. Of four candidates who had been nominated, Messrs A. B. Wood and C. M. Bowden were elected. Mr. Bowden, who had presided at the annual meeting, vacated the chair and nominated Mr. T. Jordan as chairman at the meeting of preference shareholders. On Mr. Jordan taking the chair, Mr. F. Davie asked whether Mr. Bowden was still a director. Mr. Jordan said he understood Mr. Bowden ceased to be a director at the close of the meeting dealing with the annual report and balance sheet. Mr. Bowden concurred. NEW CHAPTER OPENED. Mr. Jordan said that the meeting marked the opening of a new chapter in the history of their company. An order of the Court gave the preference shareholders the right to elect two directors. If the number of directors representing ordinary shareholders were raised to seven, the preference shareholders would be entitled to elect three directors. The number of directors representing ordinary shareholders stood, however, at five. They had lost General Hart during the year, on his going abroad, and Mr. Bowden had now resigned . The order of the Court had been made on July 21, 1936. It might be said—he had heard whispers —that a special meeting should have been held earlier. The board had expected to hold a meeting towards the end of September, but the matter had been referred to the company’s solicitor and he had held that it would be sufficiently in accordance with the order of the Court to hold the special meeting conveniently in conjunction with .the annual meeting. That was why the meeting had been called that day. Four nominations had been received for the two positions to be filled on the directorate—those of Messrs C. M. Bowden, T. C. A. Hislop, C. P. Knight and A. B. Wood. It was provided that a vote might be taken on a show of hands, but that any shareholder or shareholders holding not less than 5,000 shares might demand a poll. It would be rather futile to take a show of hands to select two out of four people and he suggested that they should take a poll. If , anyone objected, they would take a •how of hands, but it seemed to him rather a farce. A large number of proxies had been received and these had been handled by the General Manager (Mr. J. H. Cunningham) and the Secretujy (Mr. H. Keisenberg). He that these two gentlemen should act as scrutineers. Mr. Davie thought they should not have members of the staff as scrutineers. Mr. Jordan: “It is a matter for the shareholders.*' Mr. Davie said he thought it would be a bit ridiculous to have members of the staff as scrutineers. SCRUTINY OF PROXIES. Mr. Jordan: "Nothing ridiculous •bout them.’’ Proxies had to be lodged 48 hours before they were used, Mr. Jordan added. He assured shareholders that the members of the board had not handled The proxies and knew nothing about their destinations. Some shareholders had sent in several proxies. In all cases where a subsequent proxy had been sent in by a shareholder, the first one had been cancelled. In •ome cases two proxies had been dated on the same day. In these cases the board had thought it fair that votes should be allotted to each of the candiriates. He repeated that members of the board had not themselves scrutinised any proxy paper at all, but had preferred to take the word and deed of their two officials. Voting powers were: Up to 1,000 shares, one vote per share; for the next 1,500 shares, one vote for every five shares; for all shares in excess of 2,500, one vote for every ten shares.

Another point ruled upon was that shareholders who had sent in proxies, but had attended in person, were free to have their proxies torn up and to Vote in person. A motion that Messrs Cunningham •nd Keisenberg act as scrutineers was carried nem. con. . RESULTS OF THE POLL. ’ Voting papers were then distributed •nd when they had been collected and the votes counted by Messrs Cunninghame and Keisenberg, the result of the poll was declared as follows:— A. B. Wood <2,614 C. M. Bowden _ — — 67,631 C. P. Knight — — 54,611 T. C. A. Hislop — — 51,980 There were no informal votes. Thanking the shareholders for his election, Mr. Wood said a very big responsibility and trust had been placed on him and he intended to carry it out to the full. He knew perfectly well that a lot of work would be entailed, but hoped to be of assistance to the board, not only as a preference representative, but as a representative of the whole of the association. He intended to do everything he eoukl for the company, both on the board and elsewhere. (Applause). Mr. Bowden also thanked the prefereiqsia shareholders for his election. He had, of course, he observed, a very close knowledge of the company’s affairs, gained in the years he had spent in that office and he trusted that his knowledge would still be of use to the company and that he might be of some use in the councils of its directors in years to come. (Applause).