british parachute association riggers committee meeting bpa offices ...

Page 5, Item 9 – AOB (vii). John Curtis advised those present that he had not heard from BradRock with regard to him being assessed for a BPA Rigger rating.There being no further matters arising, it was proposed by Kim Newton and secondedby Rick Boardman that the Minutes of the Riggers Committee meeting of the 6th December2001 be accepted as a true record.Carried Unanimously3. MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING FROM THE STC MEETING OF THE6TH DECEMBER 2001There were no matters arising from the previous Minutes.4. PROXY VOTINGIn the past concern had been expressed by some Riggers with regard to the Committee acceptingproxy votes. The Committee felt that the whole issue of proxy voting warranted further discussionand it was agreed that this item should be put on the main agenda for discussion.The Committee was advised that letters against any proposal to remove proxy voting had beenreceived from Andrew Hilton, Ian Robertson, Dane Richardson and Rick Boardman and werecirculated to those present.A letter had also been received from Bernadette Whitaker and circulated to those present proposingthat any rigger not having attended a riggers meeting within the past 12 months waives his/herright to a proxy vote.The Chairman advised those present that proxy voting was part of the Riggers Committee Terms ofReference and that presently proxy votes may only be made in writing (including by fax) to theBPA office prior to a meeting and may only be related to specific agenda items. The acceptabilityof the wording of a proxy vote will be at the Chairman’s discretion.This item generated a great deal of discussion.Often some riggers were not in a position to attend all the meetings because the location wherethey lived and work commitments often made it difficult. It was also felt that those riggers sendingin proxy votes for specific items had studied and researched the subject and they felt strongly aboutcertain issues. By discouraging involvement of those not able to attend the meetings could onlyworsen participation of Riggers and it was wrong to put any restriction on who can vote.Some riggers present did not like the idea of proxy voting as they believed that it did not encourageriggers to attend meetings if that was the only way they had a voice. Some members statedthat they had often made up their mind about a subject only to change that view from attending ameeting and sharing information around the table. Those riggers sending in a proxy vote forspecific argument do not get to hear the argument around the table that makes a decision.Bill Sharp felt that the Committee may wish to discuss what we determine as a proxy vote. Hestated that the dictionary defines the word ‘proxy’ as ‘a person authorised to act on behalf ofsomeone else’. This in theory meant that six Riggers could appoint another Rigger as their proxyto attend a meeting, speak and vote on their behalf on any item under discussion.The system that the Committee has in place at present of being able to send in something in writingin support of a pre-written agenda item was actually a form of postal voting.Following a great deal of discussion on this matter, the Committee felt that the BPA Councilshould define in the Mems and Arts the definition of proxy voting and what we call the method we2