User talk:Fæ/Draft supplementary rules for voting: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:43, 25 November 2012

I have to say this is more elaborate than anything in this direction I have seen in commercial companies. I have always understood that lawyers advised against anything that reduced or complicated the power of a simple majority vote of the board - except where tied votes are possible, as with us now, or where there is a "golden share" or other situation with owners, which is not our case. I will take a lot of persuading to support "super-majority" voting.
"When the number of trustees eligible to vote is less than three, no vote will be considered valid." - so the day after the air crash.....?

Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-I have to say this is more elaborate than anything in this direction I have seen in commercial companies. I have always understood that lawyers advised against anything that reduced or complicated the power of a simple majority vote of the board - except where tied votes are possible, as with us now, or where there is a "golden share" or other situation with owners, which is not our case. I will take a lot of persuading to support "super-majority" voting. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
+*I have to say this is more elaborate than anything in this direction I have seen in commercial companies. I have always understood that lawyers advised against anything that reduced or complicated the power of a simple majority vote of the board - except where tied votes are possible, as with us now, or where there is a "golden share" or other situation with owners, which is not our case. I will take a lot of persuading to support "super-majority" voting.
+*"When the number of trustees eligible to vote is less than three, no vote will be considered valid." - so the day after the air crash.....?
+[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)