Jump to content

SMISA Annual Accounts & AGM Update May20


bazil85
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Baz should be clear when he talks about 85% approval that he means it's 85% of the vote rather than the whole membership (no idea why he plays these games) but that doesn't mean you have an excuse to abuse the stats even more than he did.

What's the point of including those who didn't vote?

You are, quite without foundation, insinuating they would all have voted against everything.

This is exactly what I mean, I couldn’t have been clearer. I literally start with the voting numbers I’m referencing. There is no need to remind people of the SMISA membership numbers, given the total responders is ample for people to conclude. Yet I still get attacked, can’t win 🤷‍♂️

460 votes cast for each, all matters received high 90% backing with the exception of "disapply need for full financial audit" which received 85.6% backing 

 
  •  
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, antrin said:

No.

My initial post had no such insinuation... if you had truly read the thread you’d have seen that my figures were unadorned.

This post simply and gently makes the same point that you are belatedly repeating.

460 out of 1177 is a meaningless statistic.

Non-voters don't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

460 out of 1177 is a meaningless statistic.

Non-voters don't count.

Sounds like another point we agree on. I find it mad though that you would think it’s playing ‘games’ that I didn’t quote the SMISA membership numbers. Do you genuinely think there’s an audience on here that would be mislead into thinking 460 votes was our full/ close to full membership? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Sounds like another point we agree on. I find it mad though that you would think it’s playing ‘games’ that I didn’t quote the SMISA membership numbers. Do you genuinely think there’s an audience on here that would be mislead into thinking 460 votes was our full/ close to full membership? 

I'm starting to sound like a broken record because you STILL seem to think that the problem is simply you having a different opinion.

You show no indication that you are even listening to what I am saying.

We can't keep having this same conversation.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

460 out of 1177 is a meaningless statistic.

Non-voters don't count.

I know you really aren’t THAT stupid, nor are you bazil droning on.  And on.


I merely put Bazil’s initial post into context - which, in effect, gives his post meaning”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I'm starting to sound like a broken record because you STILL seem to think that the problem is simply you having a different opinion.

You show no indication that you are even listening to what I am saying.

We can't keep having this same conversation.

You said my post on here was playing ‘games’ I honestly don’t see how, all I did was quote a number. Do you think not quoting the full membership number means I was playing a game? I assume you think the same about the initial announcement from SMISA also? 
 

8 minutes ago, antrin said:

I know you really aren’t THAT stupid, nor are you bazil droning on.  And on.
I merely put Bazil’s initial post into context - which, in effect, gives his post meaning”.

Do you genuinely think adding the total membership number benefited anyone? As in do you think there are people on here that would have been thinking 460 is a close to total number of the SMISA membership total? It was needless, it was pedantic, it was an attempt to get the reaction, which you did. Well done 👍 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, melmac said:

So, we know how many voted but how many were in attendance at the virtual meeting? Did a virtual meeting take place or was it just the usual ballot?

I don't think they did a virtual meeting, I think under the circumstances they just did a member update. Could be wrong though, didn't see any invites. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if there has been no 'virtual' AGM, where people all sat at their computers, listened in / contributed /  voted, then it must follow that there have been no decisions made, despite what has been heralded.

A virtual AGM should allow members / shareholders to attend the meeting from the comfort of their own home / office.

As such, the AGM needs to use appropriate technology, to allow the member / shareholders to actively participate in the meeting. Crucially, the technology must enable the individual to both speak and vote at the meeting.

Edited by melmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, melmac said:

So, if there has been no 'virtual' AGM, where people all sat at their computers, listened in / contributed /  voted, then it must follow that there have been no decisions made, despite what has been heralded.

The decisions have been made, it was put to a vote with an email sent to all members. All resolutions passed overwhelmingly (based on members that voted, just putting that in to save Oak and Antrin's blood pressure lol) 

I think under the circumstances, giving the members the information and allowing them to vote is plenty. None of the people up for re-election were challenged, the accounts were available to be read and the decision to disapply need for an audit & appoint independent examiner were simple enough asks. 

In normal circumstances a meeting would have been good but they'd of had to royally F something up to change the vote results. As someone else said, a meeting to discuss at a later date and answer questions seems plenty, far more pressing issues in the world right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The decisions have been made, it was put to a vote with an email sent to all members. All resolutions passed overwhelmingly (based on members that voted, just putting that in to save Oak and Antrin's blood pressure lol) 

I think under the circumstances, giving the members the information and allowing them to vote is plenty. None of the people up for re-election were challenged, the accounts were available to be read and the decision to disapply need for an audit & appoint independent examiner were simple enough asks. 

In normal circumstances a meeting would have been good but they'd of had to royally F something up to change the vote results. As someone else said, a meeting to discuss at a later date and answer questions seems plenty, far more pressing issues in the world right now. 

 I agree. 

 

Apart from the highlighted "of".

 

:)

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, slapsalmon said:

I have neither. I've got a mild annoyance with your child like grasp of the English language while telling people they just didn't understand what you meant. Anything else I can help you with? 

I've always been more of an analytical thinker... You'll get the spelling police out every once in a while which is fine, no issue with being corrected. Now that you point it out I am actually annoyed with myself at such a simple error so often, so thank you. 

If that has genuinely impacted anyone understanding my posts, they're welcome to ask for clarity. I doubt that's happened very often though. Probably more likely used as a means of being pedantic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I've always been more of an analytical thinker... You'll get the spelling police out every once in a while which is fine, no issue with being corrected. Now that you point it out I am actually annoyed with myself at such a simple error so often, so thank you. 

If that has genuinely impacted anyone understanding my posts, they're welcome to ask for clarity. I doubt that's happened very often though. Probably more likely used as a means of being pedantic. 

If you want me to be pedantic I'd say that you spelled overlay correctly. You should've used overly. Both of those are correct spellings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

If you want me to be pedantic I'd say that you spelled overlay correctly. You should've used overly. Both of those are correct spellings. 

Well done you nailed pedantic. 

I was meaning more people claiming that or similar as a reason they don't understand my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...