If you’re an auDA member, and you intend voting at the Special General Meeting (SGM) on Monday 31st July, then you can be assured that your vote will be anonymous.
This was confirmed by Di Parker from auDA. (Her position is “Director Corporate and Regulatory Services and Company Secretary”). I trust Di absolutely – she has integrity, and is a stickler for proper procedure.
So you need not fear any retribution if you do happen to support the Members resolution:
“That Stuart Benjamin be removed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.”
Background
Last Monday, I emailed Di, and asked her (amongst other things):
“Are you the only person within auDA that will see the proxy votes both before and after the meeting? The reason I ask this question is that there a number of members who have expressed fear of retribution if they vote in the affirmative for the motion. I can understand their concern – but I would have thought that you’d have this under control?”
Her reply (in part) was:
“Firstly, I assure you that as with the AGM, I am the only auDA employee who has access to and/or views the proxies and/or ballots. This will be the same process for the SGM.”
I then followed up and asked her “why don’t we have secret ballots like we used to?” And also:
“Even though I have great faith in what you say, the fact is members may have a fear of recrimination if they believe someone at auDA will find out which way he / she / they voted.”
Her subsequent reply was very reassuring:
“Thank you for the feedback and suggestion. I can confirm that the SGM will facilitate anonymous voting.”
Only One Thing Outstanding
Erhan Karabardak should recuse himself from being Chair for the SGM. I wrote to the CEO about this last week (with a cc to Di Parker and Erhan).
“Please note our extreme objection to this.
Whilst this in no way is meant to reflect on Erhan’s integrity, the fact remains he has a conflict of interest. As a lawyer, he would understand this. Stuart Benjamin is a client of his – plus they have been personal friends for a long time.
We would suggest that one of the other two independent Directors be Chair for the meeting.”
Ned O’Meara – 17th July 2017
Disclaimer
It is reassuring to hear that the vote will be anonymous.
But at the risk of being a party-pooper, I remain greatly concerned about frequent references to “retribution” or “recrimination”. It is a sad indictment of the state of .au when members worry about these things.
auDA’s pathetic attempt at justifying a “No” vote just serves to show how disconnected the Board (and therefore the Chair) are from community expectations. I could critique each of their claimed “achievements” but it is simpler to say they are either hollow promises to deliver or irrelevant administrative minutiae.
One point worth commenting on though is their summary statement:
Just in case you were in any doubt that members and their concerns are anything other than mere distractions.
Good post Anonymous.
AUDA’s version of “reform” is thinking up new ways to further withhold information from members. Watch as they adopt whatever practices suits that end.