Posted:
Rick,
Great letter! Do your bylaws allow mail-in ballots. Many state votes may be cast in person, by proxy or by mail. Mail-in ballots can also be counted toward the quorum and allow the member to cast his own vote. I much rather prefer this method than proxies. AZ outlawed proxies a number of years ago. Also, proxies are generally not used in a nonprofit corp.
FYI. . .Following is a good definition of proxy voting and why it should not be used in a nonprofit corp. From Roberts Rules of Order. . .
Proxy Voting. A proxy is a power of attorney given by one person to another to vote in his stead and it is also used to designate the person who holds the power of attorney. It is unknown to a strictly deliberative assembly, and is in conflict with the idea of the equality of members, which is a fundamental principle of deliberative assemblies. There can be but little use for debate where one member has more votes than another, possibly more than all the others combined. If the proxy voting is limited to the election of a board of directors, as it is practically in stock corporations, and if, also, the proxies must be given to members of the corporation in all cases where it requires an election to become a member -- with these two limitations proxy voting would be useful and do no harm. In stock companies the members meet only annually to elect directors, who elect the officers and transact the business of the corporation. Though the directors are elected largely by proxies, their own meetings, where all the business is done, are as secret as they choose to make them, no proxies being allowed in them, and therefore proxy voting does not interfere with their business. As any one can dispose of his stock to any one else, there is no objection to his appointing any one as his proxy. But the case is very different with many incorporated societies of a social, benevolent, or religious character, whose business meetings are sometimes secret. Their membership cannot be transferred by the members like stock, and therefore they should not be allowed to appoint any proxies who are not members of the organization. The state law is above the by-laws of the society, and if the state law empowers members of all corporations to appoint proxies to vote at all business meetings, no by-laws of an incorporated secret society could prevent non-members holding proxies from attending and voting at all business meetings of the society. This should not be the case. With stock corporations it does no harm, because all the business is done by directors, and no proxies are allowed in their meetings, and no one can be present without their consent. But in many societies of the kind mentioned the business is transacted in meetings attended by none but members, and unlimited proxies would be a serious interference with their work. If the state law requires proxy voting in all corporations, it should be limited to the election of officers, including directors, and also the proxies should be required to be held by members of the corporation in all organizations whose primary object is not pecuniary profit.