Mail and Proxy Voting

What has been your experience, pro or con, with mail and proxy voting in a private club?  (Asked on the PCA Web page.)

Comments from clubs with mail voting:

“I believe mail-in ballots are a great change from the ‘controlled-by-the-few’ mentality.  I don’t care for and never have liked the proxy concept.  It develops into clique wars.”

“No problem.  More responses.”

“Positive.  Over 50 percent response.”

Comments from clubs with proxy voting:

“In my 13 years at this club we have never had more than 40 people attend a shareholder meeting and proxy voting has always been the norm, with 110 to 145 proxy votes each year.  The board has always had enough proxies to decide what they want to do or not at an annual meeting.”

“We have proxy voting and get approximately 42 percent response.  At the annual meeting, we get attendance of about 8-10 percent (32-40 people)  Of the group that attends the meeting, 99 percent have already filled out the proxies.  Our last meeting lasted a half hour—and that was a stretch.”

“Only way to assure a quorum.”

“Proxy balloting provides a method for the members to be heard on the issues whether they can make the meeting or not.  Each member can only carry one proxy to the meeting, which prevents a single member or a small group of members from dominating an issue.  I have used mail ballots in the past, but they prevent any amendments or changes to a motion at the meeting.”

Comments from clubs with both mail and proxy voting:

“I find it to be a benefit in enhancing member participation in the governance process.  However, it can also be a problem unless bylaws are constructed in such a way that only those mail-in ballots actually submitted are counted (i.e., a non-responding member’s vote is not automatically deemed a ‘no.’”

“We have held board elections and bylaw changes this way for years and recently a capital improvement plan.  To avoid accusations of misrepresentation of results, a non-member CPA firm is hired to audit the elections.  The members mail their completed ballots and proxies directly to the CPA firm’s address.  A representative from the firm attends the shareholders meeting and announces the results.  It has worked great and protects board members and key employees from unnecessary scrutiny and/or false accusations.”

“Generally okay for board elections, but terrible for issues and the budget.  Members need to hear the discussion and form their conclusions after that.  We now can have good discussion in the annual meeting, only to have the issue decided by uninformed absentee votes.  We are working on development of alternatives at this time.”