Special Resolution C1(S) – Nominations for Elections at the Annual General Meeting

This blog is from Ruth Breddal Chair, Amnesty International UK Section

Like many Special Resolutions, the text of C1(S) needs some explanation. The background note in the AGM papers provides extra information but if you are still not sure what it’s all about, we hope that this blog will make things a bit clearer.

If not, please post a question and we’ll provide a response that might help. If you don’t agree with what we’re suggesting, then we’d love to know why, so please post a comment and let’s have a discussion.

Amnesty UK’s Annual General Meeting currently elects

• the AGM Chair
• the AGM Standing Orders Committee
• the Members and Directors Appeals Committee

The basic functions of these bodies and their election processes are described in Amnesty UK’s governing document - the Articles of Association (often referred to as 'the Constitution').

Unfortunately, the Constitution sets out different timelines and processes:

• AGM Chair – timeline for nominations is set by the Returning Officer
• AGM Standing Orders Committee – elected from nominations received at the AGM
• Members and Directors Appeals Committee – there is no mention of a process for nomination

This Special Resolution proposes to introduce greater consistency and would mean that, for all these positions, the Returning Officer will set the nominations timeline. However, they will all still be elected by the AGM. That stays the same.

At the moment, the first time anyone hears from candidates is at the AGM, where they give a speech, sometimes as short as one minute each. The changes mean that the process could be set up to allow nominations to be published to the membership in advance. That would allow groups (and individual members) to consider and discuss the candidate credentials before the AGM. And, if they wish, to vote for the preferences by proxy. This would help to answer a concern raised by the proposer of Decision B1, approved at last year’s AGM. We hope this would increase the transparency of this democratic process.

We look forward to your comments and questions.