The age of electronic voting Electr...

The age of electronic voting Electronic voting has become more and more frequent in the last few years. We waited to adopt the proces at the ICABC, because we first wanted to monitor the experience of other organizations and institutes. Last year, after we felt comfortable that questions of security, privacy, and independence had been conclusively resolv we joined the electronic voting age.

We felt comfortable introducing electronic proxies for couple reasons: First, the voting websites could promise security-we use a to a high degree secure Telus site that is completely independent from the ICABC site; inferior scrutineers could continue to monitor the integrity of the voting process-Wolrige Mahon provides the scrutineers for our general meetings and related voting, including for the strange electronic voting.

The introduction of electronic proxies for the 2003 AGM in June brought alone accolades from members because of the increased convenience. yet at the SGM in November-our secondary foray into the arena of electronic voting-the controversial nature of the resolutions raised the flat of scrutiny about the electronic voting proces particularly in brace areas:

* Should we continue using electronic proxies and conducting face-to-face meetings, or should we prompt to a full electronic voting platform?

* to what degree do we distribute information upon resolutions to members, and what adumbration of information is disseminated?

Is the actual meeting still necessary?

Our Act and bylaws require us to have face-to-face meetings, with electronic or paper proxies brought to these meetings. The meeting used to be pivotal in deciding an issue, and many proxies were discretionary. if it were not that today most proxies are directed, and the nation who come to the meeting have not many questions. Moreover, it is increasingly difficult to achieve a quorum of 50 CAs.

At the Special General Meeting in November, for instance, the consecrated by a vow was decided by the proxies, which were cast before the meeting was called to order. The meeting itself-attended by the agency of 56 CAs-proceeded with no discussion in succession the motions. Around the Council table the following morning, proponent of the couple the yes and no suffrages raised the question: "Why on the same level have a meeting?"

How best to distribute information?

One of the biggest questions raised during the SGM involved the distribution of information. Historically, the single outed Council has been responsible for reviewing order changes and vetting resolutions that reach [i]or[/i] attain any place [i]or[/i] point before the membership. Together with the bylaws committee, Council members undertake a rigorous discussion and review proces We believe members look for the elected Council to play this part and want to know its recommendations.

However, while about members see these recommendations as Council's way of performing appropriate diligence in reviewing membership matters, others interpret Council's recommendations as advocacy. in this way now we'd like to know whether you want Council to continue to provide you with recommendations, or whether you'd rather have the resolutions currented without Council's opinion.

A related issue was also raised at the SGM: The Institute emails members to provide links to the voting site and to information upon proposed changes. In the run-up to the SGM we received beg fors from those for and against the resolutions to circulate their acknowledge comments and information by email to the membership at large. if it be not that due to our current privacy policies-a commitment we've made to members-we did not circulate any information beyond the voting notification and relevant reminders.

So now we'd like you to count us how you'd like to receive information. For instance, we could despatch emails from everyone who entreats access (although we would thereby fail to win control over the volume of emails you receive from us). Or we could establish chat rooms-as we did for the SGM With regard to the latter possibility, we'd self-same much like your suggestions onward how to encourage members to use these chat rooms-they were almost silent during the entire period leading up the SGM

We want your feedback

The Institute Council and staff have discussed all of these issues at extent and now we'd like your perspective. Early in the modern Year, we'll be sending on the outside an electronic survey. I chance of a favorable result you take the few minutes necessary to fill it revealed because we need your input to make secure that the processes we unravel meet your needs and expectations.

We believe electronic voting is here to stay. Protecting the integrity of our voting processe is of paramount importance to the Institute, and your opinions will help us continue to find ways to increase member participation.

You can also send out your comments to the ICABC's Director of Internal Operations Jan Sampson, CA, at sampson@ica.bc.ca.

BY RICHARD REE FCA

CEO

Copyright Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia Jan 2004

Provided according to ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved