Good news and bad!

Good news and bad!
The APS has agreed to use external scrutineers for the voting, but they would not distribute the  No vote. You can read the emails below.
Dear Jenny

RE: General meeting on 6 June 2017

I refer to your letter addressed to me dated 30 May 2017 (Letter).

Thank you for your interest in the upcoming general meeting of The Australian Psychological Society Limited (Society) to be held on 6 June 2017 (Meeting). We recognise that the upcoming Meeting regarding the governance structure of the Society is of great interest to many of our members.

In your letter you enquired as to the vote counting arrangements at the Meeting. I want to assure you that the Society takes these matters most seriously and that the integrity of our voting procedure is of the utmost importance. We wish to ensure that you, and all other members, have every reason to be confident in the voting procedures of the Society.

As you will be aware, the Constitution of the Society provides for scrutineers in the case of voting relating to the election of Directors. While clause 74 of the Constitution does not apply to voting scenarios other than elections, the Society had already determined that it would be appropriate to adopt similar procedures for voting at the forthcoming Meeting.

To this end, vote counting at the Meeting will be subject to the review of Honorary Fellows or Fellows of the Society, together with the Society’s external auditors, which I trust addresses your question as to scrutineer arrangements.

In your Letter you have also requested that a “Reform APS person” be present during the counting of the votes. In your email of 18 April, you advised that Reform APS is not a formal organisation and does not have any members. Instead, we understand that Reform APS is a group of psychologists, including APS members, who have come together primarily through a website to provide a voice to members that they feel has been missing.



Dear Jenny

RE: General meeting on 6 June 2017 – Request for a “no” case argument

Thank you for raising your concerns in relation to the information provided to members for the upcoming general meeting of The Australian Psychological Society Limited (Society) to be held on 6 June 2017 (Meeting), as set out in your email to me dated 1 June 2017.

In your email, you have requested that the Society circulate to its members by 4 June 2017, a “no” case argument, in the form of the “Reform APS case for the No vote” set out in the link to your email. I have sought instruction on your request and advise accordingly.

Following extensive consultation and consideration, the Board has recommended the proposed changes to the Society’s Governance Model to the Society’s members. Having recommended the proposed changes, it would be inappropriate for the Board to then act contrary to its recommendation in the manner that you have requested.

We appreciate that you, and other members, may hold a different view to the Board’s recommendation and as such, the proposed changes will be considered at the upcoming general meeting and then appropriately determined by vote of the Meeting.

Yours sincerely

Barry Whitmore

Company Secretary

5 thoughts on “Good news and bad!

  1. On a somewhat related matter, I find it highly unusual that the proxy form does not allow members to direct their proxy how to vote. It is unclear if this contravenes Corporations Law, but it is universal practice in my experience for proxy forms for listed companies to do that, even if the nominated proxy is the chairman. In the absence of RAPS providing nominees, anyone wishing to vote NO would have to attend in person or not vote at all, which is not democratic.

  2. Last minute (and I mean last minute) correspondence from APS – their usual form yet again. Line of least resistance taken by them. In my opinion, fully expect more of the same as RAPS has forewarned in another post. Thankyou RAPS for all you’re doing. Good luck for tonight’s meeting.

Leave a Reply