Shipping Sieur Raymond then made a statement explaining that by BetsyY



EXTRAORDINARY MEETING of the Chief Pleas held on the 5th day of July, 2006,
in the presence of J.M.Beaumont Esq.,OBE,Seigneur, Lt.Col.R.J.Guille MBE,
Seneschal, A.W.J.Adams, Prevôt; T.J.Hamon, Greffier; Mrs.W.Kiernan, Treasurer,
and the Constables.
Members were present as follows:

               30 Tenants, 12 Deputies and the Seneschal

Apologies were received from Sieur D.Spence and Sieur C.Spence.

The President of Chief Pleas welcomed His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor,
Vice-Admiral Sir Fabian Malbon, KBE to the Meeting.

The President said that Sieur Raymond had resigned from General Purposes &
Finance Committee (GP&F) and the Shipping Committee as from 20th April and those
Committees would be looking for his replacement at this Meeting. Dep.Gurden had
tendered his resignation from Tourism Committee as from this Meeting and his
replacement would be elected at the Michaelmas Meeting.

Shipping: Sieur Raymond then made a statement explaining that last August Chief
Pleas had entered into a loan agreement with Sark Shipping for £100k and he was
pleased to report to the Meeting that this has now been repaid. He had also been
asked for a report on the cargo boat. He said that there are still delays in getting
classification of the shafts so the builders have not yet started machining them. The
marine engineer at Alderney Shipping said the boat should be ready for late August or
early September. The owners expenses are likely to be in the region of £90-£100k on
top of the contract costs. However, other yards have said they would not have looked
at the job under £1 million. Dep.Melling asked, in the light of this news, if the
Company had made contingency plans or discussions to get through the high season.
Sieur Raymond said that he had only received the telephone call from the engineer
today and the problem would be discussed.

1.     MINUTES: The Minutes of the Easter Meeting held on 19th April, 2006,
were approved.

Proposed Mdm.Hester                Seconded Dep.Cocksedge            Carried.

Arising: There were no items arising.

The President of Chief Pleas then read an apology to Sieur David and Sieur Frederick
Barclay (Appendix 1).

He read also a further statement relating to his position in Chief Pleas (Appendix 2)

There were no questions.

Constitutional Steering Committee (CSC) asked the House to suspend the normal
Rules of Procedure in order that items 3, 4, 5 and 6 could be a single debating item.
Approved. The President of Chief Pleas reminded Members that the Projet de Loi
was drafted for Option C and was awaiting approval from the House. Since the
papers for this meeting went out Members had an opportunity to put questions to
members of the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA). He asked Chief Pleas
Members to bear in mind what had been said at that meeting.

He then asked the President of CSC to open the debate.

Dep.Guille said that it was a very simple Report and the Proposition drafted in April
has now been inserted in Section 29 after subsection (6) of the Projet de Loi entitled
“The Constitution of Sark Law, 2006” . The amendment had to be in specific
wording and the proposer and seconder had accepted this. Dep.Dewe asked if
leaseholders were covered, as the amendment read “….as a possessor of any real
property…..”. Dep.Guille said he understood they would be, as leaseholders would
be taken as ordinarily resident but also possessors. He said that the Committee and
the Law Officers were happy as it contained the ethos of the proposition from Sir
Peter Miller and Sieur Harris.

Dep.Cole said that at the last meeting he asked if, as a resident of Sark who may be
the possessor of a holiday home in Jersey or Guernsey, he would be entitled to a vote
in either jurisdiction. He had subsequently learnt from Guernsey that he would have
to be ordinarily resident and it would be two years before he would be allowed to
vote. In Jersey, it is the same position and merely owning property is not sufficient to
meet all of the criteria. He would have to be ordinarily resident as well. He asked if
consequently Sark is setting lower standards than the other jurisdictions.

The President of Chief Pleas said that Sark has set an alternative way of describing
what is “ordinarily resident” for electoral purposes. However, anyone owning
leasehold, freehold or a Tenement would still, under the new Constitution Law, be
required to be in possession for 12 months before they can be inserted on the Register
of Electors. Dep.Cole asked him to confirm that this meant a person did not have to
come here or even visit the Island - if they own property they are automatically on the
electoral roll. He was told that this was so. However, once the new Constitution is in
place they will have to apply to be placed on the electoral roll and this will be done
through the Greffier. Dep.Cole said that the point he was trying to make was that
someone could meet all the requirements but never come to Sark. He found it very
hard to believe that such a person could vote and be instrumental in the legislation of
the Island. The President of Chief Pleas said that it is now incorporated in the Law
and will be there until Chief Pleas decides to change it in the future. He explained
that this Section is now part of the 2006 Projet de Loi and is not tied to the model of

introducing the Report the President of GP&F made a statement to say that he had
been informed that certain members of the House would attempt to stop him from
speaking as he would be leaving the Island and they did not think he should be
allowed to be part of the decision-making. As an elected member of the House who
had not yet resigned he intended to take his proper place representing the members of
the public who had elected him. The President of Chief Pleas confirmed that there is
no problem here. A person is a Deputy or a Tenant until they resign or leave.
Dep.Gurden then set out his comments on why GP&F wanted the House to rescind
the Option C decision of Chief Pleas and replace it with Option A. (Appendix 3).
an OPINION from Mr.Nigel Fleming QC. Mdm Rang said that their Report stated
that in the event that there is any resolution put before Chief Pleas calling for the
reversal of the decision to implement Option C, or to introduce Option A in its place,
the House would be asked to note the opinion of Mr.Pleming and to amend the
resolution of 7th March by inserting “Option D” in place of “Option C”, and to
arrange an Opinion Poll on which option the public preferred to be implemented as a
Projet de Loi to be submitted to the Queen in Council. She said that Sark has to
establish a system of government which will satisfy the House, the tenants’ advisors
and which will meet the concerns of the Privy Council and the DCA. The DCA has
also expressed concerns that Option C would be vulnerable to challenge in the Courts
and she thought that the best way of meeting all the requirements would be to keep
the elected Tenants but have more Deputies. Sir Peter said the Report was putting
forward a package for a larger number of elected Deputies than elected Tenants, voted
for by universal suffrage. Everybody who can vote would get two votes, one for
Deputies and one for Tenants. He asked the House to reflect that since they last met a
lot has happened. The writers of the Report were very conscious that they had two
things to worry about (1) were they on good legal ground, and (2) what is best for
Sark. How useful are the Tenants – if they are that good why not let them stand

So far as the Law is concerned we have gone to great lengths to explain what it is. If
there was anything wrong about it we would not want to enter into it because it would
be a very irresponsible thing to do. Mr.Pleming has given them great comfort.
Option D was linked to an Opinion Poll so things have moved a long way forward
from what was originally suggested. He said it is simply not so that the House has to
go along with Option A. So far as the meeting with the DCA was concerned he said
Sark had to get them on side and there is every indication that this is so. He said this
was not just a personal observation but Mr.Pleming thinks that the DCA now
understand that the people of Sark are trying very hard to get this right. We have to
get Chief Pleas working as a proper body to meet the problems Sark has, particularly
in the financial area, and he had no hesitation in urging the House to follow the
motion put down by Mdm.Rang.

Dep.Gurden said that his understanding from the DCA was that Option D might
indeed be acceptable but only as an interim measure and if it was supported by a
public opinion poll. Sir Peter said this was correct and that was why an opinion poll
was put into Option D. Dep.Gurden said that there had been remarks made that the
previous opinion poll was “suspect” but the two options put to Chief Pleas were put to
the public and he asked why this no longer sufficed. It was conducted on the same
lines as the Election of Deputies and if the opinion poll was suspect then were the
Deputies elections also suspect? Sir Peter said they have now investigated how to
set about a public opinion poll and had had the expertise of both the MORI people and
the Electoral Reform Society. There was no reason to criticise the original opinion
poll other than to say that it had too small a turn-out. The electoral experts would say
that a 60% turn-out was needed. Dep.P.Williams felt very strongly that Tenants and
elected Deputies should not be eligible to vote, but Sir Peter said that their numbers
were too small to worry about. However, the President of Chief Pleas said that they
were 10% of the electorate, which is significant but Chief Pleas would have to make
the decision as to who would be eligible, including joint Tenants who do not have a
vote. It is an interesting point and one which must be taken into consideration when
debating the poll. Dep.Cole said he was surprised to hear criticism of the last poll
because it was the method used to elect every Western government. People had a
choice. They could vote for Option A, for Option C, or not vote which was in itself
an opinion if they chose not to vote. Sieur Gomoll said he had chosen not to
participate in the opinion poll. The President of Chief Pleas said that he had been
concerned when he read “slightly suspect” because he is the electoral officer for the
Island and the scrutiny involved and the wording of the question, in his opinion, made
it a perfectly valid poll although it had 160 people turn out instead of the 220 at the
previous Deputies election. Dep.Dewe reminded the House that there had been a
mail-shot to every house informing them of the date and timing of the poll so no-one
had the excuse that they did not know about it. This meant it reached more people
than if there had just been notices in the Public Boxes and in the Gazette Officialle.

The President of CSC said that “slightly suspect” was a lawyer’s comment and it
made a lot of people jump. He said that it is quite clear that both Mdm. Rang and Sir
Peter need to obtain information for Chief Pleas Members to consider. He said that
Sir Peter had asked him and the President of Chief Pleas to sit in at the interviews of
the two polling experts, MORI and Electoral Reform Services (ERS). He said that
someone has to do the necessary work before any opinion poll is circulated. This
would include the two questions on the composition of Chief Pleas. The questions
would also have to be sent to the DCA for comment so the questions would be
independently scrutinized by the people running the poll and by the DCA. It was
advisable that a fact sheet should also accompany the questions. This would be
concerned with such things as confidentiality etc. This, again, would be scrutinized
by the pollsters and the DCA. It has to be as clear and open as it can be. He was
sure this would be done in a correct and professional manner. The criteria to take
part in this poll would be the electoral roll with the addition of Tenants and joint
Tenants. It was decided that it could not be widened further. The other question
which needs to be answered is should it be binding on Chief Pleas. This is going to
be open to debate. The operation and cost of both pollsters were given and
Dep.Guille said that the team recommended the ERS dual postal and telephone
system at a cost of £2.5k. Dep.Gurden queried the percentage figures or 60% return
of papers and then a simple majority. This meant you only need a majority of one or
two persons, which would not be acceptable to the DCA. You would need
overwhelming support, not 1 or 2 people on a 60% return. Sieur Hurden said he was
nervous about a 60% return. He had been involved in a number of opinion polls of
this kind and if they get a 30-35% return they think they are doing well. Sieur Guille
said this had been well aired. The general public will have been told a 60% turnout is
needed and if they don’t turn out they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Dep.Gurden said that you need a majority of at least 20% - one or two people is not a
clear indication. Sieur Gomoll suggested that Section 29 and 30 be adopted which
would augment the electoral roll but the President said that there is no record of the
people he was talking about. The Register under the new Law will be done by people
wanting to go on the roll. There is not enough time to do that by August. There is an
electoral roll which can be adapted with the addition of Tenants and joint Tenants. It
was pointed out that the DCA has said that you need a substantial majority to adopt
Option D. If that is not reached then it will have to come back to the House for
further debate.

Seigneur said that he did not want to get involved in the debate but this is one where
he got the strong impression that recent articles in the Press attacking his integrity is
to soften the people up for the Donnelly/Armorgie debate. He said there was a basic
and fundamental error in that article. He referred to the article’s allegation that he had
given his approval to the least of Brecqhou by Mr. Leonard Matcham to Solaria
Investments. However the truth is somewhat different. He said the lease had been
presented to the Greffier for approval and he believed that it was illegal. After
reading the lease the Seigneur had the same concerns.The Seigneur then referred the
matter to H.M.Procureur who had informed him that the registration of the lease did
not confer or imply legality and he advised the Greffier that it could be registered. At
no time did he approve the lease and it remains my belief to this day that it was not
legal. The truth of this removes the raison d’être for the whole article and makes
nonsense of the subsequent allegations. He suggested that the article was read bearing
this in mind and asked the House to let him know where they think the abuse of
power lies. He then said he would not take part in this debate and would not vote.
The House applauded his statement.

Sieur Donnelly then read a statement which is attached. (Appendix 4) Included in
this is the statement that G.P.& F. had exceeded their Mandate by being part of the
signatories of the recent mail-shot concerning Option A. He said that the Seigneur
may have his own views but he should answer these things outside of Chief Pleas and
it was not really appropriate for him to do so in the House. Sieur Donnelly then went
on to say that the matter of contractual obligations between the holder of the Fief and
the Tenants had been raised previously and in correspondence between himself and
the Seigneur in late 2005. He then read out the two letters.

Dep.Gurden, as President of G.P.& F. said that he did not see that the Committee had
worked outside of its Mandate. He remarked on the fact that two of the four people
who were elected to form part of a Brecqhou Liaison Committee were proposers of
this Report and one of the limitations imposed upon this in their discussions relate to
the issues of Seigneurial rights. He also remarked on the fact that Section 2 of the
report significantly reflected the publicly expressed Brecqhou arguments. There was
nothing new in Section 1 and he considered the main thrust of the paper was to attack
the position of the Seigneur. He said that it does not seem a very coherent line of
reasoning to scream loudly that the rights of Tenants must be defended if you are not
also willing to defend the rights of the Seigneur, who is an integral part of that same
system. He said that consequently he could not view these proposals seriously and
they will not have his support. (Applause)

Dep.Guille said that it would be of interest to the House to remind them that the
position of the Seigneur under the 1951 Reform Law was the first thing the
Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) took on board. It has all been dealt with. It
came back twice to Chief Pleas and he wondered how many times it has to come
back. He had been asked to circulate the letter from Ozannes and everything in the
Donnelly/Armorgie proposition is covered by the letter. Sieur Donnelly made no
attempt to justify the proposition. Sieur Donnelly had suggested that the Seigneur
should respond to the media in the media The Seigneur had not done so and was held
in high esteem because he had not done so. There was a Court case and the Barclays
were to take the Seigneur or Sark to Court. However it was withdrawn because Sark
is a Crown Dependency and the Crown has to be involved. Presumably the Crown
was too big and the case was withdrawn. He said the Seigneur of Sark is no longer an
easy target and the attacks are now personal on Mr.Beaumont. That is what people
have to judge when they read the paper before them. The House has already

discussed all these issues before and I would ask the House to reject this report but I
don’t think it is worth any more comment. The House applauded the statement.

Dep.Dewe said that Sieur Donnelly and Dep.Armorgie as part of the sub-Committee,
met members of the G.P.& F. At that meeting they reported that the Tenants of
Brecqhou had drawn up the agenda for discussion “Brecqhou’s future views in Chief
Pleas having regard to any agreement reached.” He questioned them and their
response was almost non-existent as they would not answer his questions. This
Report answers his questions – we have puppets in Chief Pleas.

Sieur Donnelly said it was not personal about the Seigneur. He said he had been in
litigation with the Seigneur and questioned his right to appoint Island Officers. He
felt that there were things going on behind the scenes which the House should be
made aware of.

The President of Chief Pleas reminded members of this House that the Seigneur,
himself as Seneschal, and H.M.Procueur spoke about the appointment of officers by
the Seigneur. They even suggested to CRC that they felt, and the Seigneur certainly
felt, that appointments should be made by the Lieutenant Governor. It came to Chief
Pleas, who debated it and rejected it out of hand and quite clearly said they wanted the
Seigneur to retain those powers of appointment. It was the Seigneur who originally
suggested he step down from appointing and this House that rejected it. All of these
items were debated as individual rights of the Seigneur in this House, for this Projet,
and the House unanimously accepted them. He just wanted to point out that the
Seigneur was willing to give up these powers and the House wanted him to retain
them. Dep.Guille said it must be made quite clear to the Press that although the
Seigneur can make these appointments they have to be approved by the Lieutenant

The President of Chief Pleas said that as the Court judge he will make the decisions
which he feels are the correct legal decision and any decision he makes can go to
Appeal. He said it has been called a kangaroo court, a feudal court but every
decision he makes can be challenged up to the Privy Council. He had no problem
with the fact that the Seigneur can appoint him. It has been alleged that he could
support the Seigneur in Court but he said he would make the correct and legal
judgment which can go to Appeal.

Sieur Donnelly said it was not what can be done but what can be perceived to be
done. He said he was not talking personalities but practicalities. The President of
Chief Pleas said that it why we have appointed a Lieutenant Seneschal in the new
Law because of conflict of interest.

The President of Chief Pleas said that Option C is in the draft Projet. There is a
Report from GP&F asking the House to rescind that decision and replace it with
Option A. Mdm.Rang/Sir Peter Miller have a proposition that if it is rescinded they
substitute Option D for Option C and make arrangements for an Opinion Poll to take
place. Sieur Donnelly/Dep.Armorgie have a proposition to support Option C and
propose the removal of the Seigneur’s rights. Sieur Donnelly/Dep.Armorgie then
withdrew their proposition.

The voting procedures on these proposals were debated including how and when an
opinion poll should take place. Eventually Sieur Rang brought a further Option to the
House and a recess was called before it was debated. He suggested that there should
be an equal number of Tenants and Deputies voted for by the general public and a
third tranche made up of Deputies or Tenants. The suggested number was 12, so that
there were 12 elected Tenants, 12 elected Deputies and 12 others elected who could
be either Tenants or Deputies. It was agreed that the House be adjourned and
reconvened to discuss this further proposition on the following evening. Carried.

It was agreed that the other small items on the Agenda should be dealt with first.

7.      ROAD TRAFFIC COMMITTEE: A Projet de Loi entitled “The Invalid
Carriages (Sark)(Amendment)Law, 2006”. The President of the Road Traffic
Committee said that this was the amendment to allow electric bicycles to be licensed
for use on Sark which had been requested by Chief Pleas. Carried

8.      ROAD TRAFFIC COMMITTEE: A Projet de Loi entitled “The Tractors
(Amendment)(Sark)Law, 2006” This amendment was to enable the ceiling for taxes
on tractors to be raised to £100. Carried.

to lay before Chief Pleas the Ordinance entitled “The Belarus(Freezing of
Funds)(Sark)Ordinance, 2006,” which had been fast-tracked and which could only be
annulled. There were no questions and no move to annul.

laid before Chief Pleas the Ordinance entitled “The Burma (Restrictive
Measures)(Sark)Ordinance, 2006” which had been fast-tracked. There were no
questions and no move to annul.

11.     SHIPPING COMMITTEE: Sieur Raymond having tendered his resignation
from this Committee, the House was asked to elect a new Member to replace him.
Before this happened, the President of the Committee asked the assembly if they
thought there should be a Shipping Committee. The business of running the
Company is the exclusive province of the Executive Directors, overseen by meetings
of the full Board at regular intervals. The Committee is there to provide a political
facility whereby the Sark Directors report to Chief Pleas. As this is their only
function he queried whether a full Committee was required. The Committee had no
recommendations to make as to who should replace Sieur Raymond except that under
the terms of the Committee mandate specifies that one Member should be from GP&F
and one from Tourism. Currently the President of Shipping is on GP&F but has
resigned from Tourism. The Committee needs at least 3 Members to make it quorate.
The question of a new Member was deferred until Michaelmas.

asked to elect a new member to replace Sieur Raymond who has tendered his
resignation. The President said that the Committee would like to put forward the
name of Sieur Edric Baker, who had agreed to stand. There being no other
candidates, Sieur Baker was duly elected

Before the meeting was terminated, Dep.Gurden informed the House of his intention
to resign as a Deputy of the People as and from 31st July this year as he and
Mrs.Gurden were leaving the Island. He stated that it had been a pleasure and a
privilege to be a part of this Assembly and thanked the House for the many courtesies
and considerations they had shown him during his spells in office. He said it would
be hard to be no longer a part of it all but he wished the Assembly, and Sark in its
entirety, well for the future. It is currently living in momentous times with many
decisions to be made and many problems to be faced and he would continue to
monitor the progress with great interest.

The meeting adjourned.

Re-convened Meeting of Chief Pleas, held in the Assembly Room on Thursday, 6th

Present were 28 Tenants, 11 Deputies and the Seneschal.

Apologies were received from Sieur D and Sieur C.Spence, Sieur L de Carteret, Sieur
A.Miller and Deputy G.Gurden.

The President of Chief Pleas welcomed the Lieutenant Governor back to the Meeting.

Shipping Committee: The President of Chief Pleas said that the issue of the
Shipping Committee being quorate was raised again. The implications of that part of
the debate were realised to be quite serious. From 1st August it is an important time
and the President of the Committee is the main signatory for Chief Pleas on loans,
guarantees, etc. There must be a Member from the Tourism Committee to join the
Shipping Committee this evening and not at Michaelmas. There are only two
remaining members, Sieur Donnelly and Dep.Le Lievre. Members of Tourism are
Sieur Guille, Sieur D.Spence, and Deps. Melling and Dewe. He asked for a volunteer
from Tourism to join the Shipping Committee and Sieur Guille put his name
forwarded. Proposed and seconded. Carried. The President of Chief Pleas said that
someone must be nominated as President from 1st August. The Tourism Committee
also need a new Member and he asked anyone who would like to join the Committee
to contact Sieur Guille.

Election for Deputy of the People. The President of Chief Pleas said that as
Dep.Gurden was resigning as and from 31st July a by-Election was required and he
would be bringing a by-Election Ordinance forward at the next Meeting or at
Michaelmas at the latest.

CONSTITUTION: Dep.Guille asked that the Rules of Procedure be suspended.

New Option: Sieur Rang proposed

“That advice be sought from the Law Officers and others, on proposals that the
membership of a reformed Chief Pleas should comprise:

   •   An equal number of elected Deputies and elected Tenants
   •   A further equal number of either elected Deputies or Tenants, taken from
       those who are the immediate runners up to the elected Deputies or
       Tenants; or

   •   A certain number of elected Deputies

   •   A smaller number of elected Tenants

   •   A further number of either elected Deputies or Tenants who are the
       immediate runners up to the elected Deputies or Tenants.”

By way of example, in the first proposal the number could be

   •   12 elected Deputies
   •   12 elected Tenants, and
   •   12 runners up, whether Deputies or Tenants.

In the second proposal, the numbers could be

   •   15 elected Deputies
   •   9 elected Tenants
   •   12 runners up, whether Deputies or Tenants

He called upon Sieur Harris to second the motion, which he was pleased to do.

This Option was discussed at length. Dep.Cole said that it was an interesting new
proposal but he did not think the House could vote on it as they have not had time to
study it in depth. It is much more complex than Options A or D and there were
ramifications. It has already been queried as to whether or not 28 candidates could be
found and it would be much more difficult to raise 36. The number of Deputies
could be greater than Tenants if that is what the public want. If the balance between
Tenants and non-Tenants is to be left to the voters then Option A serves that purpose.
This option also has a block of seats reserved for one group, which is specifically
what the DCA did not want unless it can be shown that that is what a significant
number of the general public want. This brings us back to an Opinion poll. It might
be the time to ask the House to vote between Option A and this Option. Once this is
settled then we can go to the people for their judgment between the two options. This
seems to be the way forward now.

Dep.Guy said that she completely agreed with Dep.Cole that an Opinion Poll should
be looked at. If this new option is the preferred option of the People that strengthens
the way of putting it to the DCA. Sieur Harris said it was now generally
acknowledged that this is the right and best way forward. Anything other than Option
A must be supported by an Opinion Poll. Dep.Guille said that he would whole-
heartedly support the idea of getting legal advice on the new Option for presentation
to Chief Pleas at a later date. He asked the House to consider holding an
Extraordinary Meeting sooner rather than later and he asked Sieur Rang if he would
agree to CSC passing this on to the Law Officers, which Sieur Rang agreed to.

It was agreed that 9th August would be the date for an evening Meeting. The
President of Chief Pleas said that he would like to go for 10 days notice which will
give longer to get the legal advice and to circulate papers as they come in. Dep.Guille
accepted that but said it must be made clear that if the House sets a date they are
expected to meet that date. He would not like to see Chief Pleas not meet that date
and leave itself wide open to criticism of delaying for the sake of delaying.
Dep.Guille also said that he would like an Opinion Poll. Sieur Harris said it would be
nonsense for this House to vote without knowing what the public want and there is

only one logical course – to put it as simply as possible in a Poll of islanders and then
vote on what the Island wants.

It was agreed that there would be a new Agenda for the Meeting on 9th August.

The President of Chief Pleas said it would be necessary to bring forward proposed
numbers at that meeting. There are 28 in the Projet and to alter that would mean a
new Proposition.

Dep.Guy wished it emphasized that the meeting on 9th August will take the decision
on whether Option D or the new Option will be placed as the alternative to Option A
for the Opinion Poll and to agree to the Opinion Poll being put in place. Dep.Guille
agreed and said that the final decision will be taken at Michaelmas, after the Opinion
Poll, on the future composition of Chief Pleas.

Dep.Guille then placed two Propositions before the Meeting:

Proposition “That Chief Pleas approve the appointment of the Electoral Reform
Services to carry out an independent Opinion Poll in relation to the composition
of Chief Pleas and that Chief Pleas approve the spending of up to £2,500 on an
independent Opinion Poll”

Proposition “That Chief Pleas approve that a working party be tasked to
prepare the necessary questions and fact sheet which will be cleared with the
chosen organization and the Department of Constitutional Affairs before being
printed for circulation. The members to be Sir Peter Miller, Dep.Guille and the
President of Chief Pleas.”

The two Propositions were Proposed by Dep.Guille, seconded Sir Peter Miller.

The next scheduled meeting is Michaelmas on Wednesday, 4th October at 10 am.and
the Agenda will close on Friday, 8th September. The Extraordinary Meeting will take
place on Wednesday, 9th August at 7.00 pm and the Agenda will close on Monday,
31st July. All papers must be in by 12 noon.

   July, 2006                                          Greffier



To top