R&A Redux

Over the weekend Shackelford asked a seemingly simple question vis-à-vis the R&A's abrupt change of heart, what changed?  Via a U.K. blog called Unofficial Partner (subtitled "More Questins than Answers" - hey bub, you're treading on my turf) he provides this from the not-so-wayback machine:

Single-sex clubs are in a very small minority in the UK. Half of them are women only, half of

They have restrooms, what more do these gals want?

them are men only. They're perfectly legal. In our view they don't do anyone any harm. And we think the right of freedom of association is important. And we've explained our view that we think they have no material adverse affect on participation. On the other hand, the media are, with seemingly boundless energy, I think, and enthusiasm, giving out the message that this is an issue, and that such clubs should be condemned to extinction, and we shouldn't be using one to stage The Open Championship. And we understand that view, too. We've got, as you mentioned, politicians posturing, we've got interest groups attacking the R & A, attacking The Open, and attacking Muirfield. As you can see, I've made a few notes about it (laughter). To be honest, our natural reaction is to resist these pressures, because we actually don't think they have very much substance.

If you've not guessed, those were Peter Dawson's comments at his presser before the 2013 Open Championship held at single-sex host club Muirfield.  And just by chance it was at a men-only club, though per Peter that was likely the result of a coin flip.

For those with us since the start, I posted here on this subject, giving all due credit to Dawson was a PR savant, allowing the world to focus its death rays on the Honourable Company, with no discussion of the R&A's own membership.  Do reread that post for a brief overview of the 2004 spin-off of the organization that runs the Open Championship (and is the rule-making organization for the game in all but the U.S. and Canada), presumably to avoid such media firestorms.

Since news broke that the R&A would seek a vote of its membership this Fall to admit women as members, it's been my operative assumption that Peter Dawson had the skids greased.  From where I'm sitting, the only thing worse from a public relations perspective than not having women members, would be to have the members vote such a motion down. 

But it's come to my attention that there is a fair amount of grumbling from the membership, folks who aren't used to being railroaded in any context.  Dawson's announcement indicated that only members attending the Autumn General Meeting would vote on this obviously significant proposal, and my cynicism led me to think that this was perhaps the mechanism by which Dawson could control the outcome.  As of now, no fewer than six letters to Dawson are circulating petitioning for the right to vote in absentia, as in a given year only an estimated 10% of the members could be expected to attend the Autumn General Meeting (though with such an important measure on the ballot we would expect that to increase).
I've also been led to believe that any changes to the rules of the club must garner the vote of a majority of the members, present or not, but a super-majority of those present and voting.  I'm attempting to clarify what the convoluted wording might actually mean and on what basis Dawson could limit the vote to those members in attendance

Stay tuned to this station, as this could turn out to be far more contentious than I originally anticipated.