ECF AGM 2022

[Andrew Zigmond]

Greep 126 Atkinson 81 Hok 30

That is a closer result than I would have expected when the nominations were advanced.

I don't think that Truran's communications helped Greep at all - rather the reverse.

Not sure that you can necessarily conclude that at all. Mr Greep still polled over 50%. Mr Atkinson was arguably a more credible candidate in this election than that which Mr Woodhouse won against Mr Wall also with Mr Truran's endorsement. But it seems that taking a swipe at Mike Truran remains part of the tradition for some in ECF circles.

It would be interesting to know who Hok's voters were and how they would have divided had he not been on the ballot.

[David Sedgwick]

I don't think that Truran's communications helped Greep at all - rather the reverse.

Not sure that you can necessarily conclude that at all.
...
But it seems that taking a swipe at Mike Truran remains part of the tradition for some in ECF circles.

Some months ago I corresponded with Mike Truran on that very point.

I assured him that it was nothing personal. All the organisations with which I am associated voted for him last year.

But when I disagree with his approach, I am not afraid to say so.

And I disapprove of Executive Directors campaigning publicly for candidates for Non-Executive roles.

Moreover, I do not believe that I am unique in taking that view. Hence my conclusion above.

[NickFaulks]

The people who were not in Birmingham were sure they did not need to be in Birmingham. Other people were entitled to make their own decisions.

I felt I had some kind of a duty to be there. Not a mistake I shall make again.

[Chris Goodall]

I don't think that Truran's communications helped Greep at all - rather the reverse.

But it seems that taking a swipe at Mike Truran remains part of the tradition for some in ECF circles.

There you go then - if you can acknowledge that Mike Truran isn't a universally popular figure, so can David

[Andrew Zigmond]

And I disapprove of Executive Directors campaigning publicly for candidates for Non-Executive roles.

Moreover, I do not believe that I am unique in taking that view. Hence my conclusion above.

Except he did not. He sent a private email to selected recipients which was leaked. It expressed a very mild endorsement of a candidate which most would have inferred anyway.

This contrasts with the personal attacks he had to contend with last year.

[PeterFarr]

The people who were not in Birmingham were sure they did not need to be in Birmingham. Other people were entitled to make their own decisions.

Quite. Nobody on zoom said anything about thinking other people should be there in-person. A number of people on zoom thought the in-person option should remain as a choice, that's all.

Speaking personally, it's a 300 mile, 6-7 hour round trip to Birmingham, which I don't think I could charge to expenses. Perhaps worth it if you are a candidate, a board member, or someone with a particular wish to discuss / influence / network, but not so much for an ordinary council member just anxious to use their votes and make the odd contribution when there's a need.

[J T Melsom]

David

I am also inclined towards the position which you and Angus French have articulated, although it is perhaps more theoretical than practical. As I understand it Mike's conduct isn't a breach of governance rules, and he wasn't the only member of the board to actively engage in the process. But given the resounding success of one candidate endorsed by Mike Truran, the smaller winning margin in the other suggests many members of Council considered the merits of the candidates rather than who endorsed them. If there was room for careful weighing of the case put by the candidates, I suspect Alan Atkinson's attack on Stephen Greep might have been a bit of an own goal.

[NickFaulks]

Nobody on zoom said anything about thinking other people should be there in-person. A number of people on zoom thought the in-person option should remain as a choice, that's all.

Yes, but the only reason to hold face to face meetings is so that people who go can meet others whom they would otherwise never see. If hardly anyone goes because there is a Zoom option then you get all the drawbacks of a hybrid meeting with no advantages.

[PeterFarr]

Nobody on zoom said anything about thinking other people should be there in-person. A number of people on zoom thought the in-person option should remain as a choice, that's all.

Yes, but the only reason to hold face to face meetings is so that people who go can meet others whom they would otherwise never see. If hardly anyone goes because there is a Zoom option then you get all the drawbacks of a hybrid meeting with no advantages.

Yes, I do understand your frustration, and appreciate that you did in fact make that effort to go, I just doubt the cat can be put back in the bag. But sure, something is lost.

[NickFaulks]

I just doubt the cat can be put back in the bag. But sure, something is lost.

My point is that in the mean time we seem to be persisting with the hybrid approach, having proved twice that people won't go, and it is the people who won't go that are insisting on it.

[NickFaulks]

I just doubt the cat can be put back in the bag. But sure, something is lost.

My point is that in the mean time we seem to be persisting with the hybrid approach, having proved twice that people won't go, and it is the people who won't go that are insisting on it.

[JustinHorton]

I've not read the whole thread, but out of interest, was the question raised of the 2023 Championships venue?

[NickFaulks]

I've not read the whole thread, but out of interest, was the question raised of the 2023 Championships venue?

No.

[Paul Cooksey]

I just doubt the cat can be put back in the bag. But sure, something is lost.

My point is that in the mean time we seem to be persisting with the hybrid approach, having proved twice that people won't go, and it is the people who won't go that are insisting on it.

Well, I can only say I voted for Zoom only and expect people to catch up eventually.

[PeterFarr]

I just doubt the cat can be put back in the bag. But sure, something is lost.

My point is that in the mean time we seem to be persisting with the hybrid approach, having proved twice that people won't go, and it is the people who won't go that are insisting on it.

I don't agree they are insisting on it; I think they just wanted those people that favoured in-person to have the option; that's allowing, not insisting, a very big difference.

On my own account I'd be happy for zoom only, but if nobody turns up that will happen by default.