ECF Elections 2015

[Roger de Coverly]

which didn't make a lot of sense when they clearly came as a package.

I suppose if there was a master plan, it was this:-

(1) put up Malcolm to remove the International Director
(2) put up John Foley to replace Alex
(3) put up Chris Fegan to replace John as non-Exec

There's a visible CSC nexus there, is that a coincidence?

If you keep (2) a secret, (3) will more likely succeed because there may well not have been any other candidates for the two non-Exec positions if it was assumed both incumbents were standing for re-election. In an election with two candidates for two positions, there isn't a real option to vote for "only one of the above". You can certainly vote for just one candidate, but if one candidate gets 250 votes and the other 100 votes, the second candidate is still likely to beat "neither of the above".

There's an assumption that votes for "none of the above" can be kept below 50% for otherwise uncontested elections. That did seem to unravel somewhat, the 22 page screed not helping.

[JustinHorton]

I would draw attention to a post that has just appeared on the ECF website at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/internat ... -election/

Oh really what a farce. I could use stronger terminology.

If this happened in FIDE, can you imagine what the Telegraph chess column would say about it?

Quite. And imagine the subsequent editorial in CHESS.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Not the finest moment, but at least a recount was done and the correct result published. I do hope lessons *are* learnt from this, with a full statement on how this would be avoided in future (don't rush the counting; require a recount if requested - I believe this has happened in the past).

[Roger de Coverly]

Not the finest moment, but at least a recount was done and the correct result published.

With all the multiple votes and proxies flying around, it could have just been a couple of ballot papers misplaced. It's all been resolved commendably quickly. Unlike FIDE, the integrity of an ECF election process has never been put in doubt.

It's stating the obvious, but meeting length is likely to be proportionate to the number of disputed elections and thus formal voting.

[JustinHorton]

Let the chads - aka proxies - hang or fall where they will, is my motto today.)

!!!!!

[Mick Norris]

Not the finest moment, but at least a recount was done and the correct result published.

With all the multiple votes and proxies flying around, it could have just been a couple of ballot papers misplaced. It's all been resolved commendably quickly. Unlike FIDE, the integrity of an ECF election process has never been put in doubt.

It's stating the obvious, but meeting length is likely to be proportionate to the number of disputed elections and thus formal voting.

Agree with that

Clearly the AGM isn't long enough for contested elections alongside other business (note, this is not a request for longer meetings, merely the point that Agenda items get dropped frequently no matter who chairs the meeting)

If the elections were done in a different way (online, postal, telephone voting?), this problem wouldn't arise - if not, it seems to me that 2 Council meetings a year seem insufficient for what Council is actually being asked to consider

[NickFaulks]

With all the multiple votes and proxies flying around, it could have just been a couple of ballot papers misplaced. It's all been resolved commendably quickly.

I'm going to save this one, since I have never before seen Roger so understanding of gross incompetence. Of course, he wasn't there, which may help.

[Bill Porter]

With all the multiple votes and proxies flying around, it could have just been a couple of ballot papers misplaced. It's all been resolved commendably quickly.

I'm going to save this one, since I have never before seen Roger so understanding of gross incompetence. Of course, he wasn't there, which may help.

Perhaps Roger was rather stunned, as I was, to see the ECF correcting an error within a day.

[John McKenna]

I trust somebody will ask for an explanation of the term "controller-arbiter nexus".

Some might say that, by analogy, they are to the ECF what the Turkish Mamelukes were to Saladin's Abbuyid dynasty. In a word - usurpers (of power in an internal palace coup).

I'd say the Sultan and his entourage have been couped.

But one of his viziers miraculously survives - hope he thrives.

[David Pardoe]

Perhaps the ECF should now go on and correct the other `voting errors`... and reinstate PE as CEO and Mr Kane as Commercial Director...if they are agreeable.

I say this because of the conduct of that vote and certain curious interventions, which have been well discussed by Messrs MR and others, re Chris Majers actions, etc.. really isn't cricket, in my view.

Or at least call on all those who voted at the AGM meeting, to revote individually (ie, no block voting) by email, asap.
This should exclude the option of `non of these candidates`. Those who feel particularly strongly could abstain, by all means..

I say this because the ECF is an amateur body essentially, run by unpaid volunteers. If we can`t find perfect candidates, that's not a surprise.
If a candidates conduct or actions have been unacceptably poor, then I`d favour some scheme to negate them from standing...
Here we are, a fairly large body, with various heavy weight groups across the country, and large chunks are opting for a weak cop out, ie `non of these candidates` Its a complete joke..
If these heavy weight bodies are going to rule the show and control events, they need to demonstrate some responsibility, be committed , and if they don't like the candidates on offer, then they have two choices.. cop out by abstaining, or take the positive route, and put forward a candidate they feel they can vote for..
Candidates who take the time and trouble to put themselves forward should be given due respect, even if they are not the worlds best chess Officials..

PS.. Brilliant result for Malcolm Pein... well done Mr Philpott in that recount!!!
And, can a post be found for David Openshaw (I`ve spelt his name wrongly), but the ECF does need good people like yourself

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I appreciated this tweet after an eventful day yesterday:

Phil Ehr, ECF ‏@ECFChiefExec 24h24 hours ago
The English chess community, through its Council, chose a new direction today. I'm grateful for my opportunity to serve.

https://twitter.com/ECFChiefExec/status ... 5018716161

Also this from @ECF Schools:

https://twitter.com/ECFSchools/status/6 ... 5374900224

"Thanks to Phil Ehr for all he did for English Chess, in particular his transformation of ECF Junior chess. "

[John McKenna]

I trust somebody will ask for an explanation of the term "controller-arbiter nexus".

Some might say that, by analogy, they are to the ECF what the Turkish Mamelukes were to Saladin's Abbuyid dynasty. In a word - usurpers (of power in an internal palace coup).

I'd say the Sultan and his entourage have been couped.

But one of his viziers miraculously survives - hope he thrives.

Yesterday I got it a bit wrong when I wrote 'vizier' when Grand Vizier is the right title for Malcolm Pein since he's head and shoulders above those remaining at court.

Also, I am guilty of a case of mistaken identity - the Sultan remains in place in the guise of our ECF President who, because he is so self-effacing, tends to go unrecognised a lot of the time by those like me who are in the souk. (Yes, that's 'souk' not soup.)

It was the Grand Mufti (do check the meanings of 'mufti') who was ousted at Saturday's Majlis.

"The moving finger writes, and having writ, goes on... to write another bit." (Ben E Hill)

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The full recount is here:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/ecf-agm-october-2105/

Someone might like to compare how wrong the initial figures were.

[MartinCarpenter]

Well these ones have the pleasing merit of all tallying to the same amount
(The Non Exec tally is one below twice everything else but I presume the vote for None of the above is effectively a double vote.).

[Gareth T Ellis]

Some of my proxy votes had the condition that "None of the Above" was not to be used, their belief is that if someone is willing to do a job then support them, if they aren't good enough, then it encourages someone to stand against them.

This I agree with to a point, on Saturday Chris Majer crossed that point.

If I'm to represent them in future it'll be on the condition that in exceptional circumstances it can be used.