International Director "recount"

[Martin Regan]

I would like to say that the legions of the sensible have made their first return against the Nexus of the incompetent, but this is not good moment for the credibility of the ECF's procedures.

[NickFaulks]

The first step by the tellers *should* have been to verify that all ballot papers handed out were handed back in. I guess we will find out if they did that. I certainly hope it was done on the recount.

I have no doubt that the outside recounters correctly counted the votes they were given. What we may never know is whether all of these newly found votes were correctly presented for the original count. They would then have had to be lost and subsequently found again.

[MartinCarpenter]

Or even how the vote totals being out from presumed expectation didn't act as a huge red flag to start with?

Still not that thrilled about one sheet of paper/delegate too, as then you get huge numbers of votes on each sheet, split votes etc etc. One sheet/voting organisation perhaps safer?

Although that does mean multiplying entities which is never ideal.

[Gareth T Ellis]

Post by E Michael White » Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:39 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
A curious point not so far mentioned is that the total vote in the ID ballot was 306, whereas in vitually all other posts it was 295. Whence the extra ID votes?
Or wither the missing votes in the other elections

This could explain it, from the other forum.

Re: A letter to Governance
Postby Mike Truran » 18 Oct 2015, 23:46

As much as I hate to say it. You carry some responsibilty for this fiasco.

Well I don't actually, Martin. The only post where my votes made any difference were for the International Director election. Whether or not David O did a good job, nobody deserves the personal public attack on him that Malcolm made in his election address.

Mike Truran

Articles 5.3: Member Leagues
4NCL 11 Mike Truran (proxy to JAP)

[John Philpott]

Some preliminary comments

I hope all of the election results have been double- checked. This is embarrassing.

I have recounted all the results by entering the figures in a computer spreadsheet and totalling them. These figures will be published on the ECF website later today.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote

I suspect the other counts were slightly wrong as well. Let's wait for the full recounts to be published.

Your suspicion may well prove correct.

E Michael White wrote

Or wither the missing votes in the other elections

There are no missing votes. On the spreadsheet I have ensured that the votes for a candidate, the votes for not this candidate/none of the above and the abstentions add up in each case to 309.

Mick Norris wrote

I imagine partly this is about trust, and most people trust John Philpott absolutely

Thank you Mick, but it is never wise to rely absolutely on any one individual. Two tellers are always appointed so that there is a check on the count. In the case of the elections other than International Director, my recount means that there have in effect been three persons who agree with the result of the election if not the precise voting figures. In the case of International Director, the independent person verified my count.

Justin Horton wrote

Who? Some random passer-by? Wossname next door? Geza Maroczy, consulted via ouija board?

The second of these. A highly respectable 75 year old widow who had never heard of either David Openshaw or Malcolm Pein, and to whom the names of those casting the votes meant nothing, thereby preserving the integrity of what is required under the ECF rules to be a secret ballot.

Justin Horton referred to

a textual justification of the constitutionality of the revision of the result

Under section 320 of the Companies Act 2006 the declaration of the result of a vote on a show of hands by the chairman of the meeting is conclusive. There can be a degree of subjectivity in this. In the case of a poll, there is an objective result: the number of votes recorded on the voting cards. The cards are retained by the Company Secretary instead of being destroyed so that this objective result can always be checked out at a later date.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Under section 320 of the Companies Act 2006 the declaration of the result of a vote on a show of hands by the chairman of the meeting is conclusive. There can be a degree of subjectivity in this. In the case of a poll, there is an objective result: the number of votes recorded on the voting cards. The cards are retained by the Company Secretary instead of being destroyed so that this objective result can always be checked out at a later date.

Thanks for your responses, John. Much appreciated. Can I ask how long the voting cards/papers are kept for?

On the point of show of hands, there was one point in the meeting where I was unsure that a show of hands was sufficient. It matters little now, but the vote to "accept" or "approve" the CEO report seemed close to me. On a show of hands, it was something like 12-7? I thought it maybe should have gone to a card vote (as the 'hands' represent different numbers of votes). But maybe it was for the best that it did not, as then the meeting would have been rushed/delayed further. I am not entirely sure what "rejecting" a report would have meant anyway.

[John Upham]

Was the decision to communicate the "counting oversight" made without delay or was it "slept upon"?

Possibly there was an option to keep this blunder under wraps?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

One final thought on election probity. I was impressed at how the outgoing legal advisor (David Anderton) asked Malcolm Pein directly about possible conflicts of interest, and how Angus French raised the point with Malcolm about putting the Kasparov Foundation connection on the register of interests. Finally, I'd like to say that Julie Denning will clearly be an asset to the Board and that Traci Whitfield impressed and it is good to see more women on the Board. Er, I suppose these bits should be in another thread, but more than enough has been said today already.

PS. It is me, or has the recount news not been posted on the 'official' forum?

[John Philpott]

John Upham wrote

Was the decision to communicate the "counting oversight" made without delay or was it "slept upon"?

I recounted the votes and discovered the error yesterday afternoon. I spoke to the Chairman of the Governance Committee ad the Chairman of the meeting and agreed a course of action which was:

1. To have the recount independently verified.

2. To speak to the two candidates concerned and discuss the matter with them.

3. To advise the Board of the position after 2 had occurred and the candidates' comments were known.

4. To post the revised result on the ECF website the following day.

Step 2 could not be completed until just before 11.00 p.m. I drafted the post for the website this morning and circulated it to the Board before publication.

John Upham also wrote

Possibly there was an option to keep this blunder under wraps?

Clearly not everybody has as much trust in my integrity as Mick Norris.

[Mick Norris]

John Upham wrote

Was the decision to communicate the "counting oversight" made without delay or was it "slept upon"?

I recounted the votes and discovered the error yesterday afternoon. I spoke to the Chairman of the Governance Committee ad the Chairman of the meeting and agreed a course of action which was:

1. To have the recount independently verified.

2. To speak to the two candidates concerned and discuss the matter with them.

3. To advise the Board of the position after 2 had occurred and the candidates' comments were known.

4. To post the revised result on the ECF website the following day.

Step 2 could not be completed until just before 11.00 p.m. I drafted the post for the website this morning and circulated it to the Board before publication.

John Upham also wrote

Possibly there was an option to keep this blunder under wraps?

Clearly not everybody has as much trust in my integrity as Mick Norris.

Well, I did say most people

[Gareth T Ellis]

Malcolm,
Good luck.

With the £5,000 hole in your budget it's not going to be easy

[JustinHorton]

Among various bothersome aspects of this affair:

(a) if I lost an election 141-139, I think I might ask for a recount;

(b) if I was overseeing an election that was declared to have been counted at 141-139, I think I might ask for a recount.

(If in either instance I was told no time remained for this, I think I might find that unsatisfactory, and say so.)

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Among various bothersome aspects of this affair:

(a) if I lost an election 141-139, I think I might ask for a recount;

(b) if I was overseeing an election that was declared to have been counted at 141-139, I think I might ask for a recount.

(If in either instance I was told no time remained for this, I think I might find that unsatisfactory, and say so.)

So before posting the above, you would (a) ask the candidates if they asked for a recount; and (b) ask the person overseeing the election if they considered a recount. Did this happen and were they told there was no time? [This seems to be what you are implying.]

I didn't see Malcolm Pein at the end of the AGM. Maybe he had already left? One of those overseeing the election (one of the tellers) *did* ask for a recount. The recount has taken place. Who else do you think should have asked for a recount?

Did *you* ask whether a recount had taken place when you heard of the result? Did anyone in the room at the time think of asking for a recount? If not, why not? (I suspect many people were just happy it was over and wanted to move on and/or leave the room - also, the other shock results may have distracted people from realising that a recount was needed).

[I have a vague memory that other votes have in the past been close and resulted in a recount - am I mis-remembering that?]

[JustinHorton]

Among various bothersome aspects of this affair:

(a) if I lost an election 141-139, I think I might ask for a recount;

(b) if I was overseeing an election that was declared to have been counted at 141-139, I think I might ask for a recount.

(If in either instance I was told no time remained for this, I think I might find that unsatisfactory, and say so.)

So before posting the above, you would (a) ask the candidates if they asked for a recount; and (b) ask the person overseeing the election if they considered a recount.

One way of asking these questions is to ask them.

[JustinHorton]

Did *you* ask whether a recount had taken place when you heard of the result?

No, I assumed they'd carried one out. (One reason for this is that the results took a long time to come through, at least for those of us following on this here forum. "Recount" was the obvious conclusion, albeit apparently wrong.)