October 2023 ECF AGM

[Paul Cooksey]

Final membership vote:
136 - Board Option 2 (which convincingly defeated Option 1 and NCCU in previous rounds)
122 - No Change

[David Sedgwick]

The curse of Sedgwick may require a move from the planned meeting room. Those in Manchester hopeful of finding a new site.

Laugh Out Loud

[Mick Norris]

Final membership vote:
136 - Board Option 2 (which convincingly defeated Option 1 and NCCU in previous rounds)
122 - No Change

So, that's combining Silver and Gold at £33 i.e £6 more for silver but £6 less for Gold?

[Roger Lancaster]

So, that's combining Silver and Gold at £33 i.e £6 more for silver but £6 less for Gold?

So, now, can anyone tell me - how will the "free junior silver" for the first 12 months ECF membership be affected ?

[Mick Norris]

Reduced rate for Junior and Student membership (first year free) according to the Council papers

[John Upham]

Which of these three approaches will be adopted by the two biggest voters, 4NCL and UKCC (sixteen votes each)?

To what extent it is felt that the UKCC sought and canvassed opinion amongst those who contributed to the UKCC sixteen votes?

ECF Council Block voting reminds one (well myself, at least) of the good old days of Trade Union voting régimes.

[John Swain]

Which of these three approaches will be adopted by the two biggest voters, 4NCL and UKCC (sixteen votes each)?

To what extent it is felt that the UKCC sought and canvassed opinion amongst those who contributed to the UKCC sixteen votes?

ECF Council Block voting reminds one (well myself, at least) of the good old days of Trade Union voting régimes.

The way in which votes were cast (or not cast at all) in the run-off between Board Option 2 and "no change" may be viewed under:
http://ecfcouncillive.ndlazi.uk/index.p ... tingRecord

Use the "motion" tab, scroll down to "Third Stage: vote between Board Option 2 and No Change" and then "voting record".

It provides much food for thought, to say the very least!

[Roger Lancaster]

Which of these three approaches will be adopted by the two biggest voters, 4NCL and UKCC (sixteen votes each)?

To what extent it is felt that the UKCC sought and canvassed opinion amongst those who contributed to the UKCC sixteen votes?

ECF Council Block voting reminds one (well myself, at least) of the good old days of Trade Union voting régimes.

While I can see the point here, and in principle I agree, there's a major practical problem in that - as the ECF's own survey with fewer than 300 replies indicates - only a small proportion of those eligible to vote do so; and it's far from clear that the activists are truly representative of the population of those asked. (And I suppose, in the case of the UKCC where all the competitors are juniors, there's a further question of who gets the vote).

While on the subject, it has been pointed out to me that the ECF's favourite activist is protesting again.

"The ECF AGM today in Manchester was a total farce from beginning to end. First, the Board entrusted arranging the venue to Manchester and Silver members’ delegate John Reyes. No doubt he didn’t mean for the fire alarm in the NatWest offices to go off again and again and again, but it did - and he admitted he knew it would the evening before.

"Second, the AGM elected UK Chess Challenge director and Chess Trust board member Sarah Longson as an ‘independent’ Non-Executive Director - after being warned by the chair of the governance committee that her husband and fellow UKCC director Alex Longson was being tapped for the vacant ECF Finance Director by unnamed people on the Board, and that this was ‘sub-optimal’.

"This blatant conflict of interest seems to bother hardly anyone on the ECF Board - and certainly not the CEO, Mike Truran, who was pulling the strings from New Zealand for a second AGM running. International Director Malcolm Pein also seems to have no problem with the Longsons joining the Board as a power couple, urging the AGM to support Alex’s cooption (sic) to the Board while also promoting Sarah’s candidacy in the weeks leading up to the vote.This is truly a sad day for ECF democracy and transparency.

"How is it possible to have any faith in the ECF Board or Council any more, or hope that anything will change for the better?
Business interests trump everything. The members are disregarded. A self-interested clique runs everything."

One can only sympathise with the gentleman in question who, and he seems to have forgotten this in his Facebook piece, was rejected by an ungrateful AGM yesterday - a small margin of 46 votes for and 210 against in the election for Home Director. The AGM also failed to recognise his membership options proposal which was narrowly lost with 54 votes in favour and a paltry 211 against despite a poll organised by said gentleman which 'proved' that a majority of gold members favoured it. A sad day for democracy, indeed, when majorities prevail.

[Mick Norris]

John really gets on the wrong side of some people, arranging a free venue and consulting with the members he is elected to represent

[NickFaulks]

John really gets on the wrong side of some people, arranging a free venue and consulting with the members he is elected to represent

Agreed, sometimes you just can't win.

[NigelCollins]

Class G Direct Members voting in motion 9.1 regarding Option 1 v 2

Gold 3-9
Silver 0-30
Bronze 0-0

I guess the extra 18 votes in Silver were an administrative error… Are the results from the individual class members’ polls (linked to in earlier replies) published?

Odd that there was no voting from the Bronze reps.

[NigelCollins]

Class G Direct Members voting in 9.2 regarding Option 2 v NCCU

Gold 2-10
Silver 12-0
Bronze 6-0

6 Bronze votes were not cast.

Apparently the NCCU proposal garnered lots of votes from Gold members but nothing in the Silver and Bronze categories.

[NigelCollins]

Class G Direct Members voting in 9.3 regarding Option 2 v No change

Gold 6-6
Silver 0-6
Bronze 0-6

6 each of the Silver and Bronze votes were not cast.

Surprised that no Silver individual members voted for change (Option 1 or 2).
Also if all the Bronze and Silver votes were cast for “No change” then the result would have been 136 to 137 …

[John Swain]

Class G Direct Members voting in motion 9.1 regarding Option 1 v 2

Gold 3-9
Silver 0-30
Bronze 0-0

I guess the extra 18 votes in Silver were an administrative error… Are the results from the individual class members’ polls (linked to in earlier replies) published?

Odd that there was no voting from the Bronze reps.

An excellent spot! There seems to have been some malfunction since the Silver representative Gavin Cartwright's six votes are recorded four times! As you say, it's peculiar that the Bronze representatives' votes are not recorded. The vote in favour of Option 2 is so overwhelming that correcting this won't change the overall winning motion which went forward to round 2. One Bronze representative (Gareth Ellis) successfully voted in this next round and also in the final vote-off where Option 2 was the narrow winner 136-122.

AGM delegates should check to ensure that their vote in this last motion was successfully recorded. I queried with John Reyes why, as Silver representative, he did not vote in the last round (he did in rounds 1 and 2); he said that he had pressed the button and was unaware that his vote had not been successfully recorded. This may have happened to other representatives and, in contrast to the overwhelming results from the first two rounds, may have jeopardised the integrity of the result.

No doubt this issue will be revisited in April.

[Gareth T Ellis]

Class G Direct Members voting in motion 9.1 regarding Option 1 v 2

Gold 3-9
Silver 0-30
Bronze 0-0

I guess the extra 18 votes in Silver were an administrative error… Are the results from the individual class members’ polls (linked to in earlier replies) published?

Odd that there was no voting from the Bronze reps.

There was no option was "None of the above" so an abstention.