Nominations for October 2008 AGM??

[John Philpott]

To respond to a number of points that have been raised on this thread.

1. There is no restriction in the Articles or Procedural Bye Laws on a candidate standing for as many posts as he likes provided that the necessary support for his nomination is obtained. However, only one Directorship can be held by an individual at any one time as a result of the restriction in Article 43 ("No Director shall serve on the Board in more than one capacity").

2. If there is no nomination for a Directorship by the 37 day deadline, no election at the AGM is possible and responsibility for the appointment reverts to the Board. Should candidates emerge after the deadline but before the meeting, Council can of course make its views as to their suitability or otherwise known to the Board.

3. If there is only one nomination for a Directorship, the candidate does not automatically get elected. There is an option, under the Procedural Bye Laws, for votes to be cast for "None of the candidates" whether there is one nomination or several. If the majority is for "None of the candidates" the post remains vacant and responsibility for the appointment reverts to the Board as under 2.

[IM Jack Rudd]

[quote="Sean Hewitt]I would urge all voters to vote against Mr Wilson for both roles if he pursues his dual candidate strategy. If he is prepared to leave the ECF without a Marketing Director in the event of his election as International Director, we may as well not have him in the role even if Stewart Reuben wins that vote![/quote]

To be fair to Peter Wilson, it's not his fault that nobody else has stood for the role of Marketing Director.

[Sean Hewitt]

I would urge all voters to vote against Mr Wilson for both roles if he pursues his dual candidate strategy. If he is prepared to leave the ECF without a Marketing Director in the event of his election as International Director, we may as well not have him in the role even if Stewart Reuben wins that vote!

To be fair to Peter Wilson, it's not his fault that nobody else has stood for the role of Marketing Director.

Perfectly true. But it is his fault that he has chosen to stand for two positions. He should decide which of the two positions he wants, and then withdraw his candidature from the other.

[John Upham]

Maybe Mr. Wilson will find the time to address these concerns on this very forum?

Lay your bets now Gentlemen...

Obviously as Director of Marketing he would be up to speed about how the ECF is being marketed via this forum...

[Angus French]

That Mr Wilson should decide to stand against a perfectly competent director to fulfil his own personal whims, while at the same time seeking to cling to a post in which he has been extraordinarily ineffectual says it all really. As does the fact that in challenging his own board colleague he is nominated by another board member. The phrase Mickey Mouse does not do it justice.

First, could not the fact that Peter Wilson has allowed himself to be nominated for two positions also be viewed as selfless (rather than selfish) - he's willing to serve (unpaid) in either position and Council will decide which, if any, is appropriate?

Second, if Martin Regan says Peter Wilson has been ineffectual as Marketing Director then how does he rate the ability of the previous CEO - a man who ran a large publishing business and presumably had a considerable talent for business and marketing - in attracting sponsorship to the ECF?

3. If there is only one nomination for a Directorship, the candidate does not automatically get elected. There is an option, under the Procedural Bye Laws, for votes to be cast for "None of the candidates" whether there is one nomination or several. If the majority is for "None of the candidates" the post remains vacant and responsibility for the appointment reverts to the Board as under 2.

This concerns me. If "none of the candidates" has most of the votes then the Board will be placed in an invidious position and have to choose between:
a) appointing someone the electorate didn't want; and,
b) appointing someone who didn't stand and for whom the electorate weren't able to vote

Where else does this mechanism exist?

[Carl Hibbard]

Maybe Mr. Wilson will find the time to address these concerns on this very forum?

Lay your bets now Gentlemen...

Obviously as Director of Marketing he would be up to speed about how the ECF is being marketed via this forum...

It seems a bit unlikely...

Despite running this, the grading site and all the live games I have never had any communication off the guy - ever

Perhaps he doesn't do internet

[Kevin Thurlow]

Angus French says

"This concerns me. If "none of the candidates" has most of the votes then the Board will be placed in an invidious position and have to choose between:
a) appointing someone the electorate didn't want; and,
b) appointing someone who didn't stand and for whom the electorate weren't able to vote

Where else does this mechanism exist?"
*****************
Er, in Surrey for a start!

Kevin

[Sean Hewitt]

And most businesses have the power to appoint directors where there is a vacancy.

[Sean Hewitt]

First, could not the fact that Peter Wilson has allowed himself to be nominated for two positions also be viewed as selfless (rather than selfish) - he's willing to serve (unpaid) in either position and Council will decide which, if any, is appropriate?

I dont think so. He's seeking to unseat a perfectly competent incumbent who (it seems to me) has done a pretty decent job since he has been in post and who has many years international experience, safe in the knowledge that if he fails he is [almost] certain to retain a seat on the board anyway.

If he wished to be selfless rather than selfish he should withdraw his candidature from one of these positions. If he failed to get elected he could always apply to the board to be appointed to one of the vacant positions. The board could then consider his application together with his record and any other applicants.

Mr Wilson is seeking to have his cake and eat it, and this reflects badly on his motives IMO.

[John Philpott]

While there is nothing in the rules to prescribe this, the order Home, International, Marketing, Junior would seem to have been adopted (referring to the minutes on the website) both for the presentation of reports and for election purposes at all three previous ECF AGMs, so the present agenda is simply following recent practice. As it happens, this particular order is neither strictly alphabetical (which would require Junior to come before Marketing) nor consistent with the Directors and Officers Regulations (which opt for the equally non-alphabetical Home, Marketing, International, Junior). However, for better or worse this is the order that appears on the agenda, and it is not in my gift to change it. Under the Procedural Bye Laws a change in the order of business can only be made with the consent of the meeting. A proposal to change the order would represent a procedural motion, which can be proposed at the meeting without notice.

While there does not appear to be a constraint in the rules on the freedom of the Board in filling a vacancy following a "none of the candidates" vote, my strong advice would be that the Board should not consider appointing a candidate rejected by Council. There are relevant analogies elsewhere in the rules - e.g. the Board has the power to make and amend Regulations, but is constrained by the Articles from over-riding any addition, alteration or repeal previously made by Council, and I would have expected a similar principle to apply to the filling of vacancies.

[andrew martin]

I suppose the bottom line is that if you dont like the nominations or the way things are done, stand yourself!

[Peter Sowray]

It really irks me that as an ECF member I have no individual say in these elections which are decided, instead, by block votes of clubs/leagues.

Why on earth can't the candidates put out manifestos and allow people to vote. That way there'd be more applicants for posts. At present, there's no point in standing if you're not in with the right people

Yes, frustrating isn't it?

Still, you could ask one of the Members' Reps to reflect your views.

Peter

[David Robertson]

The absence of Robert Richmond from the list of nominations merely 'tidies up' the resignation of the Regan group from the Board earlier in the year. At least, that's how I understand it. Richmond intended to resign with the others in April, but was prevailed upon by his colleagues to remain to prevent a complete meltdown of ECF affairs.

The need to stabilise ECF finances and present them in an orderly manner now falls to someone else. For pretty much any other organisation, the absence of a nomination for Finance Director would be taken as an extremely strong 'SELL' signal, indicating imminent insolvency. Let's hope the DCMS doesn't take that view. A £60,000 evens bet says it might

David

[John Upham]

A couple of weeks ago I requested from Peter JB Wilson a potted history of his achievements whilst in post as Director of Marketing.

I've since repeated that request and have yet to receive anything.

It might be that it is taking Peter longer than originally thought to compile the list.

Can anyone else shed some light with this enquiry?

If I obtain anything I will share with you all.

[Carl Hibbard]

A couple of weeks ago I requested from Peter JB Wilson a potted history of his achievements whilst in post as Director of Marketing.

I've since repeated that request and have yet to receive anything.

It might be that it is taking Peter longer than originally thought to compile the list.

Can anyone else shed some light with this enquiry?

If I obtain anything I will share with you all.

Perhaps a poll on the chance of receiving any comment