ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[John Philpott]

David Sedgwick wrote

That would indeed seem to be an error. Surely the email should only have been sent to the people whose names appear in the Voting Register

The circulation list is somewhat wider - I would have thought that it was better that way round. Courtesy copies go to a number of individuals without votes - ECF Managers, members of standing committees, the Company Secretary (!), candidates for office and representatives of organisations shown as lapsed on the voting register.

I am personally far more concerned at the moment at the gaps in the Officers' reports where Lawrence, despite no longer being a director, is one of the few shining exceptions.

[LawrenceCooper]

I am personally far more concerned at the moment at the gaps in the Officers' reports where Lawrence, despite no longer being a director, is one of the few shining exceptions.

The complaints on the report are already flooding in

[Angus French]

Sean Hewitt wrote

An error, I would have thought.

Thanks so much for the vote of confidence Sean.

There is a technical problem with the definition in the Articles of "Past President" (and indeed of "Past Chief Executive" and "Past Non-Executive Chairman") as the words " the person who last held the office of President of the Company or the British Chess Federation before the present incumbent." do not really work unless there is a present incumbent. This was discussed by the Governance Committee, and in the somewhat grey situation arising a majority of members took the view that it would be inequitable for Gerry Walsh, who was undoubtedly the Past President on 5 September when nominations for this year's elections closed, to be disenfranchised for the coming AGM simply because CJ de Mooi failed to see out his term of office. Once a new President is elected, CJ will become the Past President.

So: in order not to deprive the Past President - 1 of a vote, the Past President has instead been deprived?
Will the AGM be able to reverse the decision of the Governance Committee?

[John Philpott]

Angus French wrote

Will the AGM be able to reverse the decision of the Governance Committee?

The AGM is perfectly at liberty to debate this if it considers such a matter as more important than dealing with the business on the agenda.

[Neil Graham]

When Andrew Farthing presented his election address, I can recall stating on the forum that I didn't really think it necessary as the chances of opposition were likely to be nil which proved to correct. I see that now we are still receiving election addresses from unopposed candidates.

"None of the above" or indeed "Not the Above" have not contributed election addresses at all. In some cases I think that they may well be the preferred candidate. Hopefully in future elections they might be able to present a manifesto; indeed I am sure that several forum members would offer assistance in drafting such a document.

[John Philpott]

Neil Graham wrote

I see that now we are still receiving election addresses from unopposed candidates.

I can see circumstances where this might be helpful, particularly in the case of a candidate who is likely to be unknown to the majority of Council members. For example, I had not heard of Chris Mattos before he expressed an interest in the position of Director of Finance, and I found it useful to know something about his background. At the other extreme, I think that Chris Majer's decision not to provide an address was sensible.

[E Michael White]

And surely it should begin with "Dear Representatives" rather than "Dear Delegates". We don't want E Michael White to have a seizure.

Well you might think its irrelevant and amusing in your world but the person most affected at meetings is the chairman as he should conduct the meeting differently if it is composed of representatives rather than delegates. So items should not be allowed or voted on if he feels that the representatives have not had a chance to consult those they represent. The ECF may wish to change to delegates but that is not the way at present.

[John Philpott]

David Sedgwick wrote

And surely it should begin with "Dear Representatives" rather than "Dear Delegates". We don't want E Michael White to have a seizure.

The lead in to the e-mail is not technically correct, and I will try to remember to address this for the next meeting: the wording used has tended to be carried forward from meeting to meeting. For the written resolution on the budget, where a wording needed to be created from scratch, the corresponding e-mail began "Dear member/representative member".

E Michael White wrote

Well you might think its irrelevant and amusing in your world but the person most affected at meetings is the chairman as he should conduct the meeting differently if it is composed of representatives rather than delegates. So items should not be allowed or voted on if he feels that the representatives have not had a chance to be able to consult those they represent. The ECF may wish to change to delegates but that is not the way at present.

While you have made this point with some regularity, a number of sources suggest that you may have got the meaning of the two terms confused, and that it is actually the other way round. While I do not regard Wikipedia as necessarily authoritative, the following certainly provides food for thought.

The delegate model of representation is a model of a representative democracy. In this model, constituents elect their representatives as delegates for their constituency. These delegates act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency, and have no autonomy from the constituency. This model does not provide representatives the luxury of acting in their own conscience. Essentially, the representative acts as the voice of those who are (literally) not present.

This model was formulated by Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a British philosopher, who also created the trustee model of representation.

[E Michael White]

While you have made this point with some regularity, a number of sources suggest that you may have got the meaning of the two terms confused, and that it is actually the other way round. While I do not regard Wikipedia as necessarily authoritative, the following certainly provides food for thought.

The delegate model of representation is a model of a representative democracy. In this model, constituents elect their representatives as delegates for their constituency. These delegates act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency, and have no autonomy from the constituency. This model does not provide representatives the luxury of acting in their own conscience. Essentially, the representative acts as the voice of those who are (literally) not present.

This model was formulated by Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a British philosopher, who also created the trustee model of representation.

I think you are too tied into the definition given under s19 of The Financial Services and Markets Act.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think you are too tied into the definition given under s19 of The Financial Services and Markets Act.

In county associations and elsewhere, it can often be the case that the representative or delegate has two roles. One role is to represent the local organisation and the local body may allow the Council attendee considerable latitude. The other role, applicable particularly to Council members who build up a large portfolio of proxies, is to represent the ECF to the local body and to report back anything of relevance. It would be my observation that the system would function with greater independence if it were forbidden for county, league and Congress representatives to also be elected directors or equivalent of the ECF.

[John Philpott]

E Michael White wrote

I think you are too tied into the definition given under s19 of The Financial Services and Markets Act.

I had not even considered this. Indeed, after looking the section up, I fail to understand the relevance:

19.-(1) No person may carry on a regulated activity in the United Kingdom, or purport to do so, unless he is-

(a) an authorised person; or

(b) an exempt person.

(2) The prohibition is referred to in this Act as the general prohibition.

[Roger de Coverly]

I had not even considered this. Indeed, after looking the section up, I fail to understand the relevance:

I rather thought it was this one.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/doing/regul ... ndex.shtml

A person may be exempt if he is an appointed representative (as defined in s39 FSMA). An appointed representative is allowed to carry on certain regulated activities by an authorised firm (his Principal) under a contract by which the Principal accepts responsibility for the regulated activities carried on by its appointed representative(s)

So if a county, league or Congress appoints a representative,does it remain responsible for the advice given and decisions made by the representative?

[John Philpott]

Roger de Coverly quoted FSA guidance stating

A person may be exempt if he is an appointed representative (as defined in s39 FSMA). An appointed representative is allowed to carry on certain regulated activities by an authorised firm (his Principal) under a contract by which the Principal accepts responsibility for the regulated activities carried on by its appointed representative(s)

Possibly Michael had intended to refer to section 39 rather than section 19. In any event this seems to be a red herring. "Appointed representative" is a label attached by FSMA to a person to whom the circumstances defined by section 39 apply, in the context of financial services activity. It cannot have any direct influence on the way the term "representative" is to be interpreted outside this context.

I am waiting for the evidence that the respective significance of "representative" and "delegate" is the way round that Michael White has been maintaining and not the opposite.

[E Michael White]

I fail to understand the relevance:

Not for me to explain but you may find it helpful to consider the etymology.
Firstly legislation in the UK can define a word to mean whatever the writer wishes it to mean for the purpose of the legislation and it often bears no resemblance to the actual common meaning when specially defined eg "civil service".

Delegate is derived from de legare and representative is derived from:- to present a second time. Delegates were official Roman deputies of the legates.

Wikipaedia if course has an american bias to it. It also states for example that the ECF grading system is zero sum : total nonsense.

As said before Justice Lawton stated in the appeal court around 1982 Once elected, members of the House of Commons become representative of the constituency for which they have been elected, not delegates of the local constituency associations which may have put them up as candidates

which clearly shows there is a difference

[IM Jack Rudd]

Wikipaedia if course has an american bias to it. It also states for example that the ECF grading system is zero sum : total nonsense.

It did say that a few minutes ago. It doesn't now.