Another election

[David Pardoe]

On this forum we can freely ask questions about chess matters of interest.
Of course you are free to ignore these if you wish, or dont feel able to give a reasonable response.
People will draw there own conclusions from this.
As for inacurate assumptions, ....you manage your fair share, and even in your latest short responce there are a few.

[Paul Douglass]

I recognise your situation Alex. I think most chess captains and organisors face it every day.
One of the problems I think is email itself as a medium.
People now get so many emails that they tend to glance through them, and if something isnt urgent, many will simply put it to one side and forget it. The other responce is typically `not me boss`...someone else can deal with that....
Even more concerning, many people will glance at an email and often miss the purpose or not grasp various key bits of information and respond inappropriately.

Well what do people want - to be consulted or not? If I was sent an email, I would at least be gracious enough to at least confirm receipt with some realistic ETA for feedback. If people can't do that, then they shouldn't complain when their view, albeit one kept to themselves, isn't considered at a national meeting.

Also, how many times should a sender gauge feedback? How much time do busy people like Alex H/Sean H have? Why don't you volunteer instead of sniping from the sideline? Oh I'm sorry, its easier complaining than volunteering.

BTW - Please stop those annoying "...". What are you, some sort of telegram automon or something? Inject some semblence of grammar in your responses. Maybe then you'll be taken more seriously. That also applies to "there" by which you mean "their". Please go to http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They're for more information.

[David Pardoe]

Paul,
I`ve no idea what that rant is about. I suggest you calm down .......and re-read my post.
I was in fact sympathising with what Alex had previously said.

As for my `..................` that means take a brief pause....just my style.

[Mike Truran]

In your latest post you were complaining about Sean, not sympathising with Alex. It should be obvious even to you that Paul included the particular excerpt he did in order to highlight the obvious double standards on display in your two posts.

And your constant use of ellipses may be 'just your style', but it's highly annoying to most readers.

[Sean Hewitt]

David. In order that people can, as you suggest, draw their own conclusions it's worth pointing out that your own club successfully changed the rules of the Stockport league to stop you from making unilateral proposals to the AGM.

There comes a point when further correspondence is pointless and this is it.

[David Pardoe]

In your latest post you were complaining about Sean, not sympathising with Alex. It should be obvious even to you that Paul included the particular excerpt he did in order to highlight the obvious double standards on display in your two posts.

And your constant use of ellipses may be 'just your style', but it's highly annoying to most readers.

Mike,
Paul produced a `quote` followed by a rant. I have to assume that the rant relates to the quote.

[Mike Truran]

Well, actually you don't. I would have thought it would be obvious to most people with even a modicum of intelligence what Paul was getting at.

[David Pardoe]

David. In order that people can, as you suggest, draw their own conclusions it's worth pointing out that your own club successfully changed the rules of the Stockport league to stop you from making unilateral proposals to the AGM.

There comes a point when further correspondence is pointless and this is it.

Sean,
You generate yet another spurious outburst, which is in fact rubbish...and the originator of that bogus motion admitted as much. Yes, it was a typical cynical attempt to silence rank and file members...quite outrageous.
And the motions in question were reasonable and had good and constructive purpose.
. Part of the `problem` was that the committee didnt like the prospect of recieving more than the occasional such motion, because they just couldnt be bothered to deal with them.
If you want to hide behind your mumbo jumbo nonesense as a feeble excuse for not answering my points, thats up to you.
And maybe you might like to tell the members about your bust up with the MCF a few years ago...when you spat you dummy out and cleared off, some might feel. Ranting and offering various threats....

[David Pardoe]

Well, actually you don't. I would have thought it would be obvious to most people with even a modicum of intelligence what Paul was getting at.

Just read what he said again....he talks about how busy `they are`, yet they are amongst the most prolific posters on this forum.
Some Directors from ECF even going round on other high profile forums, quoting names from this forum and trying to make cheap jibes...should they be sacked, I wonder?
Then he says...why dont I volunteer?
What an absolutely idiotic comment. I`ve done absolutely shed loads of volunteering for various chess bodies, supported our county activities, ran two county teams, sat on various committees at club, league and Union level, and been proactive in supporting the 4NCL northern league...and we all know just how much support that league gets. Not to mention some who clearly dont suppprt it.

[Roger de Coverly]

The minutes to the relevant meeting can be found here.
http://www.stockportchessleague.org.uk/ ... ueinfo.htm

What I get from those minutes is a sense that the Stockport league has moved from having next to no involvement in the decision making or running of the ECF other than voting by proxy, to a position where it's actively intervening in nominations and motions against manifestos.

[Krishna Shiatis]

The minutes to the relevant meeting can be found here.
http://www.stockportchessleague.org.uk/ ... ueinfo.htm

What I get from those minutes is a sense that the Stockport league has moved from having next to no involvement in the decision making or running of the ECF other than voting by proxy, to a position where it's actively intervening in nominations and motions against manifestos.

I do agree. Which in fairness to David P and his questions, does make things look even more suspicious. One can see where David is coming from.

[Mick Norris]

David has done a lot of organising etc within Manchester chess, captaining county teams etc, for which we remain grateful

When he was MCCU rep, he was our sole attendee at a number of MCCU AGMs

Unfortunately, he didn't ask MCF Council or County captains for their views before or after pursuing his own ideas, so consultation isn't his strong point

It is therefore a case of the pot and the kettle when he accuses others of not doing so adequately

Stockport club (of which David is a member) organise a Rapidplay, which entitles them to a vote on ECF Council, which I note they exercised by means of a Directed Proxy - did they consult the Stockport Committee (if one exists), all Stockport club members or all those who played in the last Stockport Rapidplay?

[LawrenceCooper]

Hi David,

Just a thought, but if you genuinely want answers to your questions it may be worth considering a less confrontational line of questioning

eg
Do you not think it was your duty,
was it really appropriate for you,
what you appear to have indulged in could be viewed as election tampering/manipulation
If you were doing a thorough job of this,

are unlikely to endear you to even the most tolerant of people, your choice.

[David Pardoe]

The minutes to the relevant meeting can be found here.
http://www.stockportchessleague.org.uk/ ... ueinfo.htm

What I get from those minutes is a sense that the Stockport league has moved from having next to no involvement in the decision making or running of the ECF other than voting by proxy, to a position where it's actively intervening in nominations and motions against manifestos.

What i got from the minutes is that David had made a large number of proposals to the meeting, most of which were either heavily defeated or not seconded.
There was therefore a further proposal to restict the number of proposals presented to the meeting.

Curiously this is exactly how my club representative reported it to us after the meeting!!

Bob, you would have to know the background to this to appreciate just what was going on.
For `not seconded` read... couldnt be bothered to discuss.
As for heavily defeated, its for the meeting to decide how they vote. I think some motions didnt quite reflect what was intended, so that didnt help.
I think some at the meeting saw these motions as an inconvenience, and didnt really want lengthy discussions.
The motivation behind the motion to ban rank and file members from raising motions was an act of wanton spite. The initiator of that motion actually admitted as much to me afterwards.

[David Pardoe]

Hi David,

Just a thought, but if you genuinely want answers to your questions it may be worth considering a less confrontational line of questioning

eg
Do you not think it was your duty,
was it really appropriate for you,
what you appear to have indulged in could be viewed as election tampering/manipulation
If you were doing a thorough job of this,

are unlikely to endear you to even the most tolerant of people, your choice.

Loz,
I hear what you are saying. He had failed to respond to earlier brief questions and appeared to use his usual evasive tactics to dodge the questions. And how tolerant and pleasant or polite even is our `friend` Sean ...ask youreslf that. If you dont agree with Sean you are toast, and deemd a crank, or Pig, or other such abusive term. Is that really how ECF Directors should behave?
However, essentially I am asking questions here about the way the ECF operates at elections. It is a great concern to many `members`, who apparently are treated as `should pay up and shut up`. No voting rights for that lot.
Anyway, Sean has said that I have misunderstood events and got the story wrong. Maybe he can put us right.
Certainly he came across to a number of people prior to the election as having an agenda to deselect Roger Edwards, and perhaps install one of his 3 preferred candidates, whoever they are. Then they decided his policies were `unsuitable` and should be abandoned. Those were `views`, not policies. And two of the three policies that were criticised were in fact approved at the same meeting later on, so I understand.
Thats quite a U-turn.
Andrew F in his report of the AGM mentioned his disappointment that strategy issues hadnt been discussed. Yet Roger raised a strategy related matter, namely the Membership scheme, and was given a roasting for daring to suggest change/review?
Roger has said that he wants to listen to views from the grass roots membership...a truely visionary idea. I wish him well with his endevours