Another election

[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.

Loz,
I hear what you are saying. He had failed to respond to earlier brief questions and used 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?

As I said before, if you want answers then asking in a civil way (whatever you think of the person you are addressing) is more likely to get you a reply. Judging by the above you may have a long wait. At least I tried.

[Krishna Shiatis]

Loz,
I hear what you are saying.

He had failed to respond to earlier brief questions and used 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.
...
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.

Roger Edwards was fairly, squarely and democratically elected - following due process. Congratulations to Roger.

I do agree with David. The way that Roger Edwards was treated at the elections was not good. It is a concern about how the 'democratic' processes work. I definitely agree with David that Sean does not deal with people who disagree with him 'politely'.

Also what has happened since the elections with Sean announcing sourly that he had 'three other candidates' waiting was a worry.

It appears that he was manipulating the democratic processes knowing that if council failed to select, he would be able to put in his own candidate through 'owning' a majority on the board.

Combined with the shenanigans to stop Roger from being selected, it does appear that only one person controls the ECF.

David is the only one questioning what is happening. He should not be silenced and censored.

[David Pardoe]

I do know the background, see above it was reported to me by my teams representative.
I think I'll stick with his version of the meeting.

edit
Not seconded means exactly that - Nobody else thought it was worth discussing.

Bob,
You believe whatever you want. I was not allowed any time to briefly explain any of the motions, so the meeting didnt avail themselves of the opportunity to even grasp the essence of the changes.
But I was told afterwards that I`d raised far too many motions, and they were an inconvenience.
OK...I tried

[Alan Walton]

Any motions for discussion should been sent before the AGM with a relevent person seconded them, this is so they can be added to the agenda

Normally motions should only be submitted by clubs and their representatives, not by individuals

Therefore clubs discuss what motions they want discussed and voted on, then try and get another club to second said motion, submit into the Agenda, then it can be allocated a time slot available for the discussion

I remember in the past the MCF AGM used to go on passed midnight, which was not acceptable, so I believe the above happens now

[Phil Neatherway]

There was an interesting point in the Stockport League minutes:-

A. Flynn (Wilmslow) informed the meeting that Wilmslow’s board 3 (David Mowat) had been elected Member of Parliament.

Hopefully, Stockport League players have been lobbying David Mowat on the subject of Chess as a Sport!

[David Pardoe]

Alan, I appreciate what you are saying regarding meetings, and they are often under severe time pressure to get through the business.
However, individual members should be able to raise motions at these meetings, independantly of clubs.
Sometimes a person may wish to raise a motion that his club might not be interested in, but might nevertheless benefit the league. I was on a number of committees and an active organiser, so things were occuring to me that I felt were worth raising.
Also, the process of taking things through clubs, committees, AGMs, etc.. can be tedius and long winded, by which time people can loose interest. I`ve known these things go on for years and get no-where. I`d gone dirctly to the league secretary, who asked me to draft the motions, which I did. Somehow they got mixed up and the wording became jumbled and some motions ended up mis drafted.
There is also an attidute problem with some chess bodies. Its a case of `who do these plebs think they are, and what do they know about chess. These ordinary members should get back into there boxes and concentrate on paying there subs....should be seen and not heard.. What a pig ignorant attitude.
I was helping drive change through the MCF council, and pressing the MCCU to get there finger out and sort a few things out. Unfortunately others seemed more interested in simply shoving a spanner in the works.
As for the notion that I dont communicate...I was one of the most prolific communicators in northern chess, and recieved a good deal of thanks from various people for keeping them informed.
Yes, process and procedure can be a tricky hurdle, and oversights can occur.
As for Micks comment that I didnt discuss things with the county captains. For most of the time I was the county captains.

[David Lettington]

Also what has happened since the elections with Sean announcing sourly that he had 'three other candidates' waiting was a worry.

Except he didn't say that. He said "I know of at least three excellent candidates who would have been prepared to consider the position".

That may show that Sean is well informed, but I don't feel that it implies that he is trying to manipulate the situation to put 'his own man' in post.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The last few posts in this thread have been hived off to a separate home in the Not Chess! section.

[Ernie Lazenby]

well done Jack.

[David Pardoe]

Neil Graham wrote.... (see the `Not english` thread in the `Not chess` topic)
`quote` ..........As to the original discussion relating to the Stockport League vote - their voting power couldn't influence the election of Roger Edwards one way or the other; the thread seems to have engendered a lot of hot air about how their vote was administered.

Questions have been asked regarding Delegates, Proxies, Voting process, and conduct of ECF elections and business etc...which remain unanswered. Particular individuals caught up in this are not necessarily called into question.

[Roger de Coverly]

Questions have been asked regarding Delegates, Proxies, Voting process, and conduct of ECF elections and business etc...which remain unanswered.

The Stockport League has an unusual structure, in that they don't have a specific post of "Representative to the ECF". Instead this function is part of the job of the League Secretary. If the function were split, you could avoid policy towards the ECF changing every time you appointed a new secretary.

[Alan Walton]

Questions have been asked regarding Delegates, Proxies, Voting process, and conduct of ECF elections and business etc...which remain unanswered.

The Stockport League has an unusual structure, in that they don't have a specific post of "Representative to the ECF". Instead this function is part of the job of the League Secretary. If the function were split, you could avoid policy towards the ECF changing every time you appointed a new secretary.

Doesn't it not matter who is the League Secretary, policies are set out in the AGM/Council and are not the personal views of the secretary, so the secretary may change but he is still directed to which way he should vote by the AGM

One question, is if somebody (I will use Sean as an example) has a vote for the League (Stockport) and also for a unrelated congresses (e2e4), and they have different voting opinions, can the delegate representing both organizations split his vote accordingly

[Mike Truran]

Yes, he/she can.

[Sean Hewitt]

Doesn't it not matter who is the League Secretary, policies are set out in the AGM/Council and are not the personal views of the secretary, so the secretary may change but he is still directed to which way he should vote by the AGM

One question, is if somebody (I will use Sean as an example) has a vote for the League (Stockport) and also for a unrelated congresses (e2e4), and they have different voting opinions, can the delegate representing both organizations split his vote accordingly

Yes. That is why Roger Edwards was nominated by the Stockport League, but not by e2e4 or Leicestershire CA for example.

[David Pardoe]

Questions have been asked regarding Delegates, Proxies, Voting process, and conduct of ECF elections and business etc...which remain unanswered.

The Stockport League has an unusual structure, in that they don't have a specific post of "Representative to the ECF". Instead this function is part of the job of the League Secretary. If the function were split, you could avoid policy towards the ECF changing every time you appointed a new secretary.

Alan questions that version of events, saying the U-turn on Stockports vote couldnt be down to the change of the Stockport League Secretary/Policy? So what sequence of events led to Stockports change, and eventual U-turn in choosing not to vote for Roger Edwards at the AGM, and who sanctioned this.
Why would the Stockport League (or committee...?) sanction its agreement for Roger E as a candidate (in Aug/September...?), then vote against him at the actual election in October.