Another election

[benedgell]

I believe that a large portion of the South West didn't vote either by attendance or proxy. However, I would have to check with Roger Hardy (WECU representative) to see if/how many proxies he got, and thus whether my belief is true.

I won't name and shame individuals publicly, but sadly a good number of vote-holders from the South- West didn't use their votes. I've spoken to some of the people who didn't cast votes, will speak to others in due course, and hopefully the situation will improve by the time of the next meeting.

[David Pardoe]

I'm guessing and I'm sure Sean will correct me if i'm wrong.
Sean is the ECF delegate for the Stockport League and i assume he is appointed thus at the AGM.
The consultations that he speaks of I assume will be emails to the various club secretaries.
The limited number of responses will presumably be the couple of secrateries that bothered to reply.
I guess most secretaries will be like mine and will not have consulted the club members.

In fairness to Sean he probably did as much as he could be expected to do.

Exactly so. I thought I had explained my actions and how the votes came to be cast in previous posts, but had started to doubt myself!

OMOV is a good principle. However, I'm sure we will have arguments about how terrible it all is when people win elections having received 200 votes from a possible 10,000. Just look at the number of votes cast in the Gold Member Representative election for the picture of things to come. Having lots of chess friends on facebook will probably be a pre-requisite to getting elected.

Ok, so you conducted two polls by email, I presume.
The first gave you a positive responce supporting Roger for President. If so,what actual number responded to this first email, and how many supported the call to put Roger forward. Was there any opposition, if so how many.
I presume you contacted all club secretaries and all the league officers.... a total of about 20 people, I guess.
When did you send out your 2nd email and what did this say exactly. Did I read that you got only 2 replies to the second email.
Why did you decide to send out that second email?

[Alex Holowczak]

Ok, so you conducted two poles by email, I presume.

Sean's experiment with conducting a foreign orchestra by e-mail doesn't sound like it's going well.

[David Pardoe]

A freudian slip.....but I guess you`d be going some to conduct a 2-man orchestra

[John Philpott]

A two man orchestra can sometimes achieve wonders. I always enjoyed the Cambridge Buskers - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI5LCCaMoCo

[Alex Holowczak]

A two man orchestra can sometimes achieve wonders.

I thought of the Swanee Kazoo round from I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue...

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm guessing and I'm sure Sean will correct me if i'm wrong.
Sean is the ECF delegate for the Stockport League and i assume he is appointed thus at the AGM.
The consultations that he speaks of I assume will be emails to the various club secretaries.
The limited number of responses will presumably be the couple of secrateries that bothered to reply.
I guess most secretaries will be like mine and will not have consulted the club members.

In fairness to Sean he probably did as much as he could be expected to do.

Exactly so. I thought I had explained my actions and how the votes came to be cast in previous posts, but had started to doubt myself!

OMOV is a good principle. However, I'm sure we will have arguments about how terrible it all is when people win elections having received 200 votes from a possible 10,000. Just look at the number of votes cast in the Gold Member Representative election for the picture of things to come. Having lots of chess friends on facebook will probably be a pre-requisite to getting elected.

Ok, so you conducted two polls by email, I presume.
The first gave you a positive responce supporting Roger for President. If so,what actual number responded to this first email, and how many supported the call to put Roger forward. Was there any opposition, if so how many.
I presume you contacted all club secretaries and all the league officers.... a total of about 20 people, I guess.
When did you send out your 2nd email and what did this say exactly. Did I read that you got only 2 replies to the second email.
Why did you decide to send out that second email?

David - It might be worth reading my previous posts on the subject because the sequence of events should be clearer for you then.

[David Pardoe]

("Bob Clark") I'm guessing and I'm sure Sean will correct me if i'm wrong.
Sean is the ECF delegate for the Stockport League and i assume he is appointed thus at the AGM.
The consultations that he speaks of I assume will be emails to the various club secretaries.
The limited number of responses will presumably be the couple of secrateries that bothered to reply.
I guess most secretaries will be like mine and will not have consulted the club members.

In fairness to Sean he probably did as much as he could be expected to do. (......)

Exactly so. I thought I had explained my actions and how the votes came to be cast in previous posts, but had started to doubt myself!

OMOV is a good principle. However, I'm sure we will have arguments about how terrible it all is when people win elections having received 200 votes from a possible 10,000. Just look at the number of votes cast in the Gold Member Representative election for the picture of things to come. Having lots of chess friends on facebook will probably be a pre-requisite to getting elected.

Ok, so you conducted two polls by email, I presume.
The first gave you a positive responce supporting Roger for President. If so,what actual number responded to this first email, and how many supported the call to put Roger forward. Was there any opposition, if so how many.
I presume you contacted all club secretaries and all the league officers.... a total of about 20 people, I guess.
When did you send out your 2nd email and what did this say exactly. Did I read that you got only 2 replies to the second email.
Why did you decide to send out that second email?

David - It might be worth reading my previous posts on the subject because the sequence of events should be clearer for you then.

Yes, I`ve read your posts Sean...
You spoke/contacted only the Stockport league committee (thats 9 people, assuming they were all present) regarding Rogers nomination, and got only one reply initially. When did you make that initial contact? Did you actually speak to them face to face (at a meeting), or do you mean you emailed them
You didnt contact all the club secretaries and seek there views..... That would have properly represented the 14 clubs in the league? Why not? Bob clearly thought you might have done that?

[Alex Holowczak]

You didnt contact all the club secretaries and seek there views.....

I can't speak for Sean, but here's how I did it.

For the Dudley League, I e-mailed all the club secretaries and clubs within the league, which totalled 10-15 people. I got two replies. One was constructive, and the other was a "thankyou for the information".

For BUCA, I e-mailed all the officers within BUCA, and I got replies from all of them within 24 hours, and we came to a decision. We usually only consult the clubs if there's anything juicy of direct interest. For example, we consulted over the whole Game Fee/Membership issue, and I had a few replies then.

I think this might be a generational thing. People my age are used to instant communication, and reply to e-mails quite quickly. The entirety of BUCA is run by e-mail, with one face-to-face meeting that, to be honest, we don't really need.

By contrast, e-mails about other events might just disappear into the ether. When I set up a Summer Tournament in Birmingham, I wrote a set of rules, and e-mailed my Committee asking for comments. Four times. With a total of two replies initially and then nothing, I just went ahead with what I had. One of my Committee asked me at the next face-to-face meeting of the League when we'd made the decision to adopt those rules. I said that the draft rules had been circulated, and he'd had about two months to comment on them, but hadn't. So I just got on with it. He reluctantly accepted this.

We saw this principle in action at the ECF AGM. People hadn't e-mailed Andrew Farthing with comments on the Code of Conduct in the seven months the document had been available for comment, but this didn't prevent them from suddenly proposing amendments to amendments on the hoof at Council.

Anyway. As far as I'm concerned, I did enough to raise the issues within the organisations I represent. That only 1 club took the opportunity to comment within the Dudley League isn't something I'm to blame for.

[David Pardoe]

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.

[Alex Holowczak]

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.

They'll remember it if it's of sufficient urgency and importance to do something about it.

So I come back to the point that, if you have seven months where you're invited to comment on something and don't, why should your point about it be taken seriously when you get to the meeting?

[Roger de Coverly]

We saw this principle in action at the ECF AGM. People hadn't e-mailed Andrew Farthing with comments on the Code of Conduct in the seven months the document had been available for comment, but this didn't prevent them from suddenly proposing amendments to amendments on the hoof at Council.

I would suggest that what's at work here is the principle of open comments. If you comment at a meeting, it's not just the proposer who hears what you say, but the rest of the decision making body. If you just exchange emails, they remain private to you and the recipient. For that matter the proposer's reply may not be published until after the end of the consultation period.

[Alex Holowczak]

We saw this principle in action at the ECF AGM. People hadn't e-mailed Andrew Farthing with comments on the Code of Conduct in the seven months the document had been available for comment, but this didn't prevent them from suddenly proposing amendments to amendments on the hoof at Council.

I would suggest that what's at work here is the principle of open comments. If you comment at a meeting, it's not just the proposer who hears what you say, but the rest of the decision making body. If you just exchange emails, they remain private to you and the recipient. For that matter the proposer's reply may not be published until after the end of the consultation period.

Given that Andrew accepted most of the attempted amendments on the day within seconds, I don't think that's the point at all.

[David Pardoe]

(="Sean Hewitt"
)
("Bob Clark") I'm guessing and I'm sure Sean will correct me if i'm wrong.
Sean is the ECF delegate for the Stockport League and i assume he is appointed thus at the AGM.
The consultations that he speaks of I assume will be emails to the various club secretaries.
The limited number of responses will presumably be the couple of secrateries that bothered to reply.
I guess most secretaries will be like mine and will not have consulted the club members.

In fairness to Sean he probably did as much as he could be expected to do. (......)

Exactly so. I thought I had explained my actions and how the votes came to be cast in previous posts, but had started to doubt myself!

OMOV is a good principle. However, I'm sure we will have arguments about how terrible it all is when people win elections having received 200 votes from a possible 10,000. Just look at the number of votes cast in the Gold Member Representative election for the picture of things to come. Having lots of chess friends on facebook will probably be a pre-requisite to getting elected.


Ok, so you conducted two polls by email, I presume.
The first gave you a positive responce supporting Roger for President. If so,what actual number responded to this first email, and how many supported the call to put Roger forward. Was there any opposition, if so how many.
I presume you contacted all club secretaries and all the league officers.... a total of about 20 people, I guess.
When did you send out your 2nd email and what did this say exactly. Did I read that you got only 2 replies to the second email.
Why did you decide to send out that second email?

David - It might be worth reading my previous posts on the subject because the sequence of events should be clearer for you then.

Yes, I`ve read your posts Sean...
You spoke/contacted only the Stockport league committee (thats 9 people, assuming they were all present) regarding Rogers nomination, and got only one reply initially. When did you make that initial contact? Did you actually speak to them face to face (at a meeting), or do you mean you emailed them
You didnt contact all the club secretaries and seek there views..... That would have properly represented the 14 clubs in the league? Why not? Bob clearly thought you might have done that?

Still waiting for answers to these questions Sean.
Do you not think it was your duty, as the Stockport league ECF delegate, to at least consult all the stockport league clubs, via the secretaries, to assertain there views.
And was it really appropriate for you to include `late returns`, and allow that to influence your voting as regards Roger Edwards election at the AGM? Closing dates are closing dates Sean, and surely should be strictly observed (if we`re playing to the rules), and what you appear to have indulged in, could be viewed as, in effect, `after hours` trading, or worse still, election tampering/manipulation.
Do the rules allow such latitude, which could easily have effected the outcome of Rogers election, given the closeness of the election.
And who knows what other interpretations could have been applied by somone holding 18 delegate votes.
Maybe having to act as delegate for 18 groups/congresses/leagues was proving a struggle for you, so you took some short cuts.
I`m sure the stockport league clubs will be delighted to here that you have apparently ignored many of them in this matter. Roger actually plays for a club in the Stockport league, so is known to the league.
If you were doing a thorough job of this, it might have been useful to actually contact all the team captains. These are the people to tend to take a more active part in league activities, and have strong links with club members.
What did you actually say to the Stockport committee members that you did contact?

[Sean Hewitt]

Ok, so you conducted two polls by email, I presume.
The first gave you a positive responce supporting Roger for President. If so,what actual number responded to this first email, and how many supported the call to put Roger forward. Was there any opposition, if so how many.
I presume you contacted all club secretaries and .all the league officers.... a total of about 20 people, I guess.
When did you send out your 2nd email and what did this say exactly. Did I read that you got only 2 replies to the second email.
Why did you decide to send out that second email?

Still waiting for answers to these questions Sean.
Do you not think it was your duty, as the Stockport league ECF delegate, to at least consult all the stockport league clubs, via the secretaries, to assertain there views.
And was it really appropriate for you to include `late returns`, and allow that to influence your voting as regards Roger Edwards election at the AGM? Closing dates are closing dates Sean, and surely should be strictly observed (if we`re playing to the rules), and what you appear to have indulged in, could be viewed as, in effect, `after hours` trading, or worse still, election tampering/manipulation.
Do the rules allow such latitude, which could easily have effected the outcome of Rogers election, given the closeness of the election.
And who knows what other interpretations could have been applied by somone holding 18 delegate votes.
Maybe having to act as delegate for 18 groups/congresses/leagues was proving a struggle for you, so you took some short cuts.
I`m sure the stockport league clubs will be delighted to here that you have apparently ignored many of them in this matter. Roger actually plays for a club in the Stockport league, so is known to the league.
If you were doing a thorough job of this, it might have been useful to actually contact all the team captains. These are the people to tend to take a more active part in league activities, and have strong links with club members.
What did you actually say to the Stockport committee members that you did contact?

David - There are so many errors and incorrect assumptions in this one post that I simply don't have the time right now to address them all. I will do so later. However, if you have any concerns about my actions, please raise them via the appropriate route - which is via your club secretary.