Re: ECF elections 2016
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:47 pm
What role does Chris hold in the proceedings today then as the reporting is a little slim?John Reyes wrote:Fegan just gave a thanks to Alex
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
What role does Chris hold in the proceedings today then as the reporting is a little slim?John Reyes wrote:Fegan just gave a thanks to Alex
Has he joined the arbiter nexus?John Reyes wrote:Fegan just gave a thanks to Alex
He is the Representative Member for Chess in Schools and Communities (6 votes) and for the North Essex League (2 votes).Carl Hibbard wrote:What role does Chris hold in the proceedings today then as the reporting is a little slim?John Reyes wrote:Fegan just gave a thanks to Alex
Thanks.David Sedgwick wrote:He is the Representative Member for Chess in Schools and Communities (6 votes) and for the North Essex League (2 votes).Carl Hibbard wrote:What role does Chris hold in the proceedings today then as the reporting is a little slim?John Reyes wrote:Fegan just gave a thanks to Alex
Well anybody sat in front of the EC forum with a tub of popcorn in their hands would have been disappointed. Otherwise the least contentious AGM for generations shows how much progress the ECF has made in twelve months.benedgell wrote:We're done! Nothing exciting happened.
This situation has recently been rectified, no?Bob Kane wrote:Subject: C25.6.1 The Board’s Report ~communication improvement claims
Just for the record my comments in bold
much more use is being made of social media such as Twitter and Facebook ( not true since the Board got rid of the social media manager the tweets have drastically reduced in Quality and quantity)
The existence of this forum would seem to contradict this assertion.Bob Kane wrote:an Ask the Directors facility has been implemented so that members (and indeed anyone else) can interact directly with Directors. ( so you can now send a private email to a director,(wow !) this effectively curtails any public discussion of contentious issues
To which rules do you refer?David Robertson wrote:Never mind norms; it's rules that count - especially in matters of good governance. Candidates for re-election are not required to resubmit a statement. But you have never been elected to the Committee. You were appointed, presumably by its Chair, to a casual vacancy. That's fine. But you are now formally a candidate for election at the AGM where Council members deserve to know what they are electing. A statement is required - unless, of course, different standards apply these days.Angus French wrote:He didn't - and nor did other candidates for membership of the Governance and Finance Committees as, I believe, is the norm.David Robertson wrote:Did Angus French publish his statement outlining his fitness to be member of the Governance Ctte? Possibly I missed it.
While John and I were generally of like mind on the issues, I thought the meeting was horrible. I can only hope that John's greater experience of ECF mechanisms means that his more optimistic view of how matters will unfold is justified.John Reyes wrote:Good meeting
Perhaps you view the term as being more pejorative than I do. As to faction #1, I do not dispute their right to exist and to make their views known - I have too much personal experience elsewhere as an agitating minority myself to do that. I just feel that they are allowed to take up too much meeting time saying the same thing over and over again.Michael Farthing wrote:Not sure I quite like being promoted to part of a 'faction'.
Indeed, but the whole meeting boiled down to one issue, which was not satisfactorily addressed.but on most matters there were no concerns
Are any of these people employed by Malcolm in any capacity?NickFaulks wrote: 1. Those still trying to carry on unfinished business ( as they see it ) from a year ago. Phil Ehr unsurprisingly made the first contribution from the floor, lamenting the ECF's diminishing credibility and commending Malcolm Pein for his efforts to reverse this. They spoke to nearly every item on the agenda, saying largely the same thing every time.