ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[John Philpott]

Ian Davis wrote

Why is this in the January 2010 folder?

As the document is hyperlinked from the list of papers on the ECF website relating to the October 2012 AGM, I fail to see why the file reference should matter at all. The history is probably that the publication of Council papers on the website started in 2010, and more or less all the documents hyperlinked from the Council and Board page happen to be located in a folder which includes 2010 as part of its reference.

[Stewart Reuben]

Quite a number of people went to Istanbul in 2000. Some of those won't have bothered to go this year and some were put off by Ali. The side tournasmnts were totally unadvertised. A fairly large number went to Dresden 2008 where it was relativly good for spectators.

I think Alex, Lara and I are concerned about the loss of top players for the British. But I think I gave adequate notice of the matter in 2010 for 2014.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's an obscure constitutional issue, but why doesn't CJ's resignation remove Gerry Walsh from Council as "Immediate Past President"? I refer to the voting register recently published at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... gister.pdf

[Sean Hewitt]

It's an obscure constitutional issue, but why doesn't CJ's resignation remove Gerry Walsh from Council as "Immediate Past President"? I refer to the voting register recently published at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... gister.pdf

An error, I would have thought.

[Alex McFarlane]

An error, I would have thought.

I'm not so sure. Why should someone be disenfranchised by the premature actions of another? Keeping personalities aside, that to me would seem unfair. Similarly, and hypothetically, would Mr De Mooi lose his position if Roger Edwards resigned the day after being elected?

I can see a strong arguement that only people who complete their term of office should be considered for the position.

[John Philpott]

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.

[LawrenceCooper]

An error, I would have thought.

I'm not so sure. Why should someone be disenfranchised by the premature actions of another? Keeping personalities aside, that to me would seem unfair. Similarly, and hypothetically, would Mr De Mooi lose his position if Roger Edwards resigned the day after being elected?

I can see a strong arguement that only people who complete their term of office should be considered for the position.

I had assumed, like Sean, that it was an error. I was aware that by resigning early I would lose my solitary vote so had assumed the same would be true for the president (with the knock on effect that Gerry would lose his vote). If it's right that people who haven't been on the board for three years (but held a senior position) have a vote when directors who resigned a month before the agm don't is a matter of opinion. For me, it was more important to leave the board, as soon as possible, than to cling on to have a vote at the agm.

[David Sedgwick]

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.

Thank you for the explanation. I'm inclined to agree with the dissentient(s), but be that as it may. I'm pleased that the matter was formally considered.

These whole provisions strike me as rather odd. John Paines, who served as Non-Executive Chairman for less than a year, will retain a vote as Past Chairman for as long as Mike Gunn is Chairman, quite possibly several more years. Chris Majer, who was Chief Executive for two and a half years before standing down as the same time as John, will now lose his vote as Past Chief Executive owing to Andrew Farthing's departure.

I seem to recall that in the old BCF days such people remained members of Council for a fixed period of time after they left office - surely a better arrangement.

[John Philpott]

Lawrence Cooper wrote

I had assumed, like Sean, that it was an error. I was aware that by resigning early I would lose my solitary vote so had assumed the same would be true for the president (with the knock on effect that Gerry would lose his vote). If it's right that people who haven't been on the board for three years (but held a senior position) have a vote when directors who resigned a month before the agm don't is a matter of opinion. For me, it was more important to leave the board, as soon as possible, than to cling on to have a vote at the agm.

There are two distinct situations here. Each director has a vote, which goes with the office, so as Sean Hewitt has succeeded Lawrence as International Director he will have that particular vote to exercise at the AGM. However, there are certain offices where a previous holder is awarded a vote: whether this is actually a good idea is a matter of which I am not necessarily convinced, but it was the situation under the BCF and was grandfathered into the ECF Articles. One consequence of this at the 2009 AGM Steve Davis, whose involvement with the Federation had ceased in 2001, retained a vote as Past President (although I do not believe that he chose to exercise this).

[Roger de Coverly]

I was aware that by resigning early I would lose my solitary vote so had assumed the same would be true for the president (with the knock on effect that Gerry would lose his vote).

There's a difference that the International post has immediately been filled whereas the President's post is left vacant. I would imagine it was pre-planned that the ID position would filled on a temporary basis.

I suppose it was formally decided to leave the President's position vacant until the AGM. Depending on voting intentions it may even be vacant after the AGM.

[Sean Hewitt]

@John : I'm pleased to hear that the Governance Committee considered the matter. I'm not sure they made the right call (by the same logic, Andrew Farthing will not get a vote as past chief executive if there is no incumbent and Gerry Walsh will stay as immediate past president if Roger loses to none of the above) but I do accept that the Articles don't appear to cover this scenario addequately.

It begs the question why the past president, chief executive and chairman get a vote at all - especially when other ex-officers do not. A motion required, me thinks!

[LawrenceCooper]

Lawrence Cooper wrote

I had assumed, like Sean, that it was an error. I was aware that by resigning early I would lose my solitary vote so had assumed the same would be true for the president (with the knock on effect that Gerry would lose his vote). If it's right that people who haven't been on the board for three years (but held a senior position) have a vote when directors who resigned a month before the agm don't is a matter of opinion. For me, it was more important to leave the board, as soon as possible, than to cling on to have a vote at the agm.

There are two distinct situations here. Each director has a vote, which goes with the office, so as Sean Hewitt has succeeded Lawrence as International Director he will have that particular vote to exercise at the AGM. However, there are certain offices where a previous holder is awarded a vote: whether this is actually a good idea is a matter of which I am not necessarily convinced, but it was the situation under the BCF and was grandfathered into the ECF Articles. One consequence of this at the 2009 AGM Steve Davis, whose involvement with the Federation had ceased in 2001, retained a vote as Past President (although I do not believe that he chose to exercise this).

Would it be correct to say that if the board had appointed an interim president (eg Nigel who was his alternate) then CJ would have become the previous president (for voting purposes) and Gerry as the previous previous president would no longer receive a vote?

[John Philpott]

Lawrence Cooper wrote

Would it be correct to say that if the board had appointed an interim president (eg Nigel who was his alternate) then CJ would have become the previous president (for voting purposes) and Gerry as the previous previous president would no longer receive a vote?

I would agree with that interpretation. I also agree with the comments made that the whole question of past officers having a vote should be revisited. It is out of time for there to be a motion at next month's AGM, but the EGM planned for January/February would provide an opportunity for this to be considered.

[LawrenceCooper]

Lawrence Cooper wrote

Would it be correct to say that if the board had appointed an interim president (eg Nigel who was his alternate) then CJ would have become the previous president (for voting purposes) and Gerry as the previous previous president would no longer receive a vote?

I would agree with that interpretation. I also agree with the comments made that the whole question of past officers having a vote should be revisited. It is out of time for there to be a motion at next month's AGM, but the EGM planned for January/February would provide an opportunity for this to be considered.

It's not something that bothers me, I only commented as I received an e-mail as a "delegate" but after opening the four attachments I came to the conclusion I don't have a vote

[David Sedgwick]

I only commented as I received an e-mail as a "delegate" but after opening the four attachments I came to the conclusion I don't have a vote

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.

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