ECF Annual General Meeting 13 October 2012

[David Sedgwick]

Wonder if this has any relevance to this thread...?

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/sccu.htm

I think I can safely say no. The "unpleasant bits" to which Richard Haddrell alludes relate to internal SCCU issues. There is no connection with events at the ECF Meeting.

My commiserations to Adam Raoof. On the matter of a card vote, I'm sure it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Roger Edwards spoke persuasively and I felt he won over the previously undecided. I wish him well.

[David Sedgwick]

More seriously, I was extremely disappointed to learn that there were 11 votes against me for non-exec. What on earth were the other 190 thinking? That's what I want to know!

This was on a show of hands. I counted 8 against (with 25 or so in favour).

[JustinHorton]

Mohammed Amin proposed that the Board should investigate whether CJ adequately fulfilled his role in Istanbul, and seek a refund if it was concluded that he did not. This was approved on a show of hands by 15-12.

Out of interest, how do people propose they go about seeking this refund?

[Richard Bates]

How does a "show of hands" work, when one "hand" could represent dozens of votes?

[Roger de Coverly]

How does a "show of hands" work, when one "hand" could represent dozens of votes?

I suppose it's assumed that every person has multiple votes and the proxies cancel out. I believe the meeting rules allow for a card vote if the defeated parties believe it would be close.

I suppose Short v Jones could have been a show of hands, but the actual voting record is important as a message to FIDE.

[David Sedgwick]

How does a "show of hands" work, when one "hand" could represent dozens of votes?

Proxies are announced or made available at the start of the meeting. If a hand represents dozens of votes it will be known to represent dozens of votes.

The election of Roger Edwards is a good case in point. It was superficially clear cut on the initial show of hands, but it was immediately apparent that a card vote would be much closer. So it proved.

[Alex McFarlane]

How does a "show of hands" work, when one "hand" could represent dozens of votes?

Before I attended an ECF meeting I was concerned about this. David accurately states the position. My only comment would be that the show of hands can, to those not present, give a distorted outcome. In some cases this is good as it can prevent an embarrassing defeat from being recorded but in others it can lead to strong opposition to a motion/person not being so obvious and a false position being reflected.

[Richard Bates]

How many delegates/representatives (delete as appropriate) would have had their positions on the Director elections pre-determined? It just seems slightly surprising that there was little suggestion (or was there?) that Adam might be rejected before the meeting if he was defeated so resoundingly. If large numbers of proxies were pre-determined to vote that way then it might have not been such of a surprise. In the circumstances of him not being present i would have thought that placing the vote on record would have made sense?

Was the rejection based on what he might do as Membership/marketing Director, or related to past actions?

[benedgell]

Andrew Farthing said at the meeting that someone has expressed an interest in the CEO role. No name was mentioned, but fingers crossed that interest will firm up.

[Carl Hibbard]

Andrew Farthing said at the meeting that someone has expressed an interest in the CEO role. No name was mentioned, but fingers crossed that interest will firm up.

Do we have any guesses as to who?

[benedgell]

I can only add that from Andrew's comments it appears the prospective CEO has interest in the charitable status work.

[Mick Norris]

Roger Edwards appears now to have the chance to prove a lot of people wrong. That will be a challenge but it's probably easier than being elected with the expectation you will perform miracles.

The vote may have been narrow - although not as narrow as the de facto confidence vote in CJ de Mooi at the finance meeting - but a majority still chose Roger Edwards to lead the ECF for the year ahead. I for one am willing to accept that.

There were 262 votes available - it is disappointing that 50 were not exercised, as a candidate with more than 131 votes does have a clear majority of the electorate

[benedgell]

http://www.chessit.co.uk/phpforum/viewt ... ?f=5&t=254

is my report from the AGM.

[benedgell]

I can only add that from Andrew's comments it appears the prospective CEO has interest in the charitable status work.

I don't see how that could be significantly progressed without a mandate from Council. I'd have thought the priority this year would be to complete the membership implementation.

I believe Council did mandate the board to work on the charitable status. Certainly it was an item on the AGM, and an EGM to finalise the matter is set for late Jan/ early Feb.

[David Sedgwick]

How many delegates/representatives (delete as appropriate) would have had their positions on the Director elections pre-determined? It just seems slightly surprising that there was little suggestion (or was there?) that Adam might be rejected before the meeting if he was defeated so resoundingly. If large numbers of proxies were pre-determined to vote that way then it might have not been such of a surprise. In the circumstances of him not being present i would have thought that placing the vote on record would have made sense?

Was the rejection based on what he might do as Membership/marketing Director, or related to past actions?

I don't think the result was pre-determined in that way. Delegates/representatives are normally mandated only on what are expected to be the key issues and you're correct that this wasn't one of them.

My guess before the meeting was that he would be re-elected by about two to one on a show of hands. The actual result was more or less the opposite of that (and I would expect the figures to be published in the minutes). [Edit: The figures are given in Ben Edgell's report (which is excellent)]

With regard to your last sentence, I would say both.

I repeat my commiserations to Adam, who is an old friend of mine. I'm going to leave it there.