ECF Annual General Meeting 13 October 2012

[Roger de Coverly]

then why was he sacked earlier this year from his role running the main congress at the London Chess Classic?

I don't think any public statement has been made, so as far as any prospective players are concerned, he could have just decided to step down. Last year Alex McF and Lara were among the arbiter team and it would be unlikely now that they would agree to work with Adam. There was also the rather pointless row about humorous signs. There was an additional midweek event run last year but in Adam's name rather than the Classic. It hasn't formed part of this year's programme, so was it run against the wishes of Malcolm P?

Alex McF was predicting that Adam would not be part of the team at this year's Classic long before the entry form appeared in confirmation.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Roger I did not write that, its taken directly from the SG blogg

Roger has ammended his post to show where the comment originated. Thanks

[David Sedgwick]

I feel the comments about Andrew Leadbetter are unfair and misleading and I'd like to try and set the record straight. I should make clear that I was not at the meeting in question (the October 2010 Council Meeting) and hence my information is second hand.

At the meeting various comments were made which led some people present (by no means all) to conclude that they didn't want Malcolm Pein to be a Non-Executive Director. Andrew Leadbetter advised Chris Majer, who was in the chair, that the directed proxies should not be counted, on the grounds that they had been cast without knowledge of the information that had been presented only at the meeting. Chris accepted this advice. I should also mention that Chris had had to chair the meeting virtually without notice, owing to the illness of John Paines.

Without the directed proxies, the vote was 49 for Malcolm and 62 against.

Shortly after the meeting it was pointed out that the decision to exclude the directed proxies was not in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006. Those proxies were 22 for Malcolm and 4 against, so the vote should have been 71 for and 66 against.

Hence, the Board was minded to offer Malcolm the position which had incorrectly been declared vacant, but, out of respect for the large negative vote, Malcolm said that he did not wish to be so considered.

There was an ECF statement at the time and the consensus, even on this Forum, was to draw a line and move on. I am resurrecting the subject only because I feel the impression has been given up thread that Andrew Leadbetter was simply incompetent and counted the votes incorrectly. That is a complete distortion of the truth,

[Mick Norris]

I was at the October 2010 ECF AGM in Birmingham, my first such experience

My notes say;
Everyone elected on show of hands except:
• Malcolm Pein as non-executive director
• CJ advised that Malcolm had no time to read emails, and so CJ would forward him only vital emails, Malcolm would be unable to attend most meetings and intended appointing an alternate (a Mr Read employed by the Chess Centre I think) to do the work
• I felt that the role of non-executive director is crucial as it effectively helps the MCF hold the ECF board to account outside of Council meetings (which are only twice yearly)
• Accordingly, I used my judgement to vote against his appointment
• On a show of hands, he lost 12-11, the card vote was 62-49
• I agree with the sentiment expressed that Malcolm would be welcomed within the ECF but I don’t think this role is suitable for him
• Most of the ECF board supported him, but a couple appeared to be against him in this particular role
• Like the other vacant posts, the ECF board will seek to fill the position

[David Robertson]

Mick - you keep detailed notes of ECF AGMs two years ago? [shakes head in utter incredulity]. I guess it's good someone does, not least to provide an archive for PhD students of the future

But may I ask: how tidy is your sock drawer?

[John Cox]

I am resurrecting the subject only because I feel the impression has been given up thread that Andrew Leadbetter was simply incompetent and counted the votes incorrectly. That is a complete distortion of the truth,

Thank you for that, David. I owe Mr Leadbetter an apology.

I had, as you say, supposed that he had simply made a mistake in counting, but I see now that his contribution to the treasurehouse of ECF ineptitude was far richer and more comical than I had imagined.

I do like the way you represent the situation as being the product of some tricky little wrinkle in the CA 2006, doubtless introduced by New Labour to trip up hard-working chess administrators.

Just in case anyone was in the slightest doubt, that is of course not the case. Proxies are given to the proxy holder on terms: one either says 'vote this way', or 'you can use my vote as you see fit', or perhaps 'vote this way unless some information emerges at the meeting which makes you feel you shouldn't'.

What determines the way the vote is cast and whether it should be counted is the terms of the proxy. Not the chairman of the meeting.

This is not a product of the CA 2006, except in the sense that Act could have changed the position which has obtained for generations and didn't. On the contrary, it's an elementary aspect of the proper conduct of meetings which is well known to anyone with more knowledge of the world of affairs than a new-born baby.

And the most magnificent aspect of it is that these two children of the universe are now, AFAICS, respectively Chairman of the Governance Committee and a member of it.

I was wrong earlier. You couldn't make it up. Well, you could, but it would take the talent of Gilbert and Sullivan to do proper justice to it.

[Jonathan Rogers]

From time to time Giddins posts something interesting. The following has appeared. Seems odd that Sean says he has no knowledge of the matter alluded to by William. Perhaps Sean can explain this loss of memory. Of course SG may be wrong- hes not often wrong just acerbic in the method of delivery.

SG said ''As was to be expected, anguished debate on the termite mound has followed Saturday's ECF AGM. Much of the argument has been about the defeat of "Odious" Adam Raoof. I was disappointed to see him being vigorously defended by several of the few Forum contributors for whom I have any respect, such as John Cox, Peter Sowray and Sean Hewitt.However, I have one question for them all: if the Odious One is such a wonderful chess organiser, then why was he sacked earlier this year from his role running the main congress at the London Chess Classic? Sacked to be replaced, as a matter of fact, by Sean Hewitt...!'' end of SG quote

Can we not follow the agenda of SG quite so often? Sometimes of course we need to refer to his blog because it contributes some facts which are material to our own discussions (eg the leaked expenses claim of CJ following Sheffield last year, or the claim that Keene was largely responsible for Darwin's sponsorship of the British). But when he is just using his blog to attack others on matters which are not under discussion here, such as the non-organisation of postal tournaments or the arbiting arrangements at LCC, let's just leave him to it.

[John Cox]

Until you’re inside the organisation it’s hard to appreciate just how dysfunctional it is.

I didn't disagree with much in your post but it would surprise me if my opinion of the ECF's dysfunctionality could be increased by any amount of penetration into its inner secrets.

Fortunately it doesn't seem likely I shall have the opportunity to conduct the experiment.

[Mick Norris]

Mick - you keep detailed notes of ECF AGMs two years ago? [shakes head in utter incredulity]. I guess it's good someone does, not least to provide an archive for PhD students of the future

But may I ask: how tidy is your sock drawer?

David

I had a written report that I provided, as feedback, to the MCF Council - I don't think I've read it since!

[David Sedgwick]

I do like the way you represent the situation as being the product of some tricky little wrinkle in the CA 2006, doubtless introduced by New Labour to trip up hard-working chess administrators.

Just in case anyone was in the slightest doubt, that is of course not the case. Proxies are given to the proxy holder on terms: one either says 'vote this way', or 'you can use my vote as you see fit', or perhaps 'vote this way unless some information emerges at the meeting which makes you feel you shouldn't'.

What determines the way the vote is cast and whether it should be counted is the terms of the proxy. Not the chairman of the meeting.

This is not a product of the CA 2006, except in the sense that Act could have changed the position which has obtained for generations and didn't.

I was surprised that I had apparently referred to the Companies Act 2006 for no good reason. On checking, I found that Section 324A thereof (actually enacted in 2009) reads as follows:

"Obligation of proxy to vote in accordance with instructions;

A proxy must vote in accordance with any instructions given by the member by whom the proxy is appointed."

This appears to have been introduced at the behest of the European Union rather than at the instigation of New Labour.

[John Cox]

Yes, David, I'm sure, but that didn't alter what has always been the position. Of course proxies vote in accordance with their instructions; what else would they do?

What no Companies Act as far as I'm aware has ever said or even nearly said is anything like,

"The Chairman of meetings can refuse to count votes properly cast through proxies if he feels like it on the grounds that he thinks information may have emerged at the meeting which he thinks might have made those who appointed the proxy vote differently if they'd known about it."

, which appears to be the view taken at the meeting in question.

Until you type that out you don't even realise how laughable that was.

[Roger de Coverly]

Reports from various participants continue to be published.

The NCCU report is at
http://www.nccu.org.uk/report-from-ecf- ... m-metclfe/

[Sean Hewitt]

Until all the nonsense following Sheffield, consensus was that he was doing a good job.

Notwithstanding an ability to become involved in petty disputes over rating fees and a desire to exercise power by trying to ban players.

I didn't agree (obviously) with his stance on rating fees. And on other matters for that matter. But that doesn't change the fact that the consensus was that he was doing a good job. And it doesn't affect my judgement that he would have done well as DoMM. In fact, it is totally irrelevant.

One of the problems with Council is that many people on it appear unable to be objective. They don't like someone so vote against him. They see someone else vote against their friend, so they vote against that person too. That's no way to carry on the business of the federation, in my opinion.

I try to look at the matter in hand and come to a view as whether the ECF would be better off or not if a vote went one way or the other. It's a judgement call, and not everyone will agree with me, but I think Adam would have done well as DoMM. What's for sure is that his actions on rating fees had no bearing on his ability to perform the job he was seeking.

[Sean Hewitt]

From time to time Giddins posts something interesting. The following has appeared. Seems odd that Sean says he has no knowledge of the matter alluded to by William. Perhaps Sean can explain this loss of memory. Of course SG may be wrong- hes not often wrong just acerbic in the method of delivery.

SG said ''As was to be expected, anguished debate on the termite mound has followed Saturday's ECF AGM. Much of the argument has been about the defeat of "Odious" Adam Raoof. I was disappointed to see him being vigorously defended by several of the few Forum contributors for whom I have any respect, such as John Cox, Peter Sowray and Sean Hewitt.However, I have one question for them all: if the Odious One is such a wonderful chess organiser, then why was he sacked earlier this year from his role running the main congress at the London Chess Classic? Sacked to be replaced, as a matter of fact, by Sean Hewitt...!'' end of SG quote

Ernie - No loss of memory here. I have no idea why Adam is not organising the festival at the Classic this year. He may have walked away for all I know. What I do know is that Malcolm approached me to do it, and I agreed.

[Sean Hewitt]

As you were willing to post Philip Nižetić's email, presumably without his permission, will you will back up your criticism of Bill Armstrong by posting the emails you refer to here?

No. See this http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 15#p102457 for the reason why not. However, at least one person has posted publicly on the forum the same reason as the other two gave.