ECF Annual General Meeting 13 October 2012

[Roger de Coverly]

Pity that Adam wasnt shown the same consideration, so it would appear.

Council are empowered as the voting membership of the ECF, so have the say in who they choose as directors. Only some of the Council members are required to report back to the bodies for whom they are representative members.

It was evidently a decision by a majority of those present that they were not prepared to support a candidate for a new position, the specification of which to an extent drafted by himself or at the very least with his input, who wasn't prepared to formally say how the role would be developed. I agree there have been some statements on this forum, some of them I would class as alarming, but these did little to clarify what would become the ECF policy and which were the candidate's personal opinions.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't think it is a pro or anti Kirsan thing as you suggest, it was a case of whether they thought Nigel or Rupert was best for the job

I was quoting the NCCU President's opinion. Others at the meeting may well have formed a different impression.

The vote really came down to a vote against the current Fide president it was never a vote on the policys that Rupert was advocating i obv voted for Rupert.

[David Robertson]

I guess this could be deeply-layered humour; or a homage to Freud

(snip) criticising somebody for appalling spelling/grammar...not taking measures to rectify their problem before publishing...Their (sic) are a myriad of good excuses for the former, few for the latter (snip) Why then not a) employ a spell-checker and/or b) run the report past somebody who can spell before publication?

Or a warning to us all

[Krishna Shiatis]

Maybe we should focus on what the person is trying to say. These postings and reports are not part of an English exam after all.

Nobody is perfect.

[AustinElliott]

Nobody is perfect.

At last... something on which we can all agree.

Or possibly not.

[David Gilbert]

Nobody is perfect.

At last... something on which we can all agree.

Or possibly not.

Like Christine McVie, before she became Christine McVie?

[John Cox]

Look, Ernie, Roger, Justin, Mick etc., you’re all missing the point in an alarming way.

It may be that Adam R’s been useless in his present post. I doubt it, but actually I’ve no idea.

It may also be that there was genuine reason to be concerned AR was going to go on some solo crusade to change the membership scheme, as Roger seems to think, although again I doubt it.

It may be, as David R suggested, that AR saw this coming and doesn’t actually care that much. I doubt that as well, but again I’ve no real idea.

However, if I were in AR’s shoes, I imagine I’d be feeling very hurt and rejected. AR’s done a lot for chess and to be thrown out like this and told that no-one doing a job which obviously needs doing is better than him doing it is obviously, or may obviously be, a very unpleasant and wounding experience for anybody.

I’m sure WM’s a good guy and I’m sure he’s exercising his judgment honestly. But then so is AR and I’m sure he’s done everything he’s done honestly as well.

That is what people have lost sight of: volunteers for chess do not deserve to be treated like this.

If you are a decent delegate and you’re contemplating doing something like this, you don’t simply rock up to the meeting, ambush the candidate in his absence, and then go about bleating about how there wasn’t a manifesto and what else could you do. You contact the candidate in advance and say that you’re worried about what he might do, or about his record, and that it would be helpful if he’d either reassure you or provide an election manifesto. Or, if you really must, you man up and say that you’ve considered his record and you don’t find you can vote for him.

This gives the candidate a chance to reassure people if that’s what needs doing, or if he really has lost the faith of a majority of people, to retire gracefully.

This is elementary, basic good administration and it’s also elementary, basic, human courtesy to another human being.

Whereas, actually, as far as I can see, no-one even saw fit to propose a vote of thanks for AR’s unpaid services.

Peter S hit the nail absolutely on the head fifteen pages ago: council have treated AR shamefully, whether their decision itself was sensible or not. Mr Edgell and Mr Metcalfe ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and so should anyone else who voted with them.

On that last point, is there actually any way of finding out who did vote with them?

[Ernie Lazenby]

Cannot accept that post. Putting aside any personal grudges; Adam treated council with contempt by failing to attend the meeting and not submitting an election address. Also given his very close ties with Mr De-Mooi and all that happened since Sheffield it could be argued that he lacked the fortitude to face the members and explain his invovment in that matter and the court case. This forum had discussed much of what happened since Sheffield 2011 and there is little doubt it was in the minds of those attending the meeting. Adam has contributed significantly to his own downfall. To say otherwise is simply trying to defend a friend or a perception.

[Roger de Coverly]

Adam has contributed significantly to his own downfall.

Would there have been a perception, like that applying to Tim Woolgar, that promoting his own events was a higher priority than promoting the ECF? Whilst commendable to be running an event, it shows lack of thought to not deal with the resulting clash. In the same position of multiple commitments, Sean Hewitt made clear statements before the meeting and appointed a proxy of presumed similar views.

I suppose with so much chess actually going on at the weekend, there would have been an arbiter shortage, particularly with a number of them at the Council meeting trying to run the ECF.

[John Cox]

Cannot accept that post. Putting aside any personal grudges; Adam treated council with contempt by failing to attend the meeting and not submitting an election address.

I don't agree, but fine, if that's what you feel, you contact the candidate in advance and say that you can't vote for him in the absence of these things. You don't just go "I've been treated with contempt. I shall punish this person."

Adam has contributed significantly to his own downfall.

Obviously he's made various political errors. But that's no excuse for council's behaviour.

To say otherwise is simply trying to defend a friend or a perception.

Now there, I am afraid, you are judging others by your own standards. AR isn't my friend - I barely know him. If he were, I would say so. And as for 'defending a perception', I'm not sure what you mean. A week ago I didn't even know what "Sheffield" referred to. Now I understand that it refers to what I think of as the T-shirt nonsense, and the fall-out. My only perception of that, frankly, is the rather widely-held one of intense boredom that the parties concerned, and everyone else, haven't yet grown up and moved on.

What I'm suggesting isn't exactly some arcane code of conduct - it's a simple question of accepting that everyone involved is giving up their time to try and do the right thing and respecting them. That's the 'perception' I'm 'trying to defend'.

[Neil Graham]

This thread has now extended to 22 pages.

It has discussed who was elected, who wasn't elected, the great proxy-vote scandal of whenever; who voted for whom; who didn't vote; who didn't turn-up, how to spell, membership, who can find the best insult of another forum member, etc etc (ad nauseam*).

Can I have the temerity to make a suggestion? Nothing is going to change Saturday's vote(s) - it would be very useful to actually consider the future (in a new thread please) rather than spend such an inordinate amount of time and space considering an event that's past and done.


*amended to reflect lack of classical education

[Roger de Coverly]

you contact the candidate in advance and say that you can't vote for him in the absence of these things.

I'm not sure to what extent members of Council would consider it part of their remit to contact a candidate to demand a statement. Is it not usual in elections for the candidate to contact the potential voters rather than the other way round?

There's obvious evidence of voters contacting a candidate in the Roger Edwards case. This was after a statement. Other comments suggest this in itself was an unusual practice.

Was there lukewarm support from the other prospective and retiring directors present ? Had they said that they had devised the position specifically for AR to move into, would this have swayed the issue?

[Mike Truran]

and the Captains were not concerned that this might have a negative impact on the 4NCL.

Why don't you ask them yourself, Matthew? At least I took the trouble to ask their opinion before the AGM, unlike some other Council members. And I also took the trouble to talk to Roger Edwards before the AGM as well, which was more of a courtesy than was extended to Adam Raoof by some Council members.

Anyway, there's little point in bandying words to no purpose with an embittered federation-hopping serial misrepresenter. It seems like Adam has reached the same conclusion on another thread.

[John Cox]

This thread has now extended to 22 pages.

It has discussed who was elected, who wasn't elected, the great proxy-vote scandal of whenever; who voted for whom; who didn't vote; who didn't turn-up, how to spell, membership, who can find the best insult of another forum member, etc etc (ad nauseum).

Can I have the temerity to make a suggestion? Nothing is going to change Saturday's vote(s) - it would be very useful to actually consider the future (in a new thread please) rather than spend such an inordinate amount of time and space considering an event that's past and done.

If you want another thread, why not start one?

For myself, as I see it the main thing that needs to happen in the future is for this sort of nonsense to stop. In other words, as Peter said, a change of culture.

I see explaining why Council has mismanaged this particular business so appallingly as a tiny contribution towards that.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Going back to what John Cox wrote. I am minded of what happened to Neil Kinnock when he treated the population with contempt by saying a couple of days before the general election, 'the tories are out and we will be in power' He got a good kicking for that one. Labour lost.
It seems to me that Adam simply expected by offering his name, and in the knowledge that there was no other candidate for the position, his supporters would carry the day. Nothing is ever certain.

Bottom line is he was not appointed and his supporters need to get over it until next years AGM.

It seems clear the federation has more important matters to deal with than worry about Adam being sidelined.

BTW Those who say we should all forget about Sheffield and other matters arising since then such as the FIDE court case and fincancial matters are akin to those who buried their heads whenever controversial issues arise, dont want to know because they have not a clue what to do to make sure it does not happen again, and more to the point would not have the ability to do anything even if they did have a clue.