Update from Shallow Throat

[Mick Norris]

Ditto for Bob Kane.... reading his report, I can see no reason why not.

Call me a pedant but there seems to me to be a difference between resigning on principle and leaving a position because you lost an election -when up against nobody - by a gazillion votes.

This has got nothing to do with Bob Kane’s ability to do the job. He may be and may have been great at it for all I know. Either way, unless we’re going to not bother at all with elections (or council) any more, I don’t really see how Bob Kane returning to his former position is a feasible option.

Agreed. traditionally the ECf hasn't appointed people who have lost recent Council elections

[Mick Norris]

No need for a drama, just an acknowledgement from the committee that in retrospect what happened should not have happened. However, my point was that it'll be interesting to see what Dave wants to do given his comments after resigning.

Yes, hopefully they can work together as we will need someone to push through the recommendations of the Pearce Commission

[John Upham]

Are the Sensible Party opponents of the Organiser-Arbiter Nexus or are they a militant faction within it?

Yes to the first option.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'm not sure how much trust to place in the comments emanating from an unknown source.

[John Upham]

I don’t really see how Bob Kane returning to his former position is a feasible option.

It may turn out that this is / was a requirement for the continuation of the Tradewise sponsorship contract.

In a years time we will be able to use hindsight to make that judgement.

[Roger de Coverly]

we will need someone to push through the recommendations of the Pearce Commission

That's push through in the political sense as in overcoming opposition, is it?

Notwithstanding the reluctance of directors to have to seek re-election, in practice the annual re-election process has given an avenue for dissatisfaction to be voiced, without having the disruptive turmoil of EGMs and votes of no confidence that would otherwise be necessary. In practice election winners, if their conduct and approach are considered satisfactory, are not subject to contested votes in the following year or two.

I'd suspect that if the ECF Directors put forward a list of changes "because the SRA say we must do this", they may find them rejected, or at least only going through on a narrow majority.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I don’t really see how Bob Kane returning to his former position is a feasible option.

It may turn out that this is / was a requirement for the continuation of the Tradewise sponsorship contract.

If it is, it should have been revealed as such before the elections, so that Council had the chance to act with that knowledge.

Organizations that seek to overturn the results of elections in order to keep sponsors happy can be described in a number of ways, none of which I want to be associated with.

[David Pardoe]

Ditto for Bob Kane.... reading his report, I can see no reason why not.

Call me a pedant but there seems to me to be a difference between resigning on principle and leaving a position because you lost an election -when up against nobody - by a gazillion votes.

This has got nothing to do with Bob Kane’s ability to do the job. He may be and may have been great at it for all I know. Either way, unless we’re going to not bother at all with elections (or council) any more, I don’t really see how Bob Kane returning to his former position is a feasible option.

Agreed. traditionally the ECf hasn't appointed people who have lost recent Council elections

This is completely wrong... we all know that the recent elections degenerated into a complete farce, and several heads rolled in somewhat dubious fashion...in an hour of confusion and muddled `knee-jerk` actions

The `non of these candidates` option is a complete nonsense and should be ditched...

If Bob would accept an offer to return to post, I for one would be very pleased to see his return..
There might be a case for `taking note` of some matters that have arisen, but he shows the sort of `professional touch` that the ECF really needs, in my opinion..

[JustinHorton]

I'm not sure how much trust to place in the comments emanating from an unknown source.

Normal ECF procedure: everything done by rumours and gossip and everybody but a select few in the dark.

[JustinHorton]

If Bob would accept an offer to return to post, I for one would be very pleased to see his return

Difficult to think of a much greater abuse than reinstating somebody who lost an uncontested election by a huge margin, but I'm sure we're up to it

[John Upham]

If it is, it should have been revealed as such before the elections, so that Council had the chance to act with that knowledge.

Surely Council should elect the best person for the job? What are you saying exactly?

[NickFaulks]

Difficult to think of a much greater abuse than reinstating somebody who lost an uncontested election by a huge margin, but I'm sure we're up to it

No doubt it would then emerge that the sponsor insisted on the removal of another director who has just been re-elected by an even bigger margin.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Surely Council should elect the best person for the job? What are you saying exactly?

I'm saying that if the support of Tradewise, or any other sponsor, is conditional on having particular candidates in post, then this should be made clear before the elections. Council can't hope to make informed decisions if important information is kept hidden from them.

[John Upham]

Surely Council should elect the best person for the job? What are you saying exactly?

I'm saying that if the support of Tradewise, or any other sponsor, is conditional on having particular candidates in post, then this should be made clear before the elections. Council can't hope to make informed decisions if important information is kept hidden from them.

So electing the best person for the job on merit is not the primary criteria?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Surely Council should elect the best person for the job? What are you saying exactly?

I'm saying that if the support of Tradewise, or any other sponsor, is conditional on having particular candidates in post, then this should be made clear before the elections. Council can't hope to make informed decisions if important information is kept hidden from them.

So electing the best person for the job on merit is not the primary criteria?

It's up to the members of Council, or the organizations they represent, what they think the primary criterion is. And, for that matter, whether they think "keeping sponsors on board" falls under the category of "merit".