Nominations 2021

[Andrew Zigmond]

Today is D-Day for nominations

who will challenge the Chief Exc?

The website gives the closing date for nominations as 9th September (Thursday).

[Michael Farthing]

Andrew is correct, though candidates will be announced when their election addresses are published with the Notice of Meeting which will be by 22 September. This provides an interlude where candidates are aware of each other. Sometimes individuals wish to withdraw at this point. Of course, candidates are at liberty to declare themselves publicly before this.

[David Sedgwick]

Andrew is correct, though candidates will be announced when their election addresses are published with the Notice of Meeting which will be by 22 September. This provides an interlude where candidates are aware of each other. Sometimes individuals wish to withdraw at this point. Of course, candidates are at liberty to declare themselves publicly before this.

When I was a member of Council, the list of candidates nominated was published shortly after the close of nominations.

Your justification for suppressing that information for nearly two weeks seems very thin to me.

[J T Melsom]

Michael Farthing isn't suppressing information at all - he is simply choosing to do things in a different way. Your evocation of John Philpott in aid of your way of doing things is uncalled for.

[Roger de Coverly]

Of course, candidates are at liberty to declare themselves publicly before this.

I suppose if they are already ECF Directors or Officers, the enforced vow of silence may prevent then posting here. That might leave postings on a website, on chess.com, Facebook or even personal emails to known members of Council. The latter is likely to be leaked to this forum and the others are more or less public anyway.

But perhaps it was all hot air and the only challenges to the CEO and Junior Director will come from Council members voting for "not this candidate".

[Andrew Zigmond]

My concern about delaying the announcement of candidates until 22nd September is that it leaves a relatively narrow window of three and a half weeks for council vote holders to consult their constituents; particularly as some may wish to study the election addresses and in the event of a contested election follow some of the debate before forming an opinion. In addition to that, if the candidates are aware of each other then some council members will also be aware (either by being candidates themselves or simply being close to a candidate) and will begin to move behind the scenes. The people in the dark will be the wider membership and the more I think about it, the more that feels wrong.

That said, I agree with J T Melsom that the swipe comparing one of our most diligent volunteers unfavourably with a past incumbent who is still much missed is very unfair. If there is a governance issue here surely it can be raised through the proper channels.

[David Sedgwick]

Michael Farthing isn't suppressing information at all - he is simply choosing to do things in a different way. Your evocation of John Philpott in aid of your way of doing things is uncalled for.

Michael Farthing is suppressing information. He is not making the list of nominated candidates public until nearly two weeks after the closure of nominations. You may feel that he is justified in so doing, but that doesn't alter the fact.

That said, I agree with J T Melsom that the swipe comparing one of our most diligent volunteers unfavourably with a past incumbent who is still much missed is very unfair. If there is a governance issue here surely it can be raised through the proper channels.

I have edited my post to remove the reference to John Philpott. I apologise to Michael for any offence caused.

My concern about delaying the announcement of candidates until 22nd September is that it leaves a relatively narrow window of three and a half weeks for council vote holders to consult their constituents; particularly as some may wish to study the election addresses and in the event of a contested election follow some of the debate before forming an opinion. In addition to that, if the candidates are aware of each other then some council members will also be aware (either by being candidates themselves or simply being close to a candidate) and will begin to move behind the scenes. The people in the dark will be the wider membership and the more I think about it, the more that feels wrong.

Exactly. I hope that Michael will reconsider.

[J T Melsom]

David - you are fully aware that the phrase you employed is loaded. Michael can speak for himself, but I prefer to see his approach whatever its merits as 'managing communication' rather than 'suppression'.

Thank you for amending your original post with regards to John Philpott.

[John Upham]

it leaves a relatively narrow window of three and a half weeks for council vote holders to consult their constituents;

This will not affect those holders of votes who consult no-one but themselves.

Let us not pretend that this is not an issue.

A failing of the "democracy" of Council.

Also there are those who hold votes who are unware of what is happening and vote for a popular beat combo founded by Francis Rossi and Alan Lancaster.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I've bothered to check the bye-laws and the relevant clause appears to be 12.7

12.7 The names of all candidates duly nominated not later than 37 days before the Annual General Meeting shall appear on the Agenda, indicating the Post for which they are nominated and where applicable the name of their proposers.

I've cut and pasted from the document so the grammar is as it appears. 9th September (close of nominations) to 16th October (date of meeting) is 37 days. As far as I can see the bye-law doesn't specify a timeframe for circulation of the agenda, although I might have missed it.

There is a case for a slight "lag" between close of nominations and publication of nominees - as Michael Farthing has noted sometimes candidates with similar platform stand unbeknown to each other, leading to one or more withdrawals before the meeting - but the gap of two weeks is too long. At the same time there is a difference between "suppressing" information (which implies deliberately withholding) and simply not putting it in the public domain earlier than required. Michael Farthing is a man of the utmost integrity and, as I said in my earlier post, if there is a governance issue it should be raised appropriately.

it leaves a relatively narrow window of three and a half weeks for council vote holders to consult their constituents;

This will not affect those holders of votes who consult no-one but themselves.

Let us not pretend that this is not an issue.

A failing of the "democracy" of Council.

Also there are those who hold votes who are unware of what is happening and vote for a popular beat combo founded by Francis Rossi and Alan Lancaster.

I suppose I could have said "council holders to consult their constituents if they wish". It is an issue and one that badly needs tackling. However there are those council vote holders who do act with integrity and the narrow window limits the time they have to do so.

[John Upham]

One of the things that frustrates me most (and I have met some of them) are those who hold multiple votes, do not consult anyone and then vote selfishly for their own benefit.

It staggers me that this nonsense continues and that Council is prepared to do precisely nothing about it ostrich style.

Limiting these fools to one vote each will it least reduce the damage they cause.

[Adam Raoof]

One of the things that frustrates me most (and I have met some of them) are those who hold multiple votes, do not consult anyone and then vote selfishly for their own benefit.

It staggers me that this nonsense continues and that Council is prepared to do precisely nothing about it ostrich style.

Limiting these fools to one vote each will it least reduce the damage they cause.

I agree. Hold on while I count my many, many votes...

[Angus French]

One of the things that frustrates me most (and I have met some of them) are those who hold multiple votes, do not consult anyone and then vote selfishly for their own benefit.

It staggers me that this nonsense continues and that Council is prepared to do precisely nothing about it ostrich style.

Limiting these fools to one vote each will it least reduce the damage they cause.

The ECF is a limited company and restricted by company law which allows for proxies.

A related - and longstanding - issue is representatives who don't turn up and don't appoint a proxy or direct their vote(s).

[David Sedgwick]

Michael Farthing is a man of the utmost integrity.

I agree. I unreservedly withdraw any imputation to the contrary.

As far as I can see the bye-law doesn't specify a timeframe for circulation of the agenda, although I might have missed it.

This is covered in the Article 20 of the Articles of the Association, the first sentence of which reads:

"An Annual General Meeting, a Finance Council Meeting and a meeting called for the passing of one or more special resolutions shall be called by twenty one clear days’ notice in writing at the least, and a meeting of the Company other than an Annual General Meeting, a Finance Council meeting or a meeting for the passing of a special resolution shall be called by fourteen clear days' notice in writing at the least."

Michael Farthing's proposed timetable is entirely in accordance with the Articles and the Bye-Laws. However, it is a marked divergence from past practice. As I said previously, I hope that he will reconsider.

... if there is a governance issue it should be raised appropriately.

I am no longer a member of Council and I will leave it to someone who is to do that if they wish. I have had my say.

[JustinHorton]

At the end of the day, the question "we used to do it this way, is there any reason why we now do it that way" really isn't all that controversial and could probably be posed and entertained with a little less palaver, no?