AGM : 15 October 2011

[John Upham]

The two candidates for Junior Director are now having the opportunity to address the meeting.

And the URL for the live web cam feed is?

The 'ammers (Alf Garnett would love that) are leading The Tangerines by one goal to zero apparently.

[John Philpott]

West Ham 1 (Carew 12) Blackpool 0. Get in there!

Both Junior Director candidates coming across very well.

[John Upham]

West Ham 1 (Carew 12) Blackpool 0. Get in there!

Both Junior Director candidates coming across very well.

Will Tim Woolgar be demonstrating his preferred form of chess to the meeting?

[Sean Hewitt]

Has the live feed gone down?:-)

[John Philpott]

West Ham 2 (Carew 12, Baldock 47) Blackpool 0.

Two card votes for the elections were counted during the tea break (the break in transmission arose because the source of the live feed was busy counting).

Junior Director: Sabrina Chevannes 91, Phil Ehr 107 Neither candidate 4, Spoiled ballot paper 1, Absententions 3

Marketing Director: Tim Woolgar 95. Not this candidate 89, Abstentions 6.

Phil Ehr and Tim Woolgar duly elected.

Prior to the tea break the remaining unopposed candidates were re-elected, with 1 directed proxy against Andrew Leadbetter as a member of the Governance Committee.

Mike Truran has expressed an interest in the vacant post of Finance Committee Chairman, and the Board is minded to appoint him (Mike's interest in the position came to light too late for the AGM nomination timetable). Council was happy for the Board to so proceed.

[John Philpott]

and so to the debate on the funding of the English Chess Federation. Meanwhile

West Ham 4 (Carew 12, Baldock 47, 51, Collison 55) Blackpool 0.

I am delighted at the score but sorrier with each goal that goes in to be missing this.

[John Upham]

Marketing Director: Tim Woolgar 95. Not this candidate 89, abstentions 15.

Close, but no cigar!

[John Philpott]

The abstentions for Tim Woolgar (which represent the directed proxies not cast for either of the options plus one explicit abstention on a voting card - there may have been others in the room that did not return voting cards) were overstated in my initial post - now corrected from 15 to 6.

[David Robertson]

Sterling work by John Philpott here, for which many thanks.

Interesting outcome to the elections. I assume Council feels there are already too many women & ethnic minorities on the Board. Time to give some middle-aged white blokes a go for a change

[John Upham]

Sterling work by John Philpott here, for which many thanks.

Interesting outcome to the elections. I assume Council feels there are already too many women & ethnic minorities on the Board. Time to give some middle-aged white blokes a go for a change

We ought to get Sarah Hursts views on your thoughts David!

Better get into the gym I guess...

[Alex Holowczak]

Membership proposals:

Bye Law 1: 137 for, 57 against
Bye Law 2: 134 for, 61 against

Article change 1: 184 for, 22 against
Article change 2: 156 for, 23 against

The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Sterling work by John Philpott here, for which many thanks.

Agreed. The election for some positions have been reported with votes for/none of the above/abstentions quoted. If there's a spare moment can we have a similar breakdown for some of the other positions. By which I mean the president, of course.


Anyway, thanks for the updates.



J

[Sean Hewitt]

Membership proposals:

Bye Law 1: 137 for, 57 against
Bye Law 2: 134 for, 61 against

Article change 1: 184 for, 22 against
Article change 2: 156 for, 23 against

The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

I think that's a shade over 70%.

[David Sedgwick]

The election for some positions have been reported with votes for/none of the above/abstentions quoted. If there's a spare moment can we have a similar breakdown for some of the other positions. By which I mean the president, of course.

I rather think not. Unless a card vote was taken, the figures won't be known.

[John Upham]

Membership proposals:

Bye Law 1: 137 for, 57 against
Bye Law 2: 134 for, 61 against

Article change 1: 184 for, 22 against
Article change 2: 156 for, 23 against

The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

I think that's a shade over 70%.

I suppose we are duty bound to get the opinion (yawn!) of our Bourne End correspondent on this matter.

Possibly I can guess the reply will echo the opinion of Private Fraser...

Is this end of the debate or merely the end of the beginning?