It's actually the Company Secretary who does that. Personally, I wouldn't mind a bit of inefficiency over issuing invoicesNick Grey wrote:Personally I'd rather Governance/Finance Committee gave us our invoices as associations & leagues particularly last years non-members, then we can ask those members why. It is a bit late but is not making it easy for volunteers. Not blaming anyone but they are late.
, as I got our league's invoice on 21 September.I spotted one of the Directors logged into this forum during the meeting.Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Or maybe those in the rooms using phones were actually reading this forum and John Philpott's live updates from the back of the room?
Strictly speaking it is the Financial Controller, but you might reasonably regard that as a distinction without a difference.It's actually the Company Secretary who does that
David Robertson on the official forum wrote:You rose to your prompt with the most disgusting, unprincipled, and thoroughly dishonourable attack on a fellow volunteer that I have ever heard. You compounded it with mendacity. You abused your position of trust. You betrayed your fellow committee members with a display of egotistic self-regard that violated every principle of decency and common purpose. You violated every principle of Good Governance. You are in every inch a thorough-going disgrace. You are forever and henceforth stained, contaminated and condemned.
Chris Kreuzer wrote:Hang on a minute. The quote is from here:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... =461#p3526
David Robertson (if I may name him as the person you are quoting - not sure why the name is being omitted?) said that Chris Majer rose to his prompt. The preceding sentence (which you didn't quote) makes clear that David thinks this was a prompt from Stewart Reuben ("when helped along by Stewart Reuben"). I was sitting in front of Stewart and not far away from David.
My recollection is that Stewart proposed to the Chair (Julian Clissold) that before the series of election addresses, the meeting should discuss the board as a whole to try and address the matter of board dysfunction. The Chair asked Council for a show of hands as to whether this would be an appropriate way to proceed. Council assented by a show of hands. There was a brief discussion which was guillotined (cut short by the Chair) as it was focusing too much on Phil Ehr's conduct/performance and not the rest of the board (I may not have this bit precisely correct). This was followed by the election addresses (which were done as a whole before voting took place). Chris Majer's interjection (calling for the CEO not to be re-elected and that he would resign if Phil Ehr were re-elected) came at the point in the proceedings where he was giving his election address, IIRC. Do I have that right?
The Chair did call on the other members of the Governance Committee to say whether they agreed with their chair and/or if they would also resign or not if that eventuality came to pass (Andrew Leadbetter, Mike Gunn, David Robertson, and Richard Haddrell). I hope those responses were recorded in the minutes (I don't recall precisely what each member said).
I’d like to add to Chris K’s recollection. The discussion which Stewart Reuben suggested was not so much to discuss Board dis-function but rather, if I remember, to discuss which candidates would be prepared to work with which other candidates. There was a vote on whether this should be allowed and the result was ten for and ten against (with at least one Governance Committee member on each side). The Chair said he would allow a short discussion. At the end of this the Chair said he would allow Council members to ask candidates, during their election speeches (all the speeches came before the voting), who they wouldn’t be prepared to work with. Questions of this type were put at least to Phil Ehr and David Openshaw (neither was keen to work with the other). Chris Majer, in his speech and I think without a prompting question, asked Council not to elect Phil. He then said ‘If you elect Phil, don’t elect me’. He also said something to the effect that if Phil wasn’t elected he believed the Board would be able to find a Chief Executive.David Robertson wrote:The question whether other members of the GC would follow the Chair in resigning came, not from the chair of the meeting, but from John Reyes (I believe). The chair of the meeting invited a response, not least because I was urgently seeking to give one. I'll be honest: I was in some shock at the turn of events. And I said so: "alarmed and disappointed"..."new information (threat to resign) not previously shared with GC"..."I'd supported re-election of PE but not resignation of CM"....moreover "the GC chair's report was not the Committee's report; it was the chair's alone"..."had it been the Committee's, I reasonably believed it would have been more restrained". I ended there, still in shock. Andrew Martin whispered: "you didn't see that coming?" "No", I replied, "why, did you?" Andrew just laughed: "God, no, of course not". None did - except those that knew. Of other members of the GC, I don't recall any comments. But, by then, I wasn't listening. I'd lost the will to live.
Angus, I can confirm your observations at the meeting. The vote was tied (10 all) and I noted that the Chairman had originally voted against but allowed the discussion proposed by Stewart Reuben to go ahead. It didn't lead anywhere and the Chairman was forced to bring it to a halt.Angus French wrote: Martin Regan wasn’t at the meeting. I think what David Robertson wrote on the other forum is far too strong.
Chris & AngusAngus French wrote:Chris Kreuzer wrote:Hang on a minute. The quote is from here:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... =461#p3526
David Robertson (if I may name him as the person you are quoting - not sure why the name is being omitted?) said that Chris Majer rose to his prompt. The preceding sentence (which you didn't quote) makes clear that David thinks this was a prompt from Stewart Reuben ("when helped along by Stewart Reuben"). I was sitting in front of Stewart and not far away from David.
My recollection is that Stewart proposed to the Chair (Julian Clissold) that before the series of election addresses, the meeting should discuss the board as a whole to try and address the matter of board dysfunction. The Chair asked Council for a show of hands as to whether this would be an appropriate way to proceed. Council assented by a show of hands. There was a brief discussion which was guillotined (cut short by the Chair) as it was focusing too much on Phil Ehr's conduct/performance and not the rest of the board (I may not have this bit precisely correct). This was followed by the election addresses (which were done as a whole before voting took place). Chris Majer's interjection (calling for the CEO not to be re-elected and that he would resign if Phil Ehr were re-elected) came at the point in the proceedings where he was giving his election address, IIRC. Do I have that right?
The Chair did call on the other members of the Governance Committee to say whether they agreed with their chair and/or if they would also resign or not if that eventuality came to pass (Andrew Leadbetter, Mike Gunn, David Robertson, and Richard Haddrell). I hope those responses were recorded in the minutes (I don't recall precisely what each member said).I’d like to add to Chris K’s recollection. The discussion which Stewart Reuben suggested was not so much to discuss Board dis-function but rather, if I remember, to discuss which candidates would be prepared to work with which other candidates. There was a vote on whether this should be allowed and the result was ten for and ten against (with at least one Governance Committee member on each side). The Chair said he would allow a short discussion. At the end of this the Chair said he would allow Council members to ask candidates, during their election speeches (all the speeches came before the voting), who they wouldn’t be prepared to work with. Questions of this type were put at least to Phil Ehr and David Openshaw (neither was keen to work with the other). Chris Majer, in his speech and I think without a prompting question, asked Council not to elect Phil. He then said ‘If you elect Phil, don’t elect me’. He also said something to the effect that if Phil wasn’t elected he believed the Board would be able to find a Chief Executive.David Robertson wrote:The question whether other members of the GC would follow the Chair in resigning came, not from the chair of the meeting, but from John Reyes (I believe). The chair of the meeting invited a response, not least because I was urgently seeking to give one. I'll be honest: I was in some shock at the turn of events. And I said so: "alarmed and disappointed"..."new information (threat to resign) not previously shared with GC"..."I'd supported re-election of PE but not resignation of CM"....moreover "the GC chair's report was not the Committee's report; it was the chair's alone"..."had it been the Committee's, I reasonably believed it would have been more restrained". I ended there, still in shock. Andrew Martin whispered: "you didn't see that coming?" "No", I replied, "why, did you?" Andrew just laughed: "God, no, of course not". None did - except those that knew. Of other members of the GC, I don't recall any comments. But, by then, I wasn't listening. I'd lost the will to live.
Did what Chris said constitute an ‘attack’? It’s not a word I would use to describe it - perhaps because I don’t recall that Chris was specifically critical of Phil. I was a little surprised though – but this was because my immediate thought was that he (Chris) wouldn’t be elected; the majority would want to vote for Phil and would therefore now be compelled to vote against Chris. David Robertson and Ben Edgell both expressed surprise about Chris had said. David accurately records what he said above. Ben said he wished he’d known of Chris’s position so that he could have consulted those for which he was acting as a proxy. A thought occurred to me when Ben spoke: hadn’t Chris flagged his position previously, in his written report? Well, maybe not but he did say ‘It seems plain that we cannot re-elect the same team as they seem to be incapable of working with each other’. And there was criticism of the CEO on two matters (and also criticism of David Openshaw).
Martin Regan wasn’t at the meeting. I think what David Robertson wrote on the other forum is far too strong.
And that , rather than the result of the vote, is at the heart of this particular thread.I think that Chris failed to understand that as chairman of the governance committee he should not have allowed his personal opinion to have clouded his judgement. This episode highlights the danger of a former chief executive taking on another role and still expect to be able to exert the same influence that he had previously.
He failed to understand that the governance committee is an advisory body. The recipient always has the prerogative of accepting or ignoring the advice being proffered and it is not acceptable for the advice to be accompanied with a threat of resignation.
It's an interesting question as to what extent feedback from those intermittently checking on the meeting progress has on the meeting itself. So if a particularly controversial proposal is put forward, does "the Forums say no" have any impact? The official ECF website slowed to a crawl during the period of the meeting where officer's reports were being considered. Coincidence, or people at the meeting saving paper by reading them off the website?Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Or maybe those in the rooms using phones were actually reading this forum and John Philpott's live updates from the back of the room?
Here worked of course.MartinCarpenter wrote:I'd rather hope the ECF's servers could comfortably cope from the load generated by an AGM's worth of people!
(Local wifi struggling would be much more plausible.).