English Chess Forum

Rather than continue the live coverage thread, or get too involved in the governance thread, I thought it might be an idea to have an 'aftermath' thread relating to the ECF AGM.

One point I noticed on the ECF website:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/platinum ... entatives/

"Following the ballot of Platinum members, David Fryer and David Smith have been elected to serve as representatives for the class for 2015/16. These appointments take effect from the conclusion of today’s ECF Annual General Meeting."

Congratulations to them. Were the other member reps up for election?

Platinum: Peter J. B. Wilson, <vacant>
Gold: William Armstrong, Robert Thompson
Silver: John Wickham, <vacant>
Bronze: Angus French, <vacant>

[I see that, sadly, the Peter Wilson who was the Platinum rep was the same Peter Wilson who passed away recently, RIP. ]

That is from a page describing the pre-AGM status, so not sure if the Gold and Silver and Bronze member reps were up for election and whether they have changed or not.

I was going to post the full votes here, but I can't find them anywhere official yet.

I find it strange that two positions are vacant. When was the last attempt to fill them?

Chris

it would be useful to have feedback from you, and others who were at the AGM, about the events and how it would appear things will go from here (e.g. was there post-meeting discussion about the vacant posts?)

You might not want it on this thread, that's up to you

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:That is from a page describing the pre-AGM status, so not sure if the Gold and Silver and Bronze member reps were up for election and whether they have changed or not.

They were up for election, but the number of candidates was less than or equal to the number of people to be appointed in all categories other than Platinum, so no election was required. (Slightly odd, I suppose, that you can vote for "None of the above" is some elections, but not for member representatives.)

From my notes and pulling together all the results posted elsewhere, the contested election results or where an uncontested election was lost to "none of the above", the numbers were:

Chief Executive Officer: Phil Ehr 119, Not this candidate 172 [total = 291]
Director of Home Chess: Alex Holowczak 250, John Foley 42 [total = 292]
Director of International Chess: David Openshaw 141, Malcolm Pein 139 [total = 280]
Commercial Director: Bob Kane 74, Not this candidate 226 [total = 300]
Non-Executive Directors: Julian Clissold 269; Julie Denning 281; Jack Rudd 22 [total = unknown?]

More here:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 20#p166425

President: Dominic Lawson 295, none opposed
Director of Finance: David Eustace 286, Not this candidate 9 [total = 295]
Director of Junior Chess & Education: Traci Whitfield 295, none opposed
Director of Membership: Dave Thomas 295, none opposed
FIDE Delegate: Malcolm Pein 295, none opposed (TBC)
Chairman of Governance Committee: Chris Majer ???, Not this candidate 44 [total = unknown?]
Any other elections: "all for"

One query: the non-contested elections with no dissenting votes appear to be 295 for, but the totals add up to less than that in some of the elections, and to more than that in one (Commercial Director). Abstentions in the lower totals, but can anyone explain why the total is 300 for the Commercial Director post?

EDIT: OK, from the voting register: "Grand Total: 324 votes (4 of which are subject to the Board admitting organisations to membership)".

Addendum: As Ben Edgell noted elsewhere, the results were rushed, but thanks should be given to the tellers who had the task of adding everything up from the sheets of paper on which the votes were recorded. I suspect (hope) the delay was for a recount for the results from the International Director vote.

Mick Norris wrote:Chris

it would be useful to have feedback from you, and others who were at the AGM, about the events and how it would appear things will go from here (e.g. was there post-meeting discussion about the vacant posts?)

You might not want it on this thread, that's up to you

Some people stayed and discussed things. Some left fairly quickly, incuding me, so someone else will have to say if there was any post-AGM discussion. It was certainly outside the meeting itself, which finished dead on 18:30 as John Philpott noted.

I don't have much to add to what I said here:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 35#p166456

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
One point I noticed on the ECF website:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/platinum ... entatives/

"Following the ballot of Platinum members, David Fryer and David Smith have been elected to serve as representatives for the class for 2015/16. These appointments take effect from the conclusion of today’s ECF Annual General Meeting."

Congratulations to them. Were the other member reps up for election?

The new direct member representatives in other classes are here:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/direct-m ... more-34460
Only Bronze now has a vacancy.

Given that the shape of the new elected groups/board are now known, it might be useful for the ECF to immediately advertise the remaining vacant positions. These should be open to all members, including past incumbents (of various positions), to try to fill these posts..

There must be a fair few potential candidates for these posts, and it would certainly be good to see some new faces on board..
An injection of more `youth` to the team might not go amiss....

I still believe the board should be increased in number, maybe along lines suggested by MR, to create a stronger, more representative voice at our top tier, and maybe to help moderate some of the more draconian elements.

My one concern is about the character assassination that takes place on this forum and elsewhere.
Our representatives should be able to make mistakes without being shot to pieces by the numpties/muppits and other armchair experts out there.
And to give second chances to those who do fall down in some aspects is always worth baring in mind... to Ehr is human..... and DR is by no means divine!
There must be scope of alternative views, provided voting on key issues is held fairly and openly, and no-one should be able to ride rough shot and railroad through there `agendas`, without being subject to full scrutiny and board approval.
I have said that OMOV would be a useful option, if introduced in a phased manner. Hopefully this will be possible via online voting, and not thwarted by corporate restrictions. I favour a proportionate scheme, blending the delegate votes with `weighted` online votes...

Noting this here as well:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/internat ... -election/

Above I said "...the results were rushed, but thanks should be given to the tellers who had the task of adding everything up from the sheets of paper on which the votes were recorded. I suspect (hope) the delay was for a recount for the results from the International Director vote."

It turns out the delay wasn't for a recount, and the count was rushed and announced wrongly, so the tellers deserve less thanks than before (though still some thanks). There were two tellers. The un-named teller who suggested a recount does deserve praise.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Above I said "...the results were rushed, but thanks should be given to the tellers who had the task of adding everything up from the sheets of paper on which the votes were recorded.

I know it goes against the philosophies of the governing nexus, but in retrospect setting up a spreadsheet to correlate the results might have made some sense. That at least would have made it easier to cross check that the voting totals added back to the expected electorate, that all voting papers were accounted for or even that they were added up correctly. But perhaps they did.

I believe John Foley has Tweeted that Chris Fegan has stepped down:

https://twitter.com/ChessScholar

More departures to follow?

benedgell wrote:I believe John Foley has Tweeted that Chris Fegan has stepped down:

https://twitter.com/ChessScholar

Specifically

https://twitter.com/ChessScholar/status ... 5837615104

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Noting this here as well:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/internat ... -election/

Above I said "...the results were rushed, but thanks should be given to the tellers who had the task of adding everything up from the sheets of paper on which the votes were recorded. I suspect (hope) the delay was for a recount for the results from the International Director vote."

It turns out the delay wasn't for a recount, and the count was rushed and announced wrongly, so the tellers deserve less thanks than before (though still some thanks). There were two tellers. The un-named teller who suggested a recount does deserve praise.

John Wickham & Andrew Leadbetter (who is on the Governance Committee)

JustinHorton wrote:

benedgell wrote:I believe John Foley has Tweeted that Chris Fegan has stepped down:

https://twitter.com/ChessScholar

Specifically

https://twitter.com/ChessScholar/status ... 5837615104

The retirement of the legal advisor was not unexpected and a new one is in place. That is not one of the headline items.