+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: AGM Election Results (/thread-696.html)
Re: AGM Election Results - WBuchanan - 26-08-2013
Jim – I’ve heard tales about bits of wood somewhere, but do you have any evidence
Hi MIke you say “The big problem we have is that many people only accept decisions/results that go their way. If you sign up to a process then I think you are obliged to accept the results unless one has solid evidence of serious malpractice.”
Why all this negativity Mike...anyway, I didn’t vote for either presidential candidate so my view has nothing to do with the results. How can you say that, when you admit you don’t know or care if Steve has valid points or not? Either engage with the points of discussion or don’t, but don’t try to shelve it with all this mood music. We are supposed to respect each others viewpoints - that surely includes what topics they want to discuss? Something to refelct on..
Re: AGM Election Results - Patrick McGovern - 26-08-2013
Steve dont complain about having to defend yourself when you make sweeping statements that are very negative about CS
e.g.
Quote:That does not make for a fair election.
Quote:Other CS officials also carried substantial proxy votes such as the treasurer.yet you actively sought proxy votes, sour grapes because you received none.
I myself carried no proxy votes.
Quote:The meeting was very poorly handled by the President.yet others said he did a good job in difficult circumstances
Quote:CS in generally intolerant of those who speak their own mindshardly conciliatory!
Quote:The elections for the for individual members were a total farce.likewise!
Quote:The Standards Committee : This committee in my view has no credibilityditto!
Quote:I do have the right to ask question how the vote was obtainedduplicitous given you and others on your behalf actively sought the same votes.
Quote:but I remain unconvinced that CS will listen.not subtle.
Quote:if someone attacks me then I will defend myselfyet you moan when others assert the same right you do.
Steve you have done yourself no favours in this thread, maybe least said soonest mended. Also note none of your supporters are on here backing you, maybe another message in that. To finish, Steve you do have some respect in CS do not lose that by continuing your protestations against a comprehensive defeat.
Re: AGM Election Results - Mike Scott - 26-08-2013
Steve,
I said it 'read like sour grapes'. Perhaps that was not your intention (and I will accept that is the case) but it clearly does to me and I suspect many others. Any way finito.
Re: AGM Election Results - amuir - 26-08-2013
Steve
I was very fortunate that at the AGM, after I was voted out, some friends said some very kind words about me and made me feel better.
I remember that after you were voted out in 2009, directors continued to attack you in a vicious and cruel way.
Please realise that I don't think that was right and I hope you are better treated at the IBCA.
Re: AGM Election Results - StevieHilton - 26-08-2013
Andy,
I thank you for the kind words.
I know that you disagreed with my treatment in 2009.
I am happy now I am a freeman once again.
I will be continuing my work for the IBCA. From October, I will be entering my 6th year as Secretary General.
Re: AGM Election Results - WBuchanan - 26-08-2013
I think we’ve all seen the email from Mick soliciting proxies from Steve by now, and I can understand how it would have put the wind up the execs, as Mick has shown he has some pulling power in the past. Whether Steve knew about it or not, I would say their counter-reaction in those circumstances is understandable and probably legit. Perhaps Steve might consider dropping this particular point?
My issue with the proxies is that while they seemed (in some cases) to have been solicited en masse for the purpose of 'stopping Steve from stopping Hamish' (yes I know it sounds comical) some such proxies were actually also used to unseat someone else. I only mention this again because that was one of Steve’s original points and it is not invalidated by any ‘counterattack’ on Steve. It’s not the only point Steve has made that I agree with, but that has been blamed on Steve’s ‘sour grapes’ without being engaged with.
On which… in other forums I have been on, trying to dismiss people’s views by second-guessing their motivation is against the rules. Can’t be followed 100% obviously, but can I suggest this is quite a good general rule?
Re: AGM Election Results - David Deary - 26-08-2013
I note from earlier in this topic and I agree that proxy votes need to be looked at and will be interested to see what the Working Party proposes. I have opted to show how I voted in the particularly controversial vote for the International Director and to get some discussion going on how proxy votes could look going forward.
In the first vote pertaining to Andy I voted against him as I felt when asked about his conduct he was not contrite and his answer was a little arrogant. I used my own personal vote and two proxys who I had discussed the elections/motions at length with and were comfortable for me to vote that way. My remaining proxys (nine) were not used to vote against Andy. I effectively abstained with these votes.
Subsequently, in the second vote after the break for lunch I voted in favour of Andy after he had given an answer where I felt he was contrite and he would improve his future conduct. I also feel that everyone should have a second chance and Andy had done enough to convince me that he had learnt from his mistakes. I voted in favour of his candidacy personally and with the eleven proxy votes I had been entrusted.
In terms of the proxy votes I held: four were for clubmates who could not attend, five from close friends from Ayrshire, Stirling and England who could not attend and one affiliate vote for the Ayrshire Chess Association who asked me to represent them and one club vote for Stewarton Chess Club who also asked me to represent them. Three of the proxy votes were prescriptive where I was instructed how to vote and the remainder were open where the votee had specified in writing that I could vote on their behalf on all matters.
I have also produced a document summarising the AGM from my perspective that I will be sending to each individual/organisation that entrusted me with their vote.
Edit to add: I am not suggesting everyone in attendance at the AGM discloses how they voted with their proxies but I have shown how I voted on this issue and it can be used as an illustrative example for discussion.
Re: AGM Election Results - Hugh Brechin - 26-08-2013
Quote:My issue with the proxies is that while they seemed (in some cases) to have been solicited en masse for the purpose of 'stopping Steve from stopping Hamish' (yes I know it sounds comical) some such proxies were actually also used to unseat someone else. I only mention this again because that was one of Steve’s original points and it is not invalidated by any ‘counterattack’ on Steve. It’s not the only point Steve has made that I agree with, but that has been blamed on Steve’s ‘sour grapes’ without being engaged with.
The point about proxies being used for purposes other than those solicited is a fair one, though it's worth noting that Andy's defeat in the first ballot certainly wasn't solely down to proxies. Like David (and Calum), I didn't use mine for that ballot, because I felt that wasn't the purpose for which they were intended, but I'm uncomfortable with criticising people too stingingly for using open proxies as they see fit under the rules as they stand - if you want a level of control over what the person entrusted with your proxy is voting for, don't give them an open proxy, or at least accompany the proxy with some directions as to how it is and is not to be used - but I agree that this situation was far from ideal, and I hope we see signficant reform of this area in the review.
I'm not sure Steve's points haven't been engaged with in general. There have certainly been a number of posts which haven't been very substantive, but I think a reasonable number of posters have sought to discuss the issues he's raised.
Re: AGM Election Results - Ianbrownlee - 26-08-2013
just to add my piece regarding proxy votes
1. I agree it should be a separate thread and we should all contribute constructively In the Lanarkshire chess league we don't allow proxy votes. In agreement with all member clubs two or three years ago we agreed that all member clubs have up to two delegate voters, if the club sent one delegate they had one vote and if no delegates no vote. I appreciate Lanarkshire is a relatively small area and this works. may I suggest a voting form is set up via the member page (using login and password) and this is used for members who cannot attend. Unfortunately if any voting is required for matters which are brought up at the AGM e.g election of officials,AOCB or anything else then I'm afraid either a live vote from the internet (e.g Skype) or a vote by attending members is required. I've never been a fan of proxy votes as I believe it can be potentially troublesome
Also for the record as Stephen's campaign manager I was never aware of anyone soliciting proxy votes for Stephen and anyone who knows me knows me I personally don't like them although I presently see them as a necessary evil for those who couldn't attend. I'm looking forward to the working party getting to a solution and I very much want to be part of that
Overall the AGM and elections were run fairly, especially with the rules at the time. We all agree the rules have to be improved over the next year. I am going to post my thoughts on the AGM next sorry about the long post
Re: AGM Election Results - Alex Gillies - 26-08-2013
Following Up on Davids' proxy point:
Before that I did not like the challenge of Andy Howie's membership lapse meaning ,potentially, Hamish nomination was invalid- people need to be more sporting and play fair.
I had 8 proxy - 3 as a parent and 3 from Wm Hulme and 2 from Mark Sanger. The main purpose was to vote on the presidency. I ignored solicited proxy's as they were not worded very well. In terms of the vote for presidency we changed who we were voting for several times over last 3 weeks as we had some reservations on both Hamish and Steve. We concluded that our heart said vote for Steve and our head said Hamish- so that's what we voted for.
On Andy's first vote I personally voted for Andy and did not use any proxy. I wasn't aware of anything specific to the elected post that Andy did wrong. Also surely Andy doing the job is better than no one?
I was disappointed that Dick used 56 proxy votes against Andy and said so straight away. It would seem to be within the rules but potentially underhand unless he did two things: 1) Had express permission from each and every proxy to vote Andy out.( I would be surprised if he did) and 2) Announced at least a week before the AGM that he was challenging Andy's position with reasons. This allows a response from Andy and also voters to clarify proxy on that subject
Second vote I decided to use my proxy for Andy - arithmetically to give him a chance and because Andy did back down. Tom spoke well of Andy but I already had those views on Andy. Interestingly, after I voted Dick did not use his Proxy against Andy - personally I think that was because of the mood change and recognition that perhaps it was not fair nor popular.
Ironically I think the process has helped Andy.