+- 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 - Ianbrownlee - 26-08-2013
AGM thoughts
I've posted these separately and I am trying to be positive about this but I feel constructive criticism is always good. This may sound like a ramble so I apologize for that
1. Several people got upset at the AGM for the wrong reasons. I feel there was an "us and them mentality" caused by people who had preconceptions of what they thought was going on and what was going to happen. Now the AGM is approx. 75% over can we all take a step back and reflect
2. Mistakes were made at the AGM, we all know that, so what! let move on
3. With hindsight, not enough time was given to the motions, never mind the proposed time which would have been given to AOCB
4. I would like to know from Hamish if he has finished his explanation on why Robert's motions were rejected. Personally I thought Hamish should have posted his reasons on the Internet although I understand his reasons why.
5. There was a lot of confusion at times, for example the moving about of motions ( although I again understand why and maybe this should have been addressed earlier when the agenda was composed ) There was also confusion when members tried to address the floor at the seemingly wrong time (e.g when Chris tried to address Dick ) Was Dick correct to repeatedly tell Chris to shut up in that manner (my opinion is the president should have addressed the interruption by pointing out Chris was out of order (if he was)
6. We have new directors, existing directors and a re-elected director by local vote, all brilliant. Lets see how we are moving forward in the next few months. I bet right now the youngsters will show us oldies what maturity is all about and lets give them all the help and support they need. I know I will
7. We still have to finish of the AGM under current rules
Re: AGM Election Results - Patrick McGovern - 26-08-2013
well said ian/walter/hugh; maybe a good place to move on? I agree with earlier posters about the youthful directors, onward and upward. =)
Re: AGM Election Results - Gerald Lobley - 26-08-2013
I have already written to those who entrusted me with their proxy votes detailing the main outcomes and have no difficulty following David D’s example of revealing my actions. First, the votes were solicited from known contacts (so no general mailshot) with about 40% agreeing. No juniors or their parents/guardians were approached. Second, I wrote that the intention was to gain support for Motion 2.4 and also support of the motions submitted by Sean Milton. Third, I thought these objectives were best achieved by re-election of the current President. It goes without saying if someone had replied they would support my motion but wished to vote for Steve H then I would have split the votes accordingly, as others did at the meeting. Fourth, I also wanted to support the new candidates for the junior Director positions and the Marketing Director. Fifth, and importantly, I was entrusted with a ‘carte blanche’ by everyone who replied.
In practice, I only used the proxy for the Presidential election and support of motions 2.4 and 2.5 – most of the other votes were clearly overwhelming and there was no need for proxies to be used.
For the Andy M vote I did not use the proxies (as I felt these were outwith the remit I outlined when asking for the proxies). I did cast my personal vote against Andy on the initial ID candidature as I felt a number of his blogs had propagated incorrect information and were worded in an inflammatory manner. As we have seen within this set of postings it is not just what you say but how you say it (or how it is perceived to have been said) that can make all the difference. Such actions help fuel the flames of discord with CS. When he was proposed again and without any other candidate standing I decided to abstain. If my recollection is correct the votes of those present favoured Andy by just 1, so if I had stayed with my original vote there would have been a tie and in fact he would have been elected based on the proxy votes! So proxies can work in various ways. Let me add that I was pleased to see some of the comments Andy has written since and hope that he can remain true to his promise as this will benefit CS in many ways.
We do need a separate and logical discussion on the proxy situation. There is not a perfect solution, if there were then it would already be adopted universally. Let me make a couple of points. The suggestion has been made to limit the number of proxies based on geography. While I understand the concept, it presupposes that the AGM (or any other similar meeting) will be held a long way from Aberdeen (and places even further north). The organisation name is Chess Scotland – not Chess Central Belt! I spent 4 hours travelling each way to reach the meeting and donated £72 to Scotrail for the privilege. Now reverse the argument and ask how many of you would have come to Aberdeen for the AGM? If you reply ‘all of you’ then that is next year’s venue fixed! Only Sean and his family plus myself made the trek as there were specific issues we wanted to raise or support. So if we carry just a few votes each then you effectively disenfranchise other members from the north and north-east of Scotland. That is both unethical and unconstitutional. So that is not a real solution, although I do understand the reasoning. That is why we need a considered debate on the options – just remember none will be ideal so limitations in any method will have to be accepted.
Finally, while on the point of regionalisation did any of the elections lead to anyone north of Dundee being on Council? OK, Sean, Carl or myself could have proposed a candidate for the individual positions but I sat there thinking surely someone will consider whether the whole of Scotland is included. Nae chance, as this tcheuchter Sassenach has learned to say. Perhaps something also for the Constitutional review to consider?
Re: AGM Election Results - Clement Sreeves - 26-08-2013
Am I the only one who finds it a bit strange that juniors under the age of say 16 have a vote at the AGM?
Re: AGM Election Results - WBuchanan - 26-08-2013
Thanks guys for the thoughtful posts. Most people seemed to use their proxies responsibly in the Andy M vote. The second half of this discussion has restored my faith and it would have been a pity if it had been shut down.
True Hugh, some of Steve’s points have been addressed but the fact that unaddressed ones like the handling of the meeting by the president were still being flung back at Steve grated on my pedantic brain eg the criticism of the chair was that it wasn’t a fair job, and the CS composition. Also Steve had to deal with some unreasonable flak, IMO.
I wasn’t meaning my criticism of one official to be stinging. I just thought the point should be acknowledged by those castigating others for their behaviour – however, many others have now acknowledged it.
Final word as I’ve said quite enough: though ‘bad behaviour’ does exist, it is often borne of frustration, and not every heated discussion should be dismissed because of the heat. I think we should remember that officials have more power and influence than ordinary members, and often find ways to evade or dodge a point, or even an entire issue. Members often have to shout, or exaggerate perhaps, in order to be heard. One has to use judgement of course; but if questions are held to an absolute standard of ‘behaviour’, then accountability suffers as it is no longer a level playing field. There would then be no need to answer members questions!
Does this actually happen? I’m moving on…
Re: AGM Election Results - Andrew McHarg - 26-08-2013
Perhaps the fairest method of proxy voting would be to have a standardised (unbiased) form that's sent to every member prior to a meeting, with a note explaining how it can be used to vote on particular motions/candidates. A copy of the candidates and their manifestos, along with any motions would also be sent. Responses are then returned to a designated person and cast at the AGM appropriately. After the AGM a list of who voted (and how they voted) is published to ensure clarity and transparency. With this method it's more likely that the motions/candidates which are most popular will be voted in, rather than the motions/candidates who had the most aggressive vote soliciting process.
Re: AGM Election Results - StevieHilton - 26-08-2013
Andrew McHarg Wrote:Perhaps the fairest method of proxy voting would be to have a standardised (unbiased) form that's sent to every member prior to a meeting, with a note explaining how it can be used to vote on particular motions/candidates. A copy of the candidates and their manifestos, along with any motions would also be sent. Responses are then returned to a designated person and cast at the AGM appropriately. After the AGM a list of who voted (and how they voted) is published to ensure clarity and transparency. With this method it's more likely that the motions/candidates which are most popular will be voted in, rather than the motions/candidates who had the most aggressive vote soliciting process.
Andrew,
I would support this 100%. This would make things much fairer
Re: AGM Election Results - P Griffin - 26-08-2013
Fairer but also quite expensive for CS
Re: AGM Election Results - Ianbrownlee - 26-08-2013
Andrew McHarg Wrote:Perhaps the fairest method of proxy voting would be to have a standardised (unbiased) form that's sent to every member prior to a meeting, with a note explaining how it can be used to vote on particular motions/candidates. A copy of the candidates and their manifestos, along with any motions would also be sent. Responses are then returned to a designated person and cast at the AGM appropriately. After the AGM a list of who voted (and how they voted) is published to ensure clarity and transparency. With this method it's more likely that the motions/candidates which are most popular will be voted in, rather than the motions/candidates who had the most aggressive vote soliciting process.
even better the form is sent straight to the executive committee from the voter up to say three days before an AGM. That way the proxy would not be seen as being controlled by the person carrying the vote. Any vote for motions brought up unexpectedly (i.e. not on the form) would then be seen as an open vote which would be indicated as such on the form. The voting form of intent would be seen as discouraging blind open voting. To be honest how can be some one carrying a large number of proxy votes truly know how to vote on something unexpected such as what happened to the international director vote. I certainly had no idea what was going happen and I'm sure I wasn't alone there. If something like that happens again i'm afraid the best option is to trust the delgates who are there and are able to gauge what to do
Re: AGM Election Results - Ianbrownlee - 26-08-2013
P Griffin Wrote:Fairer but also quite expensive for CSi'm not so sure that is the case and given the seriousness of what happened I think this has to be looked at. I still think a voting form either on the website with username/password authentication or using existing technology such as Outlook or similar voting buttons could go a long way for minimal cost. What price democracy?