AGM Election Results

[Alex Gillies]

Pat,

However, there are questions that need to be answered..

Hi Steve

I know you well Steve, and I know you mean well, but your post is the kind of thing we want to move a away from

Your note that David was the only candidate that impressed is unfair - some weren't even in the room. Indeed if you had concerns about everyone you should have raised them weeks ago - especially as you were running for president to lead them. Its a fairly new team - please give them a chance to show what they can do.

I would like to respond to your questions if I may:
Proxys - everyone , as far as I could make out, agreed that the proxy system is and was not right - Buyer be ware - the person giving the proxy should know it can be misused. . It was confirmed that we could not change it for this years AGM so we were stuck with it. It was agreed the proxy system will be changed.

I can't comment on how the MS gained his proxy no's but as far as I could make out the proxy's did not make any difference to any voting- even the close ones

Alcohol- I don't get why everyone gets such a bee in their bonnet. Anyone causing a serious incident through alcohol would be stupid not to think it would not be reported and dealt with- policy or no policy. A policy is in the process of being implemented anyway and this was pointed out. In the absence of this, common sense prevails - its getting far to politically correct - I for one don't favour a complete ban. Chess tournaments are social events - like Alan Tate suggested some of my best memories were at International/British events and the social side is what made it so special. These days its often a family event and after the days play many parents socialise in the evening with coaches etc- what's the big deal?

Andy Muir did have a tough time - to his credit he did not take the huff and took it on the chin. Tom Donahue spoke very well for Andy and summed it up well. Andy eventually acknowledged that he needed to change and he got rewarded with a turnaround positive vote on the second Vote. I have also seen Andy post on the forum today or last night and as he said himself he is going to try harder with posts etc. However uncomfortable it was for him I think it's done him a huge favour.

I agree with your point re MS using "shut up" a few times. The meeting was difficult to handle at times especially when time was running out- most people chairing the meting would have made the odd mistake - I know I would have.

The individual members vote could have gone better but it got there in the end- the votes were not even close.

The Standards committee: If directors are allowed on then they are. The working committee is looking at procedures and I assume you can make a suggestion on change - if not you can call a motion next time you get the chance and it can go to the vote

Next tournament, perhaps largs, we can sit down over a beer and have a healthy debate

[Hugh Brechin]

First of all, I'd like to make it entirely clear that in this next post I am not speaking as a moderator, but merely as a member, poster and AGM attendee.

Steve, for heaven's sake. The AGM has happened. We should all be trying to move on together and get to work on improving chess in Scotland. I'd really like to let this slide. But I'm not going to, because I feel you've made a few points which should be challenged rather than simply ignored.

Are you fully accepting the results of the elections or claiming that they should be void? It seems rather difficult to do both. Yes, a number of CS officials carried significant numbers of proxy votes. (As I said in an earlier post, it is worth remembering that while Dick Heathwood held a lot of proxy votes on his own account, a good number came from Steve Mannion). A number of non-directors also carried proxy votes. There was discussion at the meeting about the difficult situation where proxies significantly outnumber attendees, and that is being investigated in the forthcoming constitutional review. I hope that there are some changes, but I don't think you can criticise anyone for accumulating proxies under the current system. Without wishing to dig over the past, this was certainly not the first occasion when someone showed up at the AGM with a very large proxy vote.

The member who was admonished by the Membership Secretary was simply trying to bull over a man presenting a report. I'm sure the MS now feels that he was perhaps a bit more peremptory than he should have been, but the member in question wasn't raising his hand and attempting to make points; he was consistently attempting to interrupt a speaker.

In 2009, a number of members chose to change their vote when a recount was sought on a close vote. Honestly I haven't a clue whether that's constitutionally dicey or not, but I don't see how you can stop them. I would absolutely agree with Mike that your subsequent conduct in that meeting did not paint you in a very good light.

The treatment meted out to Andy Muir was disgraceful? He was rejected as a candidate for office due to serious concerns about his behaviour as a director, which a number of members felt he did not adequately respond to when questioned. Later, when open directorships were discussed, he won a vote after expressing an at least somewhat more conciliatory attitude. He left the meeting duly re-elected to the post of International Director. I've seen people treated worse.

On another note, I think describing Calum's answer to one question as 'horrifying' is more than a touch hyperbolic, but I'm glad he's been able to allay your concerns with his reply in this thread.

Anyway, I'm going to stop now. There are other points I could make, but I really don't want this getting out of hand. I would agree with David C in expressing respect for your personal achievements within the game, and in wishing you the best of luck for your forthcoming tournaments.

[amuir]

John Dempsey was president in 2009 at the AGM which Steve refers to.
He lives far away now, is a friend on facebook and now posts on different topics !

"So once again we have another crisis (Syria). Both the USA and the UK are doing a lot more than hint at military action. Once again "...there will be no boots on the ground". What earthly use will firing off some cruise missiles atr the regimes miltary installalations be? If they have not been dissuaded by a civil war in their country then this is not going to shock them. I cannot see that we can accomplish anything by bombing a few things."

[StevieHilton]

Hugh,
As I have said beforehand, I do accept the result. However, I do have the right to ask question how the vote was obtained as well as the instructions if any on the use of the votes.
You have to admit that I was treated rather badly by the meeting in 2009. I had justification for my behaviour.
Yes I can criticise if officials are using cs databases to canvas on behalf of one candidate, without giving the same opportunity to the opposition.
Look at the minutes of the 2009 meeting. There were more votes cast in the second vote than in the first. Also, I was denied the opportunity by the executive director to withdraw from the vote. Yet you criticse my behaviour
I do agree with you on one point. We do have to listen to each other, but I remain unconvinced that CS will listen.
I will give credit when cs does something well but will criticise when something is wrong


Andy Muir,
John Dempsey was executive director in 2009

[Jim Webster]

All the following quotes are from an earlier posting by Steve Hilton

How did the membership Secretary acquire 56 proxy votes? Did he collect them as MS? If he did, then the election should be void, as CS did not offer me the same opportunity to reach the membership.
That does not make for a fair election. Other CS officials also carried substantial proxy votes such as the treasurer. I myself carried no proxy votes.

I do not believe that he acquired them as MS, but isn't the membership list available to all? You can certainly get to most of them through the forum (using PM's). Perhaps the truth is that he was just a bit more streetwise than you in this area. But I am not going to be drawn into a protracted discussion on it - I've simply given my opinion.

In any event, I personally don't agree with the current Proxy System but the Constitutional review is targeted to examine this and given it's general dislike is almost certain to change.

Perhaps it would be more constructive to start a thread on Proxy Voting and how it should change for the better, like how many can be held by an individual, possibly banning solicitation of proxies and so on.

I might even start it myself after this post :-)

There is also the question of what instructions the Proxy carriers were given in regards to the agenda.

This was asked and answered at the AGM, some proxy holders were actually asked the extent of their proxies - and replied "they were delegated a free permit to vote as they wanted"

You also said that you think that this is an outstanding team to take CS forward. I cannot agree with this. The only one I was impressed with was David Deary. The others definitely not, in particular the new IJD.

I don't believe you could say this - do you think for one minute that you being elected President would have changed the result of the elected members and therefore you would have HAD to work with this team.

As for the 2009 AGM - it's now history! We are planning for the future.

[Mike Scott]

You have to admit that I was treated rather badly by the meeting in 2009. I had justification for my behaviour.

No and No. The second answer remains NO even if the chair had made a mistake.

Steve - just because people disagree with your point of view does not mean they are not listening!

[Andy Howie]

I am aware of someone using the email addresses in the Grading list to canvas for votes for Steve. I am also aware that the MS did not use the membership list to canvas for votes. When you look at the breakdown it is clear it is clubmates and friends

[amuir]

I kept count of the votes concerning me:
Vote 1 : International Director : For 34 Against 93
Vote 2 : Home Director : For 10 Against 30
Vote 3: International Director : For 52 Against 31

I noticed some of the people who voted against me. The ones I noticed were: Dick Heathwood, Hamish Glen,
Alan Borwell (proxy), Steve Mannion (snr) (proxy) , Calum MacQueen, Hugh Brechin .
There were many others that I did not catch amongst the forest of hands.

I am disappointed that these people voted against me but I accept it was for noticeboard postings and possibly an arrogant answer I made to a question at the AGM (it was not meant in that way) and not my work as International Director.

I am determined that Scotland will be well represented abroad in the next year , including the Olympiad
and offer an olive branch to these and other people I have offended to work in harmony.

As I said, based on the last year's experience, the November EGM will be more productive than this noticeboard
in solving disputes

[George Neave]

The following 3 new appointments are a major step forward for CS in my opinion.

...

• Home Director (Open):- Keith Rose
  International Director (Junior):- Calum McQueen
  Marketing Director:- Jonathan Edwards
  

...

Good luck guys and all the best,

[Mike Scott]

Agreed!