Editorial: Vote NO, Vote In Advance By Proxy
We All Love Our Club
By Ged Ladd
July 10 2008
Editorial: An Open Letter To Middlesex CCC Members From Ged Ladd, explaining why he has chosen to vote NO to the motion of no confidence in advance of the meeting on 22 July, even though he intends to be at the meeting and urging other members also to vote NO in advance.
Special General Meeting Motion: Vote NO, Vote In Advance By Proxy
An Open Letter To Middlesex CCC
From Ged Ladd
Yesterday I delivered to Middlesex CCC my proxy form with a NO vote registered, despite the fact that I have every intention to attend the meeting on 22 July.
I would not normally cast my vote on an important motion without first hearing the debate, but I have strongly formed the view that voting NO by proxy is the right approach in the circumstances, even for those of us who will attend.
The purpose of this letter is to explain my reasoning and to encourage other Middlesex members to follow the same course of action.
In short, I have three main reasons for voting NO and doing so by proxy in advance of the meeting:
- I believe that a motion of no confidence is an inappropriate mechanism for rational debate on the substantive issues raised.
- The issues raised could not possibly justify so strong a sanction as "no confidence" in my view, nor could those issues justify such potentially damaging consequences of a no confidence motion being passed.
- If sufficient members vote NO by proxy ahead of the meeting, I believe that the unfortunate motion can be defeated ahead of the meeting, allowing the meeting to be used for calm, clear-headed debate on the substantive issues.
I shall address each of the above points in turn.
A motion of no confidence is an inappropriate mechanism for rational debate
I do not doubt the good intentions of the petitioners. I also expect that many of them, when signing the petition, were unaware that the consequence of the petition would be a motion of no confidence in the committee.
In my opinion, the ability for members to bring a motion of no confidence is an important element of governance in a membership organisation. In the (unlikely) event of grave matters, impropiety or malfeasence on the part of the committee for example, members need a mechanism that enables them to rectify the situation.
No such grave matters appear in the Statement for the Motion, nor have such grave matters been suggested. Professor Silverman's statement for the motion contains several issues that warrant debate. I would like those issues to be debated by the committee, staff and membership. However, in my opinion a motion of no confidence at a Special General Meeting is an inappropriate forum for such debate.
Open and honest debate is extremely unlikely to happen under the pressure of a no confidence motion. Much of the meeting will probably be taken up with procedural points and discussion about the appropriateness and consequences of the no confidence motion being passed (see my thoughts below), not the issues and concerns about the club.
The issues raised could not possibly justify so strong a sanction as "no confidence"
I agree with Professor Silverman's assertion that the matters raised are substantive; i.e. more than "mere gripes", but the problem with a motion of no confidence is that it throws matters into black and white. So, if I can only choose to describe the issues as "mere gripes" or "sacking offences" I have to choose to view them as "mere gripes", because they manifestly are not sacking offences. Passing a resolution of no confidence in a committee is, to all intents and purposes, sacking the committee.
The main justification for the motion is stated as "we are upset and troubled by our lack of success since our Championship win in 1993." I believe that Professor Silverman is an expert in qualitative methods, so surely he is aware that "our lack of success since our Championship win in 1993" cannot be said to have been caused by this committee. Put to one side the obvious fact that many members of the committee haven't even been on the committee for most of that period. With all due respect to the Professor, I know of no quantitative or qualitative methods that allow one truthfully to infer such a causal link between the performance of a cricket team and the committee of the club represented by that team.
If we believe that some of the cricketing decisions made by the committee have harmed the performance of the team (that might be true) or that some members of the committee are not pulling their weight (that might also be true) let us by all means debate those points as members and use the natural committee election cycle to replace less willing and less able committee members with better people.
As far as I know, the petitioners are not proposing a replacement committee of willing, potentially hard-working and able people who could transform our club. Indeed, there is nothing in the statement for the motion which suggests that the petitioners have a grasp on the consequences of their motion if it succeeds. But passing a resolution of "no confidence" is an extremely serious matter that has far-reaching consequences. Most members of the current committee would, I'm sure, feel unable to stand again for the committee having been part of a committee that the members had turfed out in this way. Given some of the issues and suggestions listed in the statement for the motion, I believe that the resolution would also put Vinny Codrington and the staff team under extreme and unwarranted pressure. These consequences might be unintended, but they are no less potentially damaging because they are unintended.
Not only do I believe that the consequences of passing this resolution would potentially be dire, I believe that those consequences cannot possibly be justified by the issues and concerns raised by the petitioners. It would not be possible for the debate at the SGM to change my view on this. Indeed, if a matter of such significance that my opinion might change were to be raised at the meeting, I would argue that the meeting alone couldn't determine the motion, because those who have already voted by proxy were unaware of that significant matter.
On the above basis, it made sense for me to register my NO vote in advance of the 22 July meeting, even though I intend to be there.
The unfortunate motion can be defeated ahead of the meeting, allowing the meeting to be used for calm, clear-headed debate on the substantive issues
To summarise, I believe that the petitioners have raised some issues worthy of debate, but those issues cannot possibly justify such an extreme measure as a motion of no confidence in the committee. I also believe that, under the shadow of such extreme potential censure, committee, staff and ordinary members will be unable to debate the issues appropriately at the SGM.
However, if the motion has already been defeated before the start of the meeting on 22 July (i.e. if there are too few uncast votes in the room to enable the motion to be passed), the result of the vote on the motion can be announced at the start of the meeting and the meeting can then be used for a healthy debate on important issues for the club.
If anything good is to come of this petition, (which I stated from the outset I believed to be ill-conceived and mistimed), at least a calm, clear-headed debate on the substantive issues would be a good thing.
That is why I have voted NO and cast my vote by proxy ahead of the 22 July meeting, even though I shall be there. I urge my fellow members of Middlesex CCC who intend to be at the meeting to do likewise. I also urge members who are unable to attend on 22 July to cast your votes by proxy.
View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.
Bookmark or share this story with:
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponOld thread on no confidence debate
Please continue that debate here.
I'm not so sure I'd go so far,but of course your suggestions make sound sense,
The Malcontents accept that the motion has no chance of succeeding and seem more concerned with saving face,and justifying this drastic step.
If the Proxy vote were to be announced prior to the meeting,it may well come as a relief to all,and allow a debate to take place under the circumstances you suggest.
Fromm what the Proffessor has said to me he regards this board of little influence,and puerile and juvenile in what it offers,netherless a personal approach to him and the chief executive by yourself might well encourage both sides to be able to agree a compromise solution ,from which all might emerge with some credit.
On a procedural note, however, I don't see how a committe could release the outcome of a proxy vote ahead of a debate on the proposal.
I say that because not only could it effect the voting on the floor, but because it could be used to prevent the discussion which, to be fair, should take place.
Even if the committee know in advance of the result of the proxy vote, and they know that they are safe (and, by the way, non-one but the tellers should know the vote until after the debate), they still owe it to the petitioners to make their case and tio try win votes on the night. Sometimes a vote might appear irrelevant when the outcome is certain, but there is still something for the committee to learn from the number who did vote against them.
In procedural terms, and possibly legal ones (I've no idea how Middlesex does these things), a debate might be obligatory and the results of proxy votes may have to be concealed until votes on the night are tallied.
That is the only way to gain a true picture of feelings on the ground.
It's a shame it came to this.
Can we take it as read that when the vote fails miserably (as it will) that the supporters of said motion will be returning their membership cards to the club they feel is being run so badly ?
Standing orders that permit proxy voting and a chamber debate are based on an underlying assumption that those who attend the chamber debate will be voting with additional information compared with those who have voted by proxy. The result of the proxy voting is no different from any other additional information heard by those who attend the meeting, unless the standing orders specifically stipulate that aspect of the procedures for counting and revealing the outcome of the voting.
Indeed, I have seen some standing orders in proxy voting situations that specifically require the result of the pre-meeting proxy votes to be revealed to those who will vote in the meeting prior to the "in-meeting" voting.
But I strongly suspect that our standing orders are silent on this point.
The Secretary inadvertently let the results of the proxies slip and it changed the meeting radically.
The delegates realised that now there was no threat of losing the committe, but that could vote "no confidence" as a means to keep the committee on our toes. The vote was carried on the floor but was defeated by the proxies. Over drinks later, many of the delegates confessed that their votes were cast as a protest vote knowing that the motion wouldn't be carried. It also allowed them to return to their branches and claim that they'd stood up to the leadership. All well and good.
Until the following days, when the people behind the motion began to claim that the motion had been carried by those who heard the debate and that this showed that the proxies were not voting with wll of the information they needed. They sniped for a few weeks until we arranged another vote on the motion, which was again defeated.
All because those in the room knew in advance of the outcome of the vote.
Knowing in advance also increases the value of single votes and makes them susceptible to horse-trading.
The only way that the committe can ensure a fair vote - and one which accurately represents the feeling of the voters - is if everyone effectively votes at the same time.
AFter that diastrous meeting, by the way, I instituted a practice which is still in place at the Union where I worked. Nowadays, proxies aren't even opened until after the vote on the floor is counted. They are kept in a sealed container and opened and counted while peole can witness the count,get some coffee etc.
You are talking a load of rubbish. The fact of the matter is we have not won anything since 1993. The commitee have been content to hold the status quo.It must be the commitee who are to blame. We have to do something to introduce change. This is the best way of doing that.
The correct procedure is to get yourself or one or two of your buddies onto the committees and influence change from within , not stand on the outside throwing bricks at the windows of your own house when you have no idea or no plans to replace them once they are smashed .
We may not have won anything since 93 but God help us if the likes of you or the Prof got in we would be lucky to still be in buisiness in three years time .
Ged talking RUBBISH,and you talking sense
.
Your remarks are unworthy of further comment,exept to say that any undecided will no doubt be greatly influenced by your eloquent arguements.
As Diamond rightly states the procedure for bringing about change is clear,many on the present committee had concerns in the past,which is why they put themselves forward and were elected,and have served the club diligently from within ever since.
YOU,and THE PROFFESSOR are not even prepared to put forward your name for election for obvious reasons.
Furthermore some of the characters that have been sought out to stand in future,beggar belief.
Your case has long collapsed to the level of an irrelevance Jay,there is a way you can extracate yourself from complete humiliation,sadly you seem unable to grasp even that opportunity.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008:07:12:18:35:38 by loverboy.
Like you I have voted 'no' by proxy but will still attend on the night, because there is nothing that could possibly be said to make me change my mind.
Jay B - it seems to me you are one of a number of people that thinks we have a divine right to win the Championship on a consistent basis because we have done so a number of times in our history and are one of the 'big' names on the circuit. The reality is we have to earn that success just like everybody else. With a team full of promise and youthful enthusiasm, which is clearly getting better and better, it strikes me too many members of our great club don't know a good thing when they see it.
Ian Lovett today met with the proposed Chairman of the meeting to finalise the procedure on the night.
Speakers from the floor will be limited to two minutes to make their point.
Quote:That's the best solution when everything is taken into consideration. If the committee knows the proxy count beforehand, its memmbers may become a little bit complacent during their proceedings.loverboy
It seems now to be decided that the proxies will actually be counted whilst the meeting is proceeding and the votes cast on the night added,and then the vote declared.
Ian Lovett today met with the proposed Chairman of the meeting to finalise the procedure on the night.
Speakers from the floor will be limited to two minutes to make their point.
They way that the count is suggested means that the proposers can never claim that they were not given a good hearing. I'm really pleased to see this news.
When the proposals are overturned it will have been fair and the committee will have a stronger mandate.
Just a pity that the issues couldn't have been dealt with properly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:07:15:20:33:07 by Nialler.
I,m sure you will all join me in wishing him well in the coming months which are likely to be traumatic for him and his family,and hoping very much for a full recovery.
Some things Jay are far more important than Middlesex ccc.
Take care of yourself mate.
More of a one man band than a concerted effort to succeed.
Members have been brow-beaten and bullied to lend their support when they were unwilling,with the inevitable result that he now finds himself isolated.
To claim he has now acted in the best interest of the club is pure hypocrisy on his part.He has many questions to answer from his supporters and his detractors.
Let us hope he is man enough to confront those issues,and offer at least sincere apologies to all for instigating such an ill conceived motion which has reflected badly on the club.with adverse publicity,not to mention the time and expense that has been incured by his action which was always doomed to failure.
If Ged and others by their postings here have helped persuade him in the end to abandon the motion,they have served the club well and should be commended.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:07:19:15:32:42 by loverboy.
Quote:Jay B
Silverman has withdrawn the motion without any consultation. He told me the reason was that he had been under a lot of pressure because of the success of the 20/20. This is rubbish he didn't want to loose. He has let a lot of people down. As you know I was a great supporter of him - not now. If you start something you need to finish it. I am very disappointed in him. If there is need for change you just have to look at our batting over the last two days against Warwickshire - it was an absolute disgrace.
Jay, If you are so adamant that this motion was right, why don't you grow a pair and try to put in your own motion?
-
Cian Healy citing complaint set for Thursday Scrum (ESPN)
-
Saracens bring in Kieran Low on loan Scrum (ESPN)
-
Liverpool's success this season could be determined in the next three games Give Me Sport
- Goatley Chief Exec., I Kid you not.26-Dec-2015
- "World" T20? Do me a favour!!19-Dec-2015
- Let's get quizical. Answers15-Dec-2015
- Noida To Be Home Away From Home For Afghanistan14-Dec-2015
