As one of the bleaters mentioned in John's post (19th March) and identified in Ian's (21st March), I feel I ought to respond.
All I did was ask a question ……... which was never answered. It did however result in a change of LDWA policy.
John may feel that his departure from the National Committee releases him from some constraints, but he is still the East Yorkshire Group Secretary.

Baaaar

Furthermore Mister Sykes, I note that you didn't vote in the Chair's election of 2015.

Now that my term on the Committee is over I can moan and have an outburst, as you call it, like the rest of you's! Yah boo sucks!

Reading Mr Batham's post I find it insulting to the members who were asking why the votes were not made public. Mr Batham then goes on to have a dig at members who he says does not vote, help or go on social walks. Many years ago and before Mr Batham joined the LDWA a local group chairman tried to badger all the groups members to join their socials walks. Well John that didn't work and I don't think your outburst will have any effect on the rank & file members too. The LDWA will be a sadder place without the like's of Paul Tremere & Janet Pitt Lewis who have given decades of support into the LDWA and call them bleaters is right out of order.

Ian Baaaaaa Sykes

I hope the transparent voting results for this year's election, which are posted on the LDWA website, scatter the conspiracy theorists who bleated about last year's results.

It is interesting to note that 551 valid votes on paper or by electronic means were received for the election of our Executive Committee members. Accepting that we have some 8,000 members, this represents less than 7% of membership and reflects how few can be bothered to take interest in how the Association is run. In fact, this percentage mirrors that of the number of members who can be bothered to help serve on local Committees, help on Challenge Events and the percentage is little better when those doing social walks are considered.

Found them, many thanks for the info.

The election results have been on the LDWA website since Sunday afternoon, but there seems to be something funny with the links. If you click on 'Home' on the top menu (just under the LDWA logo) you get a news item about the Hadrian Hundred on the right. Then if you click on 'next story' you get to the election results.

May we be informed of the outcome of this year's election, together with the number of votes cast for each candidate?

New process in post. What good would it do going over the old one?

Following Philip’s post of 3rd May, the “News” page now provides information on “New Bylaw for the LDWA NEC Election process”. Paragraph 9 contains the following.

“At the appropriate point of the AGM the Chair will announce the names of those elected and the numbers of votes cast for each candidate.”

I appreciate the National Executive Committee’s positive response to resolve this issue and look forward to the transparent elections of Officers. Thank you.

However, I still seek an explanation of the former process and continue to wonder why it remains hidden.
I guess that I (together with another 8440 members) will never know?

Thanks to David for clearing up the confusion. It’s appreciated.
I’m still puzzled.
If there is no conspiracy, why are the original questions remaining unanswered?
If the National Executive won’t tell us what they are hiding, perhaps they can explain why they are hiding it?

Hi Janet,

I deleted my comment because it was inaccurate and for no other reason. My public apology here for my mis-interpretation of what I thought I heard at the AGM will suffice. There is no conspiracy.
I agree with the second half of your post.

Regards,

David

Dave, editing the comment off the Facebook page just fuels the conspiracy theories. I am sure the decision not to announce the actual votes cast was done with the best of intentions - perhaps in consideration of the feelings of the candidates - but if you put yourself forward for election you do so knowing that the votes cast will be announced (at least they are in any normal election). Its what you sign up for. I hope the proposals for a revised election procedure don't preserve this particular decision.

My comment 'Not particulary close, no' on a FB page has created a stir.
And it is only today that I have noted the thread.
Actually, I think it appropriate for me to outline that when the vote was read out, I misheard and thought I had heard that Gail had been elected and over 700 votes had been cast for her.
As it happens of course, it was a case that over 700 votes had been cast in total.
So, I like everyone else have no knowledge of the actual difference and apologise for setting the cat amongst the pigeons!

The link accessing the 2015 AGM minutes is now working.

The minutes provide the answer to my question, posted on 26th April.
Dave Morgan was not a teller.
As Janet pointed out on 21st April, Dave’s facebook page suggests he was aware of the number of votes cast.

I remain as puzzled as ever !

Thanks for the info.

Despite this positive and very welcome news, the questions posed in my posts of 12th & 26th April still remain unanswered.
The reason / logic behind the National Executive’s refusal to answer, still puzzles me.

Please tell why you are not telling.

A revised By-Law for the procedure at LDWA National Committee Officer elections has been drafted by Ken Falconer for consideration by the National Executive Committee at its next meeting in July, which is intended to provide a more open and participatory format. Assuming the revision is approved by the NEC, it will be published on the website immediately afterwards.

Phil Heneghan
General Secretary

Apart from Abigail Elrick (new chairperson) saying "We have started a review of procedures. Not a very exciting job but needs to be done!" none of the National Committee as responded to the rank and file members explaining the secrecy. It makes me think that the National Committee is deliberately ignoring this thread. Are they being advised not to reply? Until we get a response members will continue to speculate the reasons why. Probably reaching unsound conclusions.

Paul, cheapskate comes to mind. The cheapest half I can find is half of Yorkshire Bitter @ 62p. Will that break the bank?

Was Dave Morgan a teller?
If not who told him?

May I / we have a definitive answer in order to clarify the increasingly muddy waters?

PS
I’m afraid it will have to be a half, Ian, then only of very affordable ale.

I too wonder what the secrecy is all about. I'm 100% sure that nothing underhand went on with the postal vote if Ken was one of the Tellers. It looks like that Gail got elected by a large margin if rumour is to be believed. But it would be nice if someone from the committee could explain the need for not telling the membership the voting details.


Paul, forget the bet mate, I was on a sure thing. Just buy us a pint next time I see you in a pub.

It seems that the number of votes cast for each candidate was known at the AGM by at least some people as Dave Morgan commented on the LDWA Facebook page on the 15th March about the winning margin. I tried to look at the 2015 AGM minutes on this site but can't access them. It was good news that we had 2 people willing to stand as chair this year - but there will not be volunteers in the future if the election procedure is not transparent.

The answer to my post of 12th April , seems to be “We are not going to tell you”
So the tellers are not telling. Furthermore it seems that the tellers are not telling why they are not telling.
Three people know the number of votes cast for each candidate, whilst the other 8440 members do not.
I hope that the Executive Committee follows Janet’s suggestion and that Gail’s reassurances bear fruit.
It cannot be too difficult to insert “together with the number of votes cast for each candidate” into clause 10 of the Bye-Laws for Election of Officers.
I still wonder what there is to hide and why it remains hidden.
I am disappointed by the continued secrecy, as it may lead to unhealthy speculation.

P.S.
It seems that I owe Ian Sykes £1

We have started a review of procedures. Not a very exciting job but needs to be done!

Well I would prefer that the National Committee members spend their time on other things (like what they elected to do....)

I am afraid this underlines the fact that the current by laws for elections are totally unfit for purpose. Not only do they fail to appreciate the difference between a ballot of all members and a vote at an AGM, there is no provision for "canvassing", announcement of results or many other aspects of an election. Most bizarrely there is a provision that if a memeber completes a ballot form and attends the AGM, they should then be asked if they want to change their vote. I hope that new committee is going to revisit the electoral procedure having learnt some lessons from the recent election.

As one of the three Tellers for this election, perhaps I should reply on their behalf. It was decided prior to the vote that just the name of the successful candidate and the total number of votes cast should be declared. Thus it was announced at the AGM that Gail had been elected and that there were 792 votes cast.

I think that it is a matter or courtesy to both candidates that we don't publish the figures.

Sorry that should be Gail & Tim, That me in the new chairpersons bad books already. :-(

It's been well over 24 hours since Mr Tremere asked the question. I do find it hard to believe that nobody from our National Committee is reading this forum. If Mr Tremere is not going to get a answer from a committee member, then can somebody from the National Committee please explain why the rank & file members are not even given the courtesy of a reply?


For the record, my wife and myself (two votes) did not vote, forgot all about it. My apologies to Gill & Tim for my oversight.

Bet you £1 Paul that you won't get the answer to your question.

Over 700 votes cast, how many did each candidate receive?

Tony

The new Chair is Gail. It was good to see that over 700 members took the opportunity to vote.

Having been unable to attend the AGM I thought it might be possible to discover the result of the ballot for Chairman on this site.

Not so - but I'm sure someone out there knows and will share their knowledge!