Election Of The General Committe 2022

Can anyone convince me that this is still worth doing? I've always read up on the candidates and voted mainly in the belief that they will act and speak on behalf of the Members interests. However, there is never any feedback from the meetings, which I think should have been a priority in the last two years particularly; the Pandemic, Refunds Row, the 100 etc. Strikes me it's just a box ticking talk shop.

I think it is worth doing, but totally agree that letting members know what is going on would be a novel and wonderful idea. I get the impression that the committee do not have a great deal of power and decisions are taken by the Chairman and Chief Exec, which is not the way a members club should work.

It would be helpful if the applicants announced that once selected they will attend no meetings whatsoever.This seems to be a common occurance and should not be allowed.

I have put my votes (well I've put them in the envelope and I'll post them when I take the letters to the postbox at work tomorrow) but yes, I'm not entirely sure what we get out of the committee...

I found the candidates' profiles this year especially uninspiring. I don't really care what they have done, or in bland, general terms what they feel they have to offer. I am interested in what they intend to use their influence for if elected. Only one of them even mentioned (briefly) the importance of protecting/prioritising the county championship. No-one mentioned opposing the move towards scrapping some of the counties or the disconnect between central contracting and county cricket.

I didn't feel inspired to vote for any of them. As others have said, they seem to be "nodding nellies"': bums on seats in the committee room to wave through whatever the CEO and Chairman propose. With a new CEO whose agenda is far from clear, that is especially worrying.

One more thing: the club has not sent out a yearbook this year on environmental grounds. Should it therefore really be sending out a thick prospectus of candidates (mine went in the bin within an hour of receiving it), along with an even thicker booklet containing the club's annual accounts? Surely one of the nodding nellies could risk raising this at their first meeting without being excommunicated. It may well involve tweaking the club's constitution to allow for making the bumph available online, along with the voting form, with the alternative of hard copies sent to any member who requests them. But it seems blindingly obvious.

Yes and I always avoid voting for the ex bankers and finance experts. There is enough of them in the ECB. To be frank there is only one guy in there who cares about the Members and the Championship. Most of you will know who that is.

Jackers wrote:One more thing: the club has not sent out a yearbook this year on environmental grounds. Should it therefore really be sending out a thick prospectus of candidates (mine went in the bin within an hour of receiving it), along with an even thicker booklet containing the club's annual accounts? Surely one of the nodding nellies could risk raising this at their first meeting without being excommunicated. It may well involve tweaking the club's constitution to allow for making the bumph available online, along with the voting form, with the alternative of hard copies sent to any member who requests them. But it seems blindingly obvious.

I wonder if there is a Yorkshire-like twist on this one? Their initial EGM call failed because the rules did now allow purely electronic communication. They were supposed to do so but the previous administration had failed to register the change in rules. Is it possible that Surrey's rules insist on hard copy communication for formal stuff like accounts and election stuff? The same would probably not apply to a yearbook. Some Surrey version of Robin Smith might cry "foul".

Now an equivalent of the Hampshire Robin Smith would be worth having!

adelaide wrote:

Jackers wrote:One more thing: the club has not sent out a yearbook this year on environmental grounds. Should it therefore really be sending out a thick prospectus of candidates (mine went in the bin within an hour of receiving it), along with an even thicker booklet containing the club's annual accounts? Surely one of the nodding nellies could risk raising this at their first meeting without being excommunicated. It may well involve tweaking the club's constitution to allow for making the bumph available online, along with the voting form, with the alternative of hard copies sent to any member who requests them. But it seems blindingly obvious.

I wonder if there is a Yorkshire-like twist on this one? Their initial EGM call failed because the rules did now allow purely electronic communication. They were supposed to do so but the previous administration had failed to register the change in rules. Is it possible that Surrey's rules insist on hard copy communication for formal stuff like accounts and election stuff? The same would probably not apply to a yearbook.  Some Surrey version of Robin Smith might cry "foul".

Now an equivalent of the Hampshire Robin Smith would be worth having!

You may well be right: I recognised that the existing constitution may have precluded them doing it this time round. But it sticks out like a sore thumb that we should be sent paper copies of information (candidates for the committee, detailed accounts) which, even if we do find it useful or relevant, will almost certainly be thrown out within a week when we are no longer being sent the annual yearbook which for many of us we would enjoy receiving in print and probably keep for far longer. So if necessary we need to change the rules to drag us kicking and screaming into the age of sustainability.

Agreed.My book is already in the bin.

Badges wrote:It would be helpful if the applicants announced that once selected they will attend no meetings whatsoever.This seems to be a common occurance and should not be allowed.

Have been saying this for a long time ex players should not be allowed to stand for the general committee the 2 on at the moment have been to one meeting between them.It is pretty obvious if ex players stand they will be elected.
My idea is they should be honorary members.
The people standing for the committee should be people who follow Surrey home and away showing there loyalty to the county.amazed at the amount of people standing this year. It seems to me it is who you know rather than what you know will get you elected to the committee .

Well, hang on a minute, I can understand that for some people, but if someone like Harinath does attend meetings (which I think is more plausible than some of the other ex-players) then it's surely a good thing?

That said, it is possibly something for the AGM, that committee members should attend more meetings, and there would be a recall/dsq process if not?