One insufficiently-noted aspect of the ECF elections is that while the candidate for one post, Phil Ehr, was nominated for his post by Roger Edwards, he himself nominated the candidate who was running against Roger Edwards for another post.
I can't offhand recall any other example of such a thing occurring. Can readers provide either any other examples? Or any explanation of this apparently extraordinary situation?
Obviously a surprising situation, but not inexplicable.
For a start there may just be a culture of fellow directors nominating each other on request, not least since some one else can generally be found to do it. To decline to do so might be used against one, as though he were afraid of letting Council decide.
Another explanation might be that each was thinking of tactical advantage.
From PE, the unspoken message to voters might be "If you reject Paulson, you can still elect me as CEO - RE himself is still happy to work with me."
From RE, the message to voters might have been, conversely, "if you want PE as CEO, then you don't have to vote AP to get him. I'd still be quite happy to work with PE as CEO".
As it is, the voters didn't really notice, so any tactical messages that might have been intended were probably largely missed.
The exact timings haven't been made public, since the convention this year was to announce all the candidates simultaneously. The Phil Ehr decision to switch to the CEO position is known to have been made or at least announced very close to the closing date. As a consequence the announcement of nominations for the vacated Junior Director position was deferred. If you regard yourself as essentially a non-executive president, it's important than there are candidates for the CEO role, even if they announce at the last minute.
Cool. So if I ask whether Ehr had been nominated by Edwards before nominating Edwards' opponent, is the answer:
(a) no ;
(b) yes ;
(c) yes, but Edwards was OK with this ;
(d) nobody's saying?
Post a Comment