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.

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.

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.

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.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon

SPORTNETWORK SPECIALS

• Think you know your sport? Click here to try the Sportnetwork Prize Quizzes