2023 ANNUAL REPORT

MINUTES OF THE 2023 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 67 The Chair explained that the Nominations Panel was not put in place as a safety net for those who had failed to be elected; rather, it was a valuable mechanism for en- suring diversity of representation. The club wanted to be a model of good governance, and was required to implement the highest possible standards of governance in order to retain its Test Match status. One candidate had gone down both routes in 2021, Mr Moore confirmed.That candidate had been appointed by the Nominations Panel despite not being elected because of his exceptional knowledge and experience of the recreational game.This was in the year the club had merged with the recreational board making the club responsible for cricket in the whole county and for ensuring critical issues such as safeguarding were implemented. The Chair then called upon the club’s Deputy Chief Executive, Tim Eatherington, to give further context to the decision to use a postal vote for the governance changes in 2020. Mr Eatherington explained that the 2020 vote concerned a complete overhaul of the Rules – a substitution of one set of Rules with a new set – and it was therefore neither desirable or feasible to deal with each amend- ment individually, especially as some were inter-dependent or consequential. The decision to offer one vote per member on all the amends in 2020, he continued, was therefore a matter of practicality and common sense.The Financial Conduct Authority would see that as the proper route, and the club had engaged with them fully both before and throughout the process. In terms of other process, the club had run a full programme of engagement and consultation with its members. Finally, the Chair challenged Mr Evans’ claim that his views had been censored, explaining that Mr Evans’ arguments for his proposed amendments had contained personal references to individuals and had implied that a postal vote had been for the benefit of those individuals. These references had been removed without in any way altering the relevance of Mr Evans’ arguments. The decision to remove those references had been the Chair’s. Mr Moore then asked if Mr Evans’ seconder, or any of those who supported him, wished to speak. Ms Diana Peasey said that the opportunity for individuals to progress down both the elected and nominated routes in any given year should be reviewed by the General Committee. Overall, however, she felt that common sense had prevailed when looking at the results of the voting.The first General Committee meeting she had ever attended had discussed the Nominations Panel. Since then, she said, we had seen individuals going down both routes and this had caused confusion. Mr Nick Evans said that he had found the debate difficult to follow; he suggested that if such complex amendments were proposed at future AGMs, it might be useful to show them on a screen. Ms Penny Huggard said that she did not personally know Mr Evans and had therefore been surprised that her name had been mentioned by him. She said that her motivation in going down both the elected and nominated routes to secure a second term on the General Committee had been driven only by a desire to serve Nottingham- shire County Cricket Club and a love for the game of cricket. She said that she had always acted with the utmost integrity and she asked the Chair to confirm that, in going down both routes, she had done nothing wrong.The Chair agreed that Ms Huggard had indeed done nothing wrong under the rules. Mr Evans said that the point that he had been trying to make was that there had been an inconsistent approach to the use of the dual route, in that it was permitted in 2021 and 2023, but not in 2022. In response to a point of order from the floor, the Chair accepted that the title of agenda item nine [‘to propose amendments to the constitution’] may have given the impression that members would be able to vote in the room. Postal and online voting had, however, been offered to all eligible members ahead of the AGM. Mr Bill Russell said that when radical changes were made this was bound to spark debate. He congratulated Mr Evans on the research he had done before proposing his amendments, and continued to say that everyone understood the purpose of the Nominations Panel in ensuring a diversity of skills, views and lived experience on General Committee. Those appointed by the Nomina- tions Panel, he said, should have exceptional skills or experience. He suggested that the Nominations Panel and those individuals nominated should attend a members’ forum and explain what they had been able to do whilst on the committee to fulfil that promise. He asked the room for a show of hands in support.The majority of those in the room showed their support for this idea, although the Chair observed that this was not a binding vote. 10. TO CONFIRM THREE MEMBERS ELECTED TO THE GENERAL COMMITTEE The Chief Executive said that, during the 2022 AGM, the club had made an amendment to its Rules around allowing capped players to stand for election.This amendment had received overwhelming support from the members. Two capped players had duly stood in the 2023 elections and were included on the ballot paper in good faith.That was based on the club’s understanding that their right to vote had commenced at the same time as they became capped members. On the Friday afternoon before the