Who should the ECF Council elect as President?

[Matt Mackenzie]

Dammit, how did that happen. Can't one delete inadvertent posts somehow?

I believe you can (little "x" in the right hand corner of your post!)

[David Pardoe]

David, As has been pointed out to you several times Sean Hewitt has a mandate from Council to reform the voting system.

Indeed, and Dave's views can be an important start along that path - when I'm unsure what to do, I often find that doing the opposite to what Dave suggests is worth serious consideration

Another point David dodged was that the forum vote he attaches importance to only saw 81 voters from a potential electorate of almost 1,000 - although to be fair this forum has a lot inactive users so the vote was more representative of regular contributors. IF the ECF moves to OMOV we would need to ensure that the election goes to the members rather than expecting the members to go to the election.

In response to this and other comments...

I`ve simply echoed what the Forum membership have said in the poll. I didn't say it was a resounding victory for Roger Edwards. Merely that this expresses how those Forum members, many of whom are very active and knowledgeable in chess circles, and interested enough to vote in a free and transparent poll, had voted. Election votes can be won or lost on very small margins.. An example on Saturday was the 89 - 88 vote to reject proposals relating to the counties chess competitions, where positive initiatives to try to boost declining interest has been debated for years. Nobody has the clout to get stuck in and do something, despite the many suggestions on this forum, not least from myself.
Nothing unclear or ambiguous about that, just a plain statement of fact.

Clearly, just because some children on here don't like that message, i.e., that Roger Edwards is the preferred choice for ECF President of members of this chess forum, they have got all hot and bothered and started hurling abuse and throwing there rattles out of there prams. There`s no real confusion about the message..its quite unmistakeable. Its just that certain Muppetts don't like what they are hearing.
But some folk just love to put about there gross misrepresentations and bogus characterisations, in there vein attempts to score points for there street cred...and con people?
No wonder many people are frightened to speak out on these forums. They really don't need this abuse and nonsense, which has plagued this election circus.

Note that less than 40 ECF delegates actually turned up in London for that AGM on Saturday. How many would have showed up if the meeting had been in say York. Maybe a special ECF meeting should be held there, with only those delegates who bother to turn up, allowed to vote...card voting only. One vote per delegate who actually shows up. And Williams day out would be greatly shortened!
Mike seems to think that those who show up for such annual meetings are some kind of martyrs. Many might well be solid contributors to the ECF, but some are more correctly characterised as silent assassins, full of there own ego`s and self importance. Roger Edwards.said something similar in his election interview with Yorkshire chess, which many may have missed. Ernie Lazenby, another Teesside and long time associate of William Metcalf, has also said similar things.

Yes, seduce them with what they want to hear, pump out the right sound bites, and guess what...the sheep come running....like lemmings over the cliff. Its a very old trick...no wonder there is mistrust aplenty.
And there are those here who think Mr Paulson is genuinely interested in the ECF?? Since when. What planet are these dreamers living on. He only signed up to ECF membership very recently.
He claimed little knowledge of English chess, doesn't play, but has come to inspire us..and has learned much from reading this Forum?? But if he lost the election for President, he said he would walk away....and wish us well.
A real deeply committed ECF fellow.. ? Pull the other one.

Mr Paulson is only interested in one thing...himself and his vested commercial/FIDE interests. The ECF is merely a token for his collection, and Mr Ehr, many might perceive, is just the errand boy.
I dont say that people like Mr Paulson cannot make significant contributions to our UK Chess scene, just that it really should be done at arms length, where the ECFs impartiality and integrity would be less obviously at risk. We cannot know what happens in the corridors of power, behind closed doors, where the real plots can be hatched.
So, we exclude him from meetings...do we also exclude his chums & running mates. Should this include all business related to charitable status, and the possible split up of the ECF. Mr Paulson could be thought to potentially benefit from such moves. And certainly all financial/commercial related matters. So where does that leave him...a useless ornament on the board?

But...a final point. Julian Clissold, a long standing well regarded, and very committed contributor to British Chess, asked a very interesting question. He asked on here.... What is the ECF for?
It is precisely because of such questions and confusions that people like Mr Paulson are able to appear from nowhere, seduce the `Plebs` with sound bites that they want to hear, fly under the radar, and bamboozle his way to the top job.

PS. I have much experience of working with Mick in chess circles, and there`s quite a few things we don't agree about, as you might have guessed..He is rather prone to misrepresentations and exaggeration, to suit his own personal whims. Or perhaps its just his sense of humour??
For those who are not aware, I was Manchester's county chess team captain for both there county teams over several years. I also sat on the MCF council for several years, attended various AGMs, and was a delegate at the MCCU AGMs. So, I don't just sit on my fat ass, as some idiots on here try to imply. I`ve also done a fair bit of campaigning for that crappyy 4NCL outfit, run by mad Mike, and his south centric lunny club. No prizes for guessing what they want...and I too would like to see more rewards for our top GMs and International players. Yes, we`d all love to see the return of the glorious Fischer years.
Mike has been quite appreciative at times for my efforts at publicity for 4NCL Northern, although I am no part of the 4NCL establishment. He blows hot and cold.
He now says that I sit on this forum talking boll**x. Bluudyy farcical...which planet are you on Mike. And how many posts did I make on this forum on Saturday afternoon. Some people just love to indulge themselves in gross distortions of the truth.
The 4NCL Northern league is now booming, with 14 teams this year...nearly 50% up on last year. Pity we are condemned to travelling to Daventry for Finals week, but there you go.

[John Upham]

i.e., that Roger Edwards is the preferred choice for ECF President of members of this chess forum,

I wish I could also live in a black and white universe where everything was clear cut.

More accurate would be:

"Of the very small number forum members who expressed a preference, two more voted in favour of RE than for AP".

[Richard Bates]

I haven't voted yet. Still open to bribery...

[Paul McKeown]

The jury has now received David Pardoe's entry for top prize for the daftest and least literate rant ever posted on this forum.

[PeterFarr]

The doubts and questions around Mr Paulson have been well-aired, and are obvious enough but, whatever people think of the voting system, he won the real election by a significant margin.

So as Andrew Zigmond said an age ago (or maybe just this morning, I forget), we should probably now stop the whingeing and give him a chance.

Though to be honest, I did enjoy John Cox's brilliant suggestion of a power play based on taking over a Siberian satrap. One can imagine them quaking in their boots in downtown Mashgetzsmashky at the thought of the Evil Federation President coming for them.

Actually, I'm surprised that nobody else has spotted the rather obvious possibility that Mr Paulson is looking to steal our compulsory membership scheme, take over FIDE, and then roll-out compulsory membership to all of the 605 million chess players in the world (except parts of Yorkshire obviously).

Now that really is a money-spinning idea.

[David Pardoe]

i.e., that Roger Edwards is the preferred choice for ECF President of members of this chess forum,

I wish I could also live in a black and white universe where everything was clear cut.

More accurate would be:

"Of the very small number forum members who expressed a preference, two more voted in favour of RE than for AP".

As I said in my post immediately above yours....(I think our two posts actually crossed, so yours wasnt a reply to my immediately preceeding post, as might be thought).

I quote..
I`ve simply echoed what the Forum membership have said in the poll. I didn't say it was a resounding victory for Roger Edwards. Merely that this expresses how those Forum members, many of whom are very active and knowledgeable in chess circles, and interested enough to vote in a free and transparent poll, had voted. Election votes can be won or lost on very small margins..

[Andrew Zigmond]

I quote..
I`ve simply echoed what the Forum membership have said in the poll. I didn't say it was a resounding victory for Roger Edwards. Merely that this expresses how those Forum members, many of whom are very active and knowledgeable in chess circles, and interested enough to vote in a free and transparent poll, had voted. Election votes can be won or lost on very small margins..

David, the reason this thread has turned slightly acrimonious is that your argument seems to be that the vote on this forum is somehow more representative than the ECF Council. One point you're perhaps overlooking is that quite a few people will have voted in both - the five biggest proxy holders quoted in another post (Hewitt, Edgell, Sedgwick, Metcalfe, Truran) are all contributors to this forum. It would definitely be interesting to see the actual breakdown of the forum vote; ie who voted for who and what demographic within chess they could be said to represent.

In the course of this thread and others you've called the 4NCL (which has revolutionised British chess) crappy, accused Malcolm Pein (the organiser of the London Chess Classic and founder of CSC) of living in a fantasy world, described Phil Ehr (regarded as a hugely competent junior director) as an errand boy and generally attacked the members of Council (a point I'll return to) among other things. Is it any wonder tempers are becoming frayed?

Council may not be perfect but its members are generally those who make an effort to organise events and make them happen. With the grief they get from all quarters is it any wonder they're protective of the few rights they actually have?

Moving on; one of two things will happen now. Mr Paulson may well depart after a few years under a cloud like too many of his predecessors and we'll be no further on. Or he might just be able to make good on some of his pledges and attract sponsors by putting on a professional front. The question I'd like to ask is not which will it be but which we would prefer it to be?

[Roger de Coverly]

Note that less than 40 ECF delegates actually turned up in London for that AGM on Saturday. How many would have showed up if the meeting had been in say York.

One of the bi-annual meetings was held in Sheffield within recent memory. Reports of the meeting suggest they struggled to reach a quorum.

Maybe a special ECF meeting should be held there, with only those delegates who bother to turn up, allowed to vote...card voting only. One vote per delegate who actually shows up

As has been noted frequently before, the legal requirements surrounding a Company limited by Guarantee require that proxies are allowed.

You cannot actually stop the collection of proxies. What would be a valid novelty would be if Representative members indulged in self restraint and encouraged leagues and Congresses to send their own independent representatives. It might make for a meeting with more attendees, is this good or bad?

[Sean Hewitt]

David, the reason this thread has turned slightly acrimonious is that your argument seems to be that the vote on this forum is somehow more representative than the ECF Council. One point you're perhaps overlooking is that quite a few people will have voted in both - the five biggest proxy holders quoted in another post (Hewitt, Edgell, Sedgwick, Metcalfe, Truran) are all contributors to this forum. It would definitely be interesting to see the actual breakdown of the forum vote; ie who voted for who and what demographic within chess they could be said to represent.

In the course of this thread and others you've called the 4NCL (which has revolutionised British chess) crappy, accused Malcolm Pein (the organiser of the London Chess Classic and founder of CSC) of living in a fantasy world, described Phil Ehr (regarded as a hugely competent junior director) as an errand boy and generally attacked the members of Council (a point I'll return to) among other things. Is it any wonder tempers are becoming frayed?

Council may not be perfect but its members are generally those who make an effort to organise events and make them happen. With the grief they get from all quarters is it any wonder they're protective of the few rights they actually have?

Moving on; one of two things will happen now. Mr Paulson may well depart after a few years under a cloud like too many of his predecessors and we'll be no further on. Or he might just be able to make good on some of his pledges and attract sponsors by putting on a professional front. The question I'd like to ask is not which will it be but which we would prefer it to be?

A well thought out posting. I agree with all of it and I would hope that regardless of whom one might have preferred to win the Presidential election, we can agree that the campaigning is now in the past. What we need to concentrate on is helping Andrew deliver improvements for chess in England, whilst ensuring that the scenarios envisaged by his detractors (rightly or wrongly) do not come to fruition. Like it or not, Andrew is now the ECF President.

One point I would like to make about proxies is that whilst Hewitt, Edgell, Sedgwick, Metcalfe, Truran held the largest numbers of votes at Council on Saturday, they weren't the largest proxy holders. They were actually (if I've counted correctly) Edgell (12), Sedgwick (11), Metcalf (10), Armstrong (7) and Hewitt (6). Mike Truran held no proxies. Many of these will have been directed proxies; personally 4 of the 6 proxy votes I cast were directed and Ben Edgell has described elsewhere voting for multiple candidates with his different hats on. I did the same. Another delegate told me that all of his proxies were directed.

It's perhaps not surprising that delegates unable to attend turn to certain people whom they trust, who they know will vote as instructed, and who they know will go to the meeting.

On my calculations, 46 of the 313 available votes were proxies (14.7%). I don't know if this is typical. What was more notable to me was the high turnout. In the Presidential and CEO elections, 275 of the 313 available votes were cast. An 88% turnout is not to be sniffed at.

[David Pardoe]

Andrew,
The mere mention that this forum has expressed a preference for Roger Edwards to continue as President of the ECF brought forth howls of abuse and insults from a certain faction.
They can dish it out but they cant take it.

Roger,
We know about company law regarding Proxies/multiple voting etc.
Many discussions on this forum have in the past raised concerns about the voting/election system. Interesting to see how some respond when they don't like the message.
It might produce results that are not convenient, so its been swept under the carpet to date.
Many have complained in the past that OMOV should be applied in some form. Any number of comments can be found on various threads, discussing the pro`s and cons.
Here we have an example of OMOV in action, and the results produced. Yes, admittedly it was a close call. But it was noticeable how this forum was denounced as unrepresentative by a certain faction. I dare say that many probably just thought the whole business was just a circus...a comedy farce that they wanted to avoid. Maybe that's why Roger Edwards does not come onto to this forum.
And online is so convenient, and requires no travelling. Nearly 80 forumites bothered to cast a vote, whereas less than 40 actual delegates turned out at saturdays AGM.
Whether this forum, which contains a fairly representative cross section of chess players who are interested, and in many cases extremely knowledgeable in matters chess, reached a fair conclusion might be open to question. It was transparent, and the votes cast in a fair and open manner.

I mentioned York as a possible ECF AGM venue, and you said that people wouldn't turn out in numbers, and might risk being inquorate. Funny how the northern sector are expected to travel south, but the southern sector are not so keen on travelling north.
The north - south divide again, perhaps?
And William Metcalfe was mentioned as an example of a good scholar who had made a long journey to London to vote. Indeed he did. And he had consulted widely amongst a number of bodies about the voting, and was unable to decide how to cast his vote. But was given latitude to make his own last minute choice.
This consultation process is certainly questionable, with League and congress membership showing very little direct consultations and interest.
Sean, I believe, was critical of Neville Belinfante, a well regarded ECF official, on this forum, for supposedly abusing his multi delegate/proxy votes. At least Mr Belinfante did send out a hard copy note to his audience. I`ve never had any communication from any congress organiser.
And the reasonable sounding Sean, had that bustup with Lara Barnes, causing the well regarded Manager of British chess to resign, I believe.
It is right that members should continue to ask there questions, voice any concerns, and make there contributions as they see fit.

[Sean Hewitt]

And online is so convenient, and requires no travelling. Nearly 80 forumites bothered to cast a vote, whereas less than 40 actual delegates turned out at saturdays AGM.

The forum has 989 registered users, out of a chess playing population of 15,000. Whilst it is useful, it is hardly representative. The fact that only 8% of the electorate voted compared with 88% of council, is interesting. I wonder which is more impressive? I also wonder which required more effort? 83 people voting in an online poll, or 40 people making the (for many, considerable) effort to attend a physical meeting in London for more than 5 hours?

This consultation process is certainly questionable, with League and congress membership showing very little direct consultations and interest.
Sean, I believe, was critical of Neville Belinfante, a well regarded ECF official, on this forum, for supposedly abusing his multi delegate/proxy votes. At least Mr Belinfante did send out a hard copy note to his audience.

I was surprised when the first that Bucks Secretary knew they had nominated a candidate for the elections was when they read it on the forum. That doesn't sound very consultative to me, but that's a matter for Bucks to resolve. I've spoken to Neville subsequently and all is well. We had a beer in High Wycombe on Saturday night. You can't do that on a forum.

I`ve never had any communication from any congress organiser

I can't speak for any other congress organiser but, according to my database, you've never entered an e2e4 event so we're not going to consult with you. Personally, I do my consulting at the events themselves, by talking to players. I was still doing it at breakfast on Saturday before going to the meeting - an exercise which was very useful.

And the reasonable sounding Sean, had that bustup with Lara Barnes, causing the well regarded Manager of British chess to resign, I believe.

I really do wish you'd get your facts right. The 'bust up' (as you put it) was Alex McFarlane having a bust up with me.

[Alex McFarlane]

The 'bust up' (as you put it) was Alex McFarlane having a bust up with me.

We will have to agree to differ. The 'bust up' was me refusing to accept your 'facts'. You then made an inappropriate comment to Lara.

I still await your verification (that you refused to give at the time) of these 'facts'.

Because you couldn't win a discussion with me, you make an inappropriate comment to Lara. You did offer your resignation over this matter. You did not offer an apology to her.

[Sean Hewitt]

The 'bust up' (as you put it) was Alex McFarlane having a bust up with me.

We will have to agree to differ. The 'bust up' was me refusing to accept your 'facts'.

The bust up was caused by you interrupting a conversation which didn't involve you, and then laying into me about ecf policy. You didn't appear to like the fact that I was prepared to stand up for myself. As you say, we agree to differ. Let's leave it there and move on.

[Alex McFarlane]

You didn't appear to like the fact that I was prepared to stand up for myself.

No, I didn't like YOU saying that the people who didn't enter because they would have had to pay a year's membership for one event didn't matter. All chess players should matter. The system of the previous year that Andrew Farthing introduced should have continued allowing 14 months membership for such people.
It was not an argument over membership but over the implementation of the membership scheme.