Annual General Meeting 2013

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:43 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote:What I object to quite strongly is the insinuation that congress organisers are some sort of sinister collective intent on destroying English chess.
There are however Congress organisers who consider they are right on every issue. That coupled with a number of undirected proxy votes can allow a handful of individuals to hold the ECF to ransom on particular issues.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:30 pm

:roll: Are people still moaning about the ECF AGM?

John Swain
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:35 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by John Swain » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:19 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:The point a lot of people miss is that the ECF is a federation of organisations, not a membership association.

I agree that the voting system needs reform. What I object to quite strongly is the insinuation that congress organisers are some sort of sinister collective intent on destroying English chess. These are normally the people who are trying to drive chess forward - it is local leagues and associations who have a history of blocking everything that doesn't directly benefit them.
I don't see any previous post which contains "the insinuation that congress organisers are some sort of sinister collective intent on destroying English chess." I don't know of any congress organiser who fits that description.

I believe that no congress organiser, however active, should be able to cast fifteen times the number of votes that a medium-sized county has at its disposal at the AGM, which is what was implied earlier in this thread. Many of the same names tend to feature at congresses, so it is not that large a constituency. I presume this antiquated voting system dates back to the time when game fee applied so votes in proportion to games played made some sort of sense, but makes less sense under a membership system.

I agree with Paul McKeown's later post about post-AGM moaning; I think it would be better to start another thread on future ECF voting procedures.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:The point a lot of people miss is that the ECF is a federation of organisations, not a membership association.
Remind me of that when it's time to renew my membership.

If you want players as members, they should be members both when it's time to pay the annual fees and also when it's time to elect the ECF management.
If you don't wont them as members, please don't force them funding the entire operations.

I'd be ok with players being just "customers" of the federation, if you like better a federation of congresses. But then I'd like to be free to choose which services to buy...

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:15 pm

John Swain wrote:I believe that no congress organiser, however active, should be able to cast fifteen times the number of votes that a medium-sized county has at its disposal at the AGM, which is what was implied earlier in this thread.
It's possible to imply many things, but it doesn't make them true. It is perhaps better to stick to the facts. Leicestershire is a medium sized county (about 250 players) and commands 5 votes. e2e4 is the largest congress on the ECF council. Nearly 1,000 players played an e2e4 event in the last 12 months. e2e4 has 10 votes.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10329
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by Mick Norris » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:35 pm

You can see the make up of ECF Council, how many votes each organisation has etc here:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -8-Oct.pdf
Any postings on here represent my personal views

John Swain
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:35 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by John Swain » Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:13 pm

Mick Norris wrote:You can see the make up of ECF Council, how many votes each organisation has etc here:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -8-Oct.pdf
Thanks for the link, Mick. As you've probably gathered, I'm a relative novice on the arcane workings and mysteries of the ECF Council voting system.

As I said earlier on this thread, I think it would be a good idea to look to the future, rather than dwelling on the AGM, and therefore I'll start another thread so that others more expert than me can offer their defence (if any) of the existing system and proposals for the future.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10329
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by Mick Norris » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:46 pm

Good, maybe Carl can lock this thread
Any postings on here represent my personal views

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by David Pardoe » Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:03 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:
John Swain wrote:I believe that no congress organiser, however active, should be able to cast fifteen times the number of votes that a medium-sized county has at its disposal at the AGM, which is what was implied earlier in this thread.
It's possible to imply many things, but it doesn't make them true. It is perhaps better to stick to the facts. Leicestershire is a medium sized county (about 250 players) and commands 5 votes. e2e4 is the largest congress on the ECF council. Nearly 1,000 players played an e2e4 event in the last 12 months. e2e4 has 10 votes.
Looking at the facts. In regard to the full delegate and proxy votes that you controlled, what was your allocation to each of the NEDs in the ECF election for those directors?
As regards the numbers represented, these are a total irrelevance if the actual amount/number of members consulted is only very fractional, and perhaps selective, depending on how you go about any consultations.

I notice that some people here seem to think that delegate votes for congress organisors are some kind of personal chip that they are awarded, to use as they think fit? Proper & fair representation of views is essential if the credibility of elections is to be maintained.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Mark Howitt
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Annual General Meeting 2013

Post by Mark Howitt » Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:55 am

Customers seem far better a word to describe ECF tax payers than members. If they're going to tax you, they should at least give you equal votes.

Post Reply