Annual General Meeting 2013

[IM Jack Rudd]

Jack....
Your candidature is not in doubt in terms of what you bring to the table. You bring real chess to the table, and chess at the top levels, and a breadth of experience. In that sense I think Malcolm had a point.
But, if you`d put out a candidate statement, brief background, a mention of last years challenges and contributions, it would possibly have helped. I`m sure your experience would be valuable to the board, and maybe we need more such representation from NEDs.

Well, all four candidates for the posts had valuable experience to bring; all somewhat different, but all worthy of consideration. And yes, I probably should have put out a candidate statement, but I didn't have the mental energy. Depression is a real killer when it comes to this sort of thing.

Note, it was Julian who asked...what is the ECF for?
Yes, a `not for profit`, cultural body, seeking charitable status....and a key theme was commercial acumen & FIDE??
And 99% of our chess players get an excellent chess offering, thanks to the dedication of some very commited people throughout our chess community, working mostly on a voluntary basis, giving freely of their personal time.

Chess administration on a national level costs money, even with the generous support that so many of our community give. Commercial acumen is therefore always going to be a consideration. And as for FIDE, well, they're not the organization we'd be dealing with in an ideal world, but it's the one we've got.

[Andrew Zigmond]

And 99% of our chess players get an excellent chess offering, thanks to the dedication of some very commited people throughout our chess community, working mostly on a voluntary basis, giving freely of their personal time.

Ironically a lot of these people are the `silent assasins` you refer to later. For those who are interested in the voting process I do think that the actual voting split (ie who voted for who) should be recorded and made public. I'll make a bold statement - if we'd had one member one vote for the last election I think Andrew Paulson would have won by quite a large margin. I'm not saying that this would have been the desired outcome and I certainly admit that I have no way of proving it.

It was unfortunate that the NED vote was between four strong candidates all with different individual strengths (and weaknesses) and unfortunately only two could be elected. Alex H has said he is seeking a role for Jack and I hope Angus French has been approached to play his part as well.

[Roger de Coverly]

if we'd had one member one vote for the last election I think Andrew Paulson would have won by quite a large margin.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The minority who follow international chess looked at the promises made by Agon for international chess, the subsequent lack of delivery and the extravagant nature of the manifesto for the ECF. If asked for advice on how to vote, or what to consider by less knowledgeable fellow club or county members, what advice would have been given?

At the very least, vote for Paulson and be prepared to be disappointed.

[Roger de Coverly]

should the finishing order of those two candidates really be decided by how well a different candidate does?

*considers proposing to the April meeting a change from Plurality-At-Large to Approval-At-Large for election to Board posts*

I imagine it's on the borderline of being legal, but suppose you had a first past the post election for "first non-executive director". Everyone would vote for their most preferred candidate. Having announced the winner of that election, you then have a ballot for "second non-executive director" with the remaining three candidates. The first election influences the second election, so it's not quite the same as transferable vote, or expressing 1,2 preferences type elections.

[IM Jack Rudd]

should the finishing order of those two candidates really be decided by how well a different candidate does?

*considers proposing to the April meeting a change from Plurality-At-Large to Approval-At-Large for election to Board posts*

I imagine it's on the borderline of being legal, but suppose you had a first past the post election for "first non-executive director". Everyone would vote for their most preferred candidate. Having announced the winner of that election, you then have a ballot for "second non-executive director" with the remaining three candidates. The first election influences the second election, so it's not quite the same as transferable vote, or expressing 1,2 preferences type elections.

It's a possibility, although it also has severe issues (such as failing to meet the favourite-betrayal criterion).

[Andrew Zigmond]

The Monday after the election was my club night and I can safely say the election was NOT the hot topic on everybody's lips - in fact I suspect I was the only one who'd noticed. If the election had been held under OMOV I suspect Andrew Paulson would have made a big push to get his message across.

This is one for another thread (which I may start) but OMOV would probably have to be done as a postal ballot. Let's say that every ECF member had received a booklet containing the election addresses (I will pause to let you shudder at the thought of the cost) and a voting form to return I suspect a lot of rank and file players, with nothing else to go on, would have been swayed by the Paulson message.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is one for another thread (which I may start) but OMOV would probably have to be done as a postal ballot. Let's say that every ECF member had received a booklet containing the election addresses (I will pause to let you shudder at the thought of the cost) and a voting form to return I suspect a lot of rank and file players, with nothing else to go on, would have been swayed by the Paulson message.

I think you should assume an email/web ballot. But what to do when the ECF doesn't have a valid email?

If there was a local "not-Paulson" advocate, it's very simple to email your club and county contacts with "anti-Paulson" material, so it's not "nothing else to go on".

[Andrew Zigmond]

This is one for another thread (which I may start) but OMOV would probably have to be done as a postal ballot. Let's say that every ECF member had received a booklet containing the election addresses (I will pause to let you shudder at the thought of the cost) and a voting form to return I suspect a lot of rank and file players, with nothing else to go on, would have been swayed by the Paulson message.

I think you should assume an email/web ballot. But what to do when the ECF doesn't have a valid email?

If there was a local "not-Paulson" advocate, it's very simple to email your club and county contacts with "anti-Paulson" material, so it's not "nothing else to go on".

An email ballot could be messy, a postal ballot would at least ensure all the papers were properly issued. Leaving aside those people without email (and the ECF would just have to what I do with my non email members - snail mail it) email addresses change frequently and can easily be imputted wrongly. For any sort of OMOV to work the ECF would need to communicate better with its members; not easy when we'd people moaning about spam emails.

It's true that a local representative could end up dictating to their members how they should vote or at the very least put out biased information. Obviously many people will make up their own minds but OMOV could end up being as unrepresentative as the current system.

[David Pardoe]

if we'd had one member one vote for the last election I think Andrew Paulson would have won by quite a large margin.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The minority who follow international chess looked at the promises made by Agon for international chess, the subsequent lack of delivery and the extravagant nature of the manifesto for the ECF. If asked for advice on how to vote, or what to consider by less knowledgeable fellow club or county members, what advice would have been given?

At the very least, vote for Paulson and be prepared to be disappointed.

We all know that a trial OMOV poll of this forums membership showed a preference for Roger Edwards to continue as ECF President.
Voting was free, fair and transparent. Some said that the turnout was low, and there could be various reasons behind that.
Even the current delegate voting system, which is generally acknowledged as being significantly flawed and open to abuses, reveals large swathes of non participation (and exclusion), not all down to apathy, as some suggest. Reforms definitely needed..

But, returning to the NED points raised earlier, and the election process. How much did the block Delegate/Proxy vote influence matters? How were member groups and bodies consulted? Who was consulted? Who was not consulted? What format did these consultations take? Who directed the votes.. and .how were these votes directed?

[Andrew Zigmond]

But, returning to the NED points raised earlier, and the election process. How much did the block Delegate/Proxy vote influence matters? How were member groups and bodies consulted? Who was consulted? Who was not consulted? What format did these consultations take? Who directed the votes.. and .how were these votes directed?

Speaking from experience I tried to start a debate on the YCA forum and couldn't get much consensus (or indeed interest) either way. For the Council members who have a constituency I'd say consultation is a matter for their association alone. At the end of the day my MP does not consult me about how he votes in Parliament.

I agree to an extent that it is problematic that congress organisers do control quite a substantial number of Council votes they are not obliged to give an account for - congresses are ultimately businesses. However what I disagree very strongly with is the idea that these people should not have a voice at Council - these are the people who make chess happen in this country (while league associations can be the conservatives who hold us back).

[Mark Howitt]

I never heard anyone in 12 years of Yorkshire chess proactively talk about BCF/ECF politics. I suspect at least 90% of Yorkshire's chess players don't care.

[David Pardoe]

And 99% of our chess players get an excellent chess offering, thanks to the dedication of some very commited people throughout our chess community, working mostly on a voluntary basis, giving freely of their personal time.

Ironically a lot of these people are the `silent assasins` you refer to later. For those who are interested in the voting process I do think that the actual voting split (ie who voted for who) should be recorded and made public.

It was unfortunate that the NED vote was between four strong candidates all with different individual strengths (and weaknesses) and unfortunately only two could be elected. Alex H has said he is seeking a role for Jack and I hope Angus French has been approached to play his part as well.

Just out of interest, it might be interesting to know how Sean cast his votes in the NED election. I believe he had about 60 Delegate plus Proxy votes in total to allocate between the 4 candidates.
Talking of voting..Congresses..etc?
I reckon these groups should be more accountable as regards how votes are cast. i.e. For congresses, it would be good if they at least circulated there congress email lists, once ECF candidates have been declared, to ask the congress players if they had any preferences. They could list the candidates for information and maybe include references to any candidate statements. Maybe even mention any news they had and perhaps refer to any discussions on the ECF forum. Some congresses have there own websites, so could arrange some online discussions perhaps, for those interested.
Congress organisers could also mention the ECF elections on there entry forms, reminding players to get in touch if they had any views or questions. Encouraging more discussion and providing more information might help encourage more participation.
Yes, the possibility that some might put out bogus and misleading information would still exist, as we have seen. And yes, you`ll still get large numbers who, for various reasons will not participate, but we need to try to encourage players to partake in open fair and transparent elections.

[Andrew Zigmond]

The problem is that a congress is ultimately a business and congress players are customers. Obviously congress organisers are accountable to their customers (if I go to a congress to find poor facilities, organisation etc then I would take my business elsewhere) but they're hardly intended as representative democracies - I doubt anybody has boycotted a congress because they dislike the politics of the organiser.

Also a lot of congresses do see the same faces over and over again (as opposed to leagues where for practical reasons players have to stick to one or two). I played in five congresses last season (six if you count the weekender in Torquay) should that entitle me to five votes? I'd also suggest that congress organisers would vote for the candidate who they think chess (and thus their business) would thrive best under which presumably is what their regular entrants would want as well.

[John Swain]

Talking of voting..Congresses..etc?
I reckon these groups should be more accountable as regards how votes are cast. i.e. For congresses, it would be good if they at least circulated there congress email lists, once ECF candidates have been declared, to ask the congress players if they had any preferences. They could list the candidates for information and maybe include references to any candidate statements. Maybe even mention any news they had and perhaps refer to any discussions on the ECF forum. Some congresses have there own websites, so could arrange some online discussions perhaps, for those interested.
Congress organisers could also mention the ECF elections on there entry forms, reminding players to get in touch if they had any views or questions. Encouraging more discussion and providing more information might help encourage more participation.

I understand that the ECF is going to conduct a review of its voting procedures. Not before time!

I agree that votes at the AGM generated by congresses can be very undemocratic. Some organisers seem to have the sort of power of a 'union baron' of a generation ago, which cannot be healthy. I don't know of any congress organiser who bothers to canvass opinions prior to an ECF AGM and I'm not sure how effective or representative their canvassing would be anyway.

Unless an organisation has its own AGM or democratic processes, as counties and many leagues do, where views can be discussed and delegates mandated to support particular opinions (and subsequently cross-examined about how they voted) I don't think it should be allocated any votes at the AGM.

[Andrew Zigmond]

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.