Preferred option for electoral reform?

[Paul McKeown]

"Don't Care"? Why would you feel compelled to answer the poll if you don't care about it? Just ignore the thread and move on.

Perhaps it would indicate that the voter thought that the ECF had more important issues to consider and that those should be its priority?

[Paul McKeown]

But seriously, does anyone in favour of any the options wish to actually outline the case in favour?

Please?

[Ken Norman]

The various suggestions being put forward are ignoring the ECF members who only play in tournaments.

We do not belong to a chess club nor do we play for a county. The only Chess organisation we have any connection with is the ECF via the membership scheme.

Clearly these ECF members should be able to vote in the election of the ECF board.

The logical result of a direct membership scheme is that members should have a vote at the AGM.

Any other arraignment is simply taxation without representation.

[Angus French]

I quite agree with Paul M's last two posts. I've commented on voting reform because it's now an issue though I think there are more important things for the ECF to consider; perhaps those who have voted in the poll would like to say which option they chose and why.

[Ian Kingston]

The various suggestions being put forward are ignoring the ECF members who only play in tournaments.

I included those members in my suggestion.

The likely practical consequence of one voter per club is that a group of clubs get together, as part of a League or otherwise and send one voter with proxies from the remaining clubs.

That's certainly possible, but cannot be an objection in principle. Proxies will happen under any system.

UK law isn't the same as French or Italian law, so whilst there are large numbers of possible structures, many would not be legal, particularly if charity law comes into play as well.

I'm quite aware that other countries have different laws. What I'm asking is: is the suggestion that I put forward (or some close variant) definitely not possible for legal reasons? If that's the case there's no point considering it further. If it is legal, then it seems worth looking at more closely if other countries have made a success of it.

[Roger de Coverly]

If it is legal, then it seems worth looking at more closely if other countries have made a success of it.

I would have thought the "doing away with Council" bit is problematic. You need a body to appoint and fire directors, pass resolutions, approve accounts etc.

You can do this with a structure where nominally everyone has a vote, Building Societies and other financial mutuals being cases in point. What happens though is that there is no effective oversight of the Board and that issues, if they are put to the membership, just become battlegrounds for proxy votes.

Should it be presumed the ECF Directors want some form of interaction with players? They might prefer a dictatorship. If so, the practicalities of opening an annual meeting to 10,000 people need to be considered. Making the vote-holder the club rather than the player cuts it down presumably to under 1,000. But what would happen in practice? Would the club secretary get bombarded with requests to appoint X as proxy?

[Andrew Zigmond]

I actually agree with those who say that there are more important things the ECF could be doing. However the AGM did pass a motion concerning voting reform and several people including myself have become quite riled by certain individuals screaming that the AGM election was illegal without suggesting an alternative. Which takes me on to my next point.

At the time of writing OMOV is dominating the poll with 59% of the vote, however nobody has actually posted on this thread with a plan as to how OMOV would operate in practice. Are we just talking OMOV for elections or for all AGM matters? Do members need to attend the meeting in person or will they be able to instruct proxies? Are we going to have a postal/ electronic ballot? What will be the deadlines for nominations/ results? Will Council still have a role? These are all questions that need answering - those in favour of OMOV need to engage with them.

[Paolo Casaschi]

If it is legal, then it seems worth looking at more closely if other countries have made a success of it.

I would have thought the "doing away with Council" bit is problematic. You need a body to appoint and fire directors, pass resolutions, approve accounts etc.

Some people might only object the concept of a council where council members are not elected or directly accountable to players.
In the examples of the French and Italian federation you have the set of club presidents acting as a council; they are a small enough number to make in-person annual meetings possible; most important, each player is represented by one (and only one) club president that in turn is accountable to the player (club presidents, at least for the Italian federation have to be elected officials rather than appointed by god).

[Dragoljub Sudar]

Member > County > Board

County Reps directly elected (i.e. OMOV at county level) with number of votes at AGM proportional to electorate in that county.

Every member has to declare on the membership application which county he wishes to represent him/her.

What if nobody in the county stands as rep? Simple. Voting rights default to county president.

It also has the advantage of keeping the numbers able to vote at AGMs manageable.

[Roger de Coverly]

Member > County > Board

County Reps directly elected (i.e. OMOV at county level) with number of votes at AGM proportional to electorate in that county.

It would work well enough where the local county runs the local league. In parts of the country, the local league can be the more important organisation, Bristol, Birmingham, London etc. The London League is a constituent member of the ECF by virtue of helping to establish the BCF back in 1904.

You could modify the proposal so that it was open choice which county or league or even Congress a player nominated. It comes back then as to how that organisation selects its representative, because your proposal envisages contested elections.

With the ECF increasingly trying to impact average players or organisers, the status of the local ECF representative on Council starts to matter a bit more. Historically it was a question of finding a volunteer willing to attend the necessary meetings and report back anything of relevance or interest.

[Paolo Casaschi]

You could modify the proposal so that it was open choice which county or league or even Congress a player nominated.

Or you could make it even more open and allow each player to nominate anyone they want (that is willing to attend the AGM that is).
Wait a minute... if you do that you basically get OMOV with the option of delegating someone. Good thinking.

[David Pardoe]

Andrew,
I think you may be missing a key point..namely this..
If you`re going to fix a system, or replace a system, it is helpful to firstly understand the deficiencies of the system you have got..
I have tried to point out some of the faults by reference to various examples from the recent ECF elections.

Given this system clearly has deficiencies, one option, not included in your list is to (f) Fix the deficiencies.
So, a combination of the current delegate system with some fixes, plus some varient of the OMOV options could well suffice. This could be started on a limited basis, using online only voting for the OMOV part, then perhaps extended to raising motions. We certainly dont want anything too expensive/complicated, nor do we need hundreds of people attending ECF AGMs, nor should we attempt sending out shed loads of paper via post.
The other key point is to allow those who wish to vote the chance to do so. These numbers, in both camps, are very low currently, so some encouragement to enable a few more to participate might be useful.
I do think many delegates are bamboozled by the process and the information put out, but the discussion forum does provide a chance to try to grapple with the dark mysteries. Many might regard the recent elections as a sham. Ive commented on that point too. Many have refrained for various reasons, possibly including a desire not to get caught up in the politics. Others may simply not have the time or inclination to attempt to grapple with the process. Dogs breakfast comes to mind.
Finally, you might better direct your energies nearer home. The NCCU still seems to be trying to emerge from the dark ages. There handling of a motion regarding county rule changes did not look particularly good. Maybe they can look again at options to improve the support for county chess. Take a look at the MCCU model, which has worked fairly well, thanks in no small part to officers commitment in difficult circumstances.

[Andrew Zigmond]

David, thank you but I think I'm well aware of the deficiencies - voting reform is surely another way of saying deficiency fixing.

Your suggestions about how we could move forward, here and elsewhere, are quite sensible. I would quibble your point that those who wish to vote are prevented from doing so; as interest is currently so limited those who do follow ECF politics can quite easily get themselves a place on Council (I was approached to represent the YCA but declined due to another chess commitment - had I stood as ECF delegate at our last AGM I would not have been opposed).

I promote the ECF message locally where I can, however I try to do so through chess rather than politics. Engaging people to involve themselves in ECF events more (such as the National Club Championship or the British, to name just two) is the first priority, interest in politics (or leadership at least) would then follow.

I take your point about the NCCU, however I'm not quite sure what the criteria is to be an NCCU member but I doubt I would qualify as I haven't played in any NCCU event during the past season. It is true I'm from a Northern County and I also have the right to elect YCA delegates to the NCCU, however NCCU politics generally pass me by. ECF politics on the other hand, do have a bearing on the work I do, hence my interest.

[David Pardoe]

Andrew,
I`ve done my stint at working for various chess bodies. Thats not to rule out some role, but I`m happy to be a casual assistant in various respects.
Just having a vote and direct say would do for me.
As regards the NCCU, I guess you are a member of your local chess club, which affiliates to Yorkshire, and on to the NCCU. So the link is tenuous.
Yes, I do agree that volunteers are essential, and part of the reason our chess bodies dont make great strides is that quite often the show is kept rolling by a small band who end up doing multiple jobs, which they inevitably struggle with.
Incidentally, thats one issue I have about these delegates who go round collecting Proxy votes, and representing large numbers of groups as there ECF rep. How can these people properly discharge the job of consulting with those they supposedly represent. One other concern is that many organisations don`t give a jot about the delegate votes, and are glad to offload them to anyone who comes calling...
There needs to be some kind of minimum verifiable standards as regards consultations. I except that large numbers will not be interested, and will not reply.

But I wish you well with your efforts....

[Sean Hewitt]

Incidentally, thats one issue I have about these delegates who go round collecting Proxy votes, and representing large numbers of groups as there ECF rep. How can these people properly discharge the job of consulting with those they supposedly represent.

There needs to be some kind of minimum verifiable standards as regards consultations.

Leaving aside the legal issue that a member organisation is free to appoint anyone it wishes to be it's ECF delegate; why, if a league or county decides to democratically elect a person to be their rep, would it be of any interest to anyone outside that organisation? If an organisation doesn't like their rep also being someone else's rep or doesn't think he/she is doing a good job (perhaps through not consulting), can't they simply elect someone else.