Candidates for office

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
User avatar
Rob Thompson
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Rob Thompson » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:05 am

I don't see why it's a problem. He's managed to work with candidates that weren't his preferred choice through the last board, and I see no reason why he would be unable to do so in the next board, should that occur.
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Michael Flatt » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:46 am

Carl Hibbard wrote:Not that it matters that much but should Phil Ehr be declaring his thoughts on best candidates in his election address?
I suggest that it does matter.

The idea of individuals submitting their own election address allows them the opportunity to present themselves to the electorate and for the electorate to make their own best judgement as to whom to elect.

Allowing the Chief Executive (and acting Chairman) to have such a significant influence regarding the election of candidates to other posts seems to deny them a fair election.

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

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:19 am

Michael Flatt wrote:Allowing the Chief Executive (and acting Chairman) to have such a significant influence regarding the election of candidates to other posts seems to deny them a fair election.
In the past, the board would interview candidates and then make a collective recommendation to Council. This practice has, rightfully, stopped for the reasons that Michael alludes to. Phil Ehr however is not one for consulting the board.
Rob Thompson wrote:I don't see why it's a problem. He's managed to work with candidates that weren't his preferred choice through the last board, and I see no reason why he would be unable to do so in the next board, should that occur.
Rob - if you speak to some of those directors who weren't his preferred choice (Loz Cooper for example) I don't think you would draw the conclusion that "He's managed to work with candidates that weren't his preferred choice". It might be more accurate to say "He's attempted to thwart and stymie the work of candidates that weren't his preferred choice at every opportunity".

Lara Barnes
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Lara Barnes » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:44 am

FIDE Delegate

Arguably all three candidates for this post have talents that they could bring to the role.

There are two candidates, Stewart and I, with very similar ideology on how to build the ECF’s relationships within FIDE. I would like to therefore stand down and concentrate on development of the relationship with FIDE by working on a Commission or by working at various FIDE events, building the scaffold of the new, positive work from within.

I recommend that those who were intending to vote for me give their support to Stewart, who has the same objectives, has valuable experience of the procedures of FIDE and immense respect in the chess world. Both he and Malcolm have offered to work with me on the above objectives if elected.

Those of you who know our history will be aware that Stewart and I have had our differences in the past but I back him for this post after seeing how the doers and shakers of the chess world pay him respect and attention and how much he has the ECF’s best interests at heart. Stewart, like myself, wants grass roots chess, juniors, seniors and arbiters alike to have the best deal that is possible in the near future.

As I have respect for both of the other candidates I would prefer not to see a three way vote by council and will work with whoever takes on the role to improve our world chess reputation.

User avatar
Rob Thompson
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Rob Thompson » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:37 pm

My point was more that this wasn't a new position for him for this year. Last year there was basically a ticket, which didn't all succeed, and whilst the ECF remains inefficient it hasn't seemed to be any more so than at any other time. I don't think Phil Ehr showing his preferences is going to cause any additional problems to ECF governance.

As a separate point, we all know that PE has these preference, and of course they're going to affect governance in the future. However, I don't see how having this information before the elections is a bad thing. The preferences already existed, and if they're going to exist I'd much rather know about them than not know about them.
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Michael Flatt » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:29 am

It does put candidates in a difficult position to find that having offered themselves for election in good faith they unexpectedly find that another is the Chief Exec's or Boards preferred choice. If they had know that they at the beginning they might not have been willing to stand.

How can new faces join the Board if they are cold shouldered in this manner?

If the Chief Exec or Board have a preferred candidate that should be known to all other prospective candidates at the earliest opportunity.

The Boards nomination of Dominic Lawson only became know a few days before the closing of nominations. Not enough time for a rival candidate to oppose him, which might explain all the sniping that has appeared above.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Candidates for office

Post by John Upham » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:38 am

Michael Flatt wrote:Not enough time for a rival candidate to oppose him, which might explain all the sniping that has appeared above.
If there was a rival candidate (or simply a candidate) then they should have made themselves known much earlier.

If someone declared that they wanted to be elected inorder to oppose someone else then I would not rate their motivation and/or chances of success too highly.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

User avatar
Marcus Misson
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Marcus Misson » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:53 pm

It seems unfortunate that one of the few females standing for office has withdrawn leaving the usual two male stand-off. Perhaps the qualities Lara possesses in spades (taking one for the team, preference for consensus, diplomacy) are not particularly useful in the role of FIDE delegate?
chessplayers are crazy when it comes to chess
but that's not to say they're not really good blokes

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Michael Flatt » Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:21 am

John Upham wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote:Not enough time for a rival candidate to oppose him, which might explain all the sniping that has appeared above.
If there was a rival candidate (or simply a candidate) then they should have made themselves known much earlier.

If someone declared that they wanted to be elected inorder to oppose someone else then I would not rate their motivation and/or chances of success too highly.
I am only making this observation in terms of the "candidates nominated by the Board". I would expect the Board's choice to win but it would allow any who did not support him to put up a rival candidate. That is what I understood to be the election process.

In any case, I understand that the Board can co-opt anyone they deem fit should the post remain vacant.

I am still surprised that the candidate named None of the Above appears. How did this become accepted?

If there was a specified minimum number of nominations required to put forward a candidate it would remove the need for them to be humiliated by losing to None of the Above and leaving the post vacant until filled by the Board co-opting an unelected person.

Wouldn't it be better to weed out unsuitable candidates early on rather than at the end of the election process?

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:37 pm

Michael Flatt >The Boards nomination of Dominic Lawson only became know a few days before the closing of nominations. Not enough time for a rival candidate to oppose him, which might explain all the sniping that has appeared above.<

Dominic only made up his mind a few days before the deadline. I was concerned that there might be no candidate for President as my perception is that Council wants there to be one. So I asked about it. Phil told me that Dominic was a very likely candidate and I told him that I regarded him as a highly suitable candidate. Any embronic idea that I might have had about being a 'better than nothing' candidate disappeared.

If the Board or Chief Exec fears a candidate might lose to 'none of the above' then they should inform the individual. It can only be extremely hurtful. It was terrible that Malcolm Pein lost to 'none of the above' when he stood as the only candidate as Non-executive director. But the process was interfered with and the result was totally unexpected.

John Upham is absolutely correct. Anybody who stands for office, solely for the purpose of opposing the election of somebody else, is unworthy. The only reason to stand is that the individual thinks they are the best person available for the role.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:36 am

Stewart Reuben wrote: John Upham is absolutely correct. Anybody who stands for office, solely for the purpose of opposing the election of somebody else, is unworthy. The only reason to stand is that the individual thinks they are the best person available for the role.
Stewart: Thanks for the background information. I also agree that it is better to have a single candidate than none at all. Sometimes (probably not in the case of Dominic Lawson) members might feel that they could do a better job themselves once they see who is the "official" candidate.

Your reference to the treatment of Malcolm Pein when he was a sole candidate highlights the stupidity of including a spoiler or non-candidate called None of the Above. Did such an idea exist before the 1985 film, Brewster's Millions, staring Eddy Murphy?

I thought that the idea of being nominated was to rule out fringe or unsuitable candidates. I think that having to overcome a non-candidate called None of the above puts off many potentially good candidates. Entering an ECF election is too much a lottery.

Chris Rice
Posts: 3417
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Chris Rice » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:32 am

Michael Flatt wrote: Your reference to the treatment of Malcolm Pein when he was a sole candidate highlights the stupidity of including a spoiler or non-candidate called None of the Above. Did such an idea exist before the 1985 film, Brewster's Millions, staring Eddy Murphy?
It was the late, great Richard Pryor in fact but like you I wondered whether that film was the origin of the idea.

John McKenna

Re: Candidates for office

Post by John McKenna » Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:56 pm

Chris Rice wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote: Your reference to the treatment of Malcolm Pein when he was a sole candidate highlights the stupidity of including a spoiler or non-candidate called None of the Above. Did such an idea exist before the 1985 film, Brewster's Millions, staring Eddy Murphy?
It was the late, great Richard Pryor in fact but like you I wondered whether that film was the origin of the idea.
From Wikipedia

The origins of the ballot option "None of the Above" in the United States can be traced to the... 1976 resolution to place this option on the official electoral ballot in Santa Barbara County in California... In 1978 the State of Nevada adopted "None of the Above" as a ballot option...

Another American electoral concept is that of a "write-in" candidate -

A write-in candidate is a candidate in an election whose name does not appear on the ballot, but for whom voters may vote nonetheless by writing in the person's name. The system is almost totally confined to elections in the United States.

Ralph Nader is a five-time candidate for President of the United States, having run as a write-in candidate in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary, as the Green Party nominee in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent candidate in 2004 and 2008.

“A seller-sovereign economy includes sellers who are monopolistic or oligopolistic without being confronted by the ultimate consumers who are organized in monopsonistic or oligopsonistic modes. It is an economy where enormous skill, artifice, and resources are used in getting consumers to buy what the sellers want to sell, notwithstanding the availability of more efficient, safe, economical, durable, and effective alternatives, including that of buying nothing at all.” [Ralph Nader]

[N.B. NOTA was registered as a political party with the UK Electoral Commission on the day 2 March 2009... This party is registered as "NOTA" and not "None of the above" as the latter is a prohibited expression regarding registration as a party name.]

Despite all of the above I renewed my ECF membership, today!

Edit: spelling correction - not mine this time.
Last edited by John McKenna on Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:48 pm

Yes, of course, Richard Pryor! Thank you, Chris for the correction.

Does anyone know the origin and reasoning behind NOTA on the ECF ballot?

Am I alone in thinking that it a totally negative device that inhibits less well-known candidates entering the election?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Candidates for office

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:54 pm

Given that the ECF is a Company limited by Guarantee, I believe that Company Law obliges it to put the appointment of directors to the vote of those members entitled.

It's like proxies, it's a specific requirement of the legislation under which the ECF chose to operate. You could report the result in a different way. So in the case of a rejected candidate
"Those supporting the motion that X be appointed as a director 44%
Those against 56%".

The net effect is the same.

Post Reply