Representation on Council and Funding the ECF

[Paolo Casaschi]

Council is made up of representatives of CCAs, Leagues, Congresses etc. Just about every ECF Member (or game fee payer) will participate in such entities to a greater or lesser degree, so they ARE represented.

I think we disagree on the meaning of the word representation. IMHO true representation comes only with direct accountability and with the ability to select (and replace) the representatives. I made already the example: in your description, Malcom Pein represents me as council member for the London chess classic because I played regularly in that event; however, if I dislike any of Malcom's views I have no leverage whatsoever to replace my representative (other than not playing the London chess classic anymore and playing some other congress, but my whole point here is playing chess, not playing chess council elections).

If representation by hand-picked representatives with reliance on their goodwill is good enough for you, then I agree, why would you change anything? But then you should follow-up on that and stop calling "individual members" as such: you should call us "customers". Right to the point you mention that not only ECF Members are "represented" by the council but also game fee players: that correctly adds up to the entire ECF customer base.
It might be just my personal view, but rather than a "member", I feel a lot more like a customer of the ECF (because I need that in order to play the London league for example) in the same way I'm a customer of BT (just because I need a phone line).

Anyway, given the fundamental disagreement on the idea of "representation" there's not much point in discussing any further...

[Roger de Coverly]

How would representatives elicit the views of the membership? Indeed, who specifically would an individual Council member be representing?

The simplest possible model for one member one vote (OMOV) is that each of the 10,000 or so who pay the ECF directly for the privilege of playing graded chess get one vote apiece. As it would be unlikely that many more than the fifty who potentially attend Council meetings would be motivated to turn up on the new structure, it comes down to a battle for proxies. So a Sussex based member intending to attend the meetings would attempt to get the proxies of many or all of the local players. Similarly a serial Congress organiser might canvass regulars for their proxy. Still it does rather remind me of the old "Not the Nine o'clock News" sketch where the decision for tea or coffee was determined by the block vote.

But that is what could happen if OMOV voting power is expressed in the form of direct, rather than indirect elections.

It would be my understanding of the legal position that you cannot outlaw proxies for as long as the ECF remains under Company Law. As an unincorporated body, the BCF could in principle make attendance a condition of voting.

[Michael Farthing]

It would be my understanding of the legal position that you cannot outlaw proxies for as long as the ECF remains under Company Law. As an unincorporated body, the BCF could in principle make attendance a condition of voting.

I think this is probably not accurate. Each company has its own Articles of Association that set out the rules of its governance. Company Law does impose some duties on companies but not as much as widely believed. The real point is that when companies are formed they nearly always adopt a pre-written pro-forma set of articles and it is these that bind company behaviour. In principle you can rewrite the articles to suit your own needs. Thus, for example, a family business could have rules in the articles that limit the right of shareholders to sell their shares outside the family.

[Julie Denning]

Paolo, I fear we are going to have to agree to disagree, although whether it's over our understandings of the Queen's English or other matters is less clear.

I had previously said that I recognise the link between a congress representative and players in that congress is rather different to the relationship for a CCA or league representative. As I don't know you I've just tried to check on your situation. According to the grading database you have played for 2 clubs (Ilford and Imperial College) although the games database isn't working at the moment, so I can't see how recent this is. The online membership list shows your club as "none". This makes you one of 682 players (out of 9466, so about 7%) in the current membership list showing no club affiliation, many of whom are juniors. At least some of these 682 I would guess play in events such as ones organised by their CCA, so could be said to have representation and rights through that route. I note you also refer to the London League. According to the Council Voting Register, this is a Constituent Unit of the ECF and is represented on Council by Brian Smith with 7 votes. If you are an active player in that League but have no opportunity to have a say on who represents it and how they do so, shouldn't you be pressing for more local democracy?

I've been doing my best to convey that I'm all in favour of genuine representation and accountability, yet you seem to twist and put a negative gloss on everything I've said. I doubt there's any more I can say to convince you of my good intentions!

[Paolo Casaschi]

Paolo, I fear we are going to have to agree to disagree

I'm afraid so, but I leave you with a final question: if you could start designing from scratch (forgetting all the historical legacy) the organization and representation of the chess governing body for England, would you really come up with something so cumbersome and convoluted as we have today?

[Mick Norris]

I am very aware that I'm on Council to represent participants in the various entities that have nominated me. Whether I do an adequate job is for others to say, but I try to understand and represent my members views and I report back to them on how I used their votes - albeit relying on key individuals to disseminate all of this to their club members etc. as they see fit. While I can be challenged at AGMs, I concede that participation is not as widespread as we might wish. However, I'm far from certain that I would have any wish to remain as a Council representative if I lost this local connection. I see this as something I'm doing on behalf of my local (i.e. County-wide) chess community and have no wish to become some sort of professional Council member. I remain reasonably confident that whatever the flaws there might be in the current system, most of my fellow Council members try at least as well to represent their constituencies.

Julie

I think there are some excellent Council members, who like you take it very seriously

Others don't, and there has been great discussion on here in the past

If you used OMOV to elect Council members, then I would hope the good ones would be elected

Do we need Council? I would rather elect an ECF Board and then let them get on with things, albeit I would like a better ECF Board than any I have personally experienced over the last 20 years

[Roger de Coverly]

I would rather elect an ECF Board and then let them get on with things

But a fundamental issue needs to be addressed "Who is doing the electing"? Is it the whole membership presumably by some form of pseudo-postal ballot? Is it those who turn up at an AGM possibly armed with thousands of individual proxies? Or is it some smaller subset like the current Council, elected or appointed by the wider base of English chess.

In terms of Council micromanaging, it's immensely easy for those on a Board to sit in an ivory tower with no knowledge or understanding of practical issues. The same can be said of Council members as well. I don't see it as a problem for the Board to have to face votes on issues raised, particularly if they are trying to force through egoistical policies in the face of opposition.

[PeterFarr]

Just a small point; Julie said that whether she does an adequate job is for others to say. Well speaking personally, she represents me in all of her roles and I can quite categorically say that she does an excellent job in representing her constituencies - however backward looking and reactionary we may be down here, and I'm sure my colleagues are very grateful.

I suspect the same is true of most council members, who frankly do fairly thankless tasks that idle forum punters like myself are too lazy to do.

On the other hand I still favour a form of o(p/m)ov just on principle. But it would need a good deal of effort to get done, and I'm not sure the appetite is there. Though maybe that's a bit too defeatist.