OMOV rejected

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

OMOV rejected

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:15 pm

That's the headline I would give to the Governance Commission report.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -FINAL.pdf

Instead they recommend a strengthening of the Council system, whereby Counties and Leagues are encouraged to appoint or elect delegates who will actually attend the Council meetings, instead of handing the votes over to the proxy barons. The premise is that individuals have a voice in the affairs of these local bodies.

That's all very well, but there's no reason to suppose a county or local league would have much interest in a concern only relating to higher rated or graded players. Equally it does nothing to reduce or remove the power of unelected and unaccountable Congress representatives.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:37 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Equally it does nothing to reduce or remove the power of unelected and unaccountable Congress representatives.
Even more disappointing, the report is patronizing direct members with instructions how to funnel their demands through the "Direct Members' Representatives" but spends no words addressing the fundamental issue that the "Direct Members' Representatives" (and the few council votes they control) are in practical term not accountable to the direct member they are supposed to represent.
I took the time in a couple of occasions in the past to email the gold member representative, never got anything from that.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:57 pm

I must admit that I've never been entirely sure what miracle OMOV is supposed to deliver. I've also never been entirely convinced that ECF members are somehow disenfranchised as a result - if somebody is that desperate to get a vote on Council they can get one easily enough.

To an extent I can see the argument against congress block votes, however the simple truth is that I would much rather a lot of these individuals ran English chess than League and County representatives. It is not currently a case of Congress `Barons` obstructing progress as these people tend to be the progressives.

Paolo's point regarding a lack of response from his Direct Member Representative is a worrying one however. If these people are not taking the time to engage and represent their constituents they should be replaced.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Carl Hibbard » Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:23 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:That's the headline I would give to the Governance Commission report.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -FINAL.pdf

Instead they recommend a strengthening of the Council system, whereby Counties and Leagues are encouraged to appoint or elect delegates who will actually attend the Council meetings, instead of handing the votes over to the proxy barons. The premise is that individuals have a voice in the affairs of these local bodies.

That's all very well, but there's no reason to suppose a county or local league would have much interest in a concern only relating to higher rated or graded players. Equally it does nothing to reduce or remove the power of unelected and unaccountable Congress representatives.
It does have some good recommendations.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

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

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:32 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote: If these people are not taking the time to engage and represent their constituents they should be replaced.
It's not as if there are numerous volunteers clamouring for the posts. They should have much greater voting power or be abolished.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Angus French » Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:59 am

I'm not impressed by the section of the report on Voting Issues and Composition of Council.

For one thing, if the authors of the report had analysed the attendance of representatives at, and the appointment of proxies for, the Finance Council meeting last April they would have seen that many organisations weren't represented. (By my calculation 102 of 317 votes weren't exercisable.)
Governance Commission Report wrote:Any direct member who feels that their views are not otherwise represented may submit their views to their respective Direct Members' Representative. The fact that very few complaints of this nature have been received by these representatives supports the view that under-representation of Direct Members is not currently a major issue.
So it's true that "very few complaints of this nature have been received by these representatives", is it? Where exactly did that information come from? As it happens, many of the responses I got as a Bronze Members' Direct Representative for the Finance Council meeting suggested to me that the ECF is out of touch with ordinary league players. I know John Wakeham got similar responses as a Silver members' representative. During discussion at the meeting (of the proposal to increase membership fees) both John and I expressed concern on behalf of the members we represented.
Governance Commission Report wrote:[W]e recommend that, in appointing a Representative Member, each Member Organisation should choose an individual who expects to attend all Finance Meetings and Annual General Meetings, who will seek guidance from the Member Organisation on how he or she should vote on most issues and who will report the outcome of the meeting back to the Member Organisation. If the Representative Member is, exceptionally, unable to attend a General Meeting the proxy he or she gives should, as far as possible, specify the way in which his or her votes should be cast by the proxy, in order to ensure that the views of the Member Organisation are properly represented.
Governance Commission Report wrote:We have no doubt that the majority of Representative Members already follow the recommendations we make above. We emphasize this obligation on all Representative Members and the Member Organisations they represent, in order to preserve the integrity of Council.
Can there really be "no doubt that the majority of Representative Members already follow the recommendations we make above"? Having attended the last eight ECF Council meetings, seen my own county not consult and followed discussions on this forum, I don't believe it.

[quote="Governance Commission Report""]We think that any change to OMOV would involve the ECF in considerable expense...[/quote]
Why would it involve considerable expense? Would not an inexpensive way to implement OMOV be to adapt the membership system to include a voting facility (as Paul Cooksey suggested some time ago)?

Elsewhere in the report there are, I think, many good and interesting recommendations. See, for example, section 3.7 on the ECF Forum...

Mike Gunn
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Mike Gunn » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:04 pm

>>>>>>>>Why would it involve considerable expense? Would not an inexpensive way to implement OMOV be to adapt the membership system to include a voting facility (as Paul Cooksey suggested some time ago)?<<<<<<<<<

I am a member of a professional institution which conducts its electronic voting for its council via the Electoral Reform Society. There is a separate process of registration via email before you vote. This is clearly because it is too easy to hack into the ordinary member login process knowing the persons email address and a few personal details. I think the ECF would have to do something similar (but I think it would be worth the cost.

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

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:14 pm

Mike Gunn wrote: I think the ECF would have to do something similar (but I think it would be worth the cost.

I don't know why the Pearce report rejects without any real consideration, the notion of having direct elections for some or all of the Directors, high profile ones such as the President being an obvious choice. It was after all, set up as a result of an AGM motion inviting or instructing the ECF Board to take a look at OMOV.

You could and perhaps should reject it on the grounds of cost, but not on principle.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Angus French » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:35 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:>>>>>>>>Why would it involve considerable expense? Would not an inexpensive way to implement OMOV be to adapt the membership system to include a voting facility (as Paul Cooksey suggested some time ago)?<<<<<<<<<

I am a member of a professional institution which conducts its electronic voting for its council via the Electoral Reform Society. There is a separate process of registration via email before you vote. This is clearly because it is too easy to hack into the ordinary member login process knowing the persons email address and a few personal details. I think the ECF would have to do something similar (but I think it would be worth the cost.
The membership system already has an email address for each member.
What you might do is generate a random key for each member and email this to them with the invitation to vote.
In order to vote you then not only have to provide your password to logon to the membership system, you also have to provide the key sent to you.
I've seen the Electoral Reform Society do something like this.
It's hard to imagine that someone would commit electoral fraud in ECF voting though.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:40 pm

Angus French wrote: It's hard to imagine that someone would commit electoral fraud in ECF voting though.
Really? Electoral fraud seems to crop up wherever it is possible. The ACP had an outrageous case a few years ago.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

IanCalvert
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:59 pm

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by IanCalvert » Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:10 pm

NickFaulks wrote:Electoral fraud seems to crop up wherever it is possible
Sadly I agree but of course it can be minimised at a cost.

I suggest the real ECF problems are about power (its use and abuse and ECF nexus) not law ...no taxation without representation seems an appropriately civilised clarion call to me...OMOV doubtless has problems but can it really be worse than the status quo which from my , mere chess player , perspective needs change.

The well-meaning, hardworking ECF is failing in so many ways: for example in no particular order (1) no National Chess day (2).... (n) ... ?!

Even so , ECF is infinitely better than FIDE!

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:21 pm

Yesterday I emailed the Silver Membership representative with my preferred choices for the election to be told I was the only person who had so far done so. So much for the baying masses being denied OMOV. I mean, let's be brutally honest - most of my Harrogate Club colleagues are ECF members but I doubt any of them could name any of the candidates, let alone express an opinion.

I recently voted in an organisation's membership election and received a booklet with details and election addresses for all the candidates. Beside the key leadership and deputy leadership ballots I also got to vote for the Conference Arrangements Committe and my Regional Policy Forum - in these latter elections knew nothing about the candidates and had the choice of either a) abstaining b) sticking a pin or c) asking the opinion of somebody who did know them and taking their opinion at face value. Either way it was hardly an informed choice. That's how I could see OMOV developing.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by JustinHorton » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:27 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:That's how I could see OMOV developing.
I could see OMOV developing by allowing me to cast a vote of my own choice rather than seeing who somebody else might or might not bother to consult with.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:35 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:That's how I could see OMOV developing.
I could see OMOV developing by allowing me to cast a vote of my own choice rather than seeing who somebody else might or might not bother to consult with.
Not being funny but had we had OMOV a couple of years ago I could see one past presidential candidate (I won't say who as it's obvious) asking the ECF to a mailshot at his personal expense to every member setting out his manifesto and his promises. The members are suitably taken in and vote for him in their masses. Two months later the board is in revolt at the actions of this individual but on this occasion he can't be removed due to the strength of his mandate.

And nobody seems to answer my point that anybody who is that desperate to get a vote on ECF council can obtain one without too much difficulty.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: OMOV rejected

Post by JustinHorton » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:37 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:The members are suitably taken in and vote for him in their masses. Two months later the board is in revolt at the actions of this individual but on this occasion he can't be removed due to the strength of his mandate.
Good Lord, it might be harder to remove somebody for whom the members have voted. I shall worry all minute about that.
Andrew Zigmond wrote:And nobody seems to answer my point that anybody who is that desperate to get a vote on ECF council can obtain one without too much difficulty.
Because nobody thinks it's an interesting point? It's like saying it's easy to become a councillor. And so it often is, but a representative democracy doesn't require you to become a representative.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com