Communication Strategy

[Roger de Coverly]

I agree that one good way forward would be to increase the number and hence the votes of Direct Member Reps (DMRs) by converting those Council members, such as the tournament organisers, who collect revenue directly from players into DMRs.

It was disappointing that the Pearce report made no apparent mention of the lack of accountability of those representing tournaments. Their aversion to financing the ECF and the BCF before it has lead to the current position where the ECF demands near compulsory annual fees as a condition of playing graded and rated chess. They should have been given a price. The less Game Fee they collected, the fewer their votes.

[Michael Flatt]

If the OMOV lobby are serious about changing the make up of Council then some definite proposal needs to be put forward as to how it might be done. The weakness of the Pearce Report was that it avoided looking at how voting rights might be redistributed at Council and what other reforms might be considered to placate the OMOV lobby.

I think that Michael Farthing makes a valuable observation in noting the limited number of candidates willing to put themselves forward for election as a Director. Given that candidates have to seek nomination, is it right that they can be humiliated by losing an election to 'none of the above'? Should the nomination procedure be strengthened so that 'none of the above' can be withdrawn from the ballot?

[Paolo Casaschi]

One of the big advantages of organisations being members of Council is that it roots the ECF structure as a federal enterprise of different chess playing fraternities.

I agree. But if OMOV is set aside in favor of this structure with member organizations counting for the vast majority of council votes, please stop referring to individual players as ECF members. In that structure the real members of the ECF are those organization.

[Michael Flatt]

I agree. But if OMOV is set aside in favor of this structure with member organizations counting for the vast majority of council votes, please stop referring to individual players as ECF members. In that structure the real members of the ECF are those organization.

I thought the debate was about reforming Council to redistribute voting power more equitably. The argument seems have become sidetracked into a dispute about terminology and language.

[John McKenna]

The problem is there are some posts that are quite wordy and lack the necessary clarity of language and terminology, not to mention accuracy of plain facts (see my responses to Michael Farthing's post at end of previous page).

[NickFaulks]

My impression from that episode was that I got changed to ITA only because I complained, otherwise nobody would have bothered about me being BEL (why would they anyway? )

Sorry, I understand now. You're right, no effort goes into checking that initial registrations are correct. In your case, the Belgian rating officer would now have to provide you with a FIN. If he did that, and provided that you didn't mind and BEL were happy to pay €1 every year for you, then nothing would happen. Of course, if you were accidentally ENG and wanted to play rated games, you would be in a world of pain.

[John McKenna]

That's like saying, "welcome to the ECF - a world of pain".

[Ian Kingston]

I think this must be a new record for the forum: under the heading of 'Communication Strategy' not a single post is actually on topic - except, possibly, for one that takes issue with the word 'Communication'.

[Michael Farthing]

The problem is there are some posts that are quite wordy and lack the necessary clarity of language and terminology, not to mention accuracy of plain facts (see my responses to Michael Farthing's post at end of previous page).

Wordy it was. Clarity of language, maybe. Inaccuracy of facts, I think not. If you are referring to my assertion that the bronze and silver direct member representatives have had no candidates for the last three years (not including the coming year) then I believe that is so. I am ready to be corrected, but on the basis of evidence rather than assertion.

[John McKenna]

Further to my post above -

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.

For details see -

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... ze#p164388

[Michael Farthing]

John, is this in response to me? If so, you miss the point: Angus was appointed by the Board to fill the vacant position as was John Wickham. This was after nominations for the posts had closed with no nominations. That was for this year (to October 2015). I have now checked the voting registers for the 2014 and 2013 AGMs and in these the positions of silver and bronze representatives are described as 'vacant'.

[John McKenna]

Yes Michael, to you.

Let me try to make clear what the evidence it is to back up my "assertion": you wrote (my underlining) -

Over the last three years the tiny aspect of OMOV already available has not been used once by the bronze and silver membership as no one has stood to be a direct member representative. Last year the Board appointed a member of Council in each of these categories...

Angus French wrote (my underlining) in the OMOV thread (linked to further below) -

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.

So, I ask you - is it true that "the tiny apect of OMOV available has not been used once by the bronze and silver membership as no one has stood to me a direct member rep"?

True no Silver or Bronze players stood for office, but when representatives were appointed some did make use of their reps.

This is why I said earlier that if tournament organisers became Gold & Silver Direct Member Reps and large clubs became Bronze DMRs instead of Council members in their own right then Silver & Bronze players c/would, for example, have many more avenues of approach than the just the existing 2 out of 4 reps.

(Why would any Bronze or Silver player wish to stand as one of four people left potentially exposed to the needs and desires or slings and arrows of the vast majority of ordinary players? It's a huge mismatch with too large an imbalance that nobody wants.)

We'll get nowhere writing off the ordinary players, as you seem to do above, or dismissing them as in the Governance Commission report as pointed out here -

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 66#p164354

(To which you do not seem have not contributed any comments!?)

If the points at which ordinary players pay their tournament entry or club membership fees are made into the points of contact with their, more numerous, ECF Direct Member Reps then they could more easily get their messages to Council across, if they wished.

As some have already repeatedly stated, though, the real problem is that Council needs to be reformed in order to bring about a redistribution of voting rights into the right hands. The Governance Commission referee and lines-persons not only disavowed a clear gaol, but have also disqualified most of the players team - showing which side (gents or players) they were always really on.

PS And to Ian Kingston - this has always been about much more than the stink of abysmal communication - hence the overflow here.

[Michael Farthing]

A wordy post from John McKenna

Yes Michael, to you.

Over the last three years the tiny aspect of OMOV already available has not been used once by the bronze and silver membership as no one has stood to be a direct member representative. Last year the Board appointed a member of Council in each of these categories...

Angus French wrote (my underlining) in the OMOV thread (linked to further below) -

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.

So, I ask you - is it true that "the tiny apect of OMOV available has not been used once by the bronze and silver membership as no one has stood to me a direct member rep"?

Yes, it is true. The bronze and silver membership has not once been able to exercise its powere of OMOV once in the last three years. That is the fact and it is a correct fact. You may wish to argue that it doesn't matter because (for a third of that time) they have had (half) the representatives appointed for them. That's a legitimate think to argue. It's not legitimate to say I had my facts wrong.

Most of the rest of your post re-visits arguments already made about how Council could be altered. I have already expressed some views that you disagree with. I see no point in simply repeating them, but I shall carry on reading and contribute if I have anything new to say. I might even change my mind - that sometimes happens. [Actually until recently I was very much pro total OMOV and I still think substantial increase would be a good thing.* I've changed my mind quite recently on the value of organisation representation in addition].

I suppose one other thing needs comment:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 66#p164354

(To which you do not seem have not contributed any comments!?)

No I haven't. I didn't feel I had anything to add to the points made by others.

Our exchanges seem to have got increasingly hostile; I apologise if I've contributed to that. I've no desire for a quarrel.

*At this point I feel I have no choice but to pre-empt an announcement on the ECF website that I have in fact been nominated as a silver direct member representative for next year, in which role (if elected) I will do my very best to collect and represent faithfully the views of the silver membership.

[John McKenna]

Thanks for your prompt reply, Michael.

I had no hostile intent towards you in posting here, however, its hard to gauge that kind of thing on a forum.

I accept, as a fact, your point of view regarding the total lack of excercise of limited OMOV in a strict letter-of-the-law sense. It's the spirit that lacking, though, as I tried to say above.

Your acceptance of the nomination is a noble gesture and I wish you success.

I fear, however, that except in times of trouble - such as was alluded to by Angus when "tax rates" were being raised - they will not come flocking to your door.

At best you may be more like a lonley parish priest, or even the singular hermit, rather than a "registered fee-paying" players' tribune. Try not to end up a martyr . Adieu for now!