OMOV A serious discussion

[Roger de Coverly]

Has this (extract from a recent post in the other place) been discussed hereabouts?

Not directly, but the newly elected/appointed Direct Member Representative for Platinum members would contemplate putting forward proposals to increase the voting power on Council of Direct Members. That's the indirect form of OMOV where the members at large vote for a subset of themselves to attend meetings and do all the other voting things.

[Mick Norris]

It is important to recognise that there is a Council vote on this topic under item C23.13.2: Council accepts that the Independent Governance Report addresses the requested investigation of the appropriate balance of voting and decision making powers between direct members and affiliated organisations If Council passes this then OMOV goes into the long grass, if Council rejects it I dust off my discussions with Chris Fegan.Chris Majer Chairman of the Governance Committee

Council may choose to accept the Report, and then bring up OMOV at the next meeting surely?

[John McKenna]

It is important to recognise that there is a Council vote on this topic under item C23.13.2: Council accepts that the Independent Governance Report addresses the requested investigation of the appropriate balance of voting and decision making powers between direct members and affiliated organisations If Council passes this then OMOV goes into the long grass, if Council rejects it I dust off my discussions with Chris Fegan.Chris Majer Chairman of the Governance Committee

Council may choose to accept the Report, and then bring up OMOV at the next meeting surely?

Any news on how this went?

[NickFaulks]

Any news on how this went?

I'm a bit vague on the final details, but this is what I think happened.

Chris Majer, as he had previously flagged, proposed wording under which Council accepted the report and, while not necessarily approving every detail, did defer consideration of OMOV for a period of years. PE ( I think ) wanted it approved on the spot and implemented in full asap. I felt this was a bit steep, since this is a proposal of generational importance and Council needed more than a couple of weeks to take it in and more than the three minutes remaining of the meeting to discuss it.

Anyway, there was enough dissension from the floor to persuade the Chairman to retreat to a simple acceptance of the report as a fully professional piece of work and worthy of serious and timely consideration. This was passed with only a few votes against. This seemed unobjectionable to me at the time, but after the meeting I asked Angus why he still wasn't happy and understood his reasons. It's better that he explains them himself.

[Roger de Coverly]

Chris Majer, as he had previously flagged, proposed wording under which Council accepted the report and, while not necessarily approving every detail, did defer consideration of OMOV for a period of years.

I wonder whether there would be general acceptance of the proposition amongst the English chess community that fifty to sixty of their number (could be more) be required to attend meetings twice a year in Birmingham or London whereby they transacted the formal business of the ECF, such as electing Directors, approving and accepting reports, setting Budgets, agreeing priorities etc? The exact composition of such a body and how voting rights be distributed being subject to debate. It's an implicit assumption that representatives of organisations would have their relative voting power reduced, whilst representatives who had no organisation to report to would be increased. It further assumes that the uncommitted voters would have had some form of beauty parade amongst the wider audience of players or members to be selected for attendance at the six monthly meetings. It does mean that special interest groups such as titled players could elect or nominate someone to represent them at the meetings.

[NickFaulks]

My final thought for now is that after today's meeting we have a united Board but a fractured Governance Committee. That should be a favourable exchange.

In one of his less guarded comments, the GC Chairman indicated that he had at least one CEO candidate up his sleeve in the event of the incumbent coming to grief. How long before we learn more about that?

edit : got confused, probably wrong thread.

[Roger de Coverly]

In one of his less guarded comments, the GC Chairman indicated that he had at least one CEO candidate up his sleeve in the event of the incumbent coming to grief.

If it wasn't for his propensity to advocate totally barking ideas and an inability to get on with AH (not the Scottish one), the now retired non-Exec could be a sensible choice.

He's written a chilling piece which goes a long way to explaining why chess is in currently in decline in areas where it blossomed in the 1970s

http://londonchessconference.com/pub-ch ... tradition/

[John McKenna]

My thanks to Nick (and all who posted from the AGM). Pleased you made it in and reported back in response mine and Mick's questions, above. All grist to the mill but what to make of it?

If only the ECF table were nice and round instead of being cut like a fiendishly irregular polygon.

And, if only Roger's post "I wonder whether there would be general acceptance of the proposition..." simply ended "four legs good, two legs bad!"

Oh well, I'll hit the sack and start counting sheeps' legs.

[Julie Denning]

Any news on how this went?

I'm a bit vague on the final details, but this is what I think happened.

Chris Majer, as he had previously flagged, proposed wording under which Council accepted the report and, while not necessarily approving every detail, did defer consideration of OMOV for a period of years. PE ( I think ) wanted it approved on the spot and implemented in full asap. I felt this was a bit steep, since this is a proposal of generational importance and Council needed more than a couple of weeks to take it in and more than the three minutes remaining of the meeting to discuss it.

Anyway, there was enough dissension from the floor to persuade the Chairman to retreat to a simple acceptance of the report as a fully professional piece of work and worthy of serious and timely consideration. This was passed with only a few votes against. This seemed unobjectionable to me at the time, but after the meeting I asked Angus why he still wasn't happy and understood his reasons. It's better that he explains them himself.

As I stated at the meeting, I believe there was some confusion over what Council was being asked to vote on in motion 13.2.1. It states:

"that Council accepts that the Independent Governance Report addresses the requested investigation of the appropriate balance of voting and decision making powers between direct members and affiliated organisations."

Those arguing against this motion appeared to me to be doing so on the basis that this was accepting the outcome of the review, which in at least some respects they did not accept. To me, it seemed clear that the motion was simply asking Council to agree that the review team had carried out the task assigned to them, with no indication of whether or not Council agreed with their findings. That remains for another day.

I agree that the report concluded that questions regarding the make up and voting rights on Council, or moves towards OMOV (however that might be interpreted) were less pressing than sorting out the functioning of the Board. Whether or not the Board or Council will agree with that remains an open question.

On the second motion put to Council (13.2.2) I proposed a couple of wording changes that Council readily accepted. Firstly, to insert a timescale (the Board are to come back to Council with proposals not later than the 2016 AGM) and secondly that the word "ideas" be replaced by "recommendations". The latter point might be a bit pedantic, but I felt it was inappropriate, or even somewhat impertinent, to characterise the review as producing "ideas" when they'd actually provided a large number of clear "recommendations".

Julie

[Roger de Coverly]

To me, it seemed clear that the motion was simply asking Council to agree that the review team had carried out the task assigned to them, with no indication of whether or not Council agreed with their findings.

I think that would be fine, provided everyone accepts that as the position. It doesn't help that no-one has a particularly clear idea of what people are talking about when they go on about OMOV. Like membership schemes it's a proposition that goes nowhere unless at least an attempt is made to write down the practical details. If possibly practical schemes had been submitted as evidence to the Pearce review, could they be published? If you had a scheme whereby everyone who contributed any money as individuals to the ECF had a vote and could attend the AGM and Finance meeting, that's quite different from a system whereby fifty to sixty individuals were selected, partly, mostly or exclusively by direct voting to attend and vote at meetings with the remainder having observer rights only. Getting a Council meeting to vote on a way ahead, being a couple of broad outlines plus a none of the above option would at least give authority or otherwise for something to happen.

The conclusion of the Pearce review that the existing representation system worked effectively would surely be rejected by many at the meeting and many not at the meeting. Not that there's dissent at the outcome, but just why did the voting membership at the AGM decide to dismiss both the CEO of two year's standing and a Commercial Director who hadn't been in post for more than sixteen months?

[David Pardoe]

I think potentially workable OMOV schemes have been put forward on this forum....they just haven't been considered by the godfathers, so far...it appears.
I suspect that part of the reason is `fear` of giving up `power` to the membership, has played a part..

Initially, such schemes might not see much take-up, but I think this could grow in time, and might help encourage more participation...
An online voting system for the membership, which gave a significant standing to votes, on a proportionate basis, could work quite well. I did suggest such a scheme on another thread recently under `ECF Matters`....
I`d envisage say 100 to 250 members possibly getting involved initially, and if such a grouping were given say, 15-20% voting rights on any particular motion, that might encourage a reasonable response...
The ECF is an amateur body essentially, run by part time volunteers.... this is not like any normal `Company`. Unfortunately the ECF is clobbered by red tape which really shouldn't apply..

[Martin Regan]

Rdc:

It doesn't help that no-one has a particularly clear idea of what people are talking about when they go on about OMOV.

You lack, and continue to lack, imagination. As we are miles futher from OMOV than ever - let us look at what you see as unsurmountable detail and I see as the introduction of simple mechanisims.

If you are going to cede power to players then you must ask what aspect of the ECF most affects them. I think we could all agree that it is membership and membership fees.

It would be a relative easy matter to introduce the proposition that membership fees must be agreed by both the voting members and by Council.

Then -albeit with more hassle - you could extend the number of NEDs on the board and throw voting over to the players.

You could even create a board position "membership secretary" who is elected by the members.

Many others will have other ideas, but until the principal of passing power from Council to the players is accepted, they are going nowhere.

[JustinHorton]

Many others will have other ideas, but until the principal (sic) of passing power from Council to the players is accepted, they are going nowhere.

I do agree that you need to make a positive statement that some kind of OMOV is desirable in order to provide the necessary momentum to enable a workable and acceptable scheme to be found. But in order to do that, you'd need enough of the membership to make clear that this is what they would like, no?

[Roger de Coverly]

Many others will have other ideas, but until the principal of passing power from Council to the players is accepted, they are going nowhere.

That at least puts some flesh on the bones, your OMOV is of the form where paying membership gets a Direct vote. How do you overcome the proxy problem? Unless the ECF unincorporates it is running under the provisions of the various Acts governing Companies. One of these is that if you extend the right to everyone to attend and vote at AGMs, you cannot disenfranchise those who do not attend. Thus even more so than at present, voting is dominated by those with the most proxies.

[Martin Regan]

How do you overcome the proxy problem?

Ah detail. Take membership fees.

The board recommends fees, council votes on them. If council approves them you merely add a third postal or email vote stage - quite seperate from AGM proceedings.

The membership director similarly could be voted upon outside the AGM, the post left vacant during the AGM elections and the player's candidate then co-opted onto the board.