OMOV A serious discussion

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Michael Farthing » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:49 pm

Thread started on the request of Justin Horton.

Over to you Justin..

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

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:53 pm

There's one already
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Michael Farthing » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:58 pm

Oh. I don't know which one you mean. Have I been taken as being facetious? I was quite serious.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Michael Farthing » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:57 pm

I'm having another go here because this issue, I believe, ought to get down to looking at some detail. What follows below is a post I started in the ECF Election thread, but decided it was wholly inappropriate to put it there. Since then there have been a couple of further contributions there that thankfully are starting to address serious questions. Some of what follows therefore duplicates some of those ideas. This is what i was going to post:

I think we should be working on a planned stepwise move in the direction of OMOV without any catastophic (or even anastrophic) change. The Council does serve an important role at present in keeping in check wild ideas from the Board - and these do come along just twice in a while. At all costs we need to maintain Council's influence through any change.

I would therefore propose that the number of votes going to direct member reps should be increased by small numbers over a period of years with review as to how the change is working. In this way we could encourage more direct participation without risking the loss of a moderating influence on the Board.

There are big problems to be overcome on the way. Direct member representatives get their 'reasonable' expenses paid by the ECF and if you increase the number you are increasing the costs to the ECF. The alternative, simply giving more votes to the same number of representatives, is fraught with obvious danger. Another problem that we face is that currently representatives are representatives of a class of member - so the half membership of the ECF at bronze level has two reps and the 100-200 at platinum also has 2 reps. I think that's a bit out of proportion. But then, the platinum members manage to find two reps: the bronze ones have one - and, though 'elected' now, Angus got there originally by invitation from the Board.

Perhaps we need to reconsider the basic 'constituencies'. Maybe direct representatives should come from geographic divisions of the membership rather than from category of membership. But does this leave the casual club member under-represented? This is quite a real issue because those bronze members contribute a large amount of the ECF funds, and there is pressure for the ECF to use its money for international jaunts, UK championships, Chess acadenmies : all things designed to further the 'top end' of the game. Many bronze members might not be too unhappy with this - up to a point - but how do we judge where that point is?

These are some of the problems I see: no doubt others will have further questions. But so far in discussions we have not managed to get beyond pro/anti OMOV without any discussion of practicalities. The point has been made that the principle come first and I too prefer to start from principle and work towards practice. But that second stage is still needed. Can it happen on this forum?

As a newly 'elected' rep (self-elected, effectively) I am seriously thinking of trying to bring a motion to the 2016 AGM - but I can only seriously contemplate this if the proposal is well-thought out and has a chance of being successful in practice. For that I need help.

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

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:46 pm

Michael Farthing wrote: As a newly 'elected' rep (self-elected, effectively) I am seriously thinking of trying to bring a motion to the 2016 AGM - but I can only seriously contemplate this if the proposal is well-thought out and has a chance of being successful in practice. For that I need help.
Changing the composition of the Council members so that those elected directly by individuals have a much greater share of the voting rights ought to be a straightforward incremental change. You might struggle to get enough meeting time allocated to a discussion and for anything to actually happen in terms of developing a practical proposal.

The last time OMOV was raised, it was kicked into the long grass by changing the reporting period from 6 months to 24 months.
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/1314/bcf.htm
SCCU Report of ECF 2013 AGM wrote:OMOV. We apologise for that heading, but we couldn't think of a better one. This was also from Sean Hewitt. His proposal was "that the board investigate the viability with a view to bringing proposals before Council in April 2014 to allow Directors to be elected directly by individual members of the Federation". People disliked this, not so much for its tortured English as for its restricted scope. An amendment was accepted to the effect that the Board would investigate the appropriate balance of voting powers and authority between Direct Members and affiliated organisations. No one objected to this, so motion carried.
The official minutes
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... nal-v1.pdf
The Board should investigate the appropriate balance of voting and decision making powers between direct members and affiliated organisations and report back accordingly to Council with 24 months
But the Board themselves didn't do anything and passed the parcel to the Pearce review which proceeded to recommend no change to the existing system. They have however done this within the 24 month time frame.

Direct election of some or all directors is another angle, requiring I would suspect, more Constitutional change than just amending the make up of the voters at meetings.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Michael Farthing » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:59 pm

Roger, I am not talking about directly elected directors. I am talking about changing the makeup of Council representatives to increase the direct member representation that way.

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

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:09 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:I am not talking about directly elected directors. I am talking about changing the makeup of Council representatives to increase the direct member representation that way.
When others speak of OMOV, they may mean directly elected directors. Some of those who write in favour of OMOV as an objective are shy of saying what they mean by it and even seem to take offence when asked to clarify.

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

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Michael Flatt » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:10 pm

I think that I understand what Michael Farthing is proposing and it seems to me to be a positive way of making progress.

The Pearce Commission were overloaded and distracted by their Terms of Reference, which were written by the CEO. I don't think that it was ever intended that they would seriously consider OMOV.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Michael Farthing » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:22 pm

Thank you Michael. My long post above was originally written in the context of recent posts in Election topic and I see now that the topic title does not adequately reflect what I was hoping could be discussed, which is the means by which more direct member representation can be obtained on Council. Because I am talking about that does not mean that changes to the election of the Board might also not happen, but that bee is not buzzing in my bonnet to the same extent.

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

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Angus French » Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:02 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:As a newly 'elected' rep (self-elected, effectively) I am seriously thinking of trying to bring a motion to the 2016 AGM - but I can only seriously contemplate this if the proposal is well-thought out and has a chance of being successful in practice. For that I need help.
Hello Michael, as a Bronze members' rep, I would be interested in working with you on this.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Michael Farthing » Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:31 pm

Noted and offer greatly welcomed. Lets listen for a while as to what comes forward!

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by David Shepherd » Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:34 pm

Maybe the format of the council needs revising, with each council member having one vote and a higher percentage of the council members being elected directly by members.

David Robertson

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by David Robertson » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:02 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:The Pearce Commission were overloaded and distracted by their Terms of Reference, which were written by the CEO. I don't think that it was ever intended that they would seriously consider OMOV.
Where it's not otherwise insulting the intelligence and independence of the Pearce Commission, this statement is simply wrong on fact.

The Pearce Commission members are not a group of naive and incompetent amateurs, neither 'overloaded' nor 'distracted'. They are not gullible dupes of some scheming CEO either. They are a group of highly experienced, thoroughly professional members of our community with unimpeachable credentials in business organisation. They do not deserve their competence and independence traduced in this manner. Moreover, they did consider OMOV because the 88th Board (15 July 2014) directed a representation on the matter. They didn't like OMOV on that basis.

With condescending and error-strewn nonsense circulating, this discussion cannot be serious.

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

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Michael Flatt » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:31 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote:The Pearce Commission were overloaded and distracted by their Terms of Reference, which were written by the CEO. I don't think that it was ever intended that they would seriously consider OMOV.
Where it's not otherwise insulting the intelligence and independence of the Pearce Commission, this statement is simply wrong on fact.

The Pearce Commission members are not a group of naive and incompetent amateurs, neither 'overloaded' nor 'distracted'. They are not gullible dupes of some scheming CEO either. They are a group of highly experienced, thoroughly professional members of our community with unimpeachable credentials in business organisation. They do not deserve their competence and independence traduced in this manner. Moreover, they did consider OMOV because the 88th Board (15 July 2014) directed a representation on the matter. They didn't like OMOV on that basis.

With condescending and error-strewn nonsense circulating, this discussion cannot be serious.
ECF Board 88 Minutes wrote:Regarding the governance review, Chris Fegan(CF) and the Governance Committee want to produce a paper for the AGM on OMOV. PE is to talk to CF, CM and suggest that they provide input to the review rather than producing a separate paper. Action: PE
I am impressed with the vast majority of the report and agree emphatically with many of its conclusions regarding recommendations aimed at improving governance of the Board.

The great weakness that I find is that the report fails to grasp the nettle of OMOV, which after all is what Council had asked the Board to investigate.

Reference
1. ECF Board 88 Minutes, http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ersion.pdf
Last edited by Michael Flatt on Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: OMOV A serious discussion

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:42 pm

Who was on the Pearce Commission? Are links available?