OMOV A serious discussion

[Michael Flatt]

Who was on the Pearce Commission? Are links available?

This commission consists of:
Gareth Pearce (Chairman) – former chairman of Smith & Williamson Holdings Limited, with extensive board experience in both executive and non-executive roles in a number of different organisations.

Suzzane Wood – partner in a leading global executive search firm, with considerable experience advising boards on key appointments. Also a former junior chess international.

Roger Emerson – partner in a leading accountancy firm and then senior executive in the pharmaceutical industry, with wide experience of leading diverse teams and successful project management.

Reference
1. Pearce Report, http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -FINAL.pdf

[Michael Farthing]

Can we get back to discussing the future now, please? Arguments about the past could uselessly happen in their own thread.

[Roger de Coverly]

Can we get back to discussing the future now, please?

Two types of OMOV can be identified. There's the type where most or all of the voting at AGMs and other meetings is by individuals rather than organisations. That is typical of Companies limited by shares. There's also the type where a subset of the paying membership is elected to form a voting group, charged with attending meetings etc. What we might term the Farthing/French idea is the latter type whilst the Hewitt proposal of two years ago rather implied the former.

As to what the Fegan proposal consisted of and was presented to the Pearce Review hasn't been made public.

[John McKenna]

All you really need to know is that any 'commission' is a creature of the (wider) establishment and therefore all their reports should be taken with a pinch of snuff by the man on the Clapham omnibus.

[Michael Farthing]

Farthing/French? Well, perhaps but I suspect we're both open to persuasion. However, part of my thinking is fairly pragmatic: what can be achieved. Also, Roger, you subtly glide over an important distinction in moving from shareholders to paying membership: in the case of the ECF the shareholders are not the paying (ie direct) members but the legal members. I have also become very conscious that keeping the organisers of chess activities on side is quite important for the future of the game and also for the good of the playing, paying direct members. Congress organisers, for instance, are producing a product that they need to sell - not for profit, because they won't make one - but for survival. they need players on their side (and oddly, quite a few of them actually want to provide a good event for them). We have to be careful to ensure that their voice (and please note, this was just an example - there are other similar groups) can stil be heard and be influential.

[Roger de Coverly]

in the case of the ECF the shareholders are not the paying (ie direct) members but the legal members.

The ECF is a Company limited by Guarantee. The Guarantors are the chess organisations as you suggest, but also those individuals who had to sign the "white form" before it was abolished as part of the Andrew Farthing membership scheme. At one stage the ECF demanded that you had to sign a "white form" to become a "member" as this was supposedly a FIDE requirement to be allowed to play internationally rated chess. The ECF even sent office staff to the first weekend of the 4NCL to collect forms (and money). What the "white form" did was that it made you a Guarantor of the ECF, agreeing to pay £ 1 in the event of its demise.

[NickFaulks]

as this was supposedly a FIDE requirement to be allowed to play internationally rated chess.

You couldn't make it up.

Except, of course, they did.

[Roger de Coverly]

Except, of course, they did.

There was a bit of loose drafting from FIDE which helped. The regulations used the term "member of a national federation" when a more exact term would have been "registered with or affiliated to a national federation". The idea being that every player had to have a three character designation.

Mind you this was 2000 and just after, when the President was getting enthusiastic about all sorts of things, one of which was some sort of club for rated players.

The ECF and BCF before it got away with the membership con for more years than they should have. It was Chess Scotland who specifically asked whether all players in their national League needed to be fee paying members for the League to be rated. The answer was that they had to be SCO (or someone else) but Chess Scotland could define SCO eligibility how they wanted.

[NickFaulks]

Let's say there were 150 FIDE affiliated federations at the time. How did the other 149 miss this point?

[Ian Thompson]

Let's say there were 150 FIDE affiliated federations at the time. How did the other 149 miss this point?

It probably wasn't applicable to most other federations. It would not apply to any federation that required players to be members to take part in national events because they're not requiring players to do anything more to take part in international events. How many other federations operated in a similar way to the BCF where membership was optional, but paying a 'per game played' fee was compulsory instead?

[IanCalvert]

Section 5.3 of the Pierce Commision ,seems to say that they did not recommend changes to voting rights of Member Organisations, because there were so many other pressing problems and that it would be a "distraction".

With the introduction of the Direct Membership Scheme why should any organisation, such as a congress, have any voting power when it is not accountable to direct members, through an AGM like/ democratic process?

Maybe progress in the OMOV direction may also be achieved by reducing the power of those who have it for inappropriate , historical "game fee" reasons.

[Mick Norris]

Farthing/French? I have also become very conscious that keeping the organisers of chess activities on side is quite important for the future of the game and also for the good of the playing, paying direct members.

That's an interesting point, Michael, it would be interesting to see whether this was a minority viewpoint

If you used the method of (player) OMOV to elect Council members, I guess the majority of Council members would be the organisers/arbiters anyway

The reality is most organisers/arbiters are players anyway, albeit in a more limited sense if they give their time to volunteer activities to allow others to play

[Michael Farthing]

I agree with your analysis Mick. As I try to emphasise a lot of my ideas are being (imperfectly) brought from inner thinking into words and I am happy to make U turns V turns L turns and all-sorts. In writing what I said above I was thinking of the transistion process; keeping a questioning Council in place through any change is what I regard as the essential: we have seen a CEO after the last two years who has brought a very dictatorial approach to running the ECF, telling the Council how to vote and what to think.

There is one difference, however, between the current system of organisations represented by Fred, Joe and Bob and the direct election by direct members of the same Fred, Joe and Bob. Under current arrangements it is still theoretically possible for Yorkshire (to take one of the more unlikely possibilities ) to withdraw from the ECF. By moving to all direct member representation on Council the concept of the ECF as a federation coming together for mutual support and benefit is lost for ever. We are left with a governing body holding considerable central power rather than a collection of independently thriving chess organisations. I think it fair to say that that is indeed the hope of the Ehr/Fegan camp: it frightens me.

[Roger de Coverly]

We are left with a governing body holding considerable central power rather than a collection of independently thriving chess organisations. I think it fair to say that that is indeed the hope of the Ehr/Fegan camp: it frightens me.

If you look carefully at what the SRA (Sport and Recreation Alliance) indicate should be principles of governance, they appear very much in favour of powerful central bodies and the suggested reforms by the Pearce review are in support of this.

[John McKenna]

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

In 2013 as Chairman of the GC I thought that development of OMOV was coming my way, but didn’t see a scheme that I felt I could take to Council. I was therefore delighted when I met with Chris Fegan last year and he had the model of a OMOV organisation that I thought would work. When I spoke to Phil Ehr he wanted the outcome of the Peirce commission report first and so things were put on hold. I was surprised by the commission’s views on OMOV, but feel that I must respect the conclusions of the people that spent a year thinking about the issues. I don't have strong views on OMOV; I will (with help of GC) develop regulations if that is what Council wants. 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