April 2016 Council meeting

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Martin Regan

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Martin Regan » Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:10 am

AZ:
There are really only three practical ways OMOV could work. Roger has noted one above where the drawbacks are obvious..............
Andrew, I understand you are quite young. Dare to dream.

Martin Regan

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Martin Regan » Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:22 am

Prof DR wrote
And it makes me laugh yet louder, accompanied by snorts of derision, when I read the pompous pronouncements of some clown who believes these matters have been addressed only in the time he has given to this pox hole. The technical details were described, argued over, and ground into the sh!t more than six years ago. By me. By others. By RdC. Such is the total uselessness of this place that its inhabitants assume discussions must be revisited on a weekly basis, else the memory shelf-life degrades entirely

As always David, these days, I judge the ECF on how it listens to it most annoying but most important advocate.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Mike Truran » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:23 am

its most annoying but most important advocate
As you wrote "advocate" rather than "critic", that certainly eliminates at least one candidate. :wink:

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

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:44 am

Roger de Coverly wrote: As Ben's report notes, a member of Council attempted to raise this topic at the recent meeting. This was pushed into the absolutely elsewhere of "Any Other Business" which has a low chance of being discussed.
Your memory of the meeting, Roger, is clearly different from mine. Actually, I didn't notice you there and, rather strangely, I don't think you made any oral contribution, but clearly you must have been there to have such a clear memory of the shnanigins. (no idea how to spell that word, I only usually say it)

However, thinking about proper procedure in a meeting:
OMOV was not on the agenda. The Board had brought forward no discussion of this.
No requisitionists had brought forward a motion either (though there was a motion on the agenda about transparent voting and one about quality control).
Consequently, following normal practice, such a matter should be raised in Any Other Business.

The individual concerned attempted to raise the matter in a totally unrelated matter and had to be told several times that AOB was the correct place. He continued to argue with the chair, demanding that the chair should give reassurances on behalf of the Board. As a consequence of this (and other actions in the meeting) a lot of time was lost and the effect of this was that the two properly submitted motions referred to above could not be discussed. Ironic really, as both were partly sponsored by one of his chief mates and it might be assumed he was in favour of them both.

I felt particularly disappointed by the failure to reach the transparent voting motion which to my mind would have gone a long way to correct the perception (and in some cases perhaps the fact) that large proxy holders can manipulate Council.

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

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Apr 21, 2016 9:59 am

The Board needs to recognise that the ECF is a membership organisation and that in exchange for paying an annual subscription it is not unreasonable that members should expect to be able to exert influence on the way it is run by their individual votes.

The technology exists for members to register votes electronically but it requires the will of the Board to explore how best such a system might be used appropriately and effectively. The second obstacle that the Boards need to address is the limited skills and capacity available within the ECF to use computer technology effectively.

It surprises me that the ECF Board have not appointed an IT manager to oversee the website, grading and running of the Office computer systems.

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

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:15 am

Michael Flatt wrote:The Board needs to recognise that the ECF is a membership organisation
That in itself may be a contentious statement. Voting rights are structured on the basis that chess organisations are the controlling force with voting power proportionate to chess activity. These organisations allowed the participation of individuals in their events provided the individuals have paid annual fees to the ECF. Voting rights in exchange for these fees are extremely limited.
Michael Flatt wrote:The technology exists for members to register votes electronically but it requires the will of the Board to explore how best such a system might be used appropriately and effectively.
As it currently stands, the evidence suggests that the will of the Board to do this isn't present. It isn't clear that it's the will of the current members of Council either.
Michael Flatt wrote:It surprises me that the ECF Board have not appointed a IT manager to oversee the website, grading and running of the Office computer systems.
Current systems seem to work reasonably well, but the Warwick problems with the commentary suggests need for improvement in handling new challenges. Developing a slicker means of getting grading data into place is another problem looking for a solution.

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

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:21 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: I'm sure the board would happily grant them a measure of autonomy and invite them to attend board meetings where required.
Yes, you would think that. However, Malcolm was very clear that his candidate would not take the job ( or he would not ask them to? ) unless the position came with a vote on the Board. That was when my antennae started to tingle.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Mike Truran » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:31 am

The slides used at the Finance Council meeting are now up on the ECF website.

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

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:15 am

Michael Farthing wrote: I felt particularly disappointed by the failure to reach the transparent voting motion
I did not. This is a major decision with serious consequences both ways which have not been thought through. It is not as simple as "transparent good, opaque bad", the basis on which it would have been presented at the meeting.

I hope that Governance will produce comments on this issue ( otherwise what are they there for? ) in good time for proper consideration ahead of a vote at the AGM.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10329
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:26 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Michael Farthing wrote: I felt particularly disappointed by the failure to reach the transparent voting motion
I did not. This is a major decision with serious consequences both ways which have not been thought through. It is not as simple as "transparent good, opaque bad", the basis on which it would have been presented at the meeting.

I hope that Governance will produce comments on this issue ( otherwise what are they there for? ) in good time for proper consideration ahead of a vote at the AGM.
Normally speaking, whether it gets to a vote depends on where it is on the Agenda - I'm not sure how contentious the AGM will be given that some candidates will be standing for the usual 1 year term, some for 2 and some for 3 - it also depends on what the "anti-nexus" are planning - if the elections prove straightforward (e.g. no laborious card voting), there might be more time for the rest of the AGM agenda
Any postings on here represent my personal views

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

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:52 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Michael Farthing wrote: I felt particularly disappointed by the failure to reach the transparent voting motion
I did not. This is a major decision with serious consequences both ways which have not been thought through. It is not as simple as "transparent good, opaque bad", the basis on which it would have been presented at the meeting.

I hope that Governance will produce comments on this issue ( otherwise what are they there for? ) in good time for proper consideration ahead of a vote at the AGM.
Nick and I have talked about this (briefly and goof-naturedly) face-to-face.
Nick brings his FIDE experience to the table, and I see his point about it all, but on practical terms I think the ECF is a quite different typeof organisation.

As I understand Nick's view it centres on the ability of important folk to dictate to lesser folk how they should vote. Thus, Mike Truran might say to me "Don't use your Lancaster and Morecambe vote to support motion x or I won't make you ECF Chief Aardvark." Nick has a fear (and I'm not wanting to make it look flippant because of my flippant example) that such pressure would be worse than any beneficial effect of my home league knowing what I was doing. However, I believe that the difference between the organisations is not that we are necessarily less corrupt, but that our nature makes corruption that much harder: at the end of the day Mike can only offer a very few jobs and still has to get them passed by his Board. Even more significant is that basically he can't offer me any job that gives me money, or, indeed, much status (Cos Andrew Zigmond has already got that one).*

Maybe I have not expressed all Nick's concerns - but he'll no doubt come back on it!

*Oh my oh my oh my. Andrew's trying to give that up. No Mike no! I don't want it! I don't want it! I don't want it! I want to stay in one piece. I'm scared of Martin Carpenter.

[Edited to remove the use of an unacceptable and obscene word!]
[And edited again for the even more humiliating mistake of writing 'know' instead of 'no'!]
Last edited by Michael Farthing on Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Mike Truran » Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:57 am

Don't EVER call me Mick! :shock:

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 7173
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by LawrenceCooper » Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:59 am

Mike Truran wrote:Don't EVER call me Mick! :shock:
As you wish Mickey :wink:

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

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:04 pm

Mike Truran wrote:Don't EVER call me Mick! :shock:
I am mortified. My only explanation is that my brain was led astray by the proximity of a number of Nicks! It is now corrected.

Should anyone dare to call me any thing other than Michael they get very short change, so I fully understand.

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

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:23 pm

Michael Farthing wrote: Should anyone dare to call me any thing other than Michael they get very short change
About a farthing?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com