Mechanisms for Direct Member Representation on Council
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:42 am
A minor and innocuous comment in an otherwise controversial document elsewhere discussed was a call for direct member representation to be increased stage-wise to 50% of Council votes.
This is an ongoing theme but rarely do its advocates come forward with concrete plans for how to do this, nor address the very fundamental problems that are entailed. My own positon is that I am philosophically sympathetic to the idea but cannot see a way round the practical difficulties. So I'm putting up some straw men and knocking them down in the hope that an intelligent discussion might result. [Yeah ok - I know - daft hope: but prove me wrong!]
Solution A
Simplest solution: Increase the current direct member reps votes from one each to 30 each.
Direct member votes are then 300 and other Council votes about 309. Objective more or less reached.
[And I'd have no difficulty removing 9 existing Council votes to make the solution perfect]
However, I don't think this is a good idea. It would give very big block votes to single individuals who may or may not consult with their electorate and may and may not be guided by that electorate (even if the electorate were to present a consistent line, which it wouldn't). Far too much power in too few hands, even if (as it might possibly do) actually generate some competition for the job.
Solution B
Increase the number of direct member reps (each carrying n votes) such that n x (number of reps) =300
The problems of this solution (given below) might be mitigated by reducing the number of other Council votes.
To my mind this has three significant problems
(a) We already struggle to get reps at all. I am fairly sure Bronze has never had a full complement and neither bronze nor silver has ever had a contested election. I am expecting that for next year the same situation will apply, though formal announcement has not yet been made.
(b) Increasing the number of reps also increases the size of Council, making it a more unwieldy instrument. It already has very little time available for conducting its business and accommodating more voices would not, I think, be healthy for successful operation
(c) It would cost money. Direct reps are entitled to travel expenses so taking say £30 per rep per meeeting (two per year) would quickly eat up a lot of the ECF resources. £30 I suspect is a low estimate.
Solution C
Similar to solution b and with largely the same problems, this would involve changing the basis of representation from a membership category basis to a geographical basis, so, for example, I might stand for election as North West rep rather than silver rep.
This might bring forward more candidates and would also make it much more likely that members could meet and talk with their rep directly. A likely consequence might well be that the higher levels of membership might grab all the posts, but actually, they're heavily over-represented as it is by the current structure which gives, for example, the 150 or so platinum members two reps (positions filled) while the several thousand bronze members have one rep and one vacancy.
Solution D
Solution D would be a limited number of reps in each category but with their number of votes determined in pro-rata with the number of votes they receive in the election to the post. This has been proposed on this forum before (I regret I've forgotten who by - might have been Nick). This solution gives quite a bit of flexibility, but to work as intended still requires the attraction of candidates. Maybe the lure of lots of votes rather than an inconsequential single vote might persuade people to stand. Some of the problems of solution B above would still remain.
Solution A-D radical
An idea that I have not dared raise in public before would be to change the very basis on which Council operates.
This would involve Council having a standing website/forum in which Council members could see Board papers or papers from their own membership (or indeed anyone else they might invite to contribute) and have the opportunity to discuss these online. It is feasible also to organise online voting on particular motions. Whether or not Council continued to meet physically twice a year I leave open. I also leave open whether such a forum should be public, both as regards discussion and as regards voting. {My personal preference would be for it to be public read only with voting revealed. There might be particular issues where more privacy would be needed}
This idea is the only one I have thought of that addresses most of the concerns: cost of expenses; size of meeting; time for discussion and it might also attract candidates not put off by setting aside two days a year for a lot of travelling and not much influence. There might be legal difficulties in constituting it, but with good will I think solutions could be achieved there too. It would also make it more likely that non direct member reps who currently do not attend Council might be encouraged to participate rather than appoint a proxy.
The downside is that a substantial number of people wary of 'computer' solutions might find this very uncomfortable and I fully recognise that a move of this sort would have to be brought in gently and initially as an experimental enhancement to the current procedures.
This is an ongoing theme but rarely do its advocates come forward with concrete plans for how to do this, nor address the very fundamental problems that are entailed. My own positon is that I am philosophically sympathetic to the idea but cannot see a way round the practical difficulties. So I'm putting up some straw men and knocking them down in the hope that an intelligent discussion might result. [Yeah ok - I know - daft hope: but prove me wrong!]
Solution A
Simplest solution: Increase the current direct member reps votes from one each to 30 each.
Direct member votes are then 300 and other Council votes about 309. Objective more or less reached.
[And I'd have no difficulty removing 9 existing Council votes to make the solution perfect]
However, I don't think this is a good idea. It would give very big block votes to single individuals who may or may not consult with their electorate and may and may not be guided by that electorate (even if the electorate were to present a consistent line, which it wouldn't). Far too much power in too few hands, even if (as it might possibly do) actually generate some competition for the job.
Solution B
Increase the number of direct member reps (each carrying n votes) such that n x (number of reps) =300
The problems of this solution (given below) might be mitigated by reducing the number of other Council votes.
To my mind this has three significant problems
(a) We already struggle to get reps at all. I am fairly sure Bronze has never had a full complement and neither bronze nor silver has ever had a contested election. I am expecting that for next year the same situation will apply, though formal announcement has not yet been made.
(b) Increasing the number of reps also increases the size of Council, making it a more unwieldy instrument. It already has very little time available for conducting its business and accommodating more voices would not, I think, be healthy for successful operation
(c) It would cost money. Direct reps are entitled to travel expenses so taking say £30 per rep per meeeting (two per year) would quickly eat up a lot of the ECF resources. £30 I suspect is a low estimate.
Solution C
Similar to solution b and with largely the same problems, this would involve changing the basis of representation from a membership category basis to a geographical basis, so, for example, I might stand for election as North West rep rather than silver rep.
This might bring forward more candidates and would also make it much more likely that members could meet and talk with their rep directly. A likely consequence might well be that the higher levels of membership might grab all the posts, but actually, they're heavily over-represented as it is by the current structure which gives, for example, the 150 or so platinum members two reps (positions filled) while the several thousand bronze members have one rep and one vacancy.
Solution D
Solution D would be a limited number of reps in each category but with their number of votes determined in pro-rata with the number of votes they receive in the election to the post. This has been proposed on this forum before (I regret I've forgotten who by - might have been Nick). This solution gives quite a bit of flexibility, but to work as intended still requires the attraction of candidates. Maybe the lure of lots of votes rather than an inconsequential single vote might persuade people to stand. Some of the problems of solution B above would still remain.
Solution A-D radical
An idea that I have not dared raise in public before would be to change the very basis on which Council operates.
This would involve Council having a standing website/forum in which Council members could see Board papers or papers from their own membership (or indeed anyone else they might invite to contribute) and have the opportunity to discuss these online. It is feasible also to organise online voting on particular motions. Whether or not Council continued to meet physically twice a year I leave open. I also leave open whether such a forum should be public, both as regards discussion and as regards voting. {My personal preference would be for it to be public read only with voting revealed. There might be particular issues where more privacy would be needed}
This idea is the only one I have thought of that addresses most of the concerns: cost of expenses; size of meeting; time for discussion and it might also attract candidates not put off by setting aside two days a year for a lot of travelling and not much influence. There might be legal difficulties in constituting it, but with good will I think solutions could be achieved there too. It would also make it more likely that non direct member reps who currently do not attend Council might be encouraged to participate rather than appoint a proxy.
The downside is that a substantial number of people wary of 'computer' solutions might find this very uncomfortable and I fully recognise that a move of this sort would have to be brought in gently and initially as an experimental enhancement to the current procedures.