The democratic deficit
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:46 am
Do people believe that the leadership of a chess club should be accountable to its members? In principle, yes, but in practice it's not so simple.
Take the case of Pimlico Chess Club and its extraordinary constitutional arrangements. The club is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation and is managed by its trustees. As at June 2022 there were six trustees. The day-to-day running of the club falls to its officers (Chairman, Secretary etc). The officer posts are currently held by six people. You would think that the officers were accountable to the trustees in the performance of their duties. At Pimlico, however, the officers and trustees are exactly the same group of people. In effect they are accountable to themselves only. This is rather like Boris Johnson deciding that he didn't break his own Covid rules in Partygate.
In practice, one suspects that the same six people do all the work because no-one else is prepared to. That's unfortunately common among voluntary organisations. So credit to them for being prepared to put in the time and effort. The downside is that the group can become inward-looking and unwilling to share its authority with anyone else who offers to help.
The club has no constitution, no annual general meeting, no election of officers. In effect it is a job for life. Members are powerless to bring about change. Of course they may not want to. The main purpose of a chess club is to provide playing opportunities for its members. Pimlico certainly does that through fielding teams in the Central London League, the London League, and the London Public Service League, as well as running an informal club championship. Matches mostly take place at a central venue which is easy to find and conducive to playing. So what's not to like? The arrangement is rather like the policy of bread and circuses in the old Roman Empire. As long as the membership has enough competitive, rated chess, who cares how the club is run? This is the kind of autocratic rule that the Republican Party in America can only dream about.
A word on the Central London League. This is run by Pimlico – very much after the fashion of the club itself. It also has no constitution, no annual general meeting, no election of officers. It is what the club says it is. The club can get away with this because the league is deservedly popular and Pimlico provides the venue for most of the matches. Even such matters as the rules of the league competition and the rules of play are hard to find. The club hid these away for a period of time and only agreed to publish them in response to considerable pressure. But again – does it really matter and does anyone care?
Take the case of Pimlico Chess Club and its extraordinary constitutional arrangements. The club is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation and is managed by its trustees. As at June 2022 there were six trustees. The day-to-day running of the club falls to its officers (Chairman, Secretary etc). The officer posts are currently held by six people. You would think that the officers were accountable to the trustees in the performance of their duties. At Pimlico, however, the officers and trustees are exactly the same group of people. In effect they are accountable to themselves only. This is rather like Boris Johnson deciding that he didn't break his own Covid rules in Partygate.
In practice, one suspects that the same six people do all the work because no-one else is prepared to. That's unfortunately common among voluntary organisations. So credit to them for being prepared to put in the time and effort. The downside is that the group can become inward-looking and unwilling to share its authority with anyone else who offers to help.
The club has no constitution, no annual general meeting, no election of officers. In effect it is a job for life. Members are powerless to bring about change. Of course they may not want to. The main purpose of a chess club is to provide playing opportunities for its members. Pimlico certainly does that through fielding teams in the Central London League, the London League, and the London Public Service League, as well as running an informal club championship. Matches mostly take place at a central venue which is easy to find and conducive to playing. So what's not to like? The arrangement is rather like the policy of bread and circuses in the old Roman Empire. As long as the membership has enough competitive, rated chess, who cares how the club is run? This is the kind of autocratic rule that the Republican Party in America can only dream about.
A word on the Central London League. This is run by Pimlico – very much after the fashion of the club itself. It also has no constitution, no annual general meeting, no election of officers. It is what the club says it is. The club can get away with this because the league is deservedly popular and Pimlico provides the venue for most of the matches. Even such matters as the rules of the league competition and the rules of play are hard to find. The club hid these away for a period of time and only agreed to publish them in response to considerable pressure. But again – does it really matter and does anyone care?
