Thread withdrawn

[Mick Norris]

i guess the gist of this argument is that Adam Raoof is not organising enough events and should shut up about OMOV until he reaches the necessary number.

[Andrew Zigmond]

i guess the gist of this argument is that Adam Raoof is not organising enough events and should shut up about OMOV until he reaches the necessary number.

I haven't the foggiest idea what Adam Raoof's position on OMOV is, or what he thinks about anything else for that matter. The point is that the tournaments he organises entitle him to a seat at council. There is no reason why anybody else contributing to this thread can't do the same.

[Paul Cooksey]

Can anyone advise me how to reply to that post without Andrew thinking I am calling him an idiot again?

[Mick Norris]

I doubt we can revolutionize local chess in one fair swoop, but, how about start by widening the reach and voices at Council?

One member one vote. No block votes. No votes for leagues or counties or tournament organisers. No proxies. No taxation without representation.

I don't think Council would vote for that

[NickFaulks]

One is the failure of the anti council lobby to understand

You always speak in some kind of code which I cannot crack. Who are the "anti council lobby"? Are you talking about members of the Board? I genuinely don't know.

[JustinHorton]

. There is no reason why anybody else contributing to this thread can't do the same.

This is patently untrue

[Andrew Zigmond]

I doubt we can revolutionize local chess in one fair swoop, but, how about start by widening the reach and voices at Council?

One member one vote. No block votes. No votes for leagues or counties or tournament organisers. No proxies. No taxation without representation.

I don't think Council would vote for that

Thanks Mick, I scanned that part of the thread too quickly. Playing devil's advocate here but how would scrutiny and oversight be provided? I'm not entirely comparing like with like here but I am a member of the ECF, the Labour Party and Leeds Building Society and the one I feel most engaged with is the one I have the least direct vote with.

One is the failure of the anti council lobby to understand

You always speak in some kind of code which I cannot crack. Who are the "anti council lobby"? Are you talking about members of the Board? I genuinely don't know.

I was referring to those people who want council abolished completely rather than reformed.

. There is no reason why anybody else contributing to this thread can't do the same.

This is patently untrue

Fair enough Justin, it was a bit of a sweeping statement. We're drifting away from my original point which is that council is hardly a closed shop and it's not that difficult to get a seat on it if you're that desperate.

[Michael Farthing]

Well the only candidate I can think of meeting Andrew's description is perhaps Chris Fegan who has argued (as I recall) that the membership should directly elect the Board and that Council should be abolished. Apologies Chris if I haven't got that right. I did once ask Chris to elaborate on here but I think he thought I was trying to goad him (I wasn't, honest - I was genuinely curious). Anyway, that was a long time ago and our relationship has improved since then so I'll try repeating the invitation.

[Mick Norris]

One member one vote. No block votes. No votes for leagues or counties or tournament organisers. No proxies. No taxation without representation.

I don't think Council would vote for that

Thanks Mick, I scanned that part of the thread too quickly. Playing devil's advocate here but how would scrutiny and oversight be provided? I'm not entirely comparing like with like here but I am a member of the ECF, the Labour Party and Leeds Building Society and the one I feel most engaged with is the one I have the least direct vote with.

Ok Andrew, I wasn't actually responding to Paul's comment, but I did realise you'd missed Adam's post; I'd politely suggest you need to calm down a bit and also that I think there's no consensus on the right structure so we're stuck with the ECF Council we've got

I'd like to see the Member reps get more votes, but given the flak they take, I wonder

I haven't personally the time or inclination to get a vote on Council; I've given up MCF Council too, and feel better for it

[Michael Farthing]

I'd like to see the Member reps get more votes, but given the flak they take, I wonder

Well there are two ways of doing that:

1. Stick with the same number of reps and increase their individual votes.

I don't think that is a good idea. OK, 6 votes is relatively mild in the world of Council vote acquisition, but 12 (for example) is begining to get uncomfortable.

2. Add more direct reps and keep the individual allocation of votes the same.

The real problem with that is that the volunteers don't come forward and then it is up to the Board to appoint. I'm not very happy with that because (even if the Boarrd successfully finds someone) it puts the Board in the dangerous situation of being accused of favouring its own supporters. This would have been a bit nit-picking when the posts only carried 1 vote but is now a more serious consideration. And there might be a Board where, to the danger of accusation, could be added the will so to do.

Flak is part of the job, as it is for the Board. I haven't actually received much, though more than usual this April. But actually, some of it was justified and, were I Thomas, the Fat Controller would have said to me, "You shall go to your shed and consider how you can improve".

[Roger de Coverly]

2. Add more direct reps and keep the individual allocation of votes the same.

Having representatives on Council for specific interest groups might be desirable. Possible interest groups could be titled players, female players and chess trainers. I'd suggest arbiters as well were it not that the CAA are already represented by virtue of being corporate members and that several existing Council members are also arbiters.

[John Reyes]

Yes, that is what I think would in the short-to-long run be a good thing for bringing more voices to Council.

In general, people fall into three categories:
1. People who prioritise ECF Council meetings and will go to them come hell or high water
2. People who will go to ECF Council meetings if they're available, and if they're not they'll nominate a proxy
3. People who couldn't care less about ECF Council meetings.

This is for reasons nothing to do with chess, and even if you changed the rules on delegate positions/proxies, people will still broadly fall into those three categories. You won't get new voices flooding Council, you'll just get more unused votes. It's not clear to me why that's a democratic improvement.

In general, people fall into three categories:
1. People who prioritise ECF Council meetings and will go to them come hell or high water
2. People who will go to ECF Council meetings if they're available, and if they're not they'll nominate a proxy
3. People who couldn't care less about ECF Council meetings.

I'm number 1, but I feel that the common people does have a say at the ECf and not people who abused there votes.
Ben Edgill and myself are people who will votes the way of the members and not to speak to the people