JustinHorton wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:35 pmIncidentally can I suggest that if anybody wishes to discuss OMOV they may like to start a new thread for the purpose? This thread was plainly started to talk about not that, but the remarkable conduct of Members' representatives, and there is no obviously good reason for that subject to be buried by another one.
Members' Representation
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Members' Representation
Once again
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:03 am
Re: Members' Representation
Maybe not. I hesitated to include the nomination of Mike Truran by the Platinum representative because the name on the sheet isn't the Platinum representative. I drew this to Michael Farthing's attention yesterday and he's going to make the correction, but I'm not sure whether it's the name or the organisation that will change - maybe both?Carl Hibbard wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:24 pmShould I change this to Malcolms reps not Members reps?
The Reps seem to have forgotten who they represent. What is wrong with these people. They need to understand they don't represent themselves, they represent us, the members. Instead they believe they have carte blanche to act with total independence and they can give the rest of us the brush off. That breaks the spirit of what they're supposed to stand for. I suggest that some serious thought ought given to developing clear ground rules for the Reps behaviour or scrap the whole idea of members representation because at the moment it definitely ain't working.
-
- Posts: 10382
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Members' Representation
Or maybe David get people to stand against them for election?
The silver members re-elected John Reyes despite Tim endorsing another candidate, and Tim did get the most votes; there's now criticism of John which appears to be precisely because he's the type of rep you seem to want (and me too, FWIW)
The silver members re-elected John Reyes despite Tim endorsing another candidate, and Tim did get the most votes; there's now criticism of John which appears to be precisely because he's the type of rep you seem to want (and me too, FWIW)
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Re: Members' Representation
OMOV favours candidates that live close to the meeting venue; proxy harvesting favours candidates that live far away.
So do both! Count the proxies as currently, and give one extra vote to everyone in the room.
So do both! Count the proxies as currently, and give one extra vote to everyone in the room.
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Members' Representation
That, however, would be illegalChris Goodall wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:00 amOMOV favours candidates that live close to the meeting venue; proxy harvesting favours candidates that live far away.
So do both! Count the proxies as currently, and give one extra vote to everyone in the room.
-
- Posts: 7229
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Re: Members' Representation
If voting by ECF members was to occur online where they are authenticated beyond an email alias would
"OMOV favours candidates that live close to the meeting venue"
remain a truism?
"OMOV favours candidates that live close to the meeting venue"
remain a truism?
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
-
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Re: Members' Representation
No. It would become a falsism. Would that not also be illegal? In that you're usurping the role of the AGM?John Upham wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:10 pmIf voting by ECF members was to occur online where they are authenticated beyond an email alias would
"OMOV favours candidates that live close to the meeting venue"
remain a truism?
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:55 pm
- Location: Holmfirth
Re: Members' Representation
You can vote online and restrict to email or IP address. For example, in another world where I was elected Silver Rep (which I am eternally thankful I was not), I could have just sent a survey monkey link to members, with restriction in and canvassed opinion for those who responded. Quite easy to do and see the results. Of course better measures would be needed for direct elections.
HDCA President
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Members' Representation
Mike Truran was validly nominated by one of the two Platinum Members representatives. There was an error in the Voting Register, which Michael Farthing has now corrected.David Gilbert wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:55 amMaybe not. I hesitated to include the nomination of Mike Truran by the Platinum representative because the name on the sheet isn't the Platinum representative. I drew this to Michael Farthing's attention yesterday and he's going to make the correction, but I'm not sure whether it's the name or the organisation that will change - maybe both?
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:22 pm
Re: Members' Representation
Hi, thought I would reply to this as someone mentioned to me that there was some strong views on this forum.
I'm currently one of the bronze member reps.
1) I was voted in to represent the interests of Bronze members. As mentioned in my address at the time, I will be taking views in the interests of the bronze member category. (Not passing every decision onto them to vote on)
2) We (myself and Aga) have been open with everyone about how we will vote on all occasions - and feedback is always welcome from members. Yes some people have individual views, which we take on and consider in actions, as we are always looking to learn and grow and consider viewpoints which may have not been thought of. On the flip side of this, individuals often have strong opinions, but you are also one of many bronze members.
3) I nominated Malcolm for two reasons:
i) It is always good to to have some competition for key roles, and will only benefit members having an option on two alternative ways we can vote for.
ii) We put a position forward at the last council meeting regarding maximum length of service for positions. - Which we communicated to the member base on how we will vote (with minimal differing opinions returned), supporting that a change in leadership is useful over a longer period of time.
4) For the upcoming vote, I have spoken to Malcolm, and will speak to Mike this Sunday, and then we will be drafting a message to Bronze members, which will then be taken for consideration prior to the vote, as we have always done.
I don't see how anything poor has been done here, sure everyone is entitled to their opinions, but some of the comments I have seen on this forum are a little extreme....
On the flip side, all of our roles are open to votes, so if bronze members are no longer happy with the way in which I am using their vote (which I think on a side note is very very small number of votes), then there is governance in place where someone else can apply, and they can vote for a new representative.
That being said, not a single person decided to contest representing bronze members, and I put forward my nomination again on the 13th June. (mainly because no one else put their hand up), and as it was uncontested, I was voted in another year.
Hope that helps clarify my views on this.
I'm currently one of the bronze member reps.
1) I was voted in to represent the interests of Bronze members. As mentioned in my address at the time, I will be taking views in the interests of the bronze member category. (Not passing every decision onto them to vote on)
2) We (myself and Aga) have been open with everyone about how we will vote on all occasions - and feedback is always welcome from members. Yes some people have individual views, which we take on and consider in actions, as we are always looking to learn and grow and consider viewpoints which may have not been thought of. On the flip side of this, individuals often have strong opinions, but you are also one of many bronze members.
3) I nominated Malcolm for two reasons:
i) It is always good to to have some competition for key roles, and will only benefit members having an option on two alternative ways we can vote for.
ii) We put a position forward at the last council meeting regarding maximum length of service for positions. - Which we communicated to the member base on how we will vote (with minimal differing opinions returned), supporting that a change in leadership is useful over a longer period of time.
4) For the upcoming vote, I have spoken to Malcolm, and will speak to Mike this Sunday, and then we will be drafting a message to Bronze members, which will then be taken for consideration prior to the vote, as we have always done.
I don't see how anything poor has been done here, sure everyone is entitled to their opinions, but some of the comments I have seen on this forum are a little extreme....
On the flip side, all of our roles are open to votes, so if bronze members are no longer happy with the way in which I am using their vote (which I think on a side note is very very small number of votes), then there is governance in place where someone else can apply, and they can vote for a new representative.
That being said, not a single person decided to contest representing bronze members, and I put forward my nomination again on the 13th June. (mainly because no one else put their hand up), and as it was uncontested, I was voted in another year.
Hope that helps clarify my views on this.
-
- Posts: 21320
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Members' Representation
The problem is that the act of nomination is usually regarded as a declaration of support. Anyway Malcolm is already a director, so no new candidates are introduced, other than Malcolm's unknown and as yet hypothetical replacement as International Director.Chris Skulte wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:26 am
3) I nominated Malcolm for two reasons:
i) It is always good to to have some competition for key roles, and will only benefit members having an option on two alternative ways we can vote for.
ii) We put a position forward at the last council meeting regarding maximum length of service for positions. - Which we communicated to the member base on how we will vote (with minimal differing opinions returned), supporting that a change in leadership is useful over a longer period of time.
But is the case that as far as the funds in the PIF are concerned, that Mike advocates conserving them and Malcolm advocates spending them? That may actually be the debate since it would be possible to transfer funds to the Chess Trust and spend then, albeit with restrictions or transfer them to the ECF and conserve them, with some tax disadvantages.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Members' Representation
Were you under the impression that if you did not nominate Malcolm there would be no competition?Chris Skulte wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:26 am:
i) It is always good to to have some competition for key roles, and will only benefit members having an option on two alternative ways we can vote for.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 21320
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Members' Representation
Neither candidate needed third party nomination in order to stand. As incumbent, Mike automatically stands whilst as a Director Malcolm can nominate himself for any other position, an opportunity used by a retiring director to seek another elected post.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:25 amWere you under the impression that if you did not nominate Malcolm there would be no competition?
If member representatives are going to involve themselves in nominations and avoid accusations of bias, it would have been better for them to be seen to nominate both candidates.
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Members' Representation
Meanwhile, of more importance, "How many angels can you place on the head of a needle?". Which, interestingly, (well I think so) has virtually the same answer as "Where did the big bang happen?"
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Members' Representation
Not especially, no, Michael. I think for instance it's reasonable to ask whether, in nominating Mike Truran's opponent, while right in the middle of a personal row with Mike Truran, Rob Willmoth had entirely put aside his own feelings and interests and was acting purely in the interests of the members who he did not consult.Michael Farthing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:06 pmMeanwhile, of more importance, "How many angels can you place on the head of a needle?".
I mean what does it look like?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com