Could you enlarge this on this perhaps providing potential examples that are likely?Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:50 pmIt does feel that OMOV could be very easily swayed by relatively small voting blocs with minimal actual involvement in chess.
Members' Representation
-
- Posts: 7233
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Re: Members' Representation
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Members' Representation
The problem had been that being a Bronze or Silver representative would self destruct if they entered any tournament if they were Bronze member and when they entered a FIDE rated one if Silver. If there was some concept of family membership or parent and child membership, the idea has merit. That was how it was done before the implementation of compulsory or universal membership.Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:50 pmWhy were members' representatives allowed to be a different class from the body they are representing?
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
-
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm
Re: Members' Representation
In the context of junior chess, several organisations or institutions would have large 'banks' of email contact addresses for parents. E.g. the UK Chess Challenge, the London Junior championships, CSC or the larger county associations. So if someone from one of these stood for Junior Director, they could email all of these to solicit their vote, and even if only a fraction supplied them it would add up to quite a large number, possibly already a sufficiently large number.John Upham wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:53 pmCould you enlarge this on this perhaps providing potential examples that are likely?Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:50 pmIt does feel that OMOV could be very easily swayed by relatively small voting blocs with minimal actual involvement in chess.
By memory and subject to correction, this is more or less what happened with Player of the Year with a junior collecting votes from other junior players from his county.
You may take issue with 'minimal actual involvement in chess' - if you want I'm happy to qualify 'chess' to the organisational/administrative/coaching side of chess, which I would regard as essential to that particular role (Junior Director).
Last edited by Joseph Conlon on Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Members' Representation
Perhaps, but it's unlikely to happen. The ECF has more than enough internal fights already to last it several afternoons of AGMs. Anyway they haven't done anything not permitted by ECF rules and regulations.
-
- Posts: 7233
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Re: Members' Representation
Yes!
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
-
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm
Re: Members' Representation
That doesn't necessarily seem a bad thing to me? Anymore than saying that your ability to represents England self-destructs, at least for a while, if you start playing for Scotland.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:59 pmThe problem had been that being a Bronze or Silver representative would self destruct if they entered any tournament if they were Bronze member and when they entered a FIDE rated one if Silver. If there was some concept of family membership or parent and child membership, the idea has merit. That was how it was done before the implementation of compulsory or universal membership.Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:50 pmWhy were members' representatives allowed to be a different class from the body they are representing?
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: Members' Representation
One for Michael Farthing maybe?
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard
-
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm
Re: Members' Representation
I don't know why I am finding backronyms so amusing today, but no Carl. We don't want to become the English Complaints Federation.
I'm not sure how I feel about the gold members reps nominating people on my behalf. I would expect them to want to influence the ECF in ways that benefit gold members. Asking them to check everything they do has majority support seems a bit onerous, and generally not an obligation placed on most ECF Delegates. I understand John Reyes would, but he is a saint.
Honestly when the election came up I did know who these people were and who they were likely to support. But I'm freakishly interested in ECF politics and I doubt the average member did, so perhaps their election statements should have been more than CVs. However a lot of Council members vote for the best CV rather on policy, so perhaps that expectation is unfair too.
I'm not sure how I feel about the gold members reps nominating people on my behalf. I would expect them to want to influence the ECF in ways that benefit gold members. Asking them to check everything they do has majority support seems a bit onerous, and generally not an obligation placed on most ECF Delegates. I understand John Reyes would, but he is a saint.
Honestly when the election came up I did know who these people were and who they were likely to support. But I'm freakishly interested in ECF politics and I doubt the average member did, so perhaps their election statements should have been more than CVs. However a lot of Council members vote for the best CV rather on policy, so perhaps that expectation is unfair too.
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Members' Representation
The practical consequence was a reluctance of people to stand for the Bronze rep position in particular because they didn't want effectively a self imposed ban from playing in tournaments.
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: Members' Representation
Sorry, one more OMOV post... If we're talking OMOV to elect Board members then this was voted on at the 2017 Finance Council Meeting (minutes here) and Council voted 12 votes in favour; 191 votes against.
-
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: Members' Representation
There used to be a fudge whereby to be a members' rep you had to be of the same category at the time of election but could upgrade later.Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:22 pmThat doesn't necessarily seem a bad thing to me? Anymore than saying that your ability to represents England self-destructs, at least for a while, if you start playing for Scotland.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:59 pmThe problem had been that being a Bronze or Silver representative would self destruct if they entered any tournament if they were Bronze member and when they entered a FIDE rated one if Silver. If there was some concept of family membership or parent and child membership, the idea has merit. That was how it was done before the implementation of compulsory or universal membership.Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:50 pmWhy were members' representatives allowed to be a different class from the body they are representing?
A couple of other reasons for allowing reps to be of a different category to those they represent are:
- let it be for the members to decide who they want to represent them; and
- there might not otherwise be sufficient members putting themselves forward to be a rep - this certainly used to be the case for Bronze members' representation.
FWIW, I think both these arguments are weak and I favour restricting reps to being of the same category they represent.
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Members' Representation
I think both arguments have merit. Regarding the second, it is quite possible that nobody could be found who combines a deep and informed interest in the good of English chess with a lack of desire to play in Congresses. We ( all ECF members, not just Bronze ones ) were for a while fortunate that Angus fell into that category, but now he's gone.Angus French wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:43 pmA couple of other reasons for allowing reps to be of a different category to those they represent are:
- let it be for the members to decide who they want to represent them; and
- there might not otherwise be sufficient members putting themselves forward to be a rep - this certainly used to be the case for Bronze members' representation.
FWIW, I think both these arguments are weak and I favour restricting reps to being of the same category they represent.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Re: Members' Representation
I thought about being a Bronze rep as I haven't had a desire to play in congresses for a while. London is too far away, though. Or perhaps Newcastle is too far away.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:25 pmI think both arguments have merit. Regarding the second, it is quite possible that nobody could be found who combines a deep and informed interest in the good of English chess with a lack of desire to play in Congresses. We ( all ECF members, not just Bronze ones ) were for a while fortunate that Angus fell into that category, but now he's gone.Angus French wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:43 pmA couple of other reasons for allowing reps to be of a different category to those they represent are:
- let it be for the members to decide who they want to represent them; and
- there might not otherwise be sufficient members putting themselves forward to be a rep - this certainly used to be the case for Bronze members' representation.
FWIW, I think both these arguments are weak and I favour restricting reps to being of the same category they represent.
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: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Members' Representation
The obvious for or against argument for OMOV comes from our political parties who in recent years have all moved towards the full membership electing both the leader for the wider movement and the leader of the parliamentary group; two things that don't always have the same skill set. There are two obvious examples of this perhaps going "wrong" (although in both cases there were wider issues and the process prior to the ballot played a major part - in 2001 one party denied their members the chance to vote for the initial favourite and in 2015 another let a candidate on to the ballot who maybe shouldn't have been - we will all have our opinions and it isn't relevant to the ECF).John Upham wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:53 pmCould you enlarge this on this perhaps providing potential examples that are likely?Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:50 pmIt does feel that OMOV could be very easily swayed by relatively small voting blocs with minimal actual involvement in chess.
The question is how that could translate to the ECF. It could be that the membership have an initial vote with council ratifying (or not) the decision or vice versa. Otherwise the question of poor take up is a valid one, although it would be perhaps up to the candidates to generate interest.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own