The Reform of ECF Council

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7162
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

The Reform of ECF Council

Post by John Upham » Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:15 pm

I invite proposals from the floor as to potential reforms for ECF Council.

Of course, you might suggest all is wonderful and it can hold its head high as a model of democracy in action.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Paul Cooksey » Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:29 pm

Tim Wall spoke in favour of reform at the AGM.

If you add up the people who agreed with Tim with the people who felt Tim had too many votes given his lack of accountability, you might get to the 75% for constitutional reform.

Paul Buswell
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Paul Buswell » Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:43 pm

The right to recall a Direct Members' rep? Or a Director?

PB

Dragoljub Sudar
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Dragoljub Sudar » Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:06 pm

I'd like to start by saying I am completely neutral when it comes to the Mike and Malcolm camps. I don't claim to fully understand all the arguments and nuances about the various funds etc and don't personally know either of them nor most of those who post here.

I find it ironic that, while the system of payment to the ECF, based upon the number of games played, was replaced by a fixed membership payment regardless of the number of games played, the votes cast at Council are still based upon the number of games played in leagues and tournaments rather than being based on the number of people 'belonging' to each league or tournament

In theory I can be 'represented' by two counties, one union, a national league and two direct members' reps.
This doesn't make sense.

I think a far better system would be to require every member, when paying their ECF membership fee, to select which organisation should represent them. I could then select Nottinghamshire, or the MCCU, or the 4NCL, or Tim Wall, or John Reyes, or any of those entitled to vote (i.e. not restricted by geography). Everyone would be able to change their choice at any time.

Everyone entitled to vote would then have as many votes as those members who gave them their vote. If 200 members choose Nottinghamshire, the Nottinghamshire rep would have 200 votes. If I didn't agree with the Nottinghamshire rep I could choose my vote to go to another organisation that I knew would be voting the way I preferred.

I think this is a simple system, far more representative than the current system, and as near to OMOV without being OMOV.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:09 pm

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:06 pm
or Tim Wall, or John Reyes,
Are you happy with the way their names get onto your list?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Paul Cooksey » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:10 pm

I've been advocating the sort of system Dragoljub describes for a decade or so. I believe the ECF is, or at least should be, a membership organisation. I'm also a bit of a zealot, since I believe if you sort out representation properly, everything else gets sorted out in time.

But there is an alternate view. The ECF grew up as a federation of the organisations organising chess. The game fee was an organiser tax on the players, replaced by a membership fee more recently. Roger occasionally refer to the ECF as a way of funding the pet projects of organisers. I think it is broadly true, even if pet projects seems a bit pejorative for the things I agree with, such as organising the British and sending a team to the Olympiad.

I think there was some genuine surprise on the Council zoom call when I said that the position organisers of online chess should be rewarded with additional Council votes was controversial. But it was passed, so I think this is how most Council members see it.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:22 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:10 pm
I think there was some genuine surprise on the Council zoom call when I said that the position organisers of online chess should be rewarded with additional Council votes was controversial.
There should not have been. There is a significant minority view, which I understand, that online chess should be classed as a video game.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Ian Thompson » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:25 pm

1. The option of voting for 'None of the Above' or 'Only One of the Above' when electing Direct Member Reps.

2. The results of all card votes to be published so everyone knows how each Council member voted.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Paul Cooksey » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:28 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:25 pm
2. The results of all card votes to be published so everyone knows how each Council member voted.
I think that might pass, even with a 75% majority.
Angus French wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:50 am
Article 28 wrote:28. A poll demanded on the election of a chairman, or on a question of adjournment, shall be taken forthwith. A poll demanded on any other question shall be taken at such time as the chairman of the meeting directs, and any business other than that upon which a poll has been demanded may be proceeded with pending the taking of the poll. Votes on a poll shall be counted by tellers appointed by the meeting who may themselves vote if so entitled. In respect of a vote by poll where the vote is in respect of election to an office or post, the Tellers shall keep confidential the details of all votes cast except for the totals thereof. In respect of all other votes by poll the chairman shall cause to be published on the Company’s website as soon as reasonably practicable following the meeting details of how the votes of each member were cast. At the end of the meeting the Tellers shall deliver any ballot papers to the chairman.
[My emboldening]
Angus - do you know of any reason why that has to be the case if the Council wanted to change it? Occasionally we are bound by company law

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:31 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:25 pm
1. The option of voting for 'None of the Above' or 'Only One of the Above' when electing Direct Member Reps.
How would that work? At present you have the option of giving each candidate 1 vote ( up to two of them ) or 0 votes. Are you adding the option of -1?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Angus French
Posts: 2149
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Angus French » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:35 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:28 pm
Ian Thompson wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:25 pm
2. The results of all card votes to be published so everyone knows how each Council member voted.
I think that might pass, even with a 75% majority.
Angus French wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:50 am
Article 28 wrote:28. A poll demanded on the election of a chairman, or on a question of adjournment, shall be taken forthwith. A poll demanded on any other question shall be taken at such time as the chairman of the meeting directs, and any business other than that upon which a poll has been demanded may be proceeded with pending the taking of the poll. Votes on a poll shall be counted by tellers appointed by the meeting who may themselves vote if so entitled. In respect of a vote by poll where the vote is in respect of election to an office or post, the Tellers shall keep confidential the details of all votes cast except for the totals thereof. In respect of all other votes by poll the chairman shall cause to be published on the Company’s website as soon as reasonably practicable following the meeting details of how the votes of each member were cast. At the end of the meeting the Tellers shall deliver any ballot papers to the chairman.
[My emboldening]
Angus - do you know of any reason why that has to be the case if the Council wanted to change it? Occasionally we are bound by company law
Um, I don't think it's Company law. Rather, a matter of whether Directors would be able to work so easily with each other knowing that one (or some) had voted against another. Perhaps Robert Stern might comment more conclusively.

John Swain
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:35 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by John Swain » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:43 pm

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:06 pm
I'd like to start by saying I am completely neutral when it comes to the Mike and Malcolm camps. I don't claim to fully understand all the arguments and nuances about the various funds etc and don't personally know either of them nor most of those who post here.

I find it ironic that, while the system of payment to the ECF, based upon the number of games played, was replaced by a fixed membership payment regardless of the number of games played, the votes cast at Council are still based upon the number of games played in leagues and tournaments rather than being based on the number of people 'belonging' to each league or tournament

In theory I can be 'represented' by two counties, one union, a national league and two direct members' reps.
This doesn't make sense.

I think a far better system would be to require every member, when paying their ECF membership fee, to select which organisation should represent them. I could then select Nottinghamshire, or the MCCU, or the 4NCL, or Tim Wall, or John Reyes, or any of those entitled to vote (i.e. not restricted by geography). Everyone would be able to change their choice at any time.

Everyone entitled to vote would then have as many votes as those members who gave them their vote. If 200 members choose Nottinghamshire, the Nottinghamshire rep would have 200 votes. If I didn't agree with the Nottinghamshire rep I could choose my vote to go to another organisation that I knew would be voting the way I preferred.

I think this is a simple system, far more representative than the current system, and as near to OMOV without being OMOV.
I am fully in agreement with this "Sudar System". It's democratic and simple to understand. Whether it can be implemented in the face of so many vested interests is another matter; those with power are invariably reluctant to give it up.

There are, however, complications. Suppose, to use Drag's example, the Nottinghamshire rep has 200 votes to cast, canvasses opinions and 100 Notts folk bother to reply; the votes are 52-48 in favour of proposal A. Should the rep cast votes in proportion 104-96 in favour, or 200-0 in favour? (the latter being the system the Americans use when their Electoral College votes for the President). The former approach may only be justifiable if that's the way everyone else operates. Suppose the Notts rep knows that several reps haven't bothered to consult? Furthermore, suppose additional facts come to light during the AGM which were unknown to the Notts community who expressed opinions, or the speeches by supporters of proposal A are far less persuasive than those of their opponents; how should this affect the way votes are cast?

No voting system is perfect. The present one, given the current membership system, is especially imperfect, and does little to suggest that the ECF Council necessarily reflects the wishes of its members. It may do little to attract new volunteers or sponsors.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:44 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:31 pm
How would that work?
If each of them was elected for a two year term, the election could be for one at a time. Where would it get thrown back if the electorate prefers "not this candidate"?

Angus French
Posts: 2149
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Angus French » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:44 pm

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:06 pm
I think a far better system would be to require every member, when paying their ECF membership fee, to select which organisation should represent them. I could then select Nottinghamshire, or the MCCU, or the 4NCL, or Tim Wall, or John Reyes, or any of those entitled to vote (i.e. not restricted by geography). Everyone would be able to change their choice at any time.
If an ordinary member could select their rep at any time then isn't that effectively OMOV - since potential reps could say "select me and I'll vote for <x>"? Personally, I prefer representative democracy over direct democracy.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: The Reform of ECF Council

Post by Paul Cooksey » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:51 pm

John Swain wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:43 pm
No voting system is perfect. The present one, given the current membership system, is especially imperfect, and does little to suggest that the ECF Council necessarily reflects the wishes of its members. It may do little to attract new volunteers or sponsors.
Playing devils advocate, I think the traditionalist view is that volunteers will be incentivised by getting influence at Council by virtue of organising chess. That does seem to be true in some cases.

It is only really the members who are unhappy, and although they say they are unhappy because noone likes paying tax, they all enjoy the benefits from the work the organisers do. Most players are willing to play a relatively small amount to support organisers, even if the organisers waste most of the money tilting at windmills and infighting, Aren't we?

Post Reply