Adam Raoof wrote:What future structure for the ECF are readers of this Forum actually proposing when they refer to OMOV (one man one vote)?
Wise words. But I'm not sure we can expect David to do all the work for us, although I hope he will chip in. As an independent forum, I think we have the privilege of being able to debate options without restriction, which may or may not be of use if reform is instigated.Simon Spivak wrote:I'd rather not further expand on my answer at this juncture for two reasons. The first is that it would take me a long time to flesh out something coherent and properly researched, even though I have read about this subject, when there is no indication that any of it will be taken seriously. The second is that David Robertson is obviously so much better qualified that I am for this task, that he would likely come up with a superior solution in less time than I would. We want the least bad outcome, not a clash of wills and egos.
I would like OMOV to mean direct election of Directors, probably by web based voting. But not referendums on particular issues, unless the board decided to hold one. I would prefer a much smaller body than the existing council to improve efficiency, and would elect 5 of the 15 directors every year. Three year terms seem long enough to empower directors and improve accountability.
The posts I would elect are:
THE PRESIDENT
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
FINANCE DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR OF HOME CHESS
INTERNATIONAL DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR OF JUNIOR CHESS & EDUCATION
MARKETING DIRECTOR
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: EAST ANGLIAN CHESS UNION
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: LONDON CHESS LEAGUE
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: MANCHESTER CHESS FEDERATION
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: MIDLAND COUNTIES CHESS UNION
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: NORTHERN COUNTIES CHESS UNION
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: SOUTHERN COUNTIES CHESS UNION
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: WEST OF ENGLAND CHESS UNION
(I haven't forgotten the FIDE Delegate, I think he should report to the international director. Various other managers too as now, all reporting to a board member)
All members would be entitled to vote for executive positions and chair, but would be tied to a geographic area when voting for non-executive directors. I think a large number of non executives is useful for the integrity of the system. Also it means someone represents every member directly. I would not weight the votes of the non-executives, since the bigger unions have more influence over the election of the executives.
I am hoping to provoke constructive green housing. But feel free to tell me why I am wrong as bluntly as you like if you would prefer!