ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[Lara Barnes]

The Director of Marketing role has been amended to Director of Membership & Marketing for the AGM elections.

The revised Directors and Officers Responsibilities Regulations on the ECF website include the following role description:

Develops the ECF membership scheme to ensure that it maximises the benefits available to members and provides a firm financial platform for the Federation.

Develops, implements and enhances appropriate means of communication with members.

Develops the ECF approach to membership (of all types), membership fees (including Game Fee) and benefits (including grading and representation) attaching to membership. Consults with Unions, Counties, Leagues and Congresses to ensure that plans are seen as feasible and can be implemented successfully.

Develops and implements a strategic marketing plan aimed at increasing the commercial revenues of the ECF through a market-research-led approach to strengthen relationships with members, Game Fee payers, chess organisers and officials, local and national media, and the wider business community.

Develops a strong and clearly differentiated brand image for chess, and uses this as a means of promoting the image of the ECF and of generating favourable publicity for the Federation. Develops and enhances the image and perceived value of chess and of the people who organise and play the game.

Co-ordinates the search for sponsors and sets standards for the ECF’s relations with them. Is convener of the Board Sponsorship Committee.

Is responsible for the Certificate of Merit scheme.

Is a member of the Board Awards Committee.

Oversees the Yearbook, the Website and the Chess Moves.

Is responsible for the 'ECF Book of the Year’, and the 'ECF Player of the Year' Awards and makes proposals to the Board for all ECF endorsements. Ensures with the President and the secretary of the Board Awards Committee that these and other Awards are presented in the way that attracts the best publicity and reinforces the ECF’s relations with local chess players and organisers.

Wow, the person who is responsible for all this needs to have a proven track record in making sure awards such as The Grand Prix are given out at the right time, the Player of the year award is awarded and needs to be able to communicate with the members of their 'team' without sarcasm, insult and 'points scoring'. They need to get the sponsors of one event to attend or send representation to the previous one to publicise it. They need to be honest about the role they have, publicise the ECF events they are responsible for rather than concentrating on their own local events. They need to be able to admit when they have taken on more than they can handle and not delegate everything to someone else. They need to be competent in the fields they claim to be qualified.
Anyone taking this on needs to be able to prove excellence in previous roles - this is a very important post.

[Mike Truran]

Lara Barnes

Post subject: Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13 Reply with quote
Angus French wrote:
I’d support anyone who is reasonably competent, listens, communicates and plays a straight bat.

Oh well, none of the above then.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I live in hope that your comment was selective rather than comprehensive.

[Roger de Coverly]

Consults with Unions, Counties, Leagues and Congresses to ensure that plans are seen as feasible and can be implemented successfully.

Clubs don't matter then and are to be ignored.

[Lara Barnes]

Lara Barnes

Post subject: Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13 Reply with quote
Angus French wrote:
I’d support anyone who is reasonably competent, listens, communicates and plays a straight bat.

Oh well, none of the above then.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I live in hope that your comment was selective rather than comprehensive.

Absolutely! I am so completely incensed by some of the nominations that I have overlooked the excellent ones - sorry

[Neil Graham]

Absolutely! I am so completely incensed by some of the nominations that I have overlooked the excellent ones - sorry

I think these are people who have offered themselves for re-election. Do they actually have to be nominated by anyone at all?

Previously the Board would recommend and nominate a candidate; indeed I remember Andrew Farthing writing a detailed manifesto (in vain as he was returned unopposed). Do the candidates appear before the Board where there is a contested election and indeed will the Board support candidates where there is an uncontested election?

[Ian Kingston]

Consults with Unions, Counties, Leagues and Congresses to ensure that plans are seen as feasible and can be implemented successfully.

Clubs don't matter then and are to be ignored.

Counties and Leagues tend to be populated by clubs.

This degree of nit-picking is unjustified. The new role strikes me as an admirable and positive attempt to move the ECF forward, so maybe a little encouragement would be in order.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I think these are people who have offered themselves for re-election. Do they actually have to be nominated by anyone at all?

Yes, but the nomination can be from themselves. (Nomination from a Board member is one, though not the only, way to be on the ballot for a Board post.)

[Andrew Farthing]

Absolutely! I am so completely incensed by some of the nominations that I have overlooked the excellent ones - sorry

I think these are people who have offered themselves for re-election. Do they actually have to be nominated by anyone at all?

Previously the Board would recommend and nominate a candidate; indeed I remember Andrew Farthing writing a detailed manifesto (in vain as he was returned unopposed). Do the candidates appear before the Board where there is a contested election and indeed will the Board support candidates where there is an uncontested election?

There is no requirement for a separate nomination if the incumbent declares that he or she wants to stand for re-election.

There have been very few contested elections in the last few years. Speaking for myself, I never felt comfortable with the process of candidates appearing before the Board so that the Board could make a recommendation. My view was that Council delegates should be left to form their own judgement. The Board didn't see Phil and Sabrina beforehand last year (the only contested election in 2011, I think) and they didn't make a recommendation.

[Mike Truran]

Neil

I can't speak for anyone else, but please believe me when I say that I would be more than happy to withdraw if another candidate put him/herself forward or if nobody nominated or seconded me.

In the event that that doesn't happen, I am willing to be considered. In that regard, I think the words "seeking re-election" are somewhat OTT.

But in the prevailing environment volunteering to be a Director as opposed to a mere Chairman is, I'm afraid, a step too far.

Mike

[Stewart Reuben]

Andrew Farthing >Speaking for myself, I never felt comfortable with the process of candidates appearing before the Board so that the Board could make a recommendation. My view was that Council delegates should be left to form their own judgement. The Board didn't see Phil and Sabrina beforehand last year (the only contested election in 2011, I think) and they didn't make a recommendation.<

I disagree with Andrew. Sometimes the Board gains a very useful insight prior to the Council meeting. Where it is virtually unanimous, it can save Council's time. The failing candidate will have the opportunity to withdraw and not be humiliated. He might stand for another vacant post, that has happened. It can't now because candidates have to be declared in advance.
The mistake would be if it decided to recommend somebody on the basis of a 2-1 ratio vote. Such a vote occurred when I was chairman and nobody commented when I said the Board should not make a nomination in these circumstances. Interestingly Council voted in almost exactly the same proportion. But it was the BCF then and the Board was twice the size and more representative of Council.

[harrylamb]

Stewart

The whole process you describe is totally undemocratic. Firstly I am a member of the ECF. Like other people on this forum I am a reluctant member of the ECF. But nevertheless I am a member. But you and the ECF Board will not give me a vote. Worse still if I want to stand for the board you say the ECF should not let me unless I appear in front of the Board. Why? The electorate is the council. Why do I have to appear in front of the board? You say to avoid me being humiliated and to save the council's time. Well I believe it is a useful use of the councils time deciding who it wants to be on the board. As someone who has put up for parliament for UKIP I do not consider it a humiliation only getting 4% of the vote. But then I doubled UKIP's vote. You are saying that the board should be a self perpetuating oligarchy and you are trying to remove all democracy from appointments to the board.

To repeat. You and the existing board do not want to give members the vote.
You want to black ball volunteers before they stand before council for election.
Is it a surprise that ECF members are not putting themselves forward for election?

[Stewart Reuben]

Harry

You are entitled to your viewpoints. But you have over-egged your position. I didn't write anything of the sort.
Moreover you refer to our national voting system. There an individual does not have a direct vote. It is a parliamentary 'democracy'. You vote for a representative who holds the vote about all sorts of things. Even then our MPs have very little input to the decision-making process. A person who does not represent one of the main parties in British politics has little chance of being elected. He goes before a selection committee.
The ECF could change to a system of one member one vote. I have commented before it is seldom used anywhere. It was proposed some years ago by a segment of the then Board. It was Council that turned it down. It would make little difference. There would still be only a limited number of candidates. What we need is good ones.
On one occasion a newcomer put his name forward for a particular directorship. He was clearly unsuitable. But there was an incumbent of another directorship, also unsuitable. At my suggestion, though not chairman, the two roles were switched and absolutely everybody was happier as we now had two valuable directors. I doubt that could have happened had his first appearance been at Council.
It is unsurprising that not many people put themselves forward for election when experienced people, like yourself, are simply hostilely critical about the Board (of which I am not a member).

[John Philpott]

Roger de Coverly wrote

We don't yet know who is permanently standing down and who is intending to stand for other positions.

I have asked the ECF Webmaster to upload a list of all candidates for the October elections who have so far declared themselves. This list will be updated as and when further nominations are received: so far it includes, in addition to the incumbents seeking re-election to the same position, nominations for Alex Holowczak as Director of Home Chess and Adam Raoof as Director of Membership and Marketing.

[JustinHorton]

I’d support anyone who is reasonably competent, listens, communicates and plays a straight bat.

Yup.

[harrylamb]

It is unsurprising that not many people put themselves forward for election when experienced people, like yourself, are simply hostilely critical about the Board.

We agree! There is hostile criticism of the board. Ask yourself why. Its an important question. People are not hostile on a whim. IMO Members are hostile because they have no democratic rights. Furthermore lack of voting rights of the membership encourages dictatorial tendencies of the board. Eg they sue FIDE without telling the membership. As a former board member you advocate members not being permitted to stand without being grilled by the Board; another way of restricting democracy. If the board became responsive to the wishes of the members then the hostility would disappear

Like myself you seem to be a fan of the British governmental system. But two of the fundamental principles of the system are.

Any adult citizen can stand for parliament. You just do it and send out election leaflets to the electorate. You do not need to appear in front of the existing government to get permission
Any adult citizen can vote(about 50 million people).

Translating these principles to the ECF means.

Any member can stand for office. You send out your leaflet and appear in front of the electorate not the board.
Any member can vote.