GOING FOR GOLD

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Dragoljub Sudar
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Dragoljub Sudar » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:12 pm

If the representative for bronze members upgrades to silver or gold later in the year (quite possible), will he/she have to resign?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:32 pm

John Philpott wrote: while there is currently a noticeable absence of nominations for platinum, silver and bronze representatives.
With the stipulation that you have to remain in category to remain a representative, do you expect a stream of volunteers to deny themselves the opportunity to play in the 4NCL or Congresses?

If you hold an election, who are the voters?

John Philpott

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by John Philpott » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:37 pm

Dragoljub Sudar wrote
If the representative for bronze members upgrades to silver or gold later in the year (quite possible), will he/she have to resign?
My interpretation would be that if somebody belonged to a particular membership category at the date of the AGM, he or she would be eligible to act as a representative for that category until the conclusion of the following year's AGM, regardless of any subsequent change of category.

John Philpott

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by John Philpott » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:42 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote
With the stipulation that you have to remain in category to remain a representative, do you expect a stream of volunteers to deny themselves the opportunity to play in the 4NCL or Congresses?
But I have not stipulated that (see my reply to Dragoljub). Silver membership is perfectly adequate to play in non-FIDE rated congresses. My expectation as to the likely stream of volunteers is irrelevant: I am seeking to administer the Bye Laws as they stand.

Roger De Coverly wrote:
If you hold an election, who are the voters?
The electors are the members of the relevant category on the date the election notice is sent out.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:47 pm

John Philpott wrote:Dragoljub Sudar wrote
If the representative for bronze members upgrades to silver or gold later in the year (quite possible), will he/she have to resign?
My interpretation would be that if somebody belonged to a particular membership category at the date of the AGM, he or she would be eligible to act as a representative for that category until the conclusion of the following year's AGM, regardless of any subsequent change of category.
That, whilst pragmatic, is not what it says on the ECF website.
Representatives are members of Council and must be and remain Direct members in the category for which they are elected throughout their period of office.
That seems to imply that not only do you have to be a Bronze or Silver member at the time of the AGM, but also to renew at that level the following 1st September. Thus if you are a Bronze member, you are excluded from Congresses and if Silver, from the 4NCL and internationally rated events.

John Philpott

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by John Philpott » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:54 pm

I would take the words on the website as being carried over from previous years, when the upgrades in the course of a membership year that we are likely to see in 2012/13 just did not occur. I will run with my interpretation unless you can point to something in the Bye Laws that indicates otherwise.

Angus French
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Angus French » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:00 pm

John Philpott wrote:I would take the words on the website as being carried over from previous years, when the upgrades in the course of a membership year that we are likely to see in 2012/13 just did not occur. I will run with my interpretation unless you can point to something in the Bye Laws that indicates otherwise.
I think Article 13 of the Articles of Association says otherwise:
"Such Direct Members’ Representatives shall cease to be Direct Members’ Representatives if they do not remain Direct Members in the category in which they have been elected throughout their period of office."

John Philpott

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by John Philpott » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:06 pm

Angus

Thank you for drawing that to my attention. Roger's interpretation appears to be correct. The consequence of this is that it is less likely that certain classes of direct members will have any representatives.

Angus French
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Angus French » Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:41 pm

Umm... There's something else. Article 13 states: "Direct Members shall elect a maximum of eight Direct Members’ Representatives". Whereas the Direct Members Bye Laws allow for the election of 10 representatives.
Should a proposal be put to the AGM to update the article to state "ten" rather than "eight" representatives?

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4097
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:43 pm

Angus French wrote:Umm... There's something else. Article 13 states: "Direct Members shall elect a maximum of eight Direct Members’ Representatives". Whereas the Direct Members Bye Laws allow for the election of 10 representatives.
Should a proposal be put to the AGM to update the article to state "ten" rather than "eight" representatives?
No, it should be put to the AGM to update the article to state "two per category of membership". Otherwise we're potentially going to run into the same problem in the future.

Angus French
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Angus French » Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:56 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Angus French wrote:Umm... There's something else. Article 13 states: "Direct Members shall elect a maximum of eight Direct Members’ Representatives". Whereas the Direct Members Bye Laws allow for the election of 10 representatives.
Should a proposal be put to the AGM to update the article to state "ten" rather than "eight" representatives?
No, it should be put to the AGM to update the article to state "two per category of membership". Otherwise we're potentially going to run into the same problem in the future.
Yes, "two per category of membership" would be better.

John Philpott

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by John Philpott » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:20 pm

Angus French wrote
Yes, "two per category of membership" would be better.
The inconsistency between the Articles and the Bye Laws clearly needs to be addressed (makes mental note for the Chairman of the Governance Committee to send an appropriate proposal to the Company Secretary tomorrow to get this on the AGM agenda): however, I am a little dubious about writing the two per category of membership principle into the Articles as it just does not seem to be working in practice. Do gold and silver members really have such different concerns that a member of one is incapable of representing the interests of the members of the other?

Dragoljub Sudar
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Dragoljub Sudar » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:53 am

John Philpott wrote:The inconsistency between the Articles and the Bye Laws clearly needs to be addressed
..an unintended consequence of pushing the membership vote through as a change to the Bye Laws rather than as a change to the Articles?
John Philpott wrote:The electors are the members of the relevant category on the date the election notice is sent out
I wasn't aware that as a silver member I actually had a vote as it's not listed as a benefit of membership; maybe it would help if this info was part of the confirmation of membership email, or if members received a separate email explaining all their benefits, but I appreciate we're still in a transitional phase.

How will this work? When notice of the 2012 AGM was sent out, there were no silver members, so will all new silver members be contacted between now and the AGM if there are candidates for silver rep?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:06 am

Dragoljub Sudar wrote: ..an unintended consequence of pushing the membership vote through as a change to the Bye Laws rather than as a change to the Articles?
There was a constitutional vote last year on increasing the number of Direct Member representatives from 8 to 10. That went through more or less uncontested because no-one could really be bothered to think about the implications.

The radical reform would be to base the number of Direct Member Representatives or votes on the number of Direct Members. Even if you find ten individuals willing to stand, they have next to no voting influence against the power of the proxy.

Neville Belinfante
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Neville Belinfante » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:05 am

No one is permitted to vote in elections for Silver Rep because that category only came in on September 1st and the notice of election came before that. (Unless I have misunderstood the regulations)

The rules should be changed as follows
There should be one Direct Member Rep for every thousand Direct Members - regardless of their category of membership
There should be a minimum of 10 Direct Member Reps even if there are less than ten thousand members.

Is it too late to get this onto the agenda for next month?

Regards

Neville Belinfante

Post Reply