GOING FOR GOLD

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
John Philpott

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by John Philpott » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:19 am

Dragoljub Sudobar wrote
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?
The deadline for candidates to come forward is 1.30 tomorrow, the same deadline as for nominations to the Board. An election only arises if there are more than two candidates in respect of a category: if there are just one or two candidates, these are appointed automatically. Any vacancies are filled by the Board if volunteers emerge at a later date. Historically, there has been very little enthusiasm for individuals to act as representatives, and I believe that we are looking at the first ever election. Indeed, the Board has more often than not been unable to fill the vacancies. Among the existing categories, we have throughout 2011/12 been short of one of the two representatives for basic members.

Ernie Lazenby
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:10 pm

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by Ernie Lazenby » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:21 am

As important as this is to those with a history of following chess politics I cannot help feeling that the vast majority of chess players are not interested in this, thats assuming they even know about it.

Seems to me to be another example of seemingly good ideas not being fully thought out.

John Philpott

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by John Philpott » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:38 am

Neville Belinfante wrote:
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)
I think that we may be using the term "election notice" in different ways. I do not interpret the document which appeared on the website last month as an "election notice" as such. It was an invitation for individuals to come forward to volunteer to serve as direct members representatives from the conclusion of the 2012 AGM to the conclusion of the 2013 AGM, specifying a deadline of 5 September (i.e. tomorrow) to come forward. To be eligible, an individual would need to have been a member of the relevant category on that date: as Angus has now pointed out, the individual would need to remain a member of that category through to the 2013 AGM or would have to relinquish the position.

An election as such only arises if there are more than two candidates for a category. If that is the case, a ballot paper would need to be sent out, probably at some point in the next two weeks. This is what I was referring to as the election notice. It is those who are members of the relevant category on the date that the ballot paper is sent out who are entitled to vote.

Neville Belinfante wrote
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.
It is entirely reasonable to think that the rules should be changed. However, there is little time to develop a properly thought through proposal before tomorrow's deadline for motions. I understand that Andrew Farthing will be suggesting an SGM later in the year to look at the detailed rule changes that would be necessary if the ECF is split into its charitable and non-charitable elements. That might be a more appropriate occasion for this type of issue to be addressed.

Neville Belinfante wrote
Is it too late to get this onto the agenda for next month?
Not if you can find members qualifying as "the requisitionists" to make such a proposal by 1.30 pm tomorrow.

John Philpott

Re: GOING FOR GOLD

Post by John Philpott » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:39 am

Ernie Lazenby wrote:
As important as this is to those with a history of following chess politics I cannot help feeling that the vast majority of chess players are not interested in this, thats assuming they even know about it.

Seems to me to be another example of seemingly good ideas not being fully thought out.
I agree with you there, Ernie!

Post Reply