Another election

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Neil Graham
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Another election

Post by Neil Graham » Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:26 pm

Unfortunately a comment I made on this seems to have been shunted off into the English Grammar section.

It makes no difference whatsoever how Sean voted with the Stockport League votes in the Roger Edwards election. The votes could not have affected the final result. If people are dissatisfied how their votes were used they can change their delegate, find a new proxy etc. Most chess players are totally apathetic towards chess admin & meetings as anyone who attends them will know. Surely we can now scale down this debate on what happened to the Stockport vote?

What is of concern is that 31 organisations didn't attend, didn't submit apologies, didn't appoint a proxy. As pointed out they held some 50 (or 19%) of the total votes that might have been cast. This could, of course, have changed the vote.

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: Another election

Post by David Pardoe » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:50 pm

Neil,
I think your comments miss the point of whats really being said here in various respects, although I agree your comments about meetings and attendancies. Apathy plays some part, but many players want nothing to do with the shambolic way that many these meetings and bodies are run. They should definately take action where officers or committees do not appear to be acting properly on there behalf, or not consulting clubs/officials on relevant matters of importance or interest.
Many concerns have been raised in this thread about Stockport-gate, and other important matters pertaining to the ECF election process, which have been met with a mixture of deliberate evasion and highly selective comment, which clearly has confused and misled many.
It doesnt take a genius to work out why this obvious evasion has taken place

Incidently, your last paragraph mentions voting, Delegate actions, Proxies, etc. which is quite right.
I`ve also complained that some delegates hold far too many votes, and in some cases collect large numbers of Proxies, which leaves these elections wide open to potential abuses.. A list of Delegates and the number of votes they hold, along with who held various Proxy votes, is mentioned elsewhere. You might like to check that out.

Of course leagues, and other bodies, can change there delegates and other officers if they wish, but often they have little choice because of the lack of volunteers. This apathy is played on by those with agendas to play out.
Last edited by David Pardoe on Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19011
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Another election

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:14 am

David Pardoe wrote: This apathy is played on by those with agendas to play out.
The way that many county and league associations are structured makes it very difficult for an individual to raise an issue to be discussed by the ECF Board or a general meeting. Follow it through. If the ECF representative regards himself as only reporting to a committee of officers and club secretaries, then stage 1 is to get the local club or its secretary to accept the proposition. Stage 2 is to get the league or county to agree to mandate the representative member. That's enough perhaps to get the issue raised and probably ignored as a verbal comment. To make it into a formal agenda item, you need the support of four other leagues or counties.

How much easier it is, if you have the relevant proxies or appointments to do it without much consultation. Even better if you are protected from hostile local opposition by the firewall of the local committee.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Another election

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:01 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:To make it into a formal agenda item, you need the support of four other leagues or counties.
No you don't. Two counties is enough to get it on the Agenda. Here is the list in full:

(a) any Director; or
(b) the FIDE Delegate; or
(c) the Chairman of a Standing Committee; or
(d) any two Trustees; or
(e) any Representative Member of a Constituent Unit; or
(f) any two Representative Members of Counties; or
(g) any two Direct Members’ Representatives; or
(h) any two of a Trustee, a Representative Member of a County and a Direct Members’ Representative; or
(i) any five Full Individual or Representative Members, as defined above in this Article.

I won't quote the "above in the Article", read page 13: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -20121.pdf

Michele Clack
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:38 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Re: Another election

Post by Michele Clack » Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:35 am

Let's give OMOV a try please! :| It would be good to vote in a committee and leave them to get on with things. I prefer the sort of model used in Golf Clubs where Officer Posts are voted on every year and Committee members are voted in for 2 year terms to give more continuity. If it's widely felt that the committee have gone astray then there is the safeguard of calling an EGM, needing a specified numbe rof members to call one. In the main though it would be much more productive to set a course and vote in a good group to get on with it. With every member having a log in it would be easy to do a computer vote given that everyone is all over the country.

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: Another election

Post by David Pardoe » Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:54 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
David Pardoe wrote: This apathy is played on by those with agendas to play out.
The way that many county and league associations are structured makes it very difficult for an individual to raise an issue to be discussed by the ECF Board or a general meeting. Follow it through. If the ECF representative regards himself as only reporting to a committee of officers and club secretaries, then stage 1 is to get the local club or its secretary to accept the proposition. Stage 2 is to get the league or county to agree to mandate the representative member. That's enough perhaps to get the issue raised and probably ignored as a verbal comment. To make it into a formal agenda item, you need the support of four other leagues or counties.

How much easier it is, if you have the relevant proxies or appointments to do it without much consultation. Even better if you are protected from hostile local opposition by the firewall of the local committee.

You raise some interesting points of procedure.
In the case of Stockport-gate, it would appear that certain league officer(s) dont consult/involve member clubs on matters of league business, even though its constitution indicates that this is required..
It appears that there delegate to the ECF did not even take the opportunity to formally update a key Stockport league meeting, held in mid September, regarding RE`s nomination/election as ECF President, and of his intentions at the ECF AGM to vote against RE, even though this would have been a natural opportunity to take soundings from league clubs, had this matter been placed on the agenda. This was clearly a matter of considerable local interest to Stockport league clubs, who would all have had representatives present. and an opportune moment to make his position clear. So, why was this opportunity apparently not taken.
If our delegates do not consult properly when opportunities present themselves, how can they represent the views of member clubs/leagues, or other bodies satisfactorily, and why was the membership so excluded..
At the very least, Sean could have issued a statement to the meeting outlining the position, including his apparent conflicts of interest, along with his voting intentions at the ECF regarding RE`s election.
Had he done so, and mentioned that this was an about face, after the league committee had previously approved Rogers nomination, the temperature at that meeting might suddenly have risen. He could also have informed that meeting of his intentions not to attend the ECF AGM as Stockport leagues delegate, and ask if anyone else could attend in his stead.
This is but one example of how things are conducted which raises a number of wider questions. Not least, should any one delegate carry multiple delegate votes. Can they reasonably be expected to consult adequately with, and represent multiple bodies/leagues, various congress groups etc...and carry out the required duties satisfactorily as representative delegates.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Another election

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:30 am

David Pardoe wrote:You raise some interesting points of procedure.
In the case of Stockport-gate, it would appear that certain league officer(s) dont consult/involve member clubs on matters of league business, even though its constitution indicates that this is required..
It appears that there delegate to the ECF did not even take the opportunity to formally update a key Stockport league meeting, held in mid September, regarding RE`s nomination/election as ECF President, and of his intentions at the ECF AGM to vote against RE, even though this would have been a natural opportunity to take soundings from league clubs, had this matter been placed on the agenda. This was clearly a matter of considerable local interest to Stockport league clubs, who would all have had representatives present. and an opportune moment to make his position clear. So, why was this opportunity apparently not taken.
If our delegates do not consult properly when opportunities present themselves, how can they represent the views of member clubs/leagues, or other bodies satisfactorily, and why was the membership so excluded..
At the very least, Sean could have issued a statement to the meeting outlining the position, including his apparent conflicts of interest, along with his voting intentions at the ECF regarding RE`s election.
Had he done so, and mentioned that this was an about face, after the league committee had previously approved Rogers nomination, the temperature at that meeting might suddenly have risen. He could also have informed that meeting of his intentions not to attend the ECF AGM as Stockport leagues delegate, and ask if anyone else could attend in his stead.
This is but one example of how things are conducted which raises a number of wider questions. Not least, should any one delegate carry multiple delegate votes. Can they reasonably be expected to consult adequately with, and represent multiple bodies/leagues, various congress groups etc...and carry out the required duties satisfactorily as representative delegates.
My apologies to you David. I rushed back from London to make sure I got to that September general meeting. I must have been very tired because I must confess I didn't see you there at all. Nor do I recall you raising any concerns at the meeting. Clearly my eyesight and hearing are both failing me. You should have come and said hello. :lol:

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: Another election

Post by David Pardoe » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:18 am

Yet more evasion from you Sean. Not one single answer to any of the points I raised?
Apparently, you dont seem to believe in updating or consulting with the Stockport league regarding matters that might be of direct interest to them. Why do you adopt this dismissive and evasive attitude towards the SL?
Perhaps this didnt suit the agenda you were playing to... easier not to consult the league clubs and concoct your own delegate agenda as regards the ECF elections?
Neil Graham said that your delegate vote regarding the Stockport league at the AGM did not matter?
But you held 17 other such votes for various chess bodies, did you not? Did you treat them with the same evasive manner? Perhaps I should have come along to all the other meetings you held with those groups to check what you were doing in there name?
Last edited by David Pardoe on Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
BRING BACK THE BCF

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: Another election

Post by David Pardoe » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:34 am

This forum is for the discussion of matters of interest regarding chess.
You might have noticed that quite a few forumites are interested in this topic.
Membership of the ECF or other bodies is not a requirement.

As for advising the Stockport league delegate how to vote at the ECF...it would appear he doesnt even seek advice from the people who should really count, ie the league clubs that he is supposed to represent.
He appears to operate his own selective exclusion policy, irrespective of the league constitution, or any of the usual conventions of accountability.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Another election

Post by Sean Hewitt » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:18 pm

Bob Clark wrote:David will not have been at the meeting as the list of registered players for this season does not include his name.
Furthermore he also doesn't appear to a member of the ECF.
Quite why he thinks he should be advising the Stockport league delegate who to vote for is beyond me.
Bob - Thank you for spelling out the message that I had been trying to get over subtly to David.
David Pardoe wrote:As for advising the Stockport league delegate how to vote at the ECF...it would appear he doesnt even seek advice from the people who should really count, ie the league clubs that he is supposed to represent.
He appears to operate his own selective exclusion policy, irrespective of the league constitution, or any of the usual conventions of accountability.
David - You have got no idea what I have or have not done because

1 - You do not play in the Stockport league
2 - I therefore owe you no answers
3 - I therefore ignore your questions

It actually has got nothing to do with you whatsoever. I do consult with the people that I represent. If you don't like the decisions that they make and that I adhere too then, frankly, that's tough. Whislt you don't play in an event that I represent I couldn't give a monkey's what you think. If and when you play in such an event, then I will take some notice of what you say - though you will still need to get the majority to agree with you in order to influence how such a vote is cast.

Mick Norris
Posts: 8215
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Another election

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:01 pm

David Pardoe wrote:This forum is for the discussion of matters of interest regarding chess.
You might have noticed that quite a few forumites are interested in this topic.
Membership of the ECF or other bodies is not a requirement.
If you are going to play for the Manticores this season, you need to become an ECF Gold member, which will cover the period until 31 August 2013 - why not join now, and both strengthen your argument, and make life easier for your captain?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: Another election

Post by David Pardoe » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:15 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Bob Clark wrote:David will not have been at the meeting as the list of registered players for this season does not include his name.
Furthermore he also doesn't appear to a member of the ECF.
Quite why he thinks he should be advising the Stockport league delegate who to vote for is beyond me.
Bob - Thank you for spelling out the message that I had been trying to get over subtly to David.
David Pardoe wrote:As for advising the Stockport league delegate how to vote at the ECF...it would appear he doesnt even seek advice from the people who should really count, ie the league clubs that he is supposed to represent.
He appears to operate his own selective exclusion policy, irrespective of the league constitution, or any of the usual conventions of accountability.
David - You have got no idea what I have or have not done because

1 - You do not play in the Stockport league
2 - I therefore owe you no answers
3 - I therefore ignore your questions

It actually has got nothing to do with you whatsoever. I do consult with the people that I represent. If you don't like the decisions that they make and that I adhere too then, frankly, that's tough. Whislt you don't play in an event that I represent I couldn't give a monkey's what you think. If and when you play in such an event, then I will take some notice of what you say - though you will still need to get the majority to agree with you in order to influence how such a vote is cast.
Sean,
This forum does not require its members to join the Stockport league to participate in discussions regarding matters of chess interest. And, incidentally, I`ll just remind you that I have been an active participant in the Stockport league for many years. You, by contrast are a new kid on the block, having only recently arrived on the scene from Leicester.
Nor is this forum the official mouthpiece of the ECF. In fact it prides itself on having an independant voice, and rightly so.

So, your obvious evasion of my questions begs more than a few questions. People can draw there own conclusions from that.
Not one of the questions do you seem able to come up with any attempt at an answer? But, instead you go straight into a tailspin...get steamed up, and start ranting out demands, in what many will see through...as a straight forward smokescreen of evasion, tantrum, and bad temper.
I asked a quite straight forward and reasonable question about whether you had issued any update or statement to the meeting regarding your voting intentions at the ECF AGM, or whether you had formally consulted the clubs at that meeting?
I asked if you had advised the meeting that you would not be attending the ECF AGM as the Stockport delegate?
Your predicessor and former league secretary did have the courteousy and good manners to mention this on a previous occasion (ie, at a previous league meeting), which was precisely how you got to be the Stockport delegate in the first place. I know, because I was at that league meeting?
And you cannot answer these simple questions Sean?
You`re not answerable to me, but you most certainly are answerable to the league clubs whose views you are supposed to represent. (And notice...I`m talking about clubs, not individuals).
And yes, it is perfectly reasonable for forumites to raise these points of interest, since the ECF/delegate voting system is a matter of considerable current interest.
Last edited by David Pardoe on Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19011
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Another election

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:30 pm

David Pardoe wrote: You`re not answerable to me, but you most certainly are answerable to the league clubs whose views you are supposed to represent. (And notice...I`m talking about clubs, not individuals.
I have always supposed that if you object to the stance taken by a local representative member as an ECF voting member, the simplest method is always to turn up at the relevant meetings and ask the difficult questions.

John Upham
Posts: 4720
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Another election

Post by John Upham » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:38 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: I have always supposed that if you object to the stance taken by a local representative member as an ECF voting member, the simplest method is always to turn up at the relevant meetings and ask the difficult questions.
Good advice but is has a fundamental flaw: if one's delegate refuses to communicate his or her stance despite being asked to do so what is one to do about it?
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19011
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Another election

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:44 pm

John Upham wrote: Good advice but is has a fundamental flaw: if one's delegate refuses to communicate his or her stance despite being asked to do so what is one to do about it?
Attend the next relevant meeting and propose a change to the terms of reference for the representative member. Alternatively propose a replacement individual.

Post Reply