Nominations for the elections at the ECF AGM

[Neil Graham]

The hot topic this time last year was Roger Edwards' candidacy, particularly after the incumbent President withdrew his nomination. At that time a lot of people whose opinions should be respected declared him unsuitable for the role - it would be interesting to find out whether they still hold that view.

It's really of no interest - unless some other candidate comes forward and there is an election. At this time of year I normally bring to the forum's attention that there are never any elections - indeed John Philpott provided some statistics to show how many elections there had actually been and that the prospect of contested election was unlikely. Last year there were insufficient candidates to fill the Directorships and looking at the list above I foresee exactly the same situation this year. There are plenty of people who seem to delight in criticising the ECF; just remember that no-one wants these thankless posts in the first place!

[Andrew Zigmond]

Given that last year there was almost a `stop Roger Edwards` movement on this forum and indeed he only defeated None Of The Above by a narrow margin. I said at the time that we should give him a chance, I think it's a reasonable question to ask those who said his presidency would be a disaster whether it actually has been. If not, why not?

It is true that there is rarely a contested election but None Of The Above is a perennial contender and `won` one election last year (I actually think that None Of The Above should have to win by a 66% margin to block the candidate but that is just my view). I suspect none of the candidates are facing a de facto confidence vote this year but I may be wrong.

[Roger de Coverly]

just remember that no-one wants these thankless posts in the first place!

There were allegedly two volunteers for the vacant CEO post, both presumably rejected by the incumbent directors.

[Neil Graham]

just remember that no-one wants these thankless posts in the first place!

There were allegedly two volunteers for the vacant CEO post, both presumably rejected by the incumbent directors.

There were no nominations at the 2012 ECF AGM with more than adequate notice. If these volunteers are so keen to be CEO, they can offer themselves for election at this year's Annual General Meeting. No doubt we can all name people who would be excellent Presidents/CEOs/Directors/Non-execs who have no intention of standing; equally we could think of people who might offer themselves for office who would be totally unsuited or absolutely inadequate. I suggest we wait to see how many prospective candidates offer themselves for election but I'm not expecting to be knocked down in the rush!

[Neville Belinfante]

The Catch-22 of ECF Elections for Directors goes as follows

Considering the current state of the ECF, a person has to be mad to stand as a director,
Council does not wish madmen as directors.
Therefore Council is obliged to vote None of the Above for all posts.

If anyone knows a way to resolve this paradox, please let me know.

regards

Neville Belinfante

[Andrew Varney]

Perhaps it would be appropriate to seek advice from Master Master Master Master?

[Roger de Coverly]

There were no nominations at the 2012 ECF AGM with more than adequate notice. If these volunteers are so keen to be CEO, they can offer themselves for election at this year's Annual General Meeting.

The recently released redacted minutes for the July Board meeting reveal that there was indeed another (rejected) candidate for the CEO post.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ice-v2.doc

This candidate was rejected by the Board by 4 v 1 but can reveal himself or herself for the October meeting.

[David Pardoe]

I agree an earlier comment that this years board have done a pretty good job this year.
Now that they have had a year or more in post and gained useful experience, those standing for re-election have a chance to steer things forward.
Yes, hopefully some of the other posts will be filled with enthusiastic and able volunteers. No, we do not want candidates coming in the back door. I would allow more discression regarding candidate statements, accepting general comment and some background info, accompanied by any personnal addresses that candidates might wish to make.

An interesting question might be ...what are the main expectations looking forward..
To review and enhance the Membership scheme..it would be good if the target numbers could be raised to say 25,000 over the next few years. Some bulk membership offers might draw in bigger numbers..including a `pic & mix`low price entry level membership for a tenner...eg 10 games (total) from any category.
I`d like to see some changes to international chess, and some of those events. ie, Increase the team sizes for some events, and maybe widen the selection options. Personally, I think it might be good to see a joint UK team, with some presence from each quarter.
How can we add spice to the offerings for our top guns...and attract greater sponsorship/funding.
How can we improve on Publicity? One area would be more publicity from our regional media. Maybe we need publicity officers in our `counties` who can engage with the regional Press more effectively, to alert `job public to the presence of chess across our regions. Many people play `lunch time` online chess, and it would be good to atract these people into the fold.
Can we attract more top players to the British.... whatever the views about the previous President, he certainly pulled the big guns in to Sheffield.. Do we need to consider re-openning this event to Commonwealth players? Can we increase the prize money by 25%...at least the top prizes.
Greater cohesion between our various chess bodies to help sychronize things, improve awareness, and attract greater numbers of volunteers.
And...can we beef up the `counties events` to attract more interest and support. Restructuring the grade boundaries offers some good possibilities, as discussed in various threads this year.
I`m sure there are many other initiatives that deserve consideration...

PS Maybe we could tie up with the National Trust and run some events on there sites....
Oh yes...lets not forget OMOV. In some form, it would be good to see some scheme trialed, not least to enable the whole membership to have some kind of say, even if it was on a proportionate basis.. ie, 250 individual votes to equate to one delegate vote...with on-line access.

[Andrew Zigmond]

PS Maybe we could tie up with the National Trust and run some events on there sites....
Oh yes...lets not forget OMOV. In some form, it would be good to see some scheme trialed, not least to enable the whole membership to have some kind of say, even if it was on a proportionate basis.. ie, 250 individual votes to equate to one delegate vote...with on-line access.

In an aside in past thread Sean Hewitt noted (with disappointment) that there were positions for Bronze and Silver delegates that were currently vacant. I've mulled this over a few times since and wondered exactly how many proxy votes these delegates would hold. Are we talking something that might alter the balance of power? If so it would be ideal if somebody could volunteer for these delegate positions and then canvas their `constituencies` for their vote on officer elections (and other issues of substance), get them independently verified and then cast the votes at Council.

I have considered volunteering to do this myself (providing the proxy votes available are worth the effort of course) but I don't think I have the time or the skills to do it justice. But I thought I'd sow the seed.

Seperately, if either of the rejected CEO candidates puts their name forward for the October AGM will the board outline their reasons for rejecting the candidature? I think this information should be in the public domain (I actually think it should be in the minutes unless the candidate specifically requested otherwise).

And I'm still waiting for those people who said a year ago that Roger Edwards would be a disastrous President to tell us whether or not he has. Given that there were lengthy threads on the subject this time last year it's a simple enough question ...

[Alex Holowczak]

I have considered volunteering to do this myself (providing the proxy votes available are worth the effort of course) but I don't think I have the time or the skills to do it justice. But I thought I'd sow the seed.

The two representatives for bronze members get 1 vote each, out of a total of approximately 260.

Proxies are irrelevant in this regard - you could be made a proxy regardless of whether you're the bronze member representative for any organisation. Warwickshire's delegate could appoint you as a proxy if he wanted, but equally, he could appoint Brad Pitt, Hosni Mubarak or Wayne Rooney if so inclined.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Proxy was a poorly chosen word - I meant the percentage of the electoral college that is Council.

Apologies if this sounds slightly naive but I understand that the balance of power depended on how much game fee a particular event or organisation pumped into the ECF; hence the moaning in some quarters that arbiters have too much power (the successful tournaments tend to be run by the same people and have to be qualified arbiters to run them). But the bronze and silver members who contribute what must be the lion's share get one measly vote each ..?

I'm NOT going to accuse the ECF of treating their members with contempt because the current board have made a lot of effort to consult and communicate. However the current system gives the impression that they do.

[Alex Holowczak]

Apologies if this sounds slightly naive but I understand that the balance of power depended on how much game fee a particular event or organisation pumped into the ECF; hence the moaning in some quarters that arbiters have too much power (the successful tournaments tend to be run by the same people and have to be qualified arbiters to run them). But the bronze and silver members who contribute what must be the lion's share get one measly vote each ..?

Yes, it's based on deemed Game Fee paid. So if all of your players are members, you're deemed to have paid that Game Fee. You get 1 vote per 1,000 halfresults or part thereof that you're deemed to have paid for. So the Birmingham League will probably get 6 or 7 votes, we're normally close to the 6,000 boundary. Warwickshire will only get 1 vote, for the congress it organises. The largest vote holders are probably 4NCL (7 or 8 votes) and e2e4 (anything between 6-9 votes, it fluctuates more than the 4NCL). I see you're from Yorkshire - Yorkshire usually get 2 or 3 votes for the Yorkshire League. The various "satellite" leagues in Yorkshire don't get any votes, with the exception of Leeds, for the reasons we both know that we don't need to bring up here.

The people who hold votes tend to get lots of votes from lots of different avenues. For example, I'll have votes as Director of Home Chess, BUCA, Dudley League, and a couple of other congresses. I'm elected as the representative for some of these organisations; the other congresses are self-appointed. I inherited the Dudley League vote on the grounds that the Dudley League concluded that since I'm the only person who goes to the meeting from that league, I may as well have their vote.

I'm NOT going to accuse the ECF of treating their members with contempt because the current board have made a lot of effort to consult and communicate. However the current system gives the impression that they do.

The current system is the system we've had since we introduced Game Fee. We haven't moved away from that. Maybe we should? If someone wants to volunteer as CEO to propose, and then implement that vision . . .

[Sean Hewitt]

As Alex says, the largest organisations in Council have maybe 8 or 9 votes. Some people represent more than one organisation but even then might only have control of 16 or 17 votes - barely 6% of the total vote. Therefore, no one person has the balance of power in Council.

[Roger de Coverly]

but even then might only have control of 16 or 17 votes - barely 6% of the total vote. Therefore, no one person has the balance of power in Council.

In practice the vote total is usually nearer to 200 than the theoretical 250 plus, so two voters in concert can have a noticeable effect. Personally I regret that when Northern organisations and Congresses griped about Game Fee and demanded payments by individuals instead, that they weren't stripped of their votes and these handed to the player representatives.

The proposal for charitable status goes round in circles but presumably some voting reform would be an inevitable side effect.

In the current structure, giving a just a handful of votes to player representatives is something of an insult, and it's no great surprise that most of the positions remain vacant.

[Stewart Reuben]

Alex H >Warwickshire's delegate could appoint you as a proxy if he wanted, but equally, he could appoint Brad Pitt, Hosni Mubarak or Wayne Rooney if so inclined.<

That's interesting. I didn't know they were ECF Members.