ECF Elections 2015

[Roger de Coverly]

Just compare the List of ECF Arbiters with the current version of the Voting Register for the AGM.

If you look at the list of arbiters, there's rather more on the Voting Register than you might expect purely by chance. ECF Council meetings along with the British Championship Congress has to be one of the larger congregations of arbiters in the calendar year.

[Angus French]

Just compare the List of ECF Arbiters with the current version of the Voting Register for the AGM.

If you look at the list of arbiters, there's rather more on the Voting Register than you might expect purely by chance. ECF Council meetings along with the British Championship Congress has to be one of the larger congregations of arbiters in the calendar year.

Yes but non-arbiters hugely outnumber arbiters and arbiters have little voting power.

[Richard Bates]

Just compare the List of ECF Arbiters with the current version of the Voting Register for the AGM.

If you look at the list of arbiters, there's rather more on the Voting Register than you might expect purely by chance. ECF Council meetings along with the British Championship Congress has to be one of the larger congregations of arbiters in the calendar year.

I have some sympathy with the view that often decision making is disproportionately made from the perspective (but not specifically in the interests) of arbiters (and/or organisers). However I would disagree that this is the consequence of a concerted planned power grab by the "arbiter special interest group", or even that decisions are made with the purpose of protecting that special interest. It is just, as Roger observes, that the people most likely to be interested in seeking positions in the ECF are those predisposed to an interest in administration and taking decisions. Which inevitably tend to be arbiters/organisers. Until such time as players take an interest in actively involving themselves in such things except at the most local level where they are often forced to get involved to get themselves games, as opposed to being content to complain about them, that will not change.

It should also, bluntly, be acknowledged, that it is the reality that arbiters are quite important for the functioning of tournament chess in this country. And if they are and remain a well organised and, particularly, united group, then making comments about "sacking" those who refuse to adapt will achieve nothing.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes but non-arbiters hugely outnumber arbiters and arbiters have little voting power.

Arbiters have as much voting power as the proxies they accumulate and the extent to which they have a personal mandate from the organisations they represent. In some years, that's been a lot of votes.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The consistently greatest collection of proxies in recent years has been by Ben Edgell, whose claims to being an arbiter are on the slight side. (Not entirely nonexistent, but the WECU Jamboree hardly ever has any disputes.)

[Carl Hibbard]

Even with OMOV would Chris Fegan remain?

[Roger de Coverly]

Even with OMOV would Chris Fegan remain?

If you went back to the old BCF system with twenty or more Directors, Strategic Planning Person could be a Director and thus voted in or otherwise. As it is, it's an officer level post and those are appointed by the Directors.

It appears they had a row about appointing Officers and Managers last year as well.

November 2014
–
Normal re-appointments were interrupted at the 91st Board meeting due to disagreement among directors about the suitability of a number of nominees
(not the Strategic Advisor).

Board meeting 91 didn't reappoint Chris Fegan, but the Minutes themselves are silent on any disagreements, or any appointments being vetoed.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -final.pdf

[John Reyes]

The consistently greatest collection of proxies in recent years has been by Ben Edgell, whose claims to being an arbiter are on the slight side. (Not entirely nonexistent, but the WECU Jamboree hardly ever has any disputes.)

wonder what has been the highest proxy votes he has ever had?

[benedgell]

For this meeting I'm looking at 34 votes, from 19 vote holders. No idea if that's the highest number of votes/ proxy votes I've ever accumulated. Don't care to honest. The important thing for me is that every SW vote- holder should (hopefully) be represented at the AGM either directly or by proxy.

WECU (Proxy)
Cornwall (Proxy)
Devon
Dorset (Proxy)
Hampshire (Proxy)
Somerset
Wiltshire (Proxy)
Bournemouth (Proxy)
Bristol
Portsmouth (Proxy)
Torbay
Wiltshire Juniors (Proxy)
Royal Beacon Seniors (Proxy)
Teignmouth Rapid (Proxy)
Gold Members' Rep (Proxy)
East Devon (Proxy)
Gloucs (Proxy tbc)
North Gloucs (Proxy tbc)
Exeter League (tbc)

are the organisations I'll be representing or expect to be representing.

[Michael Farthing]

In effect, quite small.
He tends to sqander them quite catastrophically by consulting with those who give him their proxies. This tends to lead to him voting against himself on numerous occasions and so nullifying his influence. Pathetic!

[Michael Farthing]

Board meeting 91 didn't reappoint Chris Fegan, but the Minutes themselves are silent on any disagreements, or any appointments being vetoed.

And rightly so. During Board discussions the directors should feel free to express their beliefs in confidence as part of a frank discussion. Ideally they should enter that discussion with a commitment to listen as well as to speak. At the end of the discussion when a decision is taken it is the decision of the Board and that is what should be reported and minuted. The minutes might indicate disagreement by a phrase such as, "After extensive discussion, with various approaches presented, it was decided that..." Alternatively, 'After frank discussion, in which a consensus view was not achieved, it was decided to defer..". Minutes are by intention, 'mi-newt' rather than 'verbose'.

[A grand failure in the entire procedure is the ludicrous habit of affirming the minutes, way after the event, at the next meeting, when the attendees are different from those at the original meeting and those who are the same have forgotten what was said. Minutes should be agreed in the meeting where the original discussion happens and signed off immediately. No one seems to do that: apart from one organisation that has done it successfully for the last 463 years..]

[Roger de Coverly]

During Board discussions the directors should feel free to express their beliefs in confidence as part of a frank discussion.

That's quite reasonable. Why then should their confidential views be reported at the end of year AGM?

[Michael Farthing]

Exactly.

[Neville Belinfante]

There have been discussions this afternoon in the other place concerning Buckinghamshire's role as one of Alex H's nominees. (Women's chess development fund page 4). As their Council rep, I am writing to set the record straight.

When Alex asked me for nominations, I consulted with the Buckinghamshire Executive Commitee on the matter, and only after receiving their assent, was the nomination given. The same goes for LJCC. Alex was fully aware this was going on.

[JustinHorton]

Board meeting 91 didn't reappoint Chris Fegan, but the Minutes themselves are silent on any disagreements, or any appointments being vetoed.

At the end of the discussion when a decision is taken it is the decision of the Board and that is what should be reported and minuted. The minutes might indicate disagreement by a phrase such as, "After extensive discussion, with various approaches presented, it was decided that..."

This wouldn't however tell us anything about those "various approaches". It can be helpful to see these: they may involve people making points one would not otherwise have thought of. And at any rate, neither approach should preclude telling us if appointments have been vetoed.

I'm not sure there will be many takers for instant production and agreement of minutes. As with instant reviews in sporting events, it's easy to underestimate how long they take.