English Chess Forum

Can undirected proxy votes be banned?

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Can undirected proxy votes be banned?

The general wisdom is that an unincorporated body such as a chess club, league or county association can restrict voting rights to those present at meetings. A body like the ECF set up as a Company falls under numerous Companies Acts, the collective effect of which is that proxies are always permitted if there's a voting entitlement. What could be desirable to happen, but which almost certainly won't is that both the numbers of the Direct Representatives and their voting power be expanded. I doubt it would increase the numbers attending AGMs and similar meetings, but it might trim back the power of the major proxy collectors to influence matters as they saw them without consulting the bodies they supposedly represent.

It remains to be seen what reforms, if any, will be put through for approval at the April meeting. If anything, the lengthy Pearce report was proposing a reduction in contests nominally subject to election.

IM Jack Rudd » Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:10 pm

Can undirected proxy votes be banned?

With the possibility of extra information becoming available at meetings, or an AOB item there is a need for undirected proxy votes.

Gareth T Ellis wrote:

IM Jack Rudd » Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:10 pm

Can undirected proxy votes be banned?

With the possibility of extra information becoming available at meetings, or an AOB item there is a need for undirected proxy votes.

Why on earth should undirected proxies be used to swing a vote on an AOB item?

Why on earth should undirected proxies be used to swing a vote on an AOB item?

It's not swinging a vote, it's representing the voter in their absence.

Gareth T Ellis wrote:

Why on earth should undirected proxies be used to swing a vote on an AOB item?

It's not swinging a vote, it's representing the voter in their absence.

Gareth, it is not representing the voter, because that voter has expressed no opinion (it is an AOB item). It is using their vote to increase the weght of your own.

Gareth, it is not representing the voter, because that voter has expressed no opinion (it is an AOB item). It is using their vote to increase the weght of your own.

Please explain how anyone can express an opinion in advance of knowing the subject !

If a voter doesn't trust proxies to use their vote as they would like it used then they can fill in the form and send it to John Philpott, losing their vote in AOB items or even passing it John.

Without proxy votes any meeting would be favourable to the local representatives/easy commuting, with meetings in London and Birmingham a lot of places could become more disenchanted from the ECF.

The proxy votes that I had where from congresses that having previously worked with the organisers for years, I think I have a good idea of what they want.

May I suggest that from now on Silver, Bronze, and Gold members are renamed - Elves, Hobbits, and Wizards respectively.

https://www.pinterest.com/camilaplozada ... wizards-3/

(NB: I left out the other little people so as not to give offence.)

Michael ,
Why not conduct the first ever survey of silver members? (easy to set up with the survey monkey free edition) the ECF office have the mailing software to send this out for you.
forumites can even suggest questions.

communicating with the paying members ..is that such an outrageuos demand?

Michael Farthing wrote:As a silver member representative I'm always keen to hear the views of silver members.

I shall be at the Blackpool congress this weekend and will be pleased to talk to anyone with views or concerns (you don't have to be silver: I will talk to others too, but I shall ask which you are).

If you have the misfortune to play me, or to be near me, you may find yourself cold canvassed. If you don't like it just say something rude to me and I'll go away

Michael

Did any ECF Silver Members talk to you?

Sound idea, Bob.

I have considered doing this but felt it more appropriate to do so once some idea of the agenda for the Finance meeting is available. As the date is approaching rapidly I have become aware how little time there is for consultation and this strikes me as a problem in itself. I would be interested in comments on this from other Council members. Anyway, I'll get together with John Reyes and perhaps draw up something more general that will give more time for responses. Suggestions for questions from forumites would indeed be welcome. It would also be interesting to hear from those who have done this sort of thing on the best format to adopt. (eg pros and cons of multiple choice v free-form entry).

Interestingly, only one person at Blackpool** approached me about silver member issues (and I was already talking to him about something quite different). His question was to ask me how my survey of silver members was getting on. I did not put in as much effort as I'd hoped or as I managed at Preston. I tried asking a neutral question along the lines of: have you any complaints or suggestions or things you'd like to see happen. This failed to generate anything and I was forced, as neutrally as I could manage, to raise one or two possibilities. Three of my opponents began with these three interesting comments: (a) I'm rather old now to be be concerned with ECF politics (b) I'm really a newcomer to chess so don't know much about the ECF (c) I only play a couple of congresses each year because I live in Switzerland, so don't know much about it. Ah well! In so far as I got any consistent feedback most people seemed quite in favour of junior chess.

**Needless to say the individual concerned was an active contributor to this forum.

PS While writing this Mick posted. But by luck I've already answered his question!

Edited: Frodsham corrected to Preston

I didn't see this thread until I was already in Blackpool which made it hard to comment but I think Michael should be thanked for being willing to give up the time to speak to ECF silver members and obtain feedback. It was good to be able to have a brief discussion and put a face to the name.

Obviously apathy is the big problem - most players join the ECF because they have to (even in Yorkshire now) but they don't take any active interest in ECF politics. The result is the catch 22 situation of people protesting that ECF members are unrepresented within the association and when people like Michael try to represent them and report large scale disinterest the retort is, `Well of course they're not interested, they don't get a vote`.

One way forward might be to ballot members on their opinions prior to any council meeting and then report the result (and the turnout) a couple of days before. It might not be binding but if a sizeable number of direct members vote for one resolution or candidate, council have got to give a fairly good reason for voting the other way.

It could be added that I fear I aided Andrew in Round 4 when he was playing a fellow club member of mine, Jason. Coming to look at the game I'm sure I jinxed Jason into sacrificing a rook for a bishop, leaving himself with a king and pawn endgame where he had two passed pawns outside Andrew's king's box. Unfortunately, he had neglected the calculation that Andrew could promote his own pawns rather faster - so contributing to a splendid 4.5 / 5 and a first prize. Jason finished on a mere 4/5 and was a not very content bunny.

Michael Farthing wrote:Jason finished on a mere 4/5 and was a not very content bunny.

But is he a silver member?

One of my opponents was gold, but following good principles of non-discrimination I still listened to him. I hope, Brian, you are not a metalophobist?

Edit:
Oh stupid me! I missed the point. He is silver, but he does feel fleeced.