Page 1 of 9

Motions

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:52 pm
by John Reyes
The big question is which motions will be brought up this year?


The 2017 Annual General Meeting will take place on Saturday 14 October 2017 in London (venue and starting time to be confirmed). In addition to the prescribed business (including the election of Directors, the Chairman of the Council, the FIDE Delegate and members of Standing Committees which is the subject of a separate post), motions to appear on the agenda must either be proposed on or behalf of the Board or be proposed by “the requisitionists”. The deadline for motions by requisitionists to be received by the ECF Office if these are to be included on the AGM agenda is 1.30 pm on Thursday 7 September, the same deadline as for nominations of candidates for the elections.

“The requisitionists” comprise any of the following “full” members (as defined by Article 1.1) –
(i) any Director;
(ii) the Chairman of the Council;
(iii) the FIDE Delegate;
(iv) the Chairman of a Standing Committee;
(v) any two Trustees (of the Permanent Invested Fund);
(vi) any Representative Member of a Constituent Unit;
(vii) any two Representative Members of Counties;
(viii) any two Direct Members’ Representatives;
(ix) any two of a Trustee, a Representative Member of a County and a Direct Members’ Representative; or
(x) any five Individual* Members or Representative** Members.

* For the purposes of (x), “Individual Members” includes, in addition to those referred to earlier in Article 1.1, Patrons, the Past President, the Past Chief Executive, the Past Non-Executive Chairman and the Past Chairman of the Council. It does NOT include individual direct members of the ECF.

** For the purposes of (x) “Representative Members” includes, in addition to those referred to earlier in Article 1.1, the Representative Members of Leagues, Congresses and Other Organisations.

Please contact the Council Chairman Mike Gunn Email: council.chair@englishchess.org.uk if any assistance is required with the drafting and presentation of a motion.

Re: Motions

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:45 pm
by Andrew Zigmond
The post quoted by John is one of three posts on the ECF website about the forthcoming AGM (the others invite nominations for those elected posts due for re-election this year and for nominations for direct membership representatives).

One motion that will be before council was referenced in the minutes to the 30th June board meeting. This is a motion to increase the number of votes carried for direct membership representatives so that gold, silver and bronze hold 12 votes each and platinum representatives 4. This would account for roughly ten percent of the available votes at council; not a lot in itself but very possibly enough to hold the balance of power on occasion. I personally hope this goes through, with one caveat which I will come to.

If the proposal goes through the direct membership representatives taking office from 14th October will have considerably more influence at council than their predecessors did. Choosing my words carefully on this; it seems that silver members are well served by Michael Farthing and John Reyes who regularly pass on information and consult but I think other membership bands are let down slightly. If direct members form twelve percent of the electoral college from October I consider it vital that the votes cast on their behalf accurately represent their opinions and that this is accountable. Otherwise the system is as open to manipulation as it is at present.

Regarding the board and officer positions due for election this year it will be interesting to see what candidates come forward (the incumbents are noted as being expected to stand but the window of opportunity for anybody else who might be interested won't open again until 2020).

Re: Motions

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:01 pm
by NickFaulks
Andrew Zigmond wrote: but I think other membership bands are let down slightly.
That is very unfair to the Bronze representative. You are probably alluding to the fact that this person is described in the singular, which is the result of requiring representatives to belong to the group they represent. By definition, most people who regard chess as an important part of their life are likely to be at least Silver members, and in fact the Bronze members have been fortunate that Angus is, by chance, one of their number. I expect that restriction to be removed.

Re: Motions

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:22 pm
by Andrew Zigmond
NickFaulks wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote: but I think other membership bands are let down slightly.
That is very unfair to the Bronze representative. You are probably alluding to the fact that this person is described in the singular, which is the result of requiring representatives to belong to the group they represent. By definition, most people who regard chess as an important part of their life are likely to be at least Silver members, and in fact the Bronze members have been fortunate that Angus is, by chance, one of their number. I expect that restriction to be removed.
I didn't want to make my post too pedantic so I didn't specify that I think that the other bands are let down in different ways. Bronze members are let down by the fact that they have had a permanent vacancy in their representation since direct membership representatives were introduced but this not Angus' fault. I know that he does consult and communicate with those he represents and I am happy to put this on the record.

I disagree with your statement that `people who regard chess as an important part of their life are more likely to be silver members`. Many club and league stalwarts will only be bronze members.

Re: Motions

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:24 pm
by Michael Farthing
Speaking unofficially but with a governance hat rather than a direct member rep hat sloppily draped over my head:

The proposal is slightly less generous than Andrew suggests (though I may have misunderstood his wording). It will be 12 votes each for the gold, silver and bronze levels (ie 6 votes per rep) and other categories stay the same. The proposed change to the articles would fix direct member representation at 40 votes total, with exact distributions and number of reps determined in the direct members byelaws. The reasoning for the split is that the articles can only be changed by a 75% vote of an unamended motion: appropriate for matters where a power shift is involved, but rather a nuisance when fine tuning in the light of other changes (eg if the Angus 'copper' level proposal were to be on the cards)

The question of accountability has also been considered by the Board and the Governance Cttee and there will also be proposals for disclosure of card votes (excluding those for elections). If passed this would not only force direct member reps to disclose their behaviour but also such evil characters as the 4NCL rep and the rep for the British Universities, both of whom are known to be slippery customers. I personally applaud the Board for its efforts in seeking to bring these folk under proper control.

Aside:
I have encouraged a Certain Person to consider standing for election as a gold rep and when Certain Person reads this paragraph that Certain Person should know that my eagle eye is observing and expecting compliance. [Writing a pronoun neutral sentence is bloody hard].

Re: Motions

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:31 pm
by Alan Walton
Michael Farthing wrote:If passed this would not only force direct member reps to disclose their behaviour but also such evil characters as the 4NCL rep and the rep for the British Universities, both of whom are known to be slippery customers.
Bit of a bold comment

Re: Motions

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:36 pm
by Alex Holowczak
Alan Walton wrote:
Michael Farthing wrote:If passed this would not only force direct member reps to disclose their behaviour but also such evil characters as the 4NCL rep and the rep for the British Universities, both of whom are known to be slippery customers.
Bit of a bold comment
Well, I laughed when I read it. Have you ever met Michael? :lol:

The evil rep for BUCA has volunteered to train Michael in how to produce the voting register, given I'm the only living person who has produced an ECF voting register before. :oops: If Michael takes up that offer, and he thinks I'm evil now ... :twisted:

Re: Motions

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:41 pm
by Michael Farthing
Michael has every intention of taking up the offer and if the standard of tuition is faulty the danger might be that the BUCA rep has neither a vote as a BUCA rep nor in any other capacity!

Re: Motions

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:48 pm
by Andrew Zigmond
Michael Farthing wrote: The proposal is slightly less generous than Andrew suggests (though I may have misunderstood his wording). It will be 12 votes each for the gold, silver and bronze levels (ie 6 votes per rep) and other categories stay the same.
I've used a similar wording to the minutes in attributing the twelve votes each for gold, silver and bronze to the membership category rather than the individual representative. It is a small but subtle difference. I must admit that I've never quite understood why Angus has not been allowed to use the second bronze membership vote.

It occurred to me that it would be interesting to know what the ECF considers the primary role of direct member representatives to be. Is it to communicate with members and relay questions raised to the relevant director or is their primary role to ensure that the views of direct members are reflected in council votes?

Re: Motions

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:56 am
by John Reyes
I was looking at putting a motion in to do with county Eligibitity

you can see this on the county forum page.

the ECF allowed dual eligibility so what I am proposing to do away with that, so that the current rules are equally applied; it is down to the ECF to be impartial and recognize all counties in the true sense, GM has it specific boundaries and these places are not in Lancashire since 1974

what do you think?

Re: Motions

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:03 am
by Roger de Coverly
John Reyes wrote: GM has it specific boundaries and these places are not in Lancashire since 1974
Worms meet can.

The alternative would be to allow open eligibility, you play for whoever recruits you.

Re: Motions

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:29 am
by MartinCarpenter
Arguably the can is already open mind - as things stand it isn't at all obvious how that Lancashire team in the final was legal.

Not that I had the slightest issue with it - a good thing for the overall health of the competition. Probably worth at least formally codifying things though?

Re: Motions

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:38 am
by Michael Flatt
John Reyes wrote:I was looking at putting a motion in to do with county Eligibitity
Would it achieve anything and is it really necessary?

For the ECF County County Championships, provided the ECF recognise your county it can enter a team.
Counties define their own eligibility criteria regarding clubs and individuals.
Individuals can be eligible to play for multiple counties but would be limited to the one they elect to play for in a particular competition in a particular season.

In my county we are unable to find a captain to run an Open team so players opt to play for an adjacent county, of which there are many.
Similarly, for Juniors in EPSCA competitions players can be eligible for more than one team depending where they live and go to school.

Does your motion relate to Counties being permitted to enter a particular competition or the right of players to turn out for whichever team in which they wish to play?

What is your proposed motion?

Re: Motions

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:46 am
by Andrew Zigmond
If nothing else it is interesting to see such a proposal coming from a Lancastrian!

You should perhaps be aware that in this particular case Alex was forced to compile and consult a bale of papers dating back to 1974 while liaising with individuals who have been involved with the legal side of the ECF for almost that long. It is NOT as simple as you make it sound.

Rule C3.1 sets out the eligibility criteria for the county championships and I would refer you to that. I would also suggest that it is only effective if a complete and utter violation can be proven. Again, not as simple as you make it sound.

The above is written strictly in a private capacity and not as the lame duck county championships controller.

Re: Motions

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:49 am
by Alan Walton
Hi,

I always believe rules are in place and should be applied equally to all participants

The recent occurrence in the county finals was decided by the chief arbiter saying dual eligibility has never been reversed since the formation of Greater Manchester

Myself and others on this forum has stated this ceased in 1987

We have found from our archives in the MCF these documents showing the BCF indeed removed dual eligibility, see point 4iv