English Chess Forum

Just thought I'd mention it. No one seems to have noticed.

Michael Farthing wrote:Just thought I'd mention it. No one seems to have noticed.

It appears there is to be a contested election (Denning v Hornsby) for a non-Exec post.

I believe there was a second nominee for the position of Bronze Members' Direct Representative and have sent an email to the ECF Office to query this.

There's an interesting paper on Voting Reform. The proposal boosts the Direct Member votes from 10 to 40 with the metallic DM reps holding 36 (2 x 6 x 3). So 2 x Gold = 1 x 4NCL (Truran) = 12. It's not really convincing. But it's a step in the right direction. And it does attempt to address, though not resolve, the one big error in the Pearce Report

According to the website there is one nomination for platinum, none for gold and only one for bronze although Angus is querying this. This would mean that 18 and possibly 24 direct members votes might well be lying fallow if the motion is passed. I mentioned this in the `Motions` thread but I've never quite understood why a membership representative without a counterpart (Angus in recent years) cannot control all the votes for that category.

While the increase in direct membership votes should be welcomed, I stand by my view that they should be cast in a way that represents the consensus of the direct membership category involved and that this process should be transparent. Without this transparency the argument for the current status quo becomes stronger.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: Without this transparency the argument for the current status quo becomes stronger.

There's a problem with all representation systems that minority views can and are disenfranchised. I might wish to object to the re-election of the Home Director on the grounds that it's wrong not to express rating prizes as X and under and wrong to exclude non-FIDE rated Congresses and Leagues from the process of qualification for the British Championships.

As it stands at present, the "Gold" representatives, neither of them, are expected to express the views of a majority of "Gold" members, county associations would represent the majority views of their local players if they even bothered to consult and Congress representatives represent the Congress rather than those playing in them.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:While the increase in direct membership votes should be welcomed, I stand by my view that they should be cast in a way that represents the consensus of the direct membership category involved and that this process should be transparent. Without this transparency the argument for the current status quo becomes stronger.

Isn't this, at least in part, covered by agenda item 9 - Voting Reform and Other Constitutional Matters?

Agenda wrote:9. Council is invited to consider, and if thought fit, approve the following resolutions as further set out in the accompanying paper entitled Voting reform and other Constitutional Matters. The resolutions indicated as special resolutions require 75% of the votes cast to be in favour to be passed....
(c) a special resolution to amend the Articles of Association to provide for the publication of how members cast their votes on certain votes conducted by way of poll at meetings of Council.

Paper on Voting Reform and other Constitutional Matters, part 6 wrote:It is proposed that Article 28 be amended such that where there is a vote at Council by poll ( a “card vote”) then voting transparency would apply and there would be published on the Company’s website details of how the votes of each member were cast. However, this would not apply on votes for the election of an individual to an office or post as this would bring the risk of members of Council feeling that undue influence might be brought on them to vote in a particular way. Under the current Article 28, there is no disclosure of how members exercise their votes, unless the chairman of the meeting exercises his discretion to disclose. The Governance Committee and the Board believe that adopting this proposal will assist in ensuring that constituents of member organizations are informed as to how the votes of the relevant member organization are cast. The special resolution to implement this change is set out in paragraph 3 of the Schedule.

In attempting to understand how voting rights are allocated between member organisations and what membership fees they pay I discovered the following page on the ECF website:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/membersh ... nisations/

So, do member organisations actually contribute any cash to the ECF coffers?

Are Direct Member representatives intended for individuals who don't consider themselves to be adequately represented by the various member organisations?

Should one member one vote be applied to member organisations? i.e. each organisation has only one vote at Council.

Michael Flatt wrote:
So, do member organisations actually contribute any cash to the ECF coffers?

Basically no, or not very much. Because of shouting by some Congresses who resented having to support the ECF directly, the previous system where the member organisations supported the ECF in proportion to their chess activity was abolished, but the previously justifiable voting system wasn't.

Michael Flatt wrote: Are Direct Member representatives intended for individuals who don't consider themselves to be adequately represented by the various member organisations?

It may go a bit deeper than that, with some form of individual representation being necessary because of the way the ECF as a Company limited by Guarantee was structured. Those with long memories may recall that the ECF tried to enforce a position that where FIDE uses the term "member" as a proxy for "registered" this required the ECF to use "member" in the Companies Act sense as a guarantor, thus requiring individuals to sign up for a nominal £ 1 debt in the event of the ECF's demise. This was enforced as a condition of playing FIDE rated chess and those refusing would be evicted from the FIDE rating list, putting them on a par with computer cheats.

Michael Flatt wrote: Should one member one vote be applied to member organisations? i.e. each organisation has only one vote at Council.

There's long been a perception that voting influence ought to be proportional to size. On the premise that Council attendees sometimes listen to those participating in organisations they represent, that prevents capture of votes as it's not just one person who has to be convinced.

Angus French wrote:I believe there was a second nominee for the position of Bronze Members' Direct Representative and have sent an email to the ECF Office to query this.

I'm pleased to say Gareth Ellis now shows as a nominee - and he will be appointed automatically.

Gareth Ellis is a Top person to be an ecf rep

I am a bit Surprise that no one put there name forward as a Gold member rep

John Reyes wrote:I am a bit Surprise that no one put there name forward as a Gold member rep

I have always felt that Gold members are the community most exploited by the membership system, but it does seem that they're not very bothered about it.

There's a few gold members who would make excellent reps, but they may have concluded (as I did when asked) that personal circumstances make it impossible to fulfill the role

I think the issue with being a Gold member rep is the challenge in doing the role what I would consider 'properly'. If you don't actively canvass views to represent then it's just a bit of an ego boost to the individual. If you are serious about canvassing views then it's a lot of time and effort - which might be hard to find/justify around careers, families, etc.

There are collaboration tools, etc. that would make it easier - but I don't know what support the ECF provide member reps in terms of contact details for their membership-level. Some closed forums, whatsapp groups or similar would do the job. I guess posting on here and asking for pm's from those with strong views might get some of the more actively involved Gold members.

Paul Dargan

Paul Dargan wrote:I think the issue with being a Gold member rep is the challenge in doing the role what I would consider 'properly'. If you don't actively canvass views to represent then it's just a bit of an ego boost to the individual. If you are serious about canvassing views then it's a lot of time and effort - which might be hard to find/justify around careers, families, etc.

There are collaboration tools, etc. that would make it easier - but I don't know what support the ECF provide member reps in terms of contact details for their membership-level. Some closed forums, whatsapp groups or similar would do the job. I guess posting on here and asking for pm's from those with strong views might get some of the more actively involved Gold members.

Paul Dargan

I am assuming (but almost certainly wrongly) that the ECF supply each representative with a mailing list or some such means to make contact with the persons being represented.

Without such means the role is probably merely helping the ECF to feel good about itself.

Anyone know ?