English Chess Forum

I have a suspicion I may be acting as proxy for one of the Gold Member reps at the AGM (I'm not 100% on this, but it usually tends to be the case). In the first instance I have to take guidance from the person who has asked me to act as proxy, but failing that I have somewhat of a free hand to use the vote as I see best fit. If any gold members wish to offer their opinions here, then if I fail to receive guidance from the rep himself I'll take on board your opinions and act/ speak/ vote accordingly.

Thanks for offering a workaround.

But really, a bad state of affairs just became ludicrous. That's my opinion

Vote for no suitable candidate, because frankly that is the situation. Go to a 4NCL weekend, where virtually everyone is forced to have Gold ECF membership, and see how many can name either of those supposedly voting in Council on our behalf. (I, for one, cannot). Having no one to vote for us at all will not much worsen our representation, and it might send a proper message to anyone wanting to gain Council votes in this way.

Jonathan Rogers wrote: Having no one to vote for us at all will not much worsen our representation, and it might send a proper message to anyone wanting to gain Council votes in this way.

In terms of votes, lobbying the 4NCL would have a bigger clout.

Worth mentioning that there are set to be vacancies for Gold Members Reps post AGM. If anyone wishes to take on the work and help Gold Members get a better representation at council meetings I would be fully supportive of them doing so.

To Roger:

That is done indirectly: the 4NCL rep does consult team captains before an AGM. It is the Gold members reps who seem to be quite unknown to many/most of their constituents.

To Ben: I am glad to hear that vacancies will soon be available.

There are no vacancies for election to gold rep after the AGM since in these circumstances the Board is entitled to make appointments. However, for the Board to makean appointment it must spend time canvassing likely people. I've tried doing that this year, approaching two leading members of this forum, but with no luck, so I suspect the Board would also have a lot of wasted attempts before finding a 'yes'. So the Board needs to be directed to likely candidates. Sadly, I suspect those that might have thought of being a rep may be a little diffident about putting themslves forward directly. This is sad, but an alternative for them is to drop a hint to friends in the hope that they will put them forward..

It should also be noted that the likelihood is that an appointment as gold (or bronze which also has a vacancy) rep would extend to the next Finance Council only since there is a proposal before the AGM to move the date of elections forward to June.

It may be a sad state of affairs but really is this direct membership going to add any more value.
A play lots of league chess, county chess, and odd congress. The only reason for having to take a Gold was for fide rating and many tournaments are, as well as playing in 4NCL.

I may renew on Friday or possibly this w/e but office is not normally open. I may renew on Monday week.

One gripe really is ECF ignoring a suggestion of giving us all a refund of £5 for not liking the results of a player of the year award.

Also suggest you vote on proportionate share but quite honestly if direct member reps are not taking up positions why would there even be a suggestion of more votes for those members. I'm quite happy that many others seek my input and our clubs input into matters.

Nick Grey wrote:... if direct member reps are not taking up positions why would there even be a suggestion of more votes for those members.

Well, as the other Jonathan says (correctly, I think)

"Having no one to vote for us at all will not much worsen our representation"



If you want the membership to be interested it helps to offer something in which it is worth being interested. See also John McKenna’s comments elsewhere on this forum quite recently.

While I'm grateful to Ben (and to Jonathan B for his mention of me, above) for his putative offer to bridge the gap between gold members and the floating vote that still leaves the other gold-members reps' vote unaccounted for.

That prompted me to go to the ECF website to remind myself who was who and what was what.

The first thing that caught my eye among the plethora of information was that the late Andrew Paulson is still serving on Council!?

That put's the ECF squarely in the company of big businesses that have trouble keeping their records straight. And, it made me wonder what else might be out of date.

I did soon find the names of the two gold reps.

One young, but longstanding, one who was a university student not that long ago and used to be a regular contributor to this forum.

The other both a recent Publicity Manager of the ECF and an ex-member of my own chess club recently departed to France.

I suspect that the latter is the holder of the other gold-rep vote and due to his starting afresh across the Channel the vote he holds in trust may not be uppermost in his mind.

That both gold-member reps are departing (not deserting) their posts at the same time and that none are coming forward to take their places is disappointing - particularly when the number of votes each of the members' reps holds is, possibly, about to be increased from a minimal to a no-longer-insignificant figure.

Not long ago I already stated - elsewhere on this forum (*see below for link*) - that I thought the number of such votes should be raised to 20 for each of the 8(? are there 8 or 10?) direct-members reps in order to be truly significant in the ECF's scheme of things.

If it ever reaches that figure I'll even seriously consider trying to become a rep myself. But, I'd hope there would be others ahead of me who would be better qualified.

And if, in addition to the significantly increased number of votes, there was a seat on the board - to be filled (in rotation by membership category?) by one of the members' reps - I'd believe that the ECF would finally have achieved a good measure of representative democracy comensurate with the membership fees paid by the players.

In answer to Ben's request I'd say if he, or anyone else, gets to cast a gold-member vote, or two, at the coming AGM then cast them for the increase in direct-members-reps votes and for Julie Denning to continue as NED.

By the way, I think it both lamentable and ludicrous that a ready and able young man has to contest the post of NED with Julie because he and his supporters see it as the only expedient way to get a seat on the ECF board in order to pursue his eminently laudable primary goals that do not apparently easily fit well with the traditional role of a NED.

* link (not a link to other things I've said, referred to by Jonthan Bryant in his post immediately above) -

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... en#p200559

John McKenna wrote:to get a seat on the ECF board in order to pursue his eminently laudable primary goals

This is the leap of logic that I fail to understand.

Nick, you really must not look for a logical leap there.

What Peter Hornsby and his supporters are asking for is a leap of faith.

Faith in him to better serve his own laudable agenda while still attending to the NED one. And thereby the ECF being better served by that than someone just sticking to the traditional NED role.

I don't know if that's really possible.

I do regard the ECF under the Lawson-Truran-Pein leadership as having returned to traditional staid English values after the turbulent CJ-cult-of-celebrity & subsequent American-takeover years.

Whether that means less need for oversight and governance and more scope for creative NED-led initiatives is beyond me.

John McKenna wrote:Nick, you really must not look for a logical leap there.

Perhaps you miss my point. I don't understand why a seat on the Board is a requirement of doing useful work for the ECF. Does anyone really believe that if they were to offer to provide help in an area of their particular expertise, the reaction would be "you're not on the Board so get lost"?

John McKenna wrote:While I'm grateful to Ben (and to Jonathan B for his mention of me, above) for his putative offer to bridge the gap between gold members and the floating vote that still leaves the other gold-members reps' vote unaccounted for.

That prompted me to go to the ECF website to remind myself who was who and what was what.

The first thing that caught my eye among the plethora of information was that the late Andrew Paulson is still serving on Council!?

That put's the ECF squarely in the company of big businesses that have trouble keeping their records straight. And, it made me wonder what else might be out of date.

Try checking the voting register.

Yes, Nick, probably I did miss that point of yours.

But, what if the scenario is the other way round - if the powers-that-be at the ECF wanted me to exhort my followers to join the ECF then I might expect to be given a seat...

Now excuse me - I may be gone for some time - while I follow Michael's advice and try to consult the oracle know as the voting register.