Unanswered letter

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Post Reply
Alan Walton
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Alan Walton » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:46 pm

In an ideal world one member one vote would be the preferable way of voting the members of the board, but you have to consider the cost of said system (i.e. distributing ballot papers etc.), which would be very expensive

The current system seems to be working fine to me, it is just unfortunate that nobody else but Peter stood for the role last time (please correct if I am wrong), so hence got elected in, and Alex's analogy around curriculum changes is perfect in every way

Krishna, your delegates are voted for by you local club within the AGM of the league you actually play in (well thats how it works in the Manchester League)

Finally, Krishna this maybe a controversal point, you seem to be very passionate about all this have you ever thought about standing yourself?

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4121
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:52 pm

Krishna Shiatis wrote:It is our children whose chess playing futures are being decided. We should have a direct say.
As I said up thread, I'm sure that that issue will resurface in the context of the current debate about ECF funding.

However, for the present at any rate, you have to deal with the structure as it is, not as you would like it to be. The next ECF Junior Director will be elected under the current franchise.

You have to decide whether or not you wish to participate in the process as it is. If you do, Alex H and I have explained to you how to do so (as you've acknowledged).

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:12 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Krishna Shiatis wrote:At least MPs are voted by us. We have no vote as to the delegates. We can only lobby them. Again, no direct say - that does not really work for me.
Actually, all Constituent Unit, County Association and League delegates will be elected at their respective AGMs. I was elected as delegate for BUCA just yesterday. Not quite so sure about congresses though, I must admit.
Krishna Shiatis wrote:I am asking because I am trying to get my head around how things are done. I do not see why parents can not vote for the JD. Voting in itself is a democratic process. To say that parents could not vote for somebody sensible and that delegates would be better is just silly. We can all be a part of the process if the rules are changed and then we can then all feel a little happier.
If your criticism is of the voting system, you're not the only one to be critical. The fact that a parent can't vote is no more of a problem than the average club player can't vote either, regardless of anything else. In these regards, OMOV would be much better.
Hi Alex,

I agree with your last comment in particular.

I have to say though, that based on what is viewed most actively on these forums and the most hotly contested view points appear to be that of Junior Selection Policy. Obviously there are many things that might/could/would/should be done better on many things within the ECF, however, what is going on with our talented juniors seems to be very hot.

We can not turn a blind eye to it forever. Also, the role of Junior Director is very important to the future of the ECF as junior participation is going to be key to the survival of chess in years to come and if we are more active and current with our approach and choose the right person to lead us now, then we could achieve so much more in years to come.

I do believe that so much more could be done and if it was, then English Junior Chess would thrive and be stronger than ever; this in turn would strengthen our adult chess, our adult chess congresses and our chess infra-structure. The knock-on effect can not be underestimated.

To give parents a vote in that would be a major step in making them feel a better part of the process and to feel less alienated.

I do also agree with Roger in that the ECF board should have a general mandate (regarding selection in particular) for the JD which he or she has to follow. This can be reviewed as and when to keep it current, but it should ensure that things are done a little more democratically and perhaps more sensibly, giving parents comfort that whoever comes into power, certain things will remain constant and that the board has the power if deemed necessary to intervene where necessary.

Kind regards,

Krishna

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:27 pm

Alan Walton wrote:In an ideal world one member one vote would be the preferable way of voting the members of the board, but you have to consider the cost of said system (i.e. distributing ballot papers etc.), which would be very expensive

The current system seems to be working fine to me, it is just unfortunate that nobody else but Peter stood for the role last time (please correct if I am wrong), so hence got elected in, and Alex's analogy around curriculum changes is perfect in every way

Krishna, your delegates are voted for by you local club within the AGM of the league you actually play in (well thats how it works in the Manchester League)

Finally, Krishna this maybe a controversal point, you seem to be very passionate about all this have you ever thought about standing yourself?
Hi Alan,

I would be happy to help any 'suitable' JD in the future, if I can. I think that as discussed in other threads, the role is too big for one person. IMO, he or she would need help.

This is why I am urging for the discussion to start now. If we understand this and look to setting up a proper volunteer support network around the JD, then perhaps people will step up to help the JD and also to be the JD. Thereby encouraging more people to stand, to participate and to help.

We do recognise how tough the role of JD is. This has been discussed in other threads. Therefore it is important to find the right person to do the job and the right people to support that person.

This can not happen by magic.

It will take planning, discussion and thought.

I know there are many who just want to leave things as they are, but I think that they would just be setting up the next JD to fail. I know that many disagreed with me when I spoke earlier, but we are failing some of our most talented juniors.

Leaving things to just one person would leave them very harrassed. Anyone half decent would not last long.

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by David Shepherd » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:44 pm

I think I have I new selection criteria - who has the best ring tone :oops: : :oops: :oops: sorry team just got back from my match :(

User avatar
Rob Thompson
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Rob Thompson » Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:30 am

Krishna, please don't speak for all chess parents. I know for one that my parents are really not concerned that they can't directly vote. Unless you have done some polling of a statistically significant sample, ii really don't think you can speak for anyone except yourself
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:50 am

Rob Thompson wrote:Krishna, please don't speak for all chess parents. I know for one that my parents are really not concerned that they can't directly vote. Unless you have done some polling of a statistically significant sample, ii really don't think you can speak for anyone except yourself
Hi Rob,

Thank you for your helpful comment. Are you one of these adults who is still thinking he is a junior?

Yes, I was referring to parents of juniors, not all random chess parents.

I am sure you would enjoy doing polls of statistically significant samples in your spare time, then perhaps draw up some bar charts and graphs? Perhaps you could do this for every opinion expressed on this forum?

K

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:12 am

Krishna Shiatis wrote:Thank you for your helpful comment. Are you one of these adults who is still thinking he is a junior?
Nope, he's very definitely still a junior. Admittedly, not for long!

Alan Burke

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Alan Burke » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:35 am

Rob Thompson wrote:
Krishna, please don't speak for all chess parents. I know for one that my parents are really not concerned that they can't directly vote. Unless you have done some polling of a statistically significant sample, ii really don't think you can speak for anyone except yourself


Rob ... As can be seen from my earlier post, I totally agree with your comments, but as you can also see from the reply you got, it is sometimes a waste of time trying to make an alternative point of view as all you get back are defamatory remarks from those you dared to question (and that usually happens when they haven't got a reasonable reply to give) ....

Krishna wrote ... Are you one of these adults who is still thinking he is a junior?

Krishna has now said she was only referring to parents of juniors, but that still doesn't mean that her comments are a true representation of their views. I have explained in my previous post the democratic route I feel should be taken to make any propsed change to the system - but, as that would probably not suit those who want immediate change for their own (or their childrens') benefit, I do not expect them to agree with it.

andrew martin

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by andrew martin » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:05 am

This thread and others confirm what a difficult job the JD has to contend with. Only someone with a LOT of time on their hands and endless patience should apply.

Jim Wadsworth
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Jim Wadsworth » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:22 am

andrew martin wrote:This thread and others confirm what a difficult job the JD has to contend with. Only someone with a LOT of time on their hands and endless patience should apply.
Quite....also IMHO needs to be someone who is not directly "interested" - i.e. doesn't have a child of their own actively involved in the circuit; yet does also understand what is required, and ideally has relatively recent exposure to the international junior chess world.

Jim Wadsworth
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Jim Wadsworth » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:52 am

Krishna Shiatis wrote: I would be happy to help any 'suitable' JD in the future, if I can. I think that as discussed in other threads, the role is too big for one person. IMO, he or she would need help.

This is why I am urging for the discussion to start now. If we understand this and look to setting up a proper volunteer support network around the JD, then perhaps people will step up to help the JD and also to be the JD. Thereby encouraging more people to stand, to participate and to help.

We do recognise how tough the role of JD is. This has been discussed in other threads. Therefore it is important to find the right person to do the job and the right people to support that person.
I agree with much of what Krishna says in the above quote, and echo her offer of support to whoever the next JD is. My one caveat is I am not sure what Krishna means by "suitable". Perhaps she can expand?

For the avoidance of doubt, and to provide a sample of one current junior parent who holds a different view, I do not see any need to change the voting system purely in relation to selecting the JD. I am happy to trust the existing process (and don't see it as hard to lobby those who do have a direct vote)....what is much more important that a strong and well-qualified candidate (or even better candidates) to succeed Peter come forward.

And then when appointed it's even more important that the new JD is given time to do their job. S/he should take the time to listen to the wide range of views held by stakeholders including but not limited to parents of current players; and then s/he should set out his/her policies (ideally this will happen in advance of their appointment - the so-called manifesto mentioned previously in this thread - so there is clarity). That done, s/he should be properly supported.

That support includes support from those who may disagree with some of the decisions that new JD takes. (There is no way a competent JD would keep everyone happy all of the time....in any walk of life where someone with executive authority makes a proper decision on a meaningful topic, then more or less by definition there will be someone somewhere who won't like the outcome...).

Alan Burke

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Alan Burke » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:54 am

Jim, I have just had to alter the post I was about to make, because as Meatloaf sang .. ''You took the words right out of my mouth''.

Anyone with an active child in the chess world should not be appointed to the postion of Junior Director, not only because of the personal interest, but so that they can never be accused of any such bias even though none may have existed - and would those parents who currently have children on the chess circuit still be as enthusiastic for the overall 'good of youth chess' once their offspring have matured beyond the junior ranks ???

Let me also take the opportunity to praise and thank Peter Purland for all his efforts over the years - yes, people may not agree with every decision made (that happens to those in authority in all walks of life), but at least he has made rulings based on what he sees as fair play for all.

User avatar
Gareth Harley-Yeo
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:58 pm
Location: Wales
Contact:

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Gareth Harley-Yeo » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:52 am

I've just read 6 pages of this 'debate'. What's stood out is that the 2 people who are shouting the loudest for change and support for juniors, Carol and Krishna have both attacked 2 of the youngest posters for disagreeing with their viewpoints. When I read the original post I felt Peter Purland should have responded to you, but after seeing how you both handle criticism I don't blame him at all.

It would seem the juniors are in some cases far more mature than their respective parents. I sincerely hope your attitudes on this forum don't cause any undue negativity towards your children. I'm sure you're both 'old and wise' enough to come up with adult responses rather than schoolyard name-calling.

John Philpott

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by John Philpott » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:25 pm

David Sedgwick wrote, a couple of pages back
John Philpott, where are you when we need you?
The answer at the time was recovering from jet lag after a business trip to New York when I was blocked by the server at the Office where I was working from accessing the Forum as this was deemed to have inappropriate content.

I agree with the analysis that David provided about the current rules relating to elections. The one slight gloss is that if there is a single candidate, this individual is not necessarily elected as Council has the right to vote against (indeed it can prefer "none of the above" to all of the candidates in a contested election). In such cases the appointment reverts to the Board

I can see no reason why members of Council qualifying as "the requisitionists" could not propose a resolution relating to the junior selection policy that the ECF should adopt. If passed, this would define the approach that the Junior Director would need to adopt.

Questions as to the appropriateness of the present voting system are, of course, entirely reasonable, but belong in another thread. While there has been debate about the general merits of OMOV in the past, and this will almost certainly come up again in the context of the review of the funding of the ECF, the argument that a subset of the total potential electorate (e.g. parents) should vote for a specific Official (the Director of Junior Chess) is, I think, a separate (and possibly new) issue.

The confusing use of the word "full" in relation to members is now on my agenda as a point to watch, although it might be rendered redundant if one of the outcomes of the funding review was a simplification of the present membership categories.

Post Reply