Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[Sean Hewitt]

I think the most important point is that, given the opportunity to vote on the issue, organisers like Sean would probably vote for OMOV to elect Directors. I would - I don't see why I should have multiple votes simply because I organise a lot of events. I think if people pay to join the ECF, they should have a vote to decide who runs it.

Absolutely. That's why I proposed that this be looked at, though I recognise that there are some hurdles to be overcome.

[John Upham]

What are the methods used by congress organisers who votes are cast on behalf of their players to discover the players voting intentions?

I assume some organisers use best practise in these scenarios.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't know where that impression has come from.

It comes from the ECF website.

Further, the Board nominates Andrew Paulson for the position of Deputy President of the European Chess Union and looks forward to a close and constructive collaboration between the ECU and the ECF. The Board recommends that the ECF Council at its April meeting approves a Motion to give Andrew Paulson standing during the ECU General Assembly election meeting in Tromsø in August by designating him as the official ECF Delegate at that meeting.

So it is "the Board recommends", rather than "the Board will present a proposal".

I cannot help thinking that it will be a hard task to persuade sceptical voting members of why they should be seen to support a Zurab candidacy. Perhaps they won't and it's just a device to get the Directors off the hook, so that if AP starts sounding off to the media about the evil ECF, it will be the fault of the voters on Council who are in the pocket of Kasparov, Pein etc.

[David Pardoe]

Take Sean as an example. His (singular) board vote may well support the motion, but his (multiple) e2e4 votes may well go against, especially if he receives a lot of messages lobbying to that effect. The board as a whole is, in terms of council votes, considerably less than the sum of its parts.

Sure. The ECF Board would have no right to say how the e2e4 votes are cast.

That's absolutely right. Concentrating too much power into the hands of the few is one big reason why the ECF electoral system is so bad. It allows `one or two` controlling vote blocks to dictate policy by a minority, who will inevitably pander to there own self interests (when it suits), and not necessarily those of British Chess.
Then you get the other `extreme` when these big blocks disappear off the voting radar (abstain), where they supposedly `have no direct intereest`, which again could influence the outcome of an important matter to the wider majority.
It must be wrong that these groups can `abstain, willy-nilly`, on any issues that dont fit there particular narrow interests.
Even worse, or equally bad, it enables them to effectively vote themselves into office in certain cases. Or to vote out those they target for various `political` or other reasons, which again, may not be best serving British Chess
This needs to be urgently reviewed and changed. A more balanced system which combines Delegate votes with OMOV would probably help.

Carl...
My comments really refer to the first paragraph, not the latter point about council (the board)..

But my other point about large block votes being a distorting factor stands, and it applies to any party who holds multiple block votes, and the problem is compounded by the same people going round collecting proxy votes, with which they can weald yet more power quite often, as Adam has mentioned.
Reform of this grotesque system is vital.

[Mick Norris]

I think the most important point is that, given the opportunity to vote on the issue, organisers like Sean would probably vote for OMOV to elect Directors. I would - I don't see why I should have multiple votes simply because I organise a lot of events. I think if people pay to join the ECF, they should have a vote to decide who runs it.

Absolutely. That's why I proposed that this be looked at, though I recognise that there are some hurdles to be overcome.

Any progress being made on looking at this?

[Sean Hewitt]

It comes from the ECF website.

Au contraire. That's merely your interpretation. It's not what it actually says.

I cannot help thinking that it will be a hard task to persuade sceptical voting members of why they should be seen to support a Zurab candidacy.

You may be right. I think the fact that the matter will be considered by Council is a positive thing.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Since the board agreed nem com it would be rather hard for any of them not to vote for the motion?"

"nem con" means nobody against, so it could have been 1-0 and 6 abstentions.

Under the current voting arrangements, it is necessary to explain to various organisations which way they should vote, as some of the people voting won't understand the issues, or just hand their votes to the first person who asks for the proxy.

[Andrew Zigmond]

The more I follow this debate the less I understand what miracle OMOV is supposed to deliver. In fact I think OMOV would be more open to abuse - for example we have OMOV within the YCA (a member being somebody who has played at least one game in the Yorkshire League that season) and I recall that ten years ago one of the larger clubs proposed a motion and - helped by the fact that the meeting was local to them - made a big effort to get their vote out. The motion (in my view) was beneficial to them but would have been damaging to a lot of the smaller clubs. Do we want that to happen on a national scale?

David Pardoe talks above about `the best interests of British chess` and implies that block vote holders vote in their own interests. Taking E2-E4 as an example, although it applies to any congress, their `interest` is surely promoting the game so that their pool of potential entrants increases rather than diminishes. I suspect a good few individual members would happily block any motion where there's nothing in it for them - or benefit for somebody else.

[Graham Borrowdale]

But does this apply to votes they control for other organisations?

Of course it doesn't as they are not 'our' votes to commit. None of us know how the respective organisations which we represent will mandate us to vote. I shall be seeking instructions (as I always do) once the agenda is published.

That is all highly laudable, but what does it mean in practice, not specifically for the e2e4 votes, but for others? I am absolutely certain that nobody will canvas me for my opinion between the publishing of the agenda (when will that be?)and the date of the meeting (when will that be?) on matters concerning Paulsen and the ECU. I can categorically state that I have never been canvassed for my opinion on anything to do with ECF delegate votes in 30+ years of playing chess in local leagues. That is fine, and maybe "the public gets what the public wants", but please, it is not correct to suggest that ECF delegates are really representing their constituencies.

[Roger de Coverly]

Under the current voting arrangements, it is necessary to explain to various organisations which way they should vote, as some of the people voting won't understand the issues

How does this look to someone whose only involvement is attending the half-yearly meetings? You have a newcomer to English chess making exciting promises, leaving after five months for unspecified internal reasons with next to nothing achieved, or so it would seem from public announcements. There's then a motion inviting support for one side in an electoral fight between two Eastern European GMs with dubious reputations, support which the ECF's FIDE Delegate, supposedly the ECF's expert in such matters, rather strongly opposes.

[Roger de Coverly]

The more I follow this debate the less I understand what miracle OMOV is supposed to deliver.

Difficult to say, but if some or all of the Directors had been elected wholly or partly by OMOV, would AP ever have been elected in the first place? Going back in time, I would suspect the attempted Presidency for life by Gerry Walsh would have been terminated rather earlier. CJ, I think, would have been elected in 2009 and 2010 but perhaps with reservations in 2011 and not at all in 2012, had he stood.

[Angus French]

Why are there references to 7 Directors and 7 votes? I thought there were 8 Directors (and 8 votes).

[Sean Hewitt]

I think the most important point is that, given the opportunity to vote on the issue, organisers like Sean would probably vote for OMOV to elect Directors. I would - I don't see why I should have multiple votes simply because I organise a lot of events. I think if people pay to join the ECF, they should have a vote to decide who runs it.

Absolutely. That's why I proposed that this be looked at, though I recognise that there are some hurdles to be overcome.

Any progress being made on looking at this?

I'm sure your aware that the MCF delegate proposed an amendment to

The Board should investigate the appropriate balance of voting and decision making powers between direct members and affiliated organisations and report back accordingly to Council with 24 months.

This was agreed nem com, so you're going to have to wait a while I'm afraid.

[Sean Hewitt]

I am absolutely certain that nobody will canvas me for my opinion between the publishing of the agenda (when will that be?)and the date of the meeting (when will that be?) on matters concerning Paulsen and the ECU. I can categorically state that I have never been canvassed for my opinion on anything to do with ECF delegate votes in 30+ years of playing chess in local leagues. That is fine, and maybe "the public gets what the public wants", but please, it is not correct to suggest that ECF delegates are really representing their constituencies.

The dates of the meeting (12th April) and when the agenda is published (21 days in advance) are available on the ECF website.

I would suggest that if you have a local issue with the quality of your ECF representation then that is a matter you must take up and resolve locally. You could even stand for the role yourself, perhaps?

Of course, it also works both ways. Have you ever approached your delegate and asked him/her to raise something, or vote in a particular way?

[Angus French]

I would also extend the term of postholders to three years.

I don't think that would be a good idea (regardless of how Directors are elected - OMOV might be better; it might also be worse). I mean: look at what's just happened. And it's not as though disasters are an infrequent occurrence.