ECF AGM 17/10/20

[Paul Cooksey]

interested election chat from our Fide delegate, highlight Alex H and that is good for english chess

I look forward to hearing more about those remarks.

I intend no disrespect to the distinguished arbiters of the intervening period, but Alex Holowczak is probably the highest regarded English arbiter internationally since Harry Golombek 50 to 60 years ago.

There is not very much more to say. In the context of noting that he felt ECF influence had grown at FIDE due to the good work done by English people for FIDE, Malcolm noted Alex's success. I am sure David's own words will be very welcome to Alex too.

When speaking of English influence Malcolm also noted that Nigel Short is a FIDE VP, without commenting on whether he is doing a good job. (for the avoidance of doubt, this is me deliberately confecting drama for my own amusement!)

[Paul Cooksey]

His constant politicking don't really endear him to an essentially conservative electorate, and it is hard not to be wary of the potential alliances that would be formed upon his election.

I don't want to be too holier than thou, everyone is politicking to some extent. I am myself in taking a public position on what degree the ECF Council should allow ECF rules to be modified by those who would gain political advantage.

Personally when I am voting on Berkshire's behalf I have a pompous internal monologue where I say "Berkshire's view on this matter is...", to help me separate my own views. For example I voted for Rob Willmoth, since I think the outcome of his election better for Berkshire better than "none of the above". Probably a thread on why I disagree with most of what he said at some point.

I mention this because although I like the idea of innovation, the specific innovations Tim listed were not particularly useful to my organisation. This might have been a general point, given the number of people replying to say they have already set up local online leagues in the thread Tim started. Had he been proposing something where I thought "that is a good idea we do not have the competence to implement ourselves" I might have voted differently.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

[]

[Roger de Coverly]

The requirement to pay the supporters fees is an extra barrier to online chess, especially given how most clubs struggle to encourage any chess, at all.

Over the Board, the ECF seems to get away with demanding a per head, per year fee from all individual participants, albeit with a few exceptions. In online chess, it doesn't have a grading monopoly, nor would I think has ECF online grading enough presence to be a "must have".

[Roger de Coverly]

Direct Member Representative - a motion that I had missed prior to the meeting, but essentially saying you must be A Bronze member to stand as a Bronze Rep
...

Working Group on Safe Restarting of Chess - This proposal was to set up a (voluntary?) Working Group to work along the ECF Board, to provide support and advice for clubs that seek advice, on things related to restarting, i.e. risk assessments, etc.

Did either or both of these proposals go through?

[Mick Norris]

The first was defeated 127 to 99, according to the proposer (who tells me the NCCU proposal lost 182 to 68)

[John Reyes]

The first was defeated 127 to 99, according to the proposer (who tells me the NCCU proposal lost 182 to 68)

My Motion did not pass, however i will hope to come back with a amend version in the future and might asked someone to help me as 99 for and 127 against, and i will try and talk to the people who voting against and help to make sure

(you will see when the minutes do come out how reps have voted for the card votes)

[NickFaulks]

and i will try and talk to the people who voting against and help to make sure

What is your counter to Paul Shepherd's argument that if Bronze members feel it is important to be represented by one of their own, they will presumably vote in that way?

[Roger de Coverly]

What is your counter to Paul Shepherd's argument that if Bronze members feel it is important to be represented by one of their own, they will presumably vote in that way?

For that matter, what about someone who is fundamentally only a Club, League and County player, but who indulges in one Congress a year or turns out once or twice a season for a 4NCL team.

[David Sedgwick]

What is your counter to Paul Shepherd's argument that if Bronze members feel it is important to be represented by one of their own, they will presumably vote in that way?

I am in a Platinum member. As such, I would like to be represented on the ECF Council by two Platinum members.

There were two candidates to represent Platinum members. One was a Platinum member himself, but the other was not.

I have nothing personal against the individual in question, but had I been given the opportunity, I would have voted against him for that reason. If enough other Platinum members had agreed with me, it would have been left to the Board to fill the vacancy. One presumes that in those circumstances they would only have done so when a Platinum member had volunteered.

However, I had no opportunity to cast such a vote. Indeed, as there were only two candidates, I had no opportunity to vote at all.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I was opposed to the members representatives proposal on the grounds that it was too restrictive. Generally bronze, silver and gold relate to a certain `type` of player but some members do have to move to a higher category (I'm a case in point here as playing in the rated sections of the British is the only chess I play that necessitates gold membership). I would have supported an amendment that based eligibility on the category of membership the candidate paid for at the start of the season as opposed to the one they might hold at the time of the election.

[John Reyes]

I was opposed to the members representatives proposal on the grounds that it was too restrictive. Generally bronze, silver and gold relate to a certain `type` of player but some members do have to move to a higher category (I'm a case in point here as playing in the rated sections of the British is the only chess I play that necessitates gold membership). I would have supported an amendment that based eligibility on the category of membership the candidate paid for at the start of the season as opposed to the one they might hold at the time of the election.

i would be happy to put that forward, if someone would have mention this to me and added an amendment and i will do at the next meeting if people was happy to support it

[John Reyes]

and i will try and talk to the people who voting against and help to make sure

What is your counter to Paul Shepherd's argument that if Bronze members feel it is important to be represented by one of their own, they will presumably vote in that way?

i feel that andrew mention this but i always feel that if you are voted as a direct member, you voted that the membership tell you. I feel that after 6 years, i have done a good job and you can see that in the meetings and views.

I happy to stand and i hope people think not just in this forum, but other people in the chess world know i care and happy to stand up for the members.

I always contact the members and always go with the majority.

this year there was at least 5 members in each section and i feel in time, there will be other people who will stand in the future, as you should never rest on your laurels

[Mick Norris]

Towers: 168
Wall: 92
NOA: 0

all unopposed candidates elected with small numbers against, excepting Natasha Regan who had no votes against and presumably wins some sort of prize.

Do we get to see the voting breakdown? I would be interested to see who voted for Tim

[Mike Gunn]

No the elections are secret ballots.