Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[John Philpott]

David Sedgwick wrote

What you say is true, but I'm not at all sure that that decision should be taken as a precedent. I'm far from convinced that the decision was correct.

After consulting with the present Chairman of the Governance Committee, I will be showing Andrew Paulson as the Past President on the voting register that will be published with the Finance Council agenda.

[Roger de Coverly]

I will be showing Andrew Paulson as the Past President on the voting register that will be published with the Finance Council agenda.

Probably not of vital importance, since he has other avenues, but this does strip Roger Edwards of the ex-President's vote?

[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 Hibbard]

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

[Sean Hewitt]

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.

Piffle.

e2e4 are the largest single vote holder on council with 10 votes. Out of a voting register of 322 that's a whopping 3% of the total votes available. It's extremely rare for any vote to be so close as for our votes to make a difference either way. In fact, I can only remember it happening twice.

[Sean Hewitt]

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

Hence Nigel's observation that the motion has 7 confirmed votes in favour - 1 for each Director.

[Roger de Coverly]

e2e4 are the largest single vote holder on council with 10 votes. Out of a voting register of 322 that's a whopping 3% of the total votes available.

That's 3% of the voting rights exclusively controlled by one individual.

[Sean Hewitt]

e2e4 are the largest single vote holder on council with 10 votes. Out of a voting register of 322 that's a whopping 3% of the total votes available.

That's 3% of the voting rights exclusively controlled by one individual.

Indeed. Don't forget though, I brought a OMOV proposition to Council in October 2013 precisely because I think the voting arrangements need to change. But that doesn't detract from the underlying point here which is that it is extremely rare for e2e4's 3% of the vote to make a difference at Council. The idea that 'block votes' somehow make Council a formality is a nonsense, usually perpetrated by folk who've never set foot inside a Council meeting.

[Carl Hibbard]

Indeed. Don't forget though, I brought a OMOV proposition to Council in October 2013 precisely because I think the voting arrangements need to change.

It needs to, seems rather silly you could outvote the board on your own.

[Sean Hewitt]

Indeed. Don't forget though, I brought a OMOV proposition to Council in October 2013 precisely because I think the voting arrangements need to change.

It needs to, seems rather silly you could outvote the board on your own.

Unless I can no longer count, I can't do that. Perhaps you need to do your maths again Carl.

[Roger de Coverly]

Unless I can no longer count, I can't do that. Perhaps you need to do your maths again Carl.

If the minimum support for the Paulson motion at Council is the seven Director's personal votes (7), that can be negated by e2e4 voting in the opposite direction with 10 votes.

[Sean Hewitt]

Unless I can no longer count, I can't do that. Perhaps you need to do your maths again Carl.

If the minimum support for the Paulson motion at Council is the seven Director's personal votes (7), that can be negated by e2e4 voting in the opposite direction with 10 votes.

Counting votes that I am responsible for casting whilst ignoring the same for the other directors is hardly comparing like with like. Hell, using that logic, I can outvote the whole of Council!

[Roger de Coverly]

Counting votes that I am responsible for casting whilst ignoring the same for the other directors is hardly comparing like with like.

In the absence of information to the contrary, the impression has been given that the seven remaining directors agreed to a deal whereby they would support the Paulson for ECU motion at the Council meeting. But does this apply to votes they control for other organisations?

[Adam Raoof]

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. It's not organisers that resist a change like this. I would also extend the term of postholders to three years, and do something to reform the proxy system.

[Sean Hewitt]

In the absence of information to the contrary, the impression has been given that the seven remaining directors agreed to a deal whereby they would support the Paulson for ECU motion at the Council meeting.

I don't know where that impression has come from. Certainly, no rationale person could infer it from the statement that the ECF has published. Nigel Short commented that 7 votes had been secured for the motion, one from each of the directors voting for it. Nigel is absolutely correct.

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.