Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 04, 2024 1:47 pm
John Swain wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 30, 2024 1:03 pm
Mike Gunn wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 30, 2024 12:47 pm
My understanding is that our current proxies system is a consequence of Company Law under which you cannot limit the number of proxies that a single person can hold. Technically, clubs have always been able to join the ECF as "other organisations" (with board approval).
Currently club members are represented through the counties and leagues that they are a part of. In my experience these organisations do consult clubs on matters that come before council and I'm not sure what the case is for increasing the influence of clubs (which choose to affliate) in this way.
My concern was not that individuals can collect lots of proxy votes but that some organisations seem to give a blank cheque to the same individual indefinitely to vote as they think fit because they appear to be a sensible "good egg" and don't bother to consult their members at all or give their proxy a steer.
It has not been my experience that club members are consulted over ECF matters, but I accept that this may vary from area to area.
If the last sentence is intended as a criticism of clubs, that's probably unfair as clubs don't typically have a vote on Council where the majority of votes are held by congresses, counties and leagues. In my experience, counties and leagues are unlikely to have contact details for all who play chess under their auspices, making consultation difficult. Congresses do but, just to raise one point, a proportion of congress entrants aren't ECF members who shouldn't properly be consulted so congress organisers would have to trawl through ECF membership records to separate sheep from goats. Even then, it might be relevant whether the sheep were gold, silver or bronze in colour.
It's so easy to be misunderstood! I realise that clubs are not represented on Council, except via other bodies further up the food chain. I phrased my comment poorly; I meant to say that "it has not been my experience that club members consult over ECF matters, but I accept that this may vary from area to area."
I was not criticising clubs. I have only been a member of four clubs, Bolton, Cambridge University, Cambridge City and, since 1986, Gambit (Nottingham) and so I cannot say what happens at clubs in general. Nor was I having a tilt at any of these four clubs, including my present one. I was merely trying to say that I have never experienced a club meeting prior to an ECF April Finance meeting or an October AGM where we have stopped to scrutinise what is on the Agenda and then lobbied our ECF representative.
It's not clear what the ECF is proposing, so we need to see what the precise details are. It seems that the idea is to create a class of club membership which might result in more representatives turning up at ECF meetings. Would lots of club members want to discuss in depth the ECF motions rather than play friendly games, internal club competitions and league matches? I suspect that some clubs would be keen to do so, but perhaps not the majority. Furthermore, would even the more active clubs find someone willing to turn up to a Saturday afternoon ECF meeting, even one via Zoom, and cast perhaps a single vote, only to be swamped by the sixteen-vote barons?