English Chess Forum

There is manifestly something wrong with a system where representatives nominate candidates and the people who they represent don't even know this is happening.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:42 pm

Alex McFarlane wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:31 pm

I find it worrying that the reason for not informing the membership was that there was a possibility of a 'deal' being done which would prevent them from having a meaningful election.

The membership in the sense of the minority with votes seemingly knew who the candidates were. Those endorsing a candidate with nominations certainly did.

Could I also say that I really don't think the member's direct representatives should be part of a list nominating candidates? Certainly without some degree of soundings as to what their constituency thinks. Only Joe Reyes out of the Gold, Silver or Bronze representatives has declined to express a preference by virtue of making a nomination.

Thanks Roger and you was right as i did feel that that the Members should have the right to asked the members 1st to see how to nominations people 1st before putting your name 1st

I do hope that the Members will tell us how to vote and not the other way around

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:21 pm

Another important question that needs to be asked is what happens to International if Malcolm wins. I'm assuming he has a likely candidate in mind to be appointed pending the next election for that post (which I think is next year) in which case it should be made public.

Or indeed if he loses; I'd like to see him go either way

Alex McFarlane wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:31 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:04 pm

My concern was that it left a vacuum where some people were more in the "know" than others, meaning that some manoeuvring behind the scenes has taken place while other people were in the dark

That is a concern but, in my view, not the main one.

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:30 pm

The reason for the delay from last Thursday is that I judged it to be in the best long term interest of the ECF as there were active discussions taking place at reconciliation between two candidates with different outlooks on how the organisation should move forward.

What does this mean? Surely the point of the election is to decide between candidates with different outlooks!! I find it worrying that the reason for not informing the membership was that there was a possibility of a 'deal' being done which would prevent them from having a meaningful election.

Provided the contest does not deteriorate into a mud slinging fiasco this is what democracy means.

Malcolm's manifesto asks Mike to stand aside

I can see why Michael F might prefer the AGM to not degenerate into a row, but I think it would be better for Council to be allowed to discuss the different outlooks and reach a conclusion (it might even decide that Malcolm's ideas are better, but Mike is best placed to put them into practice)

Incidentally, while it's up to individuals what they do or do not do, it seems to me that when dsuch a thing has occurred,"why did you nominate X without asking your members first?" is a question that ought to be asked and answered.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:05 pm

"why did you nominate X without asking your members first?" is a question that ought to be asked and answered.

If they had enough respect for those they represent to answer that question, they wouldn't have done it the first place.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:25 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:13 pm

In that I'm the Grading Officer for Durham CCA and have never been asked to vote on, or discuss, said nominations

You would probably find that such decisions have been devolved explicitly or implicitly to whoever represents the county association at ECF Council meetings.

That can't possibly be true, can it? That would mean Ms. Milewska had been nominated by Tim Wall, Tim Wall, Tim Wall, Timothy Wall and T. P. Wall, and someone would have noticed that obvious abuse of the nomination process.

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:05 pm

Incidentally, while it's up to individuals what they do or do not do, it seems to me that when dsuch a thing has occurred,"why did you nominate X without asking your members first?" is a question that ought to be asked and answered.

Definitely when it comes to the actual vote, but this is only to get them into the first stage, then it's down to the person to earn any votes.

Personally I prefer a contested election, especially with longstanding positions, it reinforces their authority or introduces new ideas.

Gareth T Ellis wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 6:49 pm

Definitely when it comes to the actual vote, but this is only to get them into the first stage

Why not consult with the members though? What possible good reason can there be?

Why not consult with the members though? What possible good reason can there be?

Unless the person wanting to be nominated is totally unfit for the position, what possible good reason is there not to nominate them and let the whole electorate decide?

Because you're other people's representative not a private individual and you don''t take it upon yourself to decide in secret.

We don't just nominate loads of people for the hell of it, the people nominating them have to consider them suitable in the first place, this is basic.

I think there's something off about members' reps nominating CEO candidates who would anyway have received sufficient nominations to stand. It looks to me like favouritism and bias and makes me wonder whether the reps will represent members' interests of those of the candidate they're nominating. However, I'm not sure I would object if a members' rep nominated someone they thought suitable without consulting their members if the nominee might not otherwise receive sufficient nominations to stand. A representative is a representative (who exercises judgment) after all, and not a delegate (who consults back and takes instructions). [Edit, having read Alex's post below] Definitely representatives should consult in advance of Council meetings.[/Edit]

A related issue: I wonder if Aga Milewska who is standing for the position of Director of Women's Chess will step down as a Bronze members' rep if she's elected to be a director?

I think, as Gareth suggests, that it is reasonable to nominate someone so that there is a contested election. There is of course the proviso that the person is expected to do a good job if elected. Having said that, I would not nominate someone that I thought totally unsuitable just to have a contested election.

I will have the votes of three organisations. I consult with the organising committee of two of those before voting. For the Scarborough Congress, the timing of meetings makes consultation with entrants impossible. I therefore ask people who play in other chess tournaments (and probably Scarborough, but I admit I don't check the previous year's entry list) whenever possible for their opinions.

I would be offended by the accusation that those voting at Council do not consult except that I too do not believe that enough of them do.

I have long agreed that Council could be improved, to the benefit of the ECF but I do not believe in OMOV as, in my experience, all that happens is that the two opposing factions 'harvest' votes from those who either couldn't care less or have had only one side of the argument given to them.

Mmm but it's not as if harvesting doesn't go on as it is, no?

I think you should always consult where you are able - where (and for whom) is the value in not doing so? And it's one thing not doing so because circumstances make it difficult (as for instance Alex describes above) and quite another deliberately keping members in the dark.

As it is, it'a absurd - and to some degree insulting - that you can have people seeking nomination for posts and many members don't even know that this is happening or who is involved. Do other organisations operate in this way?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:47 pm

many members don't even know that this is happening or who is involved.

I wonder what percentage of ECF members care to any degree about ECF elections?

Let us say that there are 10,000 ECF members.

Do approximately 200 give a damn about who is elected or more or less?