English Chess Forum

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:26 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:04 pm

We'll remember 2021 as the year nothing happened, except Chris Fegan retiring in favour of his alternate.

I did wonder how the CF election speech/rant when down on the day anyone care to comment?

A lot of people joined by Zoom, so the room perhaps not as representative as it always is. But I can share a view from the back row of the Council stalls

I don't think the ECF did miss out on a major opportunity to monetise the drama. Chris - who I guess is now free to comment - tried to convey some passion. Some people spoke in his support, some people were criticised and responded. Clearly unpleasant or uncomfortable for some of them.

But for the rank and file, not much emotion evident. One person described Chris's speech as "letting off steam". I would be surprised if anyone voted differently as a result of it.

For me the interesting political question is why Chris chose to stand for Chair of Governance, presumably knowing he would lose. A vote of no confidence in Julian Clissold would have made more sense based on the criticisms he raised.

My thoughts on that to follow, but regrettably can't stretch my lunch break further

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:58 pm

For me the interesting political question is why Chris chose to stand for Chair of Governance, presumably knowing he would lose. A vote of no confidence in Julian Clissold would have made more sense based on the criticisms he raised.

I was half-expecting CF to withdraw having made his address but I also half-expected him to gauge the level of support he garnered.

He also presumably wanted to have his say.

119 - 225 is not too shoddy but it is probably not difficult to work of where the votes came from.

It really is time to end block voting. Of course, Council will never vote for anything that reduces its powers. What is the mechanism to reform Council?

Perhaps there isn't one.

John Upham wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:12 pm

It really is time to end block voting. Of course, Council will never vote for anything that reduces its powers. What is the mechanism to reform Council?

Perhaps there isn't one.

There was an opportunity to reform council a few years back, including a full move to OMOV. Obviously Council rejected it (the increase in direct member representative votes - so blatantly abused in this election - was the compromise). However the fact remains that it was a cast iron opportunity for those wanting reform to use the means at their disposal to get sufficient votes at Council to pass it.

Let's not forget who did all the work to get the proposals for reform (including a lengthy paper) drawn up so Council could consider them - Mike Truran and Robert Stern.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:58 pm

For me the interesting political question is why Chris chose to stand for Chair of Governance, presumably knowing he would lose. A vote of no confidence in Julian Clissold would have made more sense based on the criticisms he raised.

It gave him the opportunity to malign other people that he probably wouldn't have got with a vote of no confidence, e.g. https://britishchessnews.com/2021/10/01 ... ke-truran/.

I think the only political question is why anybody considered unrelenting negative campaigning to be a productive way to present a case to Council?

Whilst updating the Congress Diary category for the numbers of entries for the Scarborough Congress last night, I've noticed that Chris Fegan has entered the Open Section.
www.scarboroughchesscongress.org.uk

Simon Rogers wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:03 pm

Whilst updating the Congress Diary category for the numbers of entries for the Scarborough Congress last night, I've noticed that Chris Fegan has entered the Open Section.
www.scarboroughchesscongress.org.uk

After reviewing the situation?

Simon Rogers wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:03 pm

Whilst updating the Congress Diary category for the numbers of entries for the Scarborough Congress last night, I've noticed that Chris Fegan has entered the Open Section.
www.scarboroughchesscongress.org.uk

Fegan, not to be confused with the disreputable Dickensian character.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:01 pm

I think the only political question is why anybody considered unrelenting negative campaigning to be a productive way to present a case to Council?

Because it, depressingly often, works?

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:00 pm

Simon Rogers wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:03 pm

Whilst updating the Congress Diary category for the numbers of entries for the Scarborough Congress last night, I've noticed that Chris Fegan has entered the Open Section.
www.scarboroughchesscongress.org.uk

Fegan, not to be confused with the disreputable Dickensian character.

I edited some of the spelling now.

Carl Hibbard wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:14 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:00 pm

Simon Rogers wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:03 pm

Whilst updating the Congress Diary category for the numbers of entries for the Scarborough Congress last night, I've noticed that Chris Fegan has entered the Open Section.
www.scarboroughchesscongress.org.uk

Fegan, not to be confused with the disreputable Dickensian character.

I edited some of the spelling now.

That's a shame.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:13 pm

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:01 pm

I think the only political question is why anybody considered unrelenting negative campaigning to be a productive way to present a case to Council?

Because it, depressingly often, works?

Sure, but it doesn't tend to work in the ECF context, which suggests that the people adopting those tactics yet again failed to understand the electorate. I mean in all honesty the tide isn't turning is it?

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:31 pm

However the fact remains that it was a cast iron opportunity for those wanting reform to use the means at their disposal to get sufficient votes at Council to pass it.

i cannot see any form of OMOV happening unless and until there's a grassroots revolt to remove members of Council opposed to it. In other words candidates at each county or league AGM standing as the representative for ECF Council and committing themselves to supporting OMOV. Even then it's got to get past the unelected representatives of Congresses.

Notwithstanding the noise from some quarters, there isn't a skeleton of how such a system might operate in practical terms such as how many of the ECFs decisions and appointed or elected posts would be put to a vote of all individuals and which, if any, would be subject to some form of continued Council.

The result of the card vote on whether to accept the Non-executive directors' report is now available. Looks like nearly all the votes against were cast by Rob Willmoth, Tim Wall and Chris Fegan. Malcolm Pein (as Director of International Chess) also voted against, as did Lorin D'Costa (as a Gold members' rep).