English Chess Forum

Angus French wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:35 pm

I'm also curious to know - and I think it's germane to this thread - why your congresses voted against approving the NEDs' report.

I'm assuming that AR polled his congress entrants by some means and they voted accordingly.

I can see no other mechanism.

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:48 pm

Adam Raoof wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:07 pm

This is all very complicated, perhaps unnecessarily. All members should have one vote. Votes should be for positions, not referendums on topics. Membership should be simpler and needs reform. Voting should be online, and confidential.

All members should be entitled to attend the AGM, as you would be able to in a company as a shareholder or attend a council meeting as a resident.

I'm not against the principle, Adam, but I do question the venue cost to the ECF; how many members would attend?

We have the advantage in the MCF that we know the maximum number of people that can attend our AGM and can find a suitable venue accordingly (when in person AGMs resume, our last 2 have been via Zoom)

I'd have thought a simpler version of OMOV would be one John Reyes one vote

haha i like that idea

i feel the OMOV was brought up in one of the AGM.

I know my Fellow silver rep is very obsess with this but look at the figures
least then 40 members replied and Did not vote the way of the Members and voted None of the above because he has a issue with Mike Truran and others.

Also with the Block voting, i vote the way i'm told, but also while i can give a idea, some people don't vote what they are told and you can see that in the card vote.

i tried to work with my rep, but he don't respect the silver members, and i did tried talking to him and he was very rude to me and tried to talk me down, when i show him the proof, but what can you do?

he think the people in this forum don't talk sense.
He think he is better then me, but while he is a chess writer and used fancy words, he is not better then me.

John Reyes wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:30 pm

i tried to work with my rep, but he don't respect the silver members, and i did tried talking to him and he was very rude to me and tried to talk me down, when i show him the proof, but what can you do?

he think the people in this forum don't talk sense.
He think he is better then me, but while he is a chess writer and used fancy words, he is not better then me.

He's a politician. He refuses to understand anything that it benefits him not to understand.

Much of this discussion seems to miss the point that the eight Direct Members Representatives are, as the name indicates, representatives and not delegates. This probably won't be a popular observation but, unless I'm grievously mistaken, there's a distinction in that delegates are chosen to represent their electorates' wishes, even in areas where a delegate disagrees with those wishes, while representatives are chosen to represent their electorates' best interests but are free to disregard their electorates' wishes where they perceive this to be conducive to those best interests - or to the best interests of the wider community of which their electorates are part. Ultimate authority for this seems to be Edmund Burke who, in a 1774 speech, declared "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion". So, while I applaud John Reyes for his undoubted integrity and would cheerfully vote for him, it was not a requirement that he consult his electorate. Having said that, many will feel that it was morally the right thing to do.

As the ECF April Finance meeting looms on April ?th 2022 I wondered if there had been any movement on the issues raised by forum members on this subject?

John Upham wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:14 am

As the ECF April Finance meeting looms on April ?th 2022 I wondered if there had been any movement on the issues raised by forum members on this subject?

Surely it's for those who want ECF Council reformed, which now surely includes several board members, to put a proposal forward and start drumming up the votes to get it passed.

As I have noted before a number of proposals for reform, including OMOV, were put before Council about five years ago. Perhaps inevitably it failed but now is surely the time to revisit it. The fact remains that, for all the loud screams that council must be reformed, the only people ever to have put reform proposals on the table are the current CEO and chair of the governance committee.

Difficult for me to imagine any significant reform of Council at this time. Some trust would need to be built to prevent reform being stuck in the quagmire of who it benefits in the short term.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 13, 2022 9:03 pm

Difficult for me to imagine any significant reform of Council at this time. Some trust would need to be built to prevent reform being stuck in the quagmire of who it benefits in the short term.

Is this a generic problem with reform or merely for ECF Council?

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 13, 2022 8:48 pm

John Upham wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:14 am

As the ECF April Finance meeting looms on April ?th 2022 I wondered if there had been any movement on the issues raised by forum members on this subject?

Surely it's for those who want ECF Council reformed, which now surely includes several board members, to put a proposal forward and start drumming up the votes to get it passed.

As I have noted before a number of proposals for reform, including OMOV, were put before Council about five years ago. Perhaps inevitably it failed but now is surely the time to revisit it. The fact remains that, for all the loud screams that council must be reformed, the only people ever to have put reform proposals on the table are the current CEO and chair of the governance committee.

One thing I am unclear about is the mechanism of reform. What are they if more than one.

Clearly Council will have no appetite to reform itself: Turkeys, Christmas etc.

John Upham wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:42 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 13, 2022 8:48 pm

John Upham wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:14 am

As the ECF April Finance meeting looms on April ?th 2022 I wondered if there had been any movement on the issues raised by forum members on this subject?

Surely it's for those who want ECF Council reformed, which now surely includes several board members, to put a proposal forward and start drumming up the votes to get it passed.

As I have noted before a number of proposals for reform, including OMOV, were put before Council about five years ago. Perhaps inevitably it failed but now is surely the time to revisit it. The fact remains that, for all the loud screams that council must be reformed, the only people ever to have put reform proposals on the table are the current CEO and chair of the governance committee.

One thing I am unclear about is the mechanism of reform. What are they if more than one.

Clearly Council will have no appetite to reform itself: Turkeys, Christmas etc.

To repeat myself; those who favour reform of Council should draw up a meaningful method of doing so and find a requisitionist to put it forward. Then do the rounds of council members who either have a constituency that can mandate them to vote in favour or who are simply happy to gift their votes. Given that they were trying to do this as recently as October it shouldn't be that difficult!

I believe OMOV is not a good system. I believe what we have national lvotes for who is going to representet them,is better. Politically, parliamentary democracy is superior. That is, voters vote for their representatives and the MPs vote.
I realise some will disagree.
I also believe that, in these tumultuous times caused by covid, now is NOT the time to revise our system dramatically.

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 10, 2022 7:34 pm

I also believe that, in these tumultuous times caused by covid, now is NOT the time to revise our system dramatically.

You must have in mind the appropriate conditions for when reform would be a good thing to pursue?

Possibly your answer is never?

John,
What I meant was that currently there may be too many stressors to dramatically revise our system. When things have quietened down, that would be a better time to review our systems. Conducting such a review, first looking at the objectives, might conclude that the current system needed no change.
Twice, or perhaps three times in the last 50 years, the Board has undergone considerable revision. It was too large when introduced at John Poole's suggestion in the 1970s. It was slimmed down when it changed from BCF to ECF, possibly too much. I think, getting rid of a separate Director for Chess Congress, was a mistake. It was my idea that we have a separate, high national profile, President. This has proven good, once a suitable candidate was found in Dominic Lawson.