ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[Stewart Reuben]

Harry,
Your first post was simply destructively critical. I note that you have learnt and improved and now make constructive suggestions. Whether I agree is not the point.
I am not a fan of the British government system. I believe much greater use should be made of referenda. I would have expected you to favour that for the ECF and for UKIP to get its points across. Yes, in our country anybody can stand for parliament. But, the odds are so stacked against them if they don't represent one of the big parties, that it seems hardly worthwhile. Similarly any member can stand for an ECF Directorship.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never 'advocated members not being permitted to stand without being grilled by the Board.' I do advocate succession planning.

[harrylamb]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never 'advocated members not being permitted to stand without being grilled by the Board.'

Ok Lets use your words

I never felt comfortable with the process of candidates appearing before the Board so that the Board could make a recommendation. My view was that Council delegates should be left to form their own judgement.

I disagree with Andrew

.

Incidentally the power of the three main parties appears to be coming to an end.

Yes, in our country anybody can stand for parliament. But, the odds are so stacked against them if they don't represent one of the big parties, that it seems hardly worthwhile.

Who won the last parliamentary by-election (held in Bradford West)...George Galloway from Respect

[David Gilbert]

Any adult citizen can vote(about 50 million people).
.

Only if your name appears on the electoral register and you're not sitting in pokey. Or if you have been detained under the Mental Healh Act or a member of the House of Lords (these may be the same thing). So Lord Taylor and Lord Hanningfield could seek nomination to the ECF Board, although they might want their rent paid!

And surely the UK population aged over 18 and eligible to vote is a lot less than 50 million? Closer to 40 million at a guess?

[harrylamb]

You are right with your exceptions. But last time I quoted a figure "here" I was about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 out. So I think you are quibbling at a difference of a mere 10,000,000

[Sean Hewitt]

But, the odds are so stacked against them if they don't represent one of the big parties, that it seems hardly worthwhile.

Who won the last parliamentary by-election (held in Bradford West)...George Galloway from Respect

Oh, come on. I know you like to ignore the facts but Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats hold 616 of the 650 parliamentary seats. That's 94.7% of available seats. If you put the major parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into the mix that rises to 99.3%. There are just 5 MPs (0.7% of parliament) who are not members of a main party in their respective countries.

The facts justify the "odds are so stacked against them" comment.

EDIT : Fixed quote tags

[IM Jack Rudd]

But, the odds are so stacked against them if they don't represent one of the big parties, that it seems hardly worthwhile.

Who won the last parliamentary by-election (held in Bradford West)...George Galloway from Respect

Oh, come on. I know you like to ignore the facts but Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats hold 616 of the 650 parliamentary seats. That's 94.7% of available seats. If you put the major parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into the mix that rises to 99.3%. There are just 5 MPs (0.7% of parliament) who are not members of a main party in their respective countries.

The facts justify the "odds are so stacked against them" comment.[/quote]

And George Galloway is an anomalous case anyway: he's a former major-party MP who is now standing under a new flag (see also Ken Livingstone in London 2000). Such people tend to have better success rates than people who've been minor-party candidates from the outset.

[JustinHorton]

I suspect this argument should be allocated a reserved quota of places in another forum...

[Paolo Casaschi]

I suspect this argument should be allocated a reserved quota of places in another forum...

I agree, plenty of more appropriate sites to read or debate about UK politics

[Mick Norris]

Neil

I can't speak for anyone else, but please believe me when I say that I would be more than happy to withdraw if another candidate put him/herself forward or if nobody nominated or seconded me.

In the event that that doesn't happen, I am willing to be considered. In that regard, I think the words "seeking re-election" are somewhat OTT.

But in the prevailing environment volunteering to be a Director as opposed to a mere Chairman is, I'm afraid, a step too far.

Mike

Trying to bring this back on topic, glad to see Mike standing, but depressing to read, and agree with, his comments

[John Philpott]

There is now a confirmed contested election for President, as sufficient nominations have been received for Roger Edwards to stand against CJ de Mooi.

[Mick Norris]

Roger's election address can be found here:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897

[David Pardoe]

I guess both these candidates have lots to offer...and Rogers experience within the ECF/BCF over many years I`m sure would be invaluable.
However, I`d quite like to see a joint ticket on this,,,maybe with CJ as President and Roger as Vice President. The combination of CJ`s umph, colour, & chraisma/razmataz, and Rogers chess wisdom, knowledge and experience could be a winner for our British chess scene....and if CJ can help inject more life and funding into the ECF scene, that would be great...
And if he could again pursuade our top gun players to play in the `British`, that would be great....
And of course, someone able to boost the publicity of British Chess...and help restore numbers to our many clubs and various chess events, would be most welcome....
We need to focus on the real tasks.
I now play web chess, and literally millions of players are playing on this platform every day...
Can we encourage more of these to play OTB..
Returning to earlier points....
Yes, Harry makes some good points about chess and democracy....and about the need for OMOV, and more accountability, and the need to avoid `control freekery`...
I mentioned this recently on another thread...
But I`ve made the key point that OMOV needs to run in conjunction with the current `delegate` voting system.. I outlined how this might work.

Its most important that the true `membership voice` is heard, and not just those elected `councils` who can hide away and cunjure up all kinds of trickery behind closed doors.
Two points to illustrate the `control freekery` situation...
Martin Regan & his team took control at the ECF in an attempt to re-invigouate this organisation. He/they quit in frustration, because they found themselves `blocked` by an `internal power group` within the ECF, so I understand..
Second example... the BCF was `butchered` on its 100th anniversary, many believe. It was an `insiders plot` cunningly engineered, to replace this great body by `Semi-detatched`, little england...many believe.
A 43% vote in favour of keeping the BCF (the biggest and most representative Membership vote), was effectively ignored by the `big guns` in favour of little england....
Yes, I know the BCF had its problems and challenges....and making `British Chess` work effectively was maybe too daunting a task for some on the BCF board.... Rome was not built in a day...
Creating the right `sharing environment` was the key in my view.....but some folk arent interested in sharing..perhaps.

[Roger de Coverly]

However, I`d quite like to see a joint ticket on this,,,maybe with CJ as President and Roger as Vice President.

Isn't the point of the candidature to seek the "None" vote in the expected contest between CJ and "None of the above"?

[David Robertson]

Oh dear, oh dear! I've just read Roger Edward's election 'manifesto'. While I wish him well in personal terms, he reinforces my long-held opinion that the Board should draft, and Council agree, a 'Person Specification' for the post of President. (If one exists, I've not found it)

As things stand, the post is whatever the incumbent wishes it to be. In a fluid 'start-up' organisation, that may not be such a bad thing. Variety can be tried and tested until an optimum is found to suit the organisation as it matures. But the ECF is a mature, indeed a rather 'set in its ways', organisation. You'd imagine by now it would know what qualities it sought in its President. Yet the past three Presidents have been a snooker player, a bus conductor, and a minor quizshow celebrity. Each has brought to the role pretty much what you'd predict from these backgrounds.

No blame can be attached to the individuals for doing what they know best. The fault, I believe, lies in the absence of any consensus on what we seek from the role. Do we wish a showboater to draw attention to the ECF? Or a safe pair of hands to guide us though awkward times? Someone well-connected in Whitehall, or in business? Or someone well-connected with showbiz, sport, or the media? And so on...

To the specific election this year, putting matters in the most charitable light possible, CJ de Mooi sees the role as Chief Drumbeater-cum-Marketing Director-cum-Fundraiser; whereas Roger Edwards sees the role as some sort of Executive President-cum-CEO. Frankly this won't do. We need a sober debate on what we really need from the role of ECF President, if only to prevent us lurching from one unsatisfactory position to another.

[Sean Hewitt]

Oh dear, oh dear! I've just read Roger Edward's election 'manifesto'. While I wish him well in personal terms, he reinforces my long-held opinion that the Board should draft, and Council agree, a 'Person Specification' for the post of President. (If one exists, I've not found it)

As things stand, the post is whatever the incumbent wishes it to be. In a fluid 'start-up' organisation, that may not be such a bad thing. Variety can be tried and tested until an optimum is found to suit the organisation as it matures. But the ECF is a mature, indeed a rather 'set in its ways', organisation. You'd imagine by now it would know what qualities it sought in its President. Yet the past three Presidents have been a snooker player, a bus conductor, and a minor quizshow celebrity. Each has brought to the role pretty much what you'd predict from these backgrounds.

No blame can be attached to the individuals for doing what they know best. The fault, I believe, lies in the absence of any consensus on what we seek from the role. Do we wish a showboater to draw attention to the ECF? Or a safe pair of hands to guide us though awkward times? Someone well-connected in Whitehall, or in business? Or someone well-connected with showbiz, sport, or the media? And so on...

To the specific election this year, putting matters in the most charitable light possible, CJ de Mooi sees the role as Chief Drumbeater-cum-Marketing Director-cum-Fundraiser; whereas Roger Edwards sees the role as some sort of Executive President-cum-CEO. Frankly this won't do. We need a sober debate on what we really need from the role of ECF President, if only to prevent us lurching from one unsatisfactory position to another.

I agree with this. However the ECF does indeed define the role of President

"Assists the Chairman in the preparation of the agenda for meetings of the Council. Acts as a focal point for the concerns of members and chess players generally; acts as an ambassador for the ECF. Monitors compliance with all agreements between the ECF and Government, sponsors and other external bodies. Liaises with member organisations. Establishes objectives and standards of performance for the Manager of Finance and Management Services, the senior staff appointment. Identifies any staff training, development and welfare requirements. Brings forward recommendations to the Board on organisation, facilities, or staff changes."