I'd like to start a dialogue here.

In my opinion, the CV election process needs to be examined and possibly even constitutional changes need to be examined, because I don't think many people are happy with votes being given to existing CV committee members, or life members.

The CV exec is supposed to be decided upon by the clubs, as they are its constituent members, and personally I don't think life members and CV exec members as individuals should have the same voting rights.

I'd like to start a dialogue here.

In my opinion, the CV election process needs to be examined and possibly even constitutional changes need to be examined, because I don't think many people are happy

with votes being given to existing CV committee members,

or life members.

The CV exec is supposed to be decided upon by the clubs, as they are its constituent members,

and personally I don't think life members and CV exec members as individuals should have the same voting rights.

The current CV exec have started on the right foot, listening to the clubs and trying to provide initiatives that would benefit Victorian Chess....I hope they would also look at this, whether changes happen or not

I 100% agree with this idea.
The simple fact is that Oysters is the person responsible for this current status quo. He was the person who changed the constitution to reflect the current situation. Given that GM Johansen has historically been a vehement critic of Oysters. It would be nice for him to suggest some constitutional changes from the top.


It is always possible to change this democratically from the floor. The clubs need to put specific constitutional changes to the next annual general meeting. I think you have to write out your reform proposal and get it placed on annual general business.

cheers,

I for one would like to participate, so thanks for the invitation. Hopefully the topic receives quite some posts. I would like to suggest that you agree to move this to a specific thread. I say this because I am sure your thesis is not based on the current Executive, but in fact is designed to govern future elections.

I guess the evidence that you have is gained from conversations because the topic has not appeared before on this site, nor the ACF Officials' board at chesschat.

In my view there is nothing at all in this point you raise. In my experience most AGMs are conducted with attendance of less than 40% of potential delegates. In fact, many non-attending Clubs seek out an Executive member and ask them to be proxy for the Club. I think in practice, (even in a contested election we saw in November 2009), you would find the executive able to vote as a Club delegate even if you got the Constitution changed to remove section 3(b) at Constitution and acts.
In short, if you delete 3(b), I suggest the Executive would have no trouble getting votes at 3(a).

Personally, I find this an odd position of yours. When the Association votes to make an individual a LM it is presumably in recognition of sterling service that has been aligned to the objectives of the Association. It thus entitles the LM's to a vote at the AGM, and absolutely nothing else, as far as I am aware.
If the single recognition of substance is taken away (i.e. the right to vote) then it is a rather hollow honour to be a LM.

Your supposition is clearly incorrect. The constituent members of the Association are 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c).

Which requires someone to move a Constitutional change.

It was not on their public platform made before the November 2009 AGM.

......

....

So I'll be very happy to go with whatever the majority of people feel is right, but I think the topic needs to be raised and discussed

Here, on the right hand side of the screen is the only place I can think of where there has been a straw poll on priorities.

Revision of the Constitution was bottom result on the totem pole.

I guess most of us have long memories of the AGM's that used to get bogged down in Oysters' "..move that subsection c(i) of para 2(b) be replaced by the words c(ii)it does not matter."



regards
MOZ*

Currently, at CV AGM there are 3 groups entitled to vote for executive positions.

1. Club delegates.
2. The incumbent CV executive
3. Life Members of CV

However, I personally think this is unfair and undemocratic. A club delegate represents as many as 20 individuals, while Life Members and Exec's get one vote per person. I personally believe that only club delegates should be allowed to vote at the CV election, and I would welcome the imput on others into this debate.

Are you suggesting we should take this unofficial list as a set of priorities for which CV should deal with things?
...............

I'll move this debate to a separate thread and start a mirror on chesschat.

This is the Cordover election whinge resurfaced. Did not like the result wants to move the goal posts.

It should be one person, one vote - and only for people who actually bother to show up at the AGM, or send in their proxy vote.

This is the Cordover election whinge resurfaced. Did not like the result wants to move the goal posts.

Are you suggesting that we should discount the list of a reasonably well-supported candidate, who updated his BLOG as recently as Australia day?

The thought ^ suggests a comment to me.....there has been little debate on opinions of why the elections went the way they did.
Priorities?
Team support?
Election manifesto?
Other?