ECF accounts

[David Sedgwick]

I understand your concern, but I don't feel that we're yet at the point where drastic action is needed.

By law the Accounts have to be filed at Companies House no later than 9 months after the year end, ie by 31st January 2012. If that is not done, the ECF will incur fines, the amounts of which I believe escalate quite rapidly over time.

Prior to that, the Accounts have to be approved by members ie Council. This can now be done fairly cheaply by email. See Richard Haddrell's report at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/bcf.htm (Item 3).

That report also refers to a suggestion by John Philpott that the problem could be alleviated by a change of year end.

We've suffered from not having a Chairman of the Finance Committee for a couple of years, but the excellent Mike Truran has now agreed to take on this position.

John and Mike are our principal elected or appointed watchdogs and they're both highly competent and conscientious people. I would suggest that, for the present at any rate, we should leave the matter in their hands.

[Sean Hewitt]

Who can request an EGM to further this matter? I mean its a shocking state of affairs really.

It's whatever is required by the Companies Act. I don't have access to it at the moment, but from memory I think it's 10% of those entitled to vote at a General Meeting. So you probably need about 25-27 votes to call an EGM depending on the size of the voting register. Of course, this would be much more difficult to arrange under OMOV than it is now.

[David Sedgwick]

Who can request an EGM to further this matter? I mean its a shocking state of affairs really.

It's whatever is required by the Companies Act. I don't have access to it at the moment, but from memory I think it's 10% of those entitled to vote at a General Meeting. So you probably need about 25-27 votes to call an EGM depending on the size of the voting register. Of course, this would be much more difficult to arrange under OMOV than it is now.

Actually it's now only 5%, as a result of a 2009 amendment to the Companies Act 2006.

So extremely easy currently (14 votes at Council) but very difficult under OMOV (perhaps 500 out of 10,000 members).

[Sean Hewitt]

So extremely easy currently (14 votes at Council)

Especially when you have 17 votes yourself

[John Philpott]

While it is inherently unsatisfactory that the 2011 accounts were not available for the AGM, the Federation does, as David Sedgwick correctly points out, have until 31 January 2012 to file these at Companies House. My suggestion about changing the financial year end, which the Finance Director believes may have some merit, had two distinct drivers.

1. Aiming to have accounts for a financial year ending 30 April approved at an AGM which normally takes place in October means that the period of 9 months allowed by the Companies Act for finalising the accounts is effectively halved if the accounts are to be circulated at the same time the AGM agenda. This creates a quite unnecessary pressure if the Finance Director (a volunteer) has other commitments at the key time.

2. There is a good theoretical case for aligning the financial year with the new membership year of 1 September to 31 August.

That is for the future, and the 2011 accounts still need to be dealt with prior to the deadline. Work has been proceeding and some of the issues have been resolved although others are still in the course of being addressed. As and when the exericse is complete, the accounts will be circulated, with appropriate supporting material, for Council to approve by written resolution. I have not yet quite worked out the implications if Council rejects the accounts! I do not believe that an EGM would achieve any useful purpose.

[E Michael White]

FF to a charitable ECF would make 1 July or 1 Aug a good time for subscriptions to start; thats if the British is used as a fund raising event or to be more precise 14 consecutive 1 day fundraising events if a single event doesnt wash it.

[David Robertson]

So extremely easy currently (14 votes at Council) but very difficult under OMOV (perhaps 500 out of 10,000 members).

...which is one reason why, under my proposals for constitutional & funding reform, I suggested that voting rights be 'partitioned' by fee category. Hence, in my model, 'Gold' membership would vote on the budget/approve the accounts. I'd estimate 'Gold' at c. 1000 ECF members, rising slowly perhaps over time.

I've never supported unrestricted OMOV; it's impracticable under all foreseeable circumstances. OMOV (of 10,000) could be applied to very defined events (election of President, say), but not generally. I say all of this to knock down the 'straw man' argument, to be deployed by those who oppose any franchise change, that OMOV is impractical in every and any case. This is not true.

[Mick Norris]

David

Would it make sense to restrict many OMOV rights to the Platinum category? That way the ECF could raise extra funds from those who want to vote and reward those who choose to pay extra to the ECF

I wonder if, say, the International Director election should have OMOV restricted to at least Gold members, whereas Home Chess might be more appropriate for Silver as well

[David Robertson]

David

Would it make sense to restrict many OMOV rights to the Platinum category? That way the ECF could raise extra funds from those who want to vote and reward those who choose to pay extra to the ECF. I wonder if, say, the International Director election should have OMOV restricted to at least Gold members, whereas Home Chess might be more appropriate for Silver as well

I'd like not to hijack this thread by spending long on this matter here. But a brief response.

You've got the point I've been trying to press: namely, that attaching rights & benefits to fee categories allows ECF to increase its income without increasing fees. Under the Farthing proposals, ECF has no such opportunity. Seems absurd to me. But my model doesn't have a 'Platinum' - why complicate matters? Three bands (and arguably, two) are enough. My thinking hadn't got down to the detail you describe. I can see what you're getting at, although I'm not sure I agree. It seems over-complex to me: I very much favour simplicity in these matters wherever possible. In any event, we're miles away from getting any agreement on the need for franchise reform, never mind the form it might take. Perhaps ECF's crisis isn't yet sufficiently serious. Alas, by the time it is, it may be too late to help

[David Pardoe]

Firstly, if the accounts are in hand, and processes working, then no great need to panic..I guess. And when you`re operating on a `voluntary basis` with people giving up there spare time, its not quite like a real business situation, where paid professionals are in place.

As regards OMOV. I`d like to see this in place throughout the ECF organisational matrix.
If this is driven by email/online voting, on a proportional representative basis, I see scope for all Members to theoretically participate. The core principal, in my view, is not that this `body` should takeover, but merely that it particpates at a significant level as a guidance process rather than a controlling process.
Thus, the delegates and officials would have the signifcant voting power, with the online Members adding weight and providing balance.
For instance, lets say that at the ECF AGM you have 250 delegate votes. Lets say we have 10,000 ordinary members (able to vote online). It might be that you set 1 delegate vote to equal say 50 online votes. That would give an equivalence of 200 online votes to 250 delegate votes, which might not give a bad balance. Given in practice that you wouldnt expect more than 10 - 15% of online votes to actually be cast, the actual online weighting would be small...but 10% does at least allow the `independants` a chance to express views.
You`d also need to limit the situations where this voting process is applied. Maybe initially just to AGMs. Whether this could be extended to allow the raising of proposals `online`, requiring a certain level of support to be adopted as formal business, is another matter.

[Mick Norris]

David

Would it make sense to restrict many OMOV rights to the Platinum category? That way the ECF could raise extra funds from those who want to vote and reward those who choose to pay extra to the ECF. I wonder if, say, the International Director election should have OMOV restricted to at least Gold members, whereas Home Chess might be more appropriate for Silver as well

I'd like not to hijack this thread by spending long on this matter here. But a brief response.

You've got the point I've been trying to press: namely, that attaching rights & benefits to fee categories allows ECF to increase its income without increasing fees. Under the Farthing proposals, ECF has no such opportunity. Seems absurd to me. But my model doesn't have a 'Platinum' - why complicate matters? Three bands (and arguably, two) are enough. My thinking hadn't got down to the detail you describe. I can see what you're getting at, although I'm not sure I agree. It seems over-complex to me: I very much favour simplicity in these matters wherever possible. In any event, we're miles away from getting any agreement on the need for franchise reform, never mind the form it might take. Perhaps ECF's crisis isn't yet sufficiently serious. Alas, by the time it is, it may be too late to help

David

We are introducing a membership scheme with bronze, silver, gold and platinum categories, with the funding assuming no platinum members required to break even - hence my thoughts on incentivising platinum membership as per your excellent proposals

I'll be worried about the ECF accounts when John Philpott is worried

[David Pardoe]

So extremely easy currently (14 votes at Council) but very difficult under OMOV (perhaps 500 out of 10,000 members).

...which is one reason why, under my proposals for constitutional & funding reform, I suggested that voting rights be 'partitioned' by fee category. Hence, in my model, 'Gold' membership would vote on the budget/approve the accounts. I'd estimate 'Gold' at c. 1000 ECF members, rising slowly perhaps over time.

I've never supported unrestricted OMOV; it's impracticable under all foreseeable circumstances. OMOV (of 10,000) could be applied to very defined events (election of President, say), but not generally. I say all of this to knock down the 'straw man' argument, to be deployed by those who oppose any franchise change, that OMOV is impractical in every and any case. This is not true.

Looks like the issues around `accounts` have been pacified for the present. Good luck to these `officials` with the Accounts...and hopefully there are no major holes. Incidently, I wonder how our `membership category charges` have been arrived at, if we dont know the financial position.

I agree your point about the straw man arguement & OMOV.
It seems that what is called for is an actual concrete proposal that the `membership` can give consideration to....
Adam Roofe I think said as much in another thread.
My suggestion is that we try for a limited roll out, which relates specifically to the ECF in the first instance. I`d like to see something similar at some point for `County` & Union chess bodies....this could add a valuable element of `inclusivity` which is missing at present.
So, yes, OMOV is definately a possibility, and certainly could include the full membership, given the right ground rules. I`ve suggested one methodology in broad outline that I think could work in principle for ECF AGM voting.
Attaching different voting rights to differing categories of membership I dont think fits the bill of OMOV...but there might be some specific situations where you need to limit voting.
Many players will not have any interest in voting, no matter how easy the `online` process is.
As regards actual Membership categories, I can see good arguements for possibily creating several groups, without necessarily making things too complicated. These could provide more targetted benefits eg, Family membership, three year membership, and Temporary Membership...with various bells and whistles, which might be helpful to `Chess`...including publicity/literature opportunities.
The MO system, with Game Fee, probably merited more examination, to see whether it could have been made to work more effectively. Maybe it should have been rolled out at the Union/County level, to try to reduce issues of `territory` dispute, etc..... I could certainly see a simplified structure whereby the membership numbers could easily have been doubled, with the right initiatives/incentives. This might have better suited the likes of Yorkshire, who I`m sure could have raised good numbers....but such a scheme would need to factor in FIDE members/players.
However...we`re off down the Membership route, and very good luck to Andrew with his efforts to implement that.
I personally think the scheme currently `undercharges` the majority of the Membership (or a section thereof)..eg League players who play bags of league chess (our category `A` & `B` players), and overcharges the FIDE `club`...but these might be modest adjustments. ie FIDE players @ say £24 & Category `A` & `B` `basic league players` at say £16...certainly if the ECF need to raise more funds.
I certainly dont think chasing the `Platinum` club for money with voting incentives for `outsiders` is a good idea... Lets charge those who `use the service` and are more directly involved, and give them the voting rights.

[Alex Holowczak]

Incidently, I wonder how our `membership category charges` have been arrived at, if we dont know the financial position.

Two points about this:
(1) The figures given in the pre-AGM paper came through looking at statistics provided by the grading database.
(2) Council hasn't set the membership category charges yet; they get set by April's Finance Council meeting.

[David Pardoe]

Alex H..
thanks for your comments above...and I note that `responces` have been moved to another thread called `ECF Membership` by Sean.. which I mention, in part, so that others dont repeat some responces or miss some valid discussion points, and also to avoid confusion....and having new threads just hanging inmid air.
Note... Sean...If you`re going to break chunks off threads and move stuff around to different threads, it would be helpful to tell people.
I think its a tricky business just chopping threads around..there is a broader context to many discussions that could get lost, and valuable discussion points missed.

Harry Lamb & Alex Mc made some interesting points about your above comment `B`, (see the moved thread), which could well have a baring on ECF Accounts/finance, certainly if Congress entries drop, which they might.
The one point I`ll make quickly, regarding Congresses is....has anyone (particularly Congress Organisers), asked the question.... How many entries would I lose if I put the Congress charge up by £6.
The point about this is that many players will just enter there one local Congress, and might be put off if it suddenly became £6 more expensive for them. Now that could, as Harry suggested, have a drastic effect on smaller local Congresses. I`ve heard many players complain about the cost of entry to Congresses, and I can remember when `Mindsports` hit Manchester a few years ago, there were a number of negative comments about entry charges. So this is important (and relevant) in the context of ECF Accounts...and Expenses...and local Congresses. That might even include some of Seans e2e4 events. Take a look at this w/e entries for the Brighton event...there are loads of local entries, which are vital to the success of many Congresses.
I`m wondering if this was one of the things that David Robertson was eluding to when he mentioned (earlier in this thread), the possible further demise of the ECF unless things were changed.

[Roger de Coverly]

The one point I`ll make quickly, regarding Congresses is....has anyone (particularly Congress Organisers), asked the question.... How many entries would I lose if I put the Congress charge up by £6.

The parallel question for rapid-play organisers anyway, is whether players will pay an extra £ 6 to have a rapid-play grade and for the event to be included in their grade. So you add an extra section or two to your event, membership not required, with the caveat that it won't be graded.

Whilst you might reduce the new Silver members' price from £ 15 to £ 14 or £ 13 to reflect the removal of current Game Fee, you are increasing the non-member/ non Silver member price from £ 15 to £ 19 or £ 20.

For standard play events, I suppose the perception is that players will accept the extra £ 6. Or will they? How popular would an non-graded non-membership section be?