Papers for ECF Council meeting 12th April 2014

[Roger de Coverly]

The agenda and some of the supporting papers have now appeared at the ECF website.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -final.pdf

Some headlines

Mike Gunn is recalled to chair it.

No membership amounts are recommended to change although the £ 1 discount for on-line and MO membership isn't mentioned.

They want to increase the penalty for playing chess whilst not an ECF member from £ 2.00 to £ 2.25. although they face a motion from Hastings chess club to cut this to 50p for club internal games.

There's a proposal that the BCF's Permanent Invested Fund (PIF) be stripped bare and handed to the proposed new charity. The paper in support of this hasn't been published, but to the extent that the PIF represents emergency assets as well as an income source, is it right to put it all under charitable status where it might not be possible to touch it in the event of a financial emergency?

[MartinCarpenter]

"Unless there is overwhelming support for the Board’s proposals on a show of hands, a card vote will be held to fix the rates on the basis of the median of the votes cast"

Meant to imply something sensible I'm sure, but taken on face value that really would be a rather interesting voting system

[Alex Holowczak]

"Unless there is overwhelming support for the Board’s proposals on a show of hands, a card vote will be held to fix the rates on the basis of the median of the votes cast"

Meant to imply something sensible I'm sure, but taken on face value that really would be a rather interesting voting system

It made sense when the voting was a choice of rates between 48p, 50p or 52p, or anything of that ilk. The nightmare scenario now is if the Game Fee rate is a mix of £2, £2.25, or some other number, thereby putting the median somewhere unhelpful.

Of course, if > 50% of people vote for any one individual Game Fee rate, then it is automatically the median.

[JustinHorton]

A very small point but I think you will need to incorporate a comma after "unwilling to act".

[Steve Rooney]

There's a proposal that the BCF's Permanent Invested Fund (PIF) be stripped bare and handed to the proposed new charity. The paper in support of this hasn't been published, but to the extent that the PIF represents emergency assets as well as an income source, is it right to put it all under charitable status where it might not be possible to touch it in the event of a financial emergency?

I share your concerns, Roger.

It looks as if the supporting papers will not be published until perhaps two weeks before the meeting. Given that the charity proposal is a fundamental change in the ECF's structure, it really needs an extensive consultation period.

In a disparate, voluntary organisation, voting representatives cannot possibly conduct any meaningful consultation in that timescale even on simple items. Something as complex as the charitable trust proposals require at least as much consultation on the detail and background reasoning as was given to the change to a membership structure under Andrew Farthing's leadership.

It is far better for the ECF to proceed a bit slower and ensure the right decision is made, than rush headlong into a fundamental change that may not be easy to reverse.

[Angus French]

A very small point but I think you will need to incorporate a comma after "unwilling to act".

Ah, if this is a reference to the motion on the chairing of Board Meetings then I think the comma is there - in the original text.

Council is asked to consider and if thought fit approve an amendment to Articles to provide the same flexibility over the chairing of Board meetings by a Director other than the Chief Executive as applies to the chairing of Council meetings by a director other than the President:
“that Article 63 which currently states:

The Chief Executive shall preside as chairman of the Board but if at any meeting he is not present within five minutes after the time appointed for holding the same, the Directors present may choose one of their number to be chairman of the meeting

be amended by inserting the words “or is unwilling to act” after “the same”.

I'm not sure I understand the motion though: Why would the Chief Executive be unwilling to chair a Board Meeting? This responsibility was added at the 2013 AGM, as part of the decision to remove the post of Non-executive Chairman. It fits with my perception of the role of the Chief Executive: as the leader of the Board.

In theory there would also be a corresponding change to Regulation No. 2 (the Directors and Officers Responsibilities) but an update to that Regulation, which I thought had been approved at the 2013 AGM (motion here), doesn’t appear to be in the current published version.

Council is asked to note the following revisions to the responsibilities for the President and Chief Executive, which the Board would then substitute into Regulation No. 2, the Directors and Officers Responsibilities Regulations.
.
.
“Chief Executive:
Chairs meetings of the Board and manages the agenda and documentation for those meetings”.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not sure I understand the motion though: Why would the Chief Executive be unwilling to chair a Board Meeting?

In the event of a no-confidence in the CEO motion from the fellow directors a near-neutral party to chair the meeting might be desirable.

[Michael Flatt]

Amending the Articles merely to say someone other than the Chief Executive can chair the meeting seems rather a pointless exercise.

Surely it is in the Chief Executives gift to delegate chairing the meeting to another board member if for some reason he cannot undertake this function himself on a particular occasion.

Also, as it is an integral part of the Chief Executives role why would he want to cede this responsibility and lose control of the meeting?

[Stewart Reuben]

Angus French >
I'm not sure I understand the motion though: Why would the Chief Executive be unwilling to chair a Board Meeting?<

Because he wants to step down from the chair for one or more items. Phil Ehr, as chief executive, abstained on the Andrew Paulson Presidency issue because he also chaired the meeting. Yet he felt strongly about the matter and had the right to vote.

[Angus French]

Angus French >
I'm not sure I understand the motion though: Why would the Chief Executive be unwilling to chair a Board Meeting?<

Because he wants to step down from the chair for one or more items. Phil Ehr, as chief executive, abstained on the Andrew Paulson Presidency issue because he also chaired the meeting. Yet he felt strongly about the matter and had the right to vote.

I think the motion concerns meetings rather than items in meetings.
Don't the Articles of Association allow the Chairman not to take a neutral stance in Board Meetings by giving him or her up to two votes - with the second as a casting vote?

In the case of an equality of votes the chairman shall have a second or casting vote.

[Roger de Coverly]

The papers on the proposed asset stripping of the BCF Permanent Investment Fund are now available.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -paper.pdf

For the benefit of the voting membership, I would have though a "Janet and John" summary should be made available.

Basically
(a) what are the advantages of the proposed new structure? I guessing that it reduces or eliminates taxation on investment returns.
(b) what are the disadvantages of the proposed new structure? Inability to support ENG teams in the Olympiad or the European Championships is certainly one and supporting the British Championship Congress is potentially another. It would also seem to rule out any VAT exemptions and the possibility of Gift Aid.

Bur it might be the best plausible solution, since dividing the ECF into two seemed fraught with problems. I'd think you would want to know that setting up a separate English Junior Chess Federation wasn't a viable option. For that matter you could spilt by region. Let the Unions which are obviously amateur become the charities. Using a chess metaphor, are the voting membership satisfied that the ECF Board have considered all the candidate moves?

[Roger de Coverly]

The background in favour of the Board's stance on the ECU elections has now appeared on the ECF website.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... sembly.pdf

As far as I can see, it says little about why the ECF should want the head-butting Georgian as ECU President and nothing about why ECF voting membership should support the deal, other than that it's part of a severance package.

[Neil Graham]

Because of all the problems that have beset the Federation, I have pleasure in announcing a new group ECIP, the English Chess Independent Party.

The “C” is, off course hard, so the party sounds like another national group. We will follow their lead and demand that the ECF immediately leaves the ECU which is clearly a gravy train for ex-Presidents, European chess bureaucrats and the like. Our immediate aim is to have an ECIP nominee elected to the ECF Presidency. Anyone with no experience of English chess or perhaps a television personality is welcome to apply for this post. Should you have years of working tirelessly in chess administration in England please don’t bother – what we need is someone with media clout able to make chess the next big thing on the box. Where baking, sewing, dancing and skating have gone, chess can follow. “Master Chef”? –no; “Master Chess”? – yes! From such beginnings we can see how chess can sweep the nation with such offerings as “I’m a Chess Player – get me out of here” where enthusiasts are thrown out of a four star hotel for eating their own food smuggled into the venue in the “chesstucker” trails or perhaps watch Gary Lineker introduce all the action from the 4NCL in “Match of the Day” with incisive comments from Alan Hanson – “those pawns were all square as Adams sent his queen straight through the middle of the defence”.

As for the present ECF Board well what can one say? We need them to be swept aside and replaced by ECIP nominees who are more attuned to our new way of thinking. We’ve had Chessboxing so why not Chesswrestling or ChessIronman? The possibilities are endless. How about the FIDE Lottery live where players draw four numbers to get their new rating? I am sure that there are many organisers and players who would like to join ECIP and stand for a position on the ECF Board or indeed simply become a member. Initial applications will be closed at midday today.

[Roger de Coverly]

There's a new paper on "Transformation" at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... mation.pdf

Apart from a general feeling that parts of it would benefit from a translation into English, a key point seems to be

Maintain restrictions on the size of the Board but realign executive director responsibilities
by function, such as below.
Note in this structure the mutual support required, as distinct from the current structure that is sometimes regarded as three largely independent business units (home, international, junior) operating autonomously.

Is there evidence that the current functional split is broken?

You would also have to check the cost of the changes. If they resulted in making the ECF more expensive to run, that would be a possible condition for rejecting changes.

On voting rights, it says this

Re-balance representation at Council among players, arbiters, organisers, coaches and reporters.

That doesn't seem to suggest any element whatsoever of direct elections of either Board or Council members.

Two Non-executive Directors
at least one from outside the chess community

I know there have been Directors who were so interested in chess, that they never played, but on a small Board, what is the point of having disinterested passengers?

[Michael Flatt]

There's a new paper on "Transformation" at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... mation.pdf

Like many Policy Papers its lofty aims are obscured by gobbledygook and padding. Basically, it is all rather meaningless until specific proposals are tabled to change the Articles and Structure of the organisation. Each initiative should be dealt with on its own merits.

Selected officials are to be remunerated. Will this be fixed salary with performance bonuses or self employed and commission based?
How does this affect the proposal for Charity Status? Is the ECF to become a purely commercial venture?

Reorganising existing individuals into different grouping does nothing to improve representation or accountability.

A new Forum to submit comments, not open to comments, and not accepted as part of the formal submission system which is entirely separate is a complete and utter waste of everyone's time and effort.

I would have to agree with RdC, why would anyone not from the chess world want to become involved in an organisation that holds no interest for them? Unless, of course, there is some as yet unspecified financial compensation.