ECF demands more money

[David Robertson]

The Club should replace all other bodies as the basic point of reference for every player

Since The Club is where the vast majority of chess is played and club members provide the vast majority of ECF funding, surely that goes without saying?

No. It does not go without saying. If it did, I wouldn't have said it.

As I have explained (and protested) repeatedly over the past seven years or more, the Club is the one and primary connection between the individual player and the ECF. It is the first and principal unit of association that a player joins. Yet it is the only unit of association that is unrecognised anywhere in the ECF's structure. It is an absurd and unsustaiunable state of affairs. Remedies are urgently needed if ECF's financial and policy-making arrangements are to be properly aligned.

[Mike Truran]

An entirely sensible observation, which I predict will be entirely ignored by both forum posters and the ECF.

Except of course by the Sage of Bourne End, who will no doubt have something to say on the matter.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Compulsory club membership is the French system.

Also Italy and Germany are structured like that (and likely many other as well): the equivalent of the ECF council is an assembly of club representatives, each holding a number of votes proportional to the number of club members; also the federation requires the club representative to be elected by the club members. OMOV and accountability of representatives, simple and effective. If you want to allow direct membership, then you have no other way than direct election of the board by members or leave direct member un-represesented.

[Mike Truran]

As an appendix to Paolo's post, this from the Satzung und Ordnung section of the DSB website:

(1) Mitglieder des Bundes sind:
1. als Mitgliedsorganisationen:
a) die Landesverbände,
b) sonstige Schachorganisationen;
2. die Ehrenpräsidenten und Ehrenmitglieder des Bundes.

(2) Schachvereine und Schachabteilungen sowie deren Einzelmitglieder sind kraft ihrer Zugehörigkeit zu
einem dem Bund angehörigen Landesverband mittelbar auch Mitglieder des Bundes und in dieser
Eigenschaft den Ordnungen des Bundes unterworfen.

It basically says that both clubs and the individual club members are members of the DSB through their membership of the various county organisations (OK, not counties as we know them, but you know what I mean).

To be fair though, that in itself isn't probably isn't that different from the ECF's own statutes. I haven't (yet) been able to track down anything in the DSB's statutes which sets out anything like the club-driven voting process that Paolo describes. Paolo - I may be looking in entirely the wrong place. If so, my apologies.

I'm afraid my Italian isn't of a sufficient standard to comment.

[Brian Towers]

Compulsory club membership is the French system.

Also Italy and Germany are structured like that (and likely many other as well): the equivalent of the ECF council is an assembly of club representatives, each holding a number of votes proportional to the number of club members; also the federation requires the club representative to be elected by the club members. OMOV and accountability of representatives, simple and effective. If you want to allow direct membership, then you have no other way than direct election of the board by members or leave direct member un-represesented.

Isn't that just typical of those perfidious continentals?

I demand the ECF put in an official complaint to FIDE against that kind of cheating behavior! How dare they implement a sensible, logical, fair system like that. Ban them! Bring a legal case if you have to! Whatever you don 't take your heads out of that warm comforting sand.

[Mike Truran]

Brian

If you had taken the trouble to read my post you may have spotted that things (in Germany at least) may not be that simple.

Maybe we should wait to hear from Paolo about Germany. As I said earlier, I can't comment about Italy.

Mike

[Brian Towers]

Mike, if you look at the times you'll see that you posted while I was composing my post.

Having lived and worked in Munich for 4 years in the mid 90's I should be able to tell you all about the German chess scene but unfortunately I can't. I was a mad keen skier and the skiing just across the border in Austria and getting and keeping fit for skiing were, understandably, a much higher priority for me. I did get as far as getting a list of names and addresses of chess clubs in Munich. There were hundreds. In particular there was one in a pub about 10 minutes walk from work but I never got as far as even going to the pub for a pint. In Munich you're spoilt for choice not just for chess clubs but for pubs as well.

What Paolo describes is typical of the way the Germans run just about everything, not just chess. For a glaring example, compare and contrast German and British industrial relations and the roles of government and unions and the way workers and their interests are represented. Enough said. You could call it "The English Disease".

[Paolo Casaschi]

Paolo - I may be looking in entirely the wrong place. If so, my apologies.

I'm afraid my Italian isn't of a sufficient standard to comment.

I'm quite sure about the situation in Italy; my assumptions about Germany comes from discussions with friends, so I might be wrong there.

[Brian Towers]

This, by the way, what German Wikipedia has to say -

Der Deutsche Schachbund e. V. (DSB) ist die Dachorganisation der Schachspieler in Deutschland. Er ist Mitglied im Deutschen Olympischen Sportbund und seit 1926 (mit Unterbrechungen) im Weltschachverband FIDE. Der DSB hat derzeit (Januar 2010) etwa 87.000 Mitglieder, davon 30.000 Jugendliche, in 2500 Vereinen und gehört damit zu den größten Schachverbänden der Welt. Zum DSB gehören 17 Landesverbände, der Deutsche Blinden- und Sehbehinderten-Schachbund (DBSB), seit 1972 Schwalbe (1924 gegründete deutsche Vereinigung für Problemschach), seit September 2006 der Deutsche Fernschachbund sowie seit Mai 2007 der Verein Schachbundesliga e. V.

Loosely translated:

The German Chess Federation (DSB) is the governing body [Dachorganisation = "roof organization" literally, so make your own interpretation if you will] for chess players in Germany. It is a member of the German Olympic Federation and a member of FIDE since 1926 (with "interruptions" ). As of January 2010 the DSB has about 87,000 members, of which 30,000 are juniors [gulp!] in 2500 clubs and is one of the largest chess federations in the world. 17 regional bodies [the Laender correspond to regions rather than counties. Bavaria would, I suspect crush any English county and probably most English regions], the German Blind and Partially Sighted chess federation belong to the DSB. Since 1972 the German Problem Solving Organization (established in 1924), since September 2006 the German Chess Correspondence Organization and since 2007 the German Chess Bundesliga [really? they were independent before then?] have also been members of the DSB.

The emphasis there seems to be on chess players and clubs. Of course you have to go back to the time of the birth of the DSB and before to see world class German chess players able to challenge for the world title. If that is how you measure success then the DSB has been a relative failure. If, however, you look not at the interests of the Miles, Shorts and Adams of this world but at the interests of the people who pay the bulk of the money into these organizations it is a different story.

[Mike Truran]

Brian

If, however, you look not at the interests of the Miles, Shorts and Adams of this world but at the interests of the people who pay the bulk of the money into these organizations it is a different story.

Again, I fear I must disagree. I have been unable to find any confirmation that every German club (let alone club member) has a direct voting influence at national level (any more than English clubs have such an influence). The fact that the DSB has 80,000 + members may just be a function of how they choose to organise their financing model as an adjunct to club membership (I suspect this number is far greater than the number of active chess players in England, but no doubt the usual suspect can set the record straight).

So until someone can unearth some evidence that German clubs have a direct voting influence at national level I remain unconvinced. Based on what Paolo tells us, however, the Italian model does give the clubs direct representation at national level. Paolo - could you maybe point us in the direction of the statutes that enshrine this? Ideally with a translation!

Mike

[LawrenceCooper]

A detailed response by David Eustace on the question of proposed membership fee increases: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... 5&start=20

[Paolo Casaschi]

Based on what Paolo tells us, however, the Italian model does give the clubs direct representation at national level. Paolo - could you maybe point us in the direction of the statutes that enshrine this? Ideally with a translation

This documents are the bylaws that defines what the Italian Chess Federation (FSI = Federazione Scacchistica Italiana) is and how it operates:
http://www.federscacchi.it/doc/reg/d201 ... tatuto.pdf
The last portion of the first item (Art 1, 1) defines that the FSI is the federation of the Italian chess clubs and chess associations; this means the members of the FSI are the clubs, not the individual people.
Art 3 to Art 7 describe the requirements for chess clubs/associations to be member of FSI: among other requirements, the club/associations must accept a number of FSI operational requirements, the need to share to FSI their bylaws and they need to be managed by elected officials (elected by the club/association members)
Art 8 describes the roles of individuals (players, managers, instructors, arbiters); players and managers join the FSI through a club/association; instructors and arbiters can join the FSI (if not already a player/manager) directly as part of the "book of instructors/arbiters"
Art 13, Art 14 describe the "national assembly", the equivalent of council: the national assembly is made of: the presidents of clubs/associations, the representatives of the regional players assemblies and the representatives of the regional instructors assemblies; regional assemblies and sort of equivalent of counties, arranged as associations of the clubs in that area see from Art 30; I'm also not 100% sure on the interpretation here, but it seems that the club/associations presidents have about 70% of the votes, the representatives of the regional players assemblies have 20% and the representatives of the regional instructors assemblies have 10%. Side note, there is a strict limit on the number of proxies each person can have, that depends on the total number of clubs/associations in the assembly: if there are less than 100 clubs/association, then only one proxy is allowed per person, then it grows up to 6 proxies in case there are more than 2000 clubs/associations.
Another note, the "Consiglio Federale" equivalent of the board is elected for a 4 years term.

The current setup has been devised around 20 years ago or so, when the FSI joined CONI (the national olympic committee) that in exchange of a number of benefits (both directly financially with access to public funding and indirectly because of the easier access to sponsorship... if you are an association asking for sponsoring money from a bank or other private company, you gain more trust by being part of CONI) imposed a number of requirements: the hierarchical structure without "direct members" (people joining FSI without being member of a club/association, those were allowed before that time), the acceptance of CONI as ultimate supervisor (for example, as ultimate arbiter for internal disputes; or in case of irregularities CONI can appoint an emergency administrator).