ECF demands more money

[Jonathan Bryant]

...That said the the system of Council passing or rejecting the proposed budget is inherently problematic. It’s not council who’ll have to pay what they agree to is it?

It’s a simple 'taxation without representation' problem.

You are represented – if you’re a player (as most members are), by the leagues and tournaments etc. in which you play; and, through direct members’ representatives.

No Angus. You’re simply wrong.

I’m represented as a player, maybe, but not as a payer.

And, yes, I know that there are direct members' representatives. But their numbers are tiny in relation to the whole and therefore their 'representation' lacks any real meaning. It makes no difference who they are - they could be you or me - the issue remains the same.

[Julie Denning]

Julie Denning wrote:
On this supposed "taxation without representation" what are you doing about it!!? If you don't think those who are meant to represent you ....
.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

With respect, you have clearly not understood the point being made.

I did not refer specifically to anyone but I did have a couple of previous posts in mind when writing the latter parts of mine.

Firstly, your post, Jonathan, where you used the expression "taxation without representation", having already said "It's not Council who'll have to pay what they agree to is it?". I'm confident the vast majority, if not indeed all, delegates to Council are graded chess players who incur membership or game fees. I'm intrigued as to who you might understand pays mine if not myself.

Secondly, Chris Rice responded to you:

I'd echo that Jon. I don't have an issue with the level of the fees. The basic point to me is that the ECF can't run without our membership fees yet members get no real say in the running of it. I want a vote. I don't want to be fobbed off with some members representative acting like some kind of fourth official at a football match, I don't want to rely on Council acting in my best interests, I want an actual vote in the running of the ECF that I am helping to fund. Why is that so difficult to put into practice?

I'm not into football, so perhaps you need to assist me on part of that response, but I'm confident I was correct in interpreting it as not complimentary to Council delegates. I maintain that if anyone isn't content with how they are being represented then they should get on to those representatives to do better or, ultimately, stand against them and do better themselves.

I did not invent the ECF Council system, nor am I seeking to defend or justify it. However, I'm confident that I'm not alone in doing my best to make the system we have work in as democratic a way as we can. We don't know what the Constitutional and Governance Review might come up with and perhaps it will result in something more to your, and Chris', liking. On the face of it, a move towards one person - one vote might appear very democratic, but I wonder just how many people would actually bother to get involved and vote. Many of the regular contributors to this blog no doubt would, but I suspect the majority of club players would not. Indeed, many would probably rarely, if ever, visit the ECF website or take the trouble to find out what's going on.

The current system should provide players with a vote, albeit in a rather convoluted way via clubs, leagues, county associations or whatever in deciding who should represent them at Council. This is not altogether different from the political system whereby we elect MPs to represent us rather than each of us voting directly on everything the executive proposes. It may not work perfectly, but please resist kicking those who are trying to make it work in the interests of all.

For the record, I personally support a simple membership scheme over an administratively complex game fee system, but that doesn't stop me splitting card votes where appropriate to reflect the range of views expressed to me from those I represent. If you care to check the Minutes from last year's Finance Council you will note I was one of those who spoke (and voted) against the rise in game fee proposed then.

So, I thank you for your respect but suspect we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to who understands what.

[Chris Rice]

Secondly, Chris Rice responded to you:

I'd echo that Jon. I don't have an issue with the level of the fees. The basic point to me is that the ECF can't run without our membership fees yet members get no real say in the running of it. I want a vote. I don't want to be fobbed off with some members representative acting like some kind of fourth official at a football match, I don't want to rely on Council acting in my best interests, I want an actual vote in the running of the ECF that I am helping to fund. Why is that so difficult to put into practice?

I'm not into football, so perhaps you need to assist me on part of that response, but I'm confident I was correct in interpreting it as not complimentary to Council delegates. I maintain that if anyone isn't content with how they are being represented then they should get on to those representatives to do better or, ultimately, stand against them and do better themselves.

I did not invent the ECF Council system, nor am I seeking to defend or justify it. However, I'm confident that I'm not alone in doing my best to make the system we have work in as democratic a way as we can. We don't know what the Constitutional and Governance Review might come up with and perhaps it will result in something more to your, and Chris', liking. On the face of it, a move towards one person - one vote might appear very democratic, but I wonder just how many people would actually bother to get involved and vote. Many of the regular contributors to this blog no doubt would, but I suspect the majority of club players would not. Indeed, many would probably rarely, if ever, visit the ECF website or take the trouble to find out what's going on.

The current system should provide players with a vote, albeit in a rather convoluted way via clubs, leagues, county associations or whatever in deciding who should represent them at Council. This is not altogether different from the political system whereby we elect MPs to represent us rather than each of us voting directly on everything the executive proposes. It may not work perfectly, but please resist kicking those who are trying to make it work in the interests of all.

For the record, I personally support a simple membership scheme over an administratively complex game fee system, but that doesn't stop me splitting card votes where appropriate to reflect the range of views expressed to me from those I represent. If you care to check the Minutes from last year's Finance Council you will note I was one of those who spoke (and voted) against the rise in game fee proposed then.

So, I thank you for your respect but suspect we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to who understands what.

On the football analogy Julie a fourth official is someone who stands on the touchline and apart from putting up a digital board showing the substitutions and how much added time there is to play appears to be there solely to allow managers to have someone to vent to regarding, as the managers see it, the unjustified decisions of the referees. That's very much how I see the members representatives and the fourth official doesn't have the authority to actually do anything except reflect the views of the managers to the referee. So it was not a comment on the performance of the Council delegates as such, they can only do what they are allowed to. This was I guess Jon's reasoning for saying you misunderstood his comments.

However, having said that I was surprised at your response, which I assumed was aimed at Jon but now appears aimed at me and Paolo, amongst others, as well. We basically have the same concerns that we didn't feel properly represented which has clearly been exacerbated by the almost total lack of communication from the powers that be at the ECF. As far as I can see this is a legitimate concern. Therefore one would expect that such views would be cascaded to the ECF Board rather than effectively being told to stop being a baby and that we should feel lucky we have any representation at all. If that is your view then its little wonder we are in the position we are in is it? The problems are easily solvable but they have to start with the ECF Board treating its members with some respect, engage them for their views and empower them. To say that the members might not use votes given to them, may be accurate, but its the same democratic principle that operates with any election. That at least we have the right to vote for decisions that are made by an organisation that we, the members, provide the majority of funding for and not whether we choose to exercise that right.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm intrigued as to who you might understand pays mine if not myself.

Not all Council members pay the same. Indeed there's a proposal at this year's meeting that FIDE rated players and Congress players should pay more of the ECF's bills than they currently do. Up to a point, that just reverses some of the effects of introducing the membership scheme, that Council voted to up the costs to club players to the benefit of Congress players who were also active in leagues.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

With respect, you have clearly not understood the point being made.

I did not refer specifically to anyone but I did have a couple of previous posts in mind when writing the latter parts of mine.

Firstly, your post, Jonathan, where you used the expression "taxation without representation", having already said "It's not Council who'll have to pay what they agree to is it?". I'm confident the vast majority, if not indeed all, delegates to Council are graded chess players who incur membership or game fees.

Once again, your response demonstrates that you do not understand the point being made.

[Mick Norris]

I'm not into football, so perhaps you need to assist me on part of that response, but I'm confident I was correct in interpreting it as not complimentary to Council delegates. I maintain that if anyone isn't content with how they are being represented then they should get on to those representatives to do better or, ultimately, stand against them and do better themselves.

I did not invent the ECF Council system, nor am I seeking to defend or justify it. However, I'm confident that I'm not alone in doing my best to make the system we have work in as democratic a way as we can. We don't know what the Constitutional and Governance Review might come up with and perhaps it will result in something more to your, and Chris', liking. On the face of it, a move towards one person - one vote might appear very democratic, but I wonder just how many people would actually bother to get involved and vote. Many of the regular contributors to this blog no doubt would, but I suspect the majority of club players would not. Indeed, many would probably rarely, if ever, visit the ECF website or take the trouble to find out what's going on.

The current system should provide players with a vote, albeit in a rather convoluted way via clubs, leagues, county associations or whatever in deciding who should represent them at Council. This is not altogether different from the political system whereby we elect MPs to represent us rather than each of us voting directly on everything the executive proposes. It may not work perfectly, but please resist kicking those who are trying to make it work in the interests of all.

For the record, I personally support a simple membership scheme over an administratively complex game fee system, but that doesn't stop me splitting card votes where appropriate to reflect the range of views expressed to me from those I represent. If you care to check the Minutes from last year's Finance Council you will note I was one of those who spoke (and voted) against the rise in game fee proposed then.

So, I thank you for your respect but suspect we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to who understands what.

Julie, I am aware that you chaired October's AGM, and by all accounts you did a good job, for which we thank you - I think most of us don't have a big issue with the small number of diligent Council reps like yourself

You would know the figures better than me, but there were 318 votes available in October - any voters not attending could appoint a proxy, but some didn't bother thus leaving their players with no representation - e.g. the vote on adjudications had 223 votes cast, were there 95 abstentions? FIDE delegate was 240 total votes, 78 abstentions?

So, under the current system, lots of Council members don't attend (which is ok, its a long way for many), and some don't bother to appoint a proxy (which isn't acceptable is it?)

OMOV - will everyone attend? No
Will everyone vote by post/online/in person/proxy? No
Would this system be better than Council? Yes

[Julie Denning]

We basically have the same concerns that we didn't feel properly represented which has clearly been exacerbated by the almost total lack of communication from the powers that be at the ECF.

That, Chris, is a rather different point and not one I disagree with. This extends not only to Board Minutes (which Council members have raised) but also to Council Minutes. To my certain knowledge, the chairs of the last 2 Council meetings were not shown drafts within the 10 weeks specified by ECF Procedures. In the first case this was despite a draft having been provided to the Board within 10 days and not altered in any material ways by the Board. In the most recent case I understand draft Minutes were only provided very late. I trust next month's Council meeting will pass the proposal from the Governance Committee to cut the time limits for consideration by the chairman of the meeting and Board to 4 weeks and for publication to 6 weeks, and that these limits will be adhered to. Still not exactly speedy, but better than at present. As to Board Minutes or other matters, I agree there's still a need to pressure the Board on this.

If you are characterising my comments as saying you "should feel lucky [to] have any representation at all", then I'm not sure how you arrive at that. My comments were intended to convey that I believe Council delegates should be representing their membership in as democratic a way as they can, and deserve to be challenged if they don't - but please don't fire a broadside at all of us as if we're all some kind of enemy species!

[Roger de Coverly]

To my certain knowledge, the chairs of the last 2 Council meetings were not shown drafts within the 10 weeks specified by ECF Procedures.

In the case of Council meetings, such is the level of unofficial reporting, that late preparation of the formal Minutes is a procedural rather than factual issue. It's the Board meetings where in the absence of Minutes or a summary of any decisions made, that those who should be monitoring the Board, such as Council members, have no information either to raise issues in their own right or to feed them down to those they represent.

I can understand that a Board doesn't want to seem to be feuding in public, but total silence for six months at a time just gives the impression that the ECF is an organisation irrelevant to English chess existing only to collect money.

[Chris Rice]

We basically have the same concerns that we didn't feel properly represented which has clearly been exacerbated by the almost total lack of communication from the powers that be at the ECF.

That, Chris, is a rather different point and not one I disagree with. This extends not only to Board Minutes (which Council members have raised) but also to Council Minutes. To my certain knowledge, the chairs of the last 2 Council meetings were not shown drafts within the 10 weeks specified by ECF Procedures. In the first case this was despite a draft having been provided to the Board within 10 days and not altered in any material ways by the Board. In the most recent case I understand draft Minutes were only provided very late. I trust next month's Council meeting will pass the proposal from the Governance Committee to cut the time limits for consideration by the chairman of the meeting and Board to 4 weeks and for publication to 6 weeks, and that these limits will be adhered to. Still not exactly speedy, but better than at present. As to Board Minutes or other matters, I agree there's still a need to pressure the Board on this.

I certainly hope these changes help but it does make you wonder why its not obvious to whoever is delaying the minutes being produced that they should be getting them done, or approved, or signed off, or whatever a lot faster. I think a point has been made on here quite a few times that we don't really need the full minutes just a quick summary of the decisions reached. Still I don't really have any issues with what you say here.

We basically have the same concerns that we didn't feel properly represented which has clearly been exacerbated by the almost total lack of communication from the powers that be at the ECF.

If you are characterising my comments as saying you "should feel lucky [to] have any representation at all", then I'm not sure how you arrive at that. My comments were intended to convey that I believe Council delegates should be representing their membership in as democratic a way as they can, and deserve to be challenged if they don't - but please don't fire a broadside at all of us as if we're all some kind of enemy species!

I think I'm probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Your belief that members reps should be representing their membership in as democratic a way as they can, is a noble one and I applaud you for that. However, I can't see how you can say its democratic when the universe that they represent didn't vote for them. It's effectively a Board/Council appointment. That's not democracy but a business decision. As a consequence of wanting to play chess I'm forced to invest in this business so that it can effectively operate. In return for that I'm treated like a shareholder with no voting rights and told to make the best of the current system. If that works for you Julie then fine but I think the ECF can be a better organization than this.

[Angus French]

...Your belief that members reps should be representing their membership in as democratic a way as they can, is a noble one and I applaud you for that. However, I can't see how you can say its democratic when the universe that they represent didn't vote for them. It's effectively a Board/Council appointment.

Chris, if by "members reps" you mean Direct Members' Representatives (of which, in theory, there are two for each category of membership), then, where there are more candidates than positions, these are elected by their peers. It's only in the case of an unfilled position that the Board makes an appointment.

[Julie Denning]

Chris Rice wrote:
I can't see how you can say its democratic when the universe that they represent didn't vote for them. It's effectively a Board/Council appointment.

Chris, are you making a distinction between the Direct Members Representatives, who currently make up 8 out of 319 Council votes, or are you referring to Council delegates in general? If the latter, then I don't see how they can be characterised as Board / Council appointments. In my case, I was asked to take on the role of Sussex County delegate (having previously volunteered to be the County's Union delegate) and subsequently suggested that the voting rights of the Mid Sussex League and Crowborough Congress be put in my name as they were rarely if ever being used. By doing so, the votes that are effectively used for Sussex players are increased for no added cost. In the case of the County and League, my on-going position is subject to confirmation annually at AGMs, while the organisers of the Crowborough Congress can take back their vote at any time if they see fit.

I'm not trying to say the ECF is perfect or can't be improved. I'm not averse to voting against Board proposals and have done so on a number of occasions. I concur with the view that communication from the Board is sorely inadequate. I guess what's peeving me just ever so slightly is the feeling that some (not necessarily you!) can overlook the fact that just about everyone involved in chess administration, be it at club, league, county, union or ECF (even the Directors!) level come from that highly endangered species of volunteers. Who amongst us enjoys the luxury of playing at a club that is overwhelmed with volunteers to be club secretary / team captain / driver for away matches, or for a county with people falling over themselves to become county team captains or other officials? Certainly not in my neck of the woods. Pats on the back are not needed, but unwarranted slaps can start to sting after a while.

[John Townsend]

Who represents the "grass roots" players who pay the "game fee"? They will be the victims of the 323.73% increase. Joining the ECF it is not everyone's cup of tea. It's not solely a matter of the subscription. Others may not be ready to join.

[Chris Rice]

Chris Rice wrote:
I can't see how you can say its democratic when the universe that they represent didn't vote for them. It's effectively a Board/Council appointment.

Chris, are you making a distinction between the Direct Members Representatives, who currently make up 8 out of 319 Council votes, or are you referring to Council delegates in general? If the latter, then I don't see how they can be characterised as Board / Council appointments. In my case, I was asked to take on the role of Sussex County delegate (having previously volunteered to be the County's Union delegate) and subsequently suggested that the voting rights of the Mid Sussex League and Crowborough Congress be put in my name as they were rarely if ever being used. By doing so, the votes that are effectively used for Sussex players are increased for no added cost. In the case of the County and League, my on-going position is subject to confirmation annually at AGMs, while the organisers of the Crowborough Congress can take back their vote at any time if they see fit.

I'm not trying to say the ECF is perfect or can't be improved. I'm not averse to voting against Board proposals and have done so on a number of occasions. I concur with the view that communication from the Board is sorely inadequate. I guess what's peeving me just ever so slightly is the feeling that some (not necessarily you!) can overlook the fact that just about everyone involved in chess administration, be it at club, league, county, union or ECF (even the Directors!) level come from that highly endangered species of volunteers. Who amongst us enjoys the luxury of playing at a club that is overwhelmed with volunteers to be club secretary / team captain / driver for away matches, or for a county with people falling over themselves to become county team captains or other officials? Certainly not in my neck of the woods. Pats on the back are not needed, but unwarranted slaps can start to sting after a while.

Julie I did mean Direct Members Representatives. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not being critical of what you are doing, the ECF needs people like you. I was a County team captain for seven years which involved trying to convince players to give up their weekends to play a game involving a 200 mile round trip to some church hall and when they lost trying to convince them that it really was worthwhile and they should play the next one. Having to make the tea for 30+ people with no help. Putting up with complaints as to why I had only brought ready salted and salt and vinegar crisps and no cheese and onion. Putting out all the sets, boards and clocks while the players watched me do it. Putting all the sets, boards and clocks away while being bombarded with analysis on what the players should or should not have played. Picking players up and driving them around with no thought at all in their head that they should contribute to the petrol money etc etc. So please don't get me wrong. I'm sure you and Angus would get elected in the way I'm proposing which is basically arguing that ECF members should have a say in the way the ECF is run. A lot of the things the ECF do are good, but there is always room for improvements and for me OMOV is an obvious one.

[Alan Walton]

Who represents the "grass roots" players who pay the "game fee"? They will be the victims of the 323.73% increase. Joining the ECF it is not everyone's cup of tea. It's not solely a matter of the subscription. Others may not be ready to join.

If you only play 3 games a year you aren't a member of "grass roots" chess, I would say you qualify as a "hobby" player.

If you play more than 5 games and play local league chess only then your foolish not to pay membership fee, these are the grass root players

Why should the ECF spend their very limited funding on the people who use a very minimal amount of their services

[NickFaulks]

Why should the ECF spend their very limited funding on the people who use a very minimal amount of their services

Are they asking to have anything spent on them at all?