April 2016 Council meeting

[Angus French]

It was interesting that there was no real interest from the meeting in voting separately for the separate requests for expenditure. I thought before the meeting that a couple of the items would be voted through fairly easily (the junior chess items and most of the publicity items), but that the rest of the items (international, the LMS system, and the “chess masters to local pubs” part of the publicity expenditure) would encounter quite a bit of resistance. As it turns out council seemed to accept that it was either fund everything or fund nothing without much interest in the items separately.

This struck me too. It was almost as though discussion of the individual items of expenditure would have added to an already complicated discussion and so was to be avoided.

With the specific voting a lot of it was done on hand vote, and here in spite of the number of votes I have I can only raise one hand to vote in favour, and one hand to vote against.

I didn’t know it was possible to do that.

The next item was item 12, and it’s a potentially very exciting one. The full details can be found here:

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

By way of a summary:
• The British Go Association received a legacy of £300k from an individual to use to set up a place in London where Go can be played daily.
• The BGA decided that the money should be used to set up a more general Mind Sport’s Centre, and an ECF official put them in contact with Amanda Ross to work on moving the plan forward.
• It was concluded that the best option was to attempt to buy premises in London (at an estimated cost of £2-4 million).
• It is anticipated that the potential premises would be self- funding through a combination of sub- letting part of the building, and charging for membership, refreshments etc.

Obviously this is a huge amount of money, and a huge ask to fundraise it. Nevertheless, it was strongly suggested at the meeting that another amount, larger then the original received legacy, will be forthcoming shortly, meaning the fundraising effort is well on the way. These premises could also be used to store the National Chess Library, and organise frequent chess events. At the meeting council backed part- supporting a detailed feasibility study at a cost of £3k, with 3 votes against.

This was presented by Amanda Ross who (as Ben pointed out) runs Casual Chess in London. I had been very sceptical but was less so after Amanda had taken us through what it might involve – and one idea is that rather than have trust fund money invested in [whatever it’s currently invested in], it could be invested in a Mind Sports Centre. That said, investment in (London) property might be classed as higher risk.

[Roger de Coverly]

and one idea is that rather than have trust fund money invested in [whatever it’s currently invested in], it could be invested in a Mind Sports Centre. That said, investment in (London) property might be classed as higher risk.

The JRT is invested in shares and loans to Companies or funds which specialise in such investments. The idea being to approximately conserve the capital in money terms and to get a highish income. By highish I mean 4 to 5% rather than 1 or 2 %. The PIF is more share orientated, or funds that hold shares with the idea that as well as a modest income, it retains its value against inflation.

I'm not sure it's necessary to own the property to set up a Mind Sports Centre. If the finance is there, that can in the shorter term be used to run it at a loss.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'm not sure it's necessary to own the property to set up a Mind Sports Centre.

It's not, but owning the property means you have an asset you can sell if you need to.

[David Shepherd]

. Something I don't think has been mentioned is that there was a proposal a few years ago to create a Director of Women's Chess post which Council rejected.

It was back in 2012

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/1213/bcf.htm

(6) Director of Women's Chess. No, there isn't one. A proposal to create this post, increasing the number of Directorates to 11, was defeated by many votes to 6. Council was not too clear about the reasons for the proposal. It would not obviously bring more money to the women's game; and if the intention was to increase the number of women on the Board, of course that consequence did not follow.

Would that be the council meeting where 259 votes were held by men and 3 by women?
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/ec ... d-board/4/

[Mick Norris]

I had been very sceptical but was less so after Amanda had taken us through what it might involve – and one idea is that rather than have trust fund money invested in [whatever it’s currently invested in], it could be invested in a Mind Sports Centre. That said, investment in (London) property might be classed as higher risk.

There would have to be market rent paid by the tenants if it was (partly) a Trust investment, so that the Trust received an income, otherwise it would be hard for the Trustees to justify the investment as suitable under the Trustee Act 2000 I would have thought- unless the Trust Deed specifies the investment powers, in which case you would have to check that commercial property was allowed (and even if it was, whether you could justify putting a large percentage of the trust in a single investment)

Having said that, commercial property should yield an income of circa 8%

I am quite a fan of commercial property investment, but only in diversified funds run by professional fund managers - it is also fair to wonder whether the best returns have been achieved over the last few years, and thus whether there is a risk of capital loss on eventual sale - in any event, it is an illiquid investment that might takes months or years to sell, so lots to consider

[Martin Regan]

DS:

Would that be the council meeting where 259 votes were held by men and 3 by women?

Your point being? My gut feeling is that council does not vote along gender lines. Women who stand for election to council tend to do well. The problem of course is that not too many women stand because there are too few women in the world of English Chess.

A director of women's chess is a sticking plaster for a huge wound - it is the entire structure of chess and its relationship with female players between the ages of 11-17 that requires rethinking.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Ben's report suggested that Malcolm already has a candidate in mind. Is there any reason this individual can't immediately move into the vacant Manager of Women's Chess role? Assuming that they are a high profile individual with a proven track record (and with Malcolm's endorsement one can usually assume that they do) I'm sure the board would happily grant them a measure of autonomy and invite them to attend board meetings where required.

David Shepherd's point is valid and one I was raised upthread. While Council has no track record of being anti women a male candidate could in theory defeat a female candidate; perhaps by virtue of being the better qualified person for the job.

[David Shepherd]

To answer Martin, no huge point as such, other than it struck me that the comment "was defeated by many votes to 6" was somewhat similar to the composition of the council" - although no idea how the votes held by the women were cast.

Although I do agree at least to some extent with his comments, I still have the instinct that appointing a director of women's chess would cost little if anything and may result in more initiatives in that area. However maybe it is more to do with the person than the title and I just have a biased view from remembering how active Claire Summerscale was in organising events.

[Martin Regan]

DS:

However maybe it is more to do with the person than the title and I just have a biased view from remembering how active Claire Summerscale was in organising events.

It is. Claire's talents were wasted as Women's Director, she should have been chief executive, and then she would really have improved women's chess and chess in general.

[Andrew Zigmond]

An undiluted OMOV, one where every individual has the right to turn up and vote at the AGM is just going to reduce to a proxy battle, where those best able to gain swathes of proxies would have the voting power. In one way, that's not so very different from what happens now. Provided they were agreed, all the members of local clubs could give their proxies to someone representing the local county.

There are really only three practical ways OMOV could work. Roger has noted one above where the drawbacks are obvious.

The second option is to send a ballot paper to every member which would be costly, particularly if it had to contain a booklet with the election addresses of each candidate and the detail behind every proposal, and divert money from other areas. The cheaper option would be for the voting to be online except some sort of password protected portal would need to be set up to prevent multiple voting - which would deter many voting members from registering and voting.

Also who would collate, validate and announce the results? Would it need to be outsourced to a third party? Would OMOV just be for director elections and would members vote for each individual motion? Who could put forward a motion in the first place, just the board or individual members? A lot of our top players are already frustrated at international budgeting and policy being set by a council of amateurs and giving the final word to club and league players might exacerbate tensions even more.

It really makes me laugh how some people are happy to get on their high horse and demand OMOV but run a mile when it comes to the not inconsequential task of sorting out the full details.

[Angus French]

An undiluted OMOV, one where every individual has the right to turn up and vote at the AGM is just going to reduce to a proxy battle, where those best able to gain swathes of proxies would have the voting power. In one way, that's not so very different from what happens now. Provided they were agreed, all the members of local clubs could give their proxies to someone representing the local county.

There are really only three practical ways OMOV could work. Roger has noted one above where the drawbacks are obvious.

The second option is to send a ballot paper to every member which would be costly, particularly if it had to contain a booklet with the election addresses of each candidate and the detail behind every proposal, and divert money from other areas. The cheaper option would be for the voting to be online except some sort of password protected portal would need to be set up to prevent multiple voting - which would deter many voting members from registering and voting.

Also who would collate, validate and announce the results? Would it need to be outsourced to a third party? Would OMOV just be for director elections and would members vote for each individual motion? Who could put forward a motion in the first place, just the board or individual members? A lot of our top players are already frustrated at international budgeting and policy being set by a council of amateurs and giving the final word to club and league players might exacerbate tensions even more.

It really makes me laugh how some people are happy to get on their high horse and demand OMOV but run a mile when it comes to the not inconsequential task of sorting out the full details.

Well, OMOV could be used to elect Council representatives (as, in fact, it is for Direct Members' Representatives where there's a contested election).
Wouldn't it be possible to extend the membership system to allow for voting? Paul Cooksey suggested this long ago.
The top players "frustrated at international budgeting and policy being set by a council of amateurs": who would they be and who finances international chess?

[David Robertson]

It really makes me laugh how some people are happy to get on their high horse and demand OMOV but run a mile when it comes to the not inconsequential task of sorting out the full details.

And it makes me laugh yet louder, accompanied by snorts of derision, when I read the pompous pronouncements of some clown who believes these matters have been addressed only in the time he has given to this pox hole. The technical details were described, argued over, and ground into the sh!t more than six years ago. By me. By others. By RdC. Such is the total uselessness of this place that its inhabitants assume discussions must be revisited on a weekly basis, else the memory shelf-life degrades entirely

[Andrew Zigmond]

Well, OMOV could be used to elect Council representatives (as, in fact, it is for Direct Members' Representatives where there's a contested election).
Wouldn't it be possible to extend the membership system to allow for voting? Paul Cooksey suggested this long ago.
The top players "frustrated at international budgeting and policy being set by a council of amateurs": who would they be and who finances international chess?

`Extend` in what context?

As for the frustration of top players; Leonard Barden once wrote a scathing article on the amateurism of the ECF when an AGM focused on the minutiae of the failed Northern Membership Scheme rather than discussing the poor performance of the Olympiad team (to be fair this was over ten years ago). More recently a Grandmaster has been very strident in his criticisms of the ECF and its volunteer base. A few years ago I enjoyed a few beers with two GMs and an IM and it was noticeable how they had a very different set of priorities and frustrations with the ECF.

The point about who finances international chess is a valid one and to be fair it's relatively rare for motions about International chess to go before council. This assumes btw that OMOV doesn't just cover elections and council still considers matters of business in its current form (but that goes back to my point about the detail).

[Andrew Zigmond]

It really makes me laugh how some people are happy to get on their high horse and demand OMOV but run a mile when it comes to the not inconsequential task of sorting out the full details.

And it makes me laugh yet louder, accompanied by snorts of derision, when I read the pompous pronouncements of some clown who believes these matters have been addressed only in the time he has given to this pox hole. The technical details were described, argued over, and ground into the sh!t more than six years ago. By me. By others. By RdC. Such is the total uselessness of this place that its inhabitants assume discussions must be revisited on a weekly basis, else the memory shelf-life degrades entirely

Do you think it hasn't occurred to me that the technical details of OMOV have already been discussed by people far better qualified than me? My comments were directed at a minority of individuals here who seem to think that technical details don't exist, not at those who would actually have the fun job of sorting them out if the OMOV brigade could ever take some initiative and actually get a motion before council.

[Roger de Coverly]

Do you think it hasn't occurred to me that the technical details of OMOV have already been discussed by people far better qualified than me?

They haven't really, not in terms of putting forward a plausible scheme. A few years ago, a motion was put that the ECF should work on this. This was diluted to "examine the balance of voting powers" and rejected by the Pearce review who concluded that the balance was OK as it was.

As Ben's report notes, a member of Council attempted to raise this topic at the recent meeting. This was pushed into the absolutely elsewhere of "Any Other Business" which has a low chance of being discussed.