Tellers

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
John Reyes
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Tellers

Post by John Reyes » Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:35 pm

How do they pick the tellers?

And I hope they do a better job then the last AGM?
Any postings on here represent my personal views only and also Dyslexia as well

John Philpott

Re: Tellers

Post by John Philpott » Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:38 pm

Council can appoint whoever it wishes as tellers under item 3.3 of the agenda: the Board will normally suggest as couple of names after sounding out individuals as to their willingness to act in that capacity.

David Gilbert and Chris Majer were appointed as tellers at the Finance Council meeting, but as it happened there were no card votes.

With a contested election only for the NED positions, there should be less pressure on the tellers at the 2016 AGM than there was in 2015.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Tellers

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:41 pm

John Philpott wrote: With a contested election only for the NED positions, there should be less pressure on the tellers at the 2016 AGM than there was in 2015.
Might that depend on whether there's a lobby in favour of "none of the above" for any of the other positions?

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Tellers

Post by Michael Flatt » Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:12 pm

John Reyes wrote: And I hope they do a better job then the last AGM?
My recollection was that at the 2015 AGM the meeting accepted a proposal from the floor to reorder the Agenda so that voting was delayed until after some other items had been completed since they were likely to influence how members of Council would vote.

Secondly, there was no procedure to reconcile the number of votes cast against those available. Some proxy votes had accidentally been over-looked which led to a recount overnight and appointment of a different International Director than announced during the mayhem at the end of the meeting.

Thirdly, some items of business could easily have been withheld from the Agenda since they unnecessarily delayed the important business of the meeting.

Immediately afterwards the ECF did review what had gone wrong and promised to make changes this year. I doubt that the appointment of different Tellers would have made any difference to what had happened.

Given that a chairman has been appointed well in advance of the meeting he should be able to tailor the Agenda and better control the business of the meeting.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Tellers

Post by Michael Farthing » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:28 pm

A chairman has not been appointed. A chairman is being suggested by the Board

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Tellers

Post by Michael Flatt » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:13 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:A chairman has not been appointed. A chairman is being suggested by the Board
AGM Agenda[1] wrote:AGENDA
1. Appointment of Chairman In the absence of the President the Board recommends that Council appoints Julian Clissold, one of the Non-
Executive Directors, to chair the meeting.
The Non-Executive Director has previously chaired the AGM and Finance Meeting to the satisfaction of Council so I wouldn't have thought his appointment would be a contested.

The annual budget and financial planning items seem rather out of place at the AGM. Isn't their proper place is the April Finance Meeting?

Similarly, the revised Arbiter Regulations seems already to be in force with the previous version having been removed from the website Arbiter page. So, why is it only now that Council are being advised of them?

[1] AGM Agenda: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... 21-Sep.pdf

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Tellers

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:23 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:So, why is it only now that Council are being advised of them?
Because it's the first Council meeting after they changed.

Council is always invited to note changes to Regulations in the first Council meeting after the Regulations change. Regulation Number 2 is the one that gets noted by Council relatively frequently.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: Tellers

Post by Mike Truran » Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:28 pm

The annual budget and financial planning items seem rather out of place at the AGM. Isn't their proper place is the April Finance Meeting?
13.2 Council is invited to consider the five year plan, and provide guidance to the Board in
respect of the proposals that it should bring to future Finance Council meetings in respect of
a) Increases in Membership and Game fees
b) Funding of the ECF from the funds in the Permanent Invested fund and the John
Robinson Youth Chess Trust
c) Transfers from the Permanent Invested Fund to the Chess Trust

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Tellers

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:22 am

It's a bit variable as to whether Council is even consulted over decisions, even to note them. Breaking a tradition that ran almost from the foundation of the BCF, namely that the British Championship should be 11 rounds has been taken without Council having any opportunity to debate or comment on the issue. Those who claim that it will result in an increase in entries also have to address the slightly suspect method the ECF uses for the annual count.

In recent years, the decision to recalculate grades from scratch obtained a momentum of its own, without Council being able to stop the project on the grounds that there were better uses of IT resources than pandering to arbiters who thought, possibly incorrectly , that the grading system was failing to predict results to their satisfaction.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Tellers

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:13 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:It's a bit variable as to whether Council is even consulted over decisions, even to note them. Breaking a tradition that ran almost from the foundation of the BCF, namely that the British Championship should be 11 rounds has been taken without Council having any opportunity to debate or comment on the issue. Those who claim that it will result in an increase in entries also have to address the slightly suspect method the ECF uses for the annual count.
Surely any one of the requisitionists could have put forward a motion to keep the British at eleven rounds, if they felt that strongly about it (it might be too late for it to take effect in Llandudno but could be binding from 2018 onwards). Nobody has seen fit to do so.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Tellers

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:24 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote:Nobody has seen fit to do so.
Is it a weakness or a strength of the system that those in a position to "create trouble" by putting motions to the meeting rarely do this? That particularly applies to the Member representatives as it's the only effective power they have, given that in voting terms they can be out voted by the views of a single Congress organiser.

To my mind, the announcements of the restructuring of the British Championship Congress were carefully timed and carefully minuted to avoid being discussed at Council meetings.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Tellers

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:26 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:To my mind, the announcements of the restructuring of the British Championship Congress were carefully timed and carefully minuted to avoid being discussed at Council meetings.
You accuse me of a level of political nous that I simply do not possess.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Tellers

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:32 am

I have had no silver member mention to me the change in the structure of the British, let alone complain about it. The Board are charged with organising a tournament and have got on and done it. It had good reasons for the changes and I agree with it. In these circumstances I see no reason to bring forward any motion. It seems to me that had a requisitionist been concerned there was sufficient time for a motion to come forward.

Edit:
This is not quite true, I have had some complaint about the British. However, that has been entirely about the gradual increase in the use of FIDE ratings with the effect that some silver members feel that their membership opportunities are being eroded and they are being forced to upgrade to gold.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Tellers

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:06 am

Michael Farthing wrote:This is not quite true, I have had some complaint about the British. However, that has been entirely about the gradual increase in the use of FIDE ratings with the effect that some silver members feel that their membership opportunities are being eroded and they are being forced to upgrade to gold.
Although before the tiers came in, they had to be the equivalent of Gold to play in anything at all.

I think the increase in FIDE-rated tournaments at the British - rising from 4 about five years ago to all-but six tournaments next year - has been one of the ECF's successes over that period.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Tellers

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:11 am

Alex Holowczak wrote: Although before the tiers came in, they had to be the equivalent of Gold to play in anything at all.
.
FTAOD I wasn't expressing a strong opinion about the move to FIDE ratings. Speaking with my own hat, rather than as a rep, I am in favour of moving in that direction. However, the sentence above does highlight a point that I do feel needs addressing, which is whether the current bronze/silver/gold structure remains appropriate and appropriately delimited. [If, for example, the silver/gold divide were found to be discouraging congresses from introducing FIDE rating (perhaps at below the open level) for fear of a drop in numbers then that might be seen as a hindrance].