ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

[Carl Hibbard]

Sorry but it's still piss poor that ECF minutes should take so long to produce.

[Nick Grey]

Carl - I agree though 2 weeks ought to be reasonable - not sure why not in constitution or from those in Governance - on what is a substantial organisation.

As for Julie's note & particularly with John Philpott. The £10k for bookkeeping services. Hopefully ECF are looking at an appropriate contribution to John's funeral having seen posts on his behalf from family.

[Mike Truran]

Sorry but it's still piss poor that ECF minutes should take so long to produce.

Well, Council seemed happy when it approved the most recent draft of the Procedural Bye Laws in April.

[Nick Grey]

Mike. Who was taking the minutes of the meeting?

[Mike Truran]

Gary Willson. He also takes the minutes for Board meetings.

[Paul Cooksey]

It is possible the years of playing chess have given me a suspicious mind, but I suppose Gary writes the minutes relatively quickly and the delay is for others to approve them.

Most of the things I'm interested to see the official record on have already been mentioned - what policies Malcolm stood on (since he was the executive elected for 3 years), the financial impact, and the direction of travel (pace Nick, in the knowledge that direction could change).

One minor point I don't think I've seen - did anyone explain why the financial plan is 5 years? I'd have forgiven the the FD for submitting one year, I'd have expected 4, but I can't work out 5. It seems oddly misaligned to the elections.

[Roger de Coverly]

but I can't work out 5.

Isn't it traditional to have a Five Year Plan? The Soviet Union had them.

[Mike Truran]

Paul

Yes, you have a suspicious mind. In this case your suspicions are unfounded.

Most if not everything that you want to see is already included in the Council papers.

Three of five year long-term plans are very usual in the commercial world. We could have gone with three. We went with five.

Mike

[NickFaulks]

We could have gone with three. We went with five.

It hardly matters, since the only thing that happens in years 4&5 is an increase in membership fees, matching a reduction in drawdown from PIF. It is safe to assume that by the time we get there this will be reviewed in the light of actual figures.

edit : I suppose this does serve to confirm that the "direction of travel" for membership fees is UP. But we knew that.

[Michael Farthing]

It also illustrates that the percentage of the membership fee being used for 'non administrative purposes' is also going up: but the reverse has been stated by two board members.

[Paul Cooksey]

Yes, you have a suspicious mind. In this case your suspicions are unfounded.

I would be happy to accept that the surprisingly long time to produce minutes is required by Gary if that is really the point Mike is making, I suspect my previous post lacked clarity and he was not.

Most if not everything that you want to see is already included in the Council papers.

I think the most I can tell from the Council papers is the proposal not the agreement, and perhaps there was some relevant discussion at the meeting. For example, Malcolm did not submit an election address, so I hope that someone in the meeting asked him what he intended to do, if only to confirm he would continue his existing policies.

I was surprised there is no reference to FIDE in the International section of the strategy document - even if the policy is to continue as outlined previously in C21.6.2 – Relations with FIDE. I strongly disagree with that approach, as I have said before. I think Malcolm probably disagrees with me on this point, but I would like to be sure before talking with whoever represents me in Council about which people/ policies I would like them to support (separate thread about who represents me at some point...)

Financing of international teams is the most important point when electing the International Director in my opinion. I think, as a statement of strategy, the ECF should budget from membership income for travel and expenses for the 10 strongest players willing to represent England for free, and try to raise additional income from sponsors and patrons to send the strongest possible team. Personally I would be ok with my membership income being spent on our strongest teams, but I do not think I am in the majority of members and the strategy should reflect their views. Given the confusion over what appears in the budgets - and perhaps because I do not subscribe to Malcolm's magazine - I do not know how close or far away from the ECF Directors approach I am. I hope the minutes will clear this up.

I take the point 5 years is a reasonable period for a plan. But I would suggest if the ECF wants to have a strategy document that cascades to the strategy of Directors who will be directly elected on their own proposals, things like the financial plan are aligned to the election cycle.

I'm trying to be scrupulously fair. I am very happy to see the ECF improving its processes, even if the most charitable way I can can describe some of the documents is immature, and even if I disagree with some of the policies.

[Mick Norris]

Yes, you have a suspicious mind. In this case your suspicions are unfounded.

I would be happy to accept that the surprisingly long time to produce minutes is required by Gary if that is really the point Mike is making, I suspect my previous post lacked clarity and he was not.

Most if not everything that you want to see is already included in the Council papers.

I think the most I can tell from the Council papers is the proposal not the agreement, and perhaps there was some relevant discussion at the meeting. For example, Malcolm did not submit an election address, so I hope that someone in the meeting asked him what he intended to do, if only to confirm he would continue his existing policies.

I was surprised there is no reference to FIDE in the International section of the strategy document - even if the policy is to continue as outlined previously in C21.6.2 – Relations with FIDE. I strongly disagree with that approach, as I have said before. I think Malcolm probably disagrees with me on this point, but I would like to be sure before talking with whoever represents me in Council about which people/ policies I would like them to support (separate thread about who represents me at some point...)

Financing of international teams is the most important point when electing the International Director in my opinion. I think, as a statement of strategy, the ECF should budget from membership income for travel and expenses for the 10 strongest players willing to represent England for free, and try to raise additional income from sponsors and patrons to send the strongest possible team. Personally I would be ok with my membership income being spent on our strongest teams, but I do not think I am in the majority of members and the strategy should reflect their views. Given the confusion over what appears in the budgets - and perhaps because I do not subscribe to Malcolm's magazine - I do not know how close or far away from the ECF Directors approach I am. I hope the minutes will clear this up.

The minutes of the 2015 ECF AGM have:

MP stated that he had been a player for over 40 years and competed in all levels of competitions. He has extensive contacts in other countries and understands FIDE. The issue of funding is bigger than the £5K shortfall. We are in danger of becoming a second class nation, with Michael and Nigel defying conventional wisdom. We need to nurture the potential stars of the future. MP stated he was not asking Council for more money. He has raised over £6M for chess though raising for teams is not easy. If he does not succeed he will resign. Whilst the disharmony is quite evident, he is happy to work with anyone on the Board.

David Sedgwick (DS) asked if MP would play a full part on the Board. MP replied absolutely, especially as he would have more time in future.

RJ asked why he is standing for election when he could help DO in post given his experience in the chess world. MP replied that he wanted to give it a go, and he believed that if he goes to sponsors he would need to manage the relationship which he could only do if he was the budget holder.

DA asked if there would be a conflict with his commercial interests? MP did not believe so as the potential conflict is clear and would be registered in the interests register and he would of course recuse himself wherever necessary, for example in the bids for the British Championship. Additionally he felt ID and FIDE Delegate were the areas least likely for any conflict to arise. MP also said he takes a far less active part in Chess & Bridge at present due to his commitments for CSC.

DA asked if Chess Magazine wanted to criticise the ECF, how would he handle it? MP replied that he only did the editorial on the magazine and would not exert influence over the other contents should a contributor want to criticise the ECF, he might even do so himself. He would not have applied had he felt there would be a problem.

Seems clear enough, Malcolm is not asking for more money - is that consistent with what has happened and is proposed?

[Alan Kennedy]

even if the most charitable way I can can describe some of the documents is immature, and even if I disagree with some of the policies.

How does using words like immature add to the debate. It is merely likely to produce a defensive response. I would also suggest as all of the Director's are unpaid they should be appauded rather than insulted. Mike Truran et al have brought harmony to a board that for years have been in conflict - congratulations are in order not brickbats. I invite you to withdraw the comment.

[Paul Cooksey]

Alan, you appear to have accidentally quoted part of my sentence, changing its meaning and then criticised that changed meaning. But apologies nonetheless that I slipped into corporate speech, albeit when addressing remarks to Mike, who I think is fluent in it.

Immature in this context was intended to mean something which is a good start, but which should be improved over time. It was intended as the mildest criticism I could make of strategy documents with very substantial scope for improvement, given I do have some professional competence in this area.

[Roger de Coverly]

Seems clear enough, Malcolm is not asking for more money - is that consistent with what has happened and is proposed?

It has become confused as to what is actually proposed.

I believe the intent is to support International teams and events out of legacies, donations and sponsorship. That's the impression I would have formed from Malcolm's recent editorial.

The problem being that leaves budgets which are aspirational rather than balanced, as appears to have been pointed out at the Council meeting. The other point that members of Council were making and were slagged off in the editorial is that many of those required to make annual payments to the ECF are lukewarm at best about funding being demanded from them to pursue what they see as ECF Director's pet projects.