ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

[Michael Farthing]

Perhaps I should add that my original comment was about the view some OTHERS in Council had expressed, not John and I.

It is, of course, the case that members are concerned about membership fees. In our letter we showed very clearly how the money is proposed to be used and explained where increases had occurred. It is clear that those who replied thought (by a very clear majority) that the increase this time was reasonable. A year ago the feeling was the other way round.

[Paul Cooksey]

the people that got back to us was happy for this year fees to go up.

I'm really surprised. My experience is similar to Ian's, that when asked to express a view on the ECF players are generally critical of it and its fees.

[Nick Grey]

Apart from nothing from Gold Members I cannot remember Nick Faulks consulting those playing London League. Hopefully he consulted with the constituent clubs.

On Surrey they have County & adults league & juniors & am sure that the more pertinent proposals they sought views in advance.

No idea on Thames Valley if only my club was not sent anything from our rep canvassing views.

Anyway give them a bit of slack in the minutes in case you have misunderstood what has been agreed.

As far as I'm concerned with were not consulted on BCF matters which appears from some points made a point of misunderstanding.

[Angus French]

On Surrey they have County & adults league & juniors & am sure that the more pertinent proposals they sought views in advance.

I don't know what happened with Surrey.

My club submitted to Surrey that:
a) it was opposed to the £25 penalty fee which went with the proposal to abolish game fees; and
b) it was strongly in favour of option 3 on voting reform (more votes for direct members' reps). In doing this it referred to a document which made what was thought to be a compelling case for option 3.

On a) the Surrey rep voted to keep the penalty - the only person at the meeting [edit: and not on the top table], I believe, to do so.

On b) the Surrey rep got up and made a speech about not having witnessed a groundswell of opinion in favour of reform and about how direct members are already adequately represented by leagues. He must have forgotten that two years' ago Surrey failed to consult on membership fee increases but still received an objection to the same and then instructed a proxy to vote for the increases, a decision which tipped the scales as the relevant motion was won by 104 votes to 103.

Further, at Saturday's meeting the Surrey rep considered himself a delegate (rather than a representative) and unable to do anything other than vote as directed. What he was doing making a speech to try and influence how others might vote is beyond my comprehension.

[Nick Grey]

Any chance of PM on a name?

I think I'll get a complaint in now - I remember the original well.

[Mike Gunn]

Just to put the record straight on the Surrey vote. There are two factors here:

1. The Surrey Board spent a lot of time discussing voting reform which is reflected in their submission to the consultation exercise (part of which can be found in http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Reform.pdf[). While I supported Option 3 I was unable to persuade my fellow directors of the case for it and I couldn't legitimately argue for a split vote on the basis of my minority view.

2. Angus's contribution was the only one received in the consultation of Surrey clubs and it arrived on the day before the Finance Council which didn't give the directors time to discuss changing their original position.

As it happens I did cast the 3 votes I had on my own voting card for Option 3 (2 from the Surrey Border League whose committee had no strong view and 1 from the Surrey Congress. Actually I doubt that the Surrey Congress have paid their affiliation fee and probably shouldn't be the voting register, but as the ECF office hadn't noticed that the Chairman of Council gets a vote , I regarded my casting of the 3rd vote justified.)

MG (Surrey President).

[Jonathan Bryant]

The absence of direct member reps reinforced the view that direct members don't care.

There's no great point to lobbying direct members representatives when they don't show up to the meetings and even if they did, they don't have the votes to influence ECF decisions. Whilst giving a vote to everyone to elect some or all of the Board is unlikely to ever be tried, the ECF will not suppress criticism of its lack of accountability until it makes attempts in that direction.

Roger is right on the money here.

One might also ask whether decades of being treated as an irrelevance just might be part of the cause of this lack of interest amongst the membership.






Phil Ehr on twitter, btw:-

https://twitter.com/phil4chess/status/8 ... 4171091974

[Roger de Coverly]

Phil Ehr on twitter, btw:-

Whether fairly or otherwise, he's having a go at the SCCU President for opposing reform, who is also a non Exec Director.

We've seen often enough that ECF directors will use political methods to force things through that it doesn't want discussed or voted upon. The lack of progress on voting reform says clearly enough that the Board are lukewarm at best about it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Phil Ehr on twitter, btw:-

https://twitter.com/phil4chess/status/8 ... 4171091974

There's a certain irony in the top comment

English chess players who want a more relevant ECF / @ECFchess with democratic accountability need to make themselves heard.

as noted by ejhchess further down

How about "setting up a discussion board nobody wants to try and get a popular one closed down"?

[Andrew Zigmond]

Up to a point I agree with Phil Ehr. If direct members are unhappy with the way the ECF is run then they should make their voices heard. Having said that I don't recall either him or his immediate associates being that passionate about voting reform until council delivered a set of board election results they didn't like. I suppose that's politics; the system is never busted if you're on the winning side.

[Michael Farthing]

Phil Ehr on twitter, btw:-

Whether fairly or otherwise, he's having a go at the SCCU President for opposing reform, who is also a non Exec Director.

We've seen often enough that ECF directors will use political methods to force things through that it doesn't want discussed or voted upon. The lack of progress on voting reform says clearly enough that the Board are lukewarm at best about it.

Well now, the ECF Board brought forward three alternative proposals with a number of sub-options. Council (not the Board) voted against two and in favour of the third (by a clear majority - considerably clearer than the recent UK referendum vote on Brexit) but insufficient to give confidence that a 75% vote of Council (not the Board) could be forthcoming in October. Nevertheless several Board members (together with several other Council members) then engaged in a discusion about whether it might be possible to bring forward more acceptable proposals and asked the Chairman of Governance to give this his consideration. Their disappointment with the Council decision was clearly evident.

I can assert with confidence that the Chairman of Governance is already consulting about possible future proposals.

Now, let us turn to a possible alternative avenue for progress.

A supposed strong advocate of change is Roger de Coverley. What steps has he taken to make his ideas a reality? Has he developed any proposals and sought to bring these before Council? Has he put himself forward as a candidate for Council with a view to propagating those ideas? Better still, has he put himself forward as a candidate for the Board where his influence would be even greater? If not, one can only conclude that he is lukewarm at best.

[Roger de Coverly]

If direct members are unhappy with the way the ECF is run then they should make their voices heard.

How and where though?

Arguably the County and League representative members with ECF voting rights represent organisations which may not share the views of individuals within their notional catchment area, or at best don't regard a topic as of pressing interest.

If push came to shove, the only way to get reform may be to start at the bottom with enough like minded people and remove from office all representative members who didn't support voting reform. It's far easier to comment on blogs and forums about ECF inadequacies.

[Roger de Coverly]

If not, one can only conclude that he is lukewarm at best.

Quite correct, I don't think voting reform will change very much. Successive ECF Boards take the view that they are in charge and no one should be allowed to pass judgement on their decisions. Don't accept that? Show me the votes for reducing the British Championships to five hour sessions, for reducing the British Championship Congress to 9 days, removing rights of Congresses to British Championship qualification places etc.

[Michael Farthing]

If not, one can only conclude that he is lukewarm at best.

Quite correct, I don't think voting reform will change very much. Successive ECF Boards take the view that they are in charge and no one should be allowed to pass judgement on their decisions. Don't accept that? Show me the votes for reducing the British Championships to five hour sessions, for reducing the British Championship Congress to 9 days, removing rights of Congresses to British Championship qualification places etc.

Council had no delegates bothered about these things. For myself, I'd have voted in favour of them.

Council did have delegates that didn't like the high fee for non-members playing four or more graded games. Council didn't like that and overturned it.

[Chris Fegan]

Up to a point I agree with Phil Ehr. If direct members are unhappy with the way the ECF is run then they should make their voices heard. Having said that I don't recall either him or his immediate associates being that passionate about voting reform until council delivered a set of board election results they didn't like. I suppose that's politics; the system is never busted if you're on the winning side.

You could not be more wrong.

Reform of voting and representation were one of the key objectives of the previous Chief Executive and his pursuit of these and other reforms were the main reasons for the coup against his leadership organised, planned, plotted and supported by many of the very people who voted down any reform last weekend.

The reactionary individuals inside the ECF Council and Board are still very much alive and kicking.