ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

[Michael Farthing]

Twenty Council members block change... Maybe Chris Fegan will come up with a cunning plan!

Considerably fewer than 20 Council members. The majority voted for 25% direct member representation.

Some (actually quite a lot ) Council members were bound by instructions from their principals, though undoubtedly some of those had perhaps been advising their principals along those lines. I actually sensed that there was disappointment among a majority of those present that the majority was not closer to 75% so that the process could have been continued and there was a considerable discussion about whether a more modest proposal might yet be considered.

The discussion of the whole issue (and indeed of the other issues) was of a high standard with very valid points being made 'on both sides' though perhaps 'all sides and none' might be a better description. It was conducted with respect and compared rather favourably with the standard usually achieved on this forum, as someone there present pointed out. I came away disappointed and saddened by the result but without any new enemy and actually, I must confess, rather shamed by the magnanimity of the only pre-existing 'enemy' who was present.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I'm interested to know more about the debate and whether opposition came primarily from the league or congress bloc, or whether it was split evenly between the two. There must be a way forward.

It does need to be added that I strongly suspect the Finance Council meeting will NOT be the hot topic of conversation at my club on Monday! Whether or not it should be is a different matter.

[Michael Farthing]

It would be interesting to hear from somebody who was at the meeting as to who spoke against the voting reform proposals and what arguments they put forward. I would be particularly interested to know whether the point that the ECF is now mainly funded by direct members was put to them and what the counter argument was.

The view expressed was that direct members are not interested, and in any case already have representation through their county reps, whom they could get rid off if they were not happy with that representation. I have to say that the direct member case was not improved by the fact that of the 9 direct member reps (the 10th position having now been vacant for 5 years) only three (I believe) were present.

I'm disappointed by the outcome although hopefully some progress can be made.

The ECF is planning to publish voting records at future meetings. It was suggested doing it for the ONOV vote, but as the suggestion was made after the votes were cast today it was decided to leave it until the next meeting.

I thought that under the ECF bye laws the voting records had to be kept secret. Phil Ehr did put forward a proposal to change this (at the 2016 Finance Council I think) but it was talked out and I wasn't aware that it had been put forward again. I'm pleased voting records will be published as these are essential for accountability.

The chairman can announce that a card vote will be recorded, and this was considered. David Gilbert, rightly, argued against this (having publicly stated how he had voted) on the grounds that Council members should have known before the vote. There was widespread murmuring transparency should become usual (and f any disagreed with this they ket rather quiet). Mike Gunn then indicated he would give this serioous consideration and there was also a suggestion that the articles might also be changed. I think it unfair to say that the previous proposal was talked out: the agenda item was not reached, but I do not think that was engineered. Indeed, in the meeting concerned there was considerable loss of time as the result of OMOV beng raised in the middle of other items even though it had no place on the agenda at all - but the person so raising this issue was someone closely allied with the proposer of the unreached motion.

[NickFaulks]

So, the ECF Board have got their financial plan through with almost no dissent from Council?

I wouldn't quite say that. There was a great deal of comment that the current state of knowledge regarding the ECF's finances is unsatisfactory. However, the majority view seemed to be that even a financial plan built on sand is better than no financial plan at all. I disagree violently with that precept.

[Michael Farthing]

I'm interested to know more about the debate and whether opposition came primarily from the league or congress bloc, or whether it was split evenly between the two. There must be a way forward.

This was one reason why there was talk of the card vote being recorded.
My impression was that the opposition was coming mainly from counties, but I might be quite mistaken.
Ben has already stated that he had 23 votes against so his analysis will certainly be of interest.

[Roger de Coverly]

However, the majority view seemed to be that even a financial plan built on sand is better than no financial plan at all.

I thought the plan was that the ECF intends to spend loads of money on what might be a futile attempt to expand the number of players in England, how much they play and the world status of the leading players. If it cannot raise the money from sponsorship, existing charitable funds and legacies, it will demand more from those it compels to become its individual membership, whilst resisting most attempts to give those contributing the finance a say in where and how it's spent.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have to say that the direct member case was not improved by the fact that of the 9 direct member reps (the 10th position having now been vacant for 5 years) only three (I believe) were present.

It's chicken and egg though. With only 10 votes between them, the "direct" views of 10,000 members can be neutralised by just one Congress organiser.

[NickFaulks]

I thought the plan was that the ECF intends to spend loads of money on what might be a futile attempt to expand the number of players in England

I'm not sure where that is reflected in the financial plan.

[Michael Farthing]

I have to say that the direct member case was not improved by the fact that of the 9 direct member reps (the 10th position having now been vacant for 5 years) only three (I believe) were present.

It's chicken and egg though. With only 10 votes between them, the "direct" views of 10,000 members can be neutralised by just one Congress organiser.

You miss my point, Roger.
The absence of direct member reps reinforced the view that direct members don't care.

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

[Brian Valentine]

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.

I think voting transparency would be quite a step along the route to accountability and IMHO a prerequisite of any increase in direct member franchise.

[Michael Farthing]

As I understand it, it was always envisaged that transparency would be compulsory for direct member reps. John and I already always report back on how we have voted for both card and hand votes. However, I am also of the view that transparency should be compulsory for everyone.

[Brian Valentine]

Transparency for a few would not make sense, so I agree - and I also report back through our affiliated clubs.

[Ian Thompson]

The view expressed was that direct members are not interested

That's not the impression I get. I've heard plenty of comments that membership fees are too high for what most members get in return, so I think a lot of members would have a view on membership fees, even if they aren't interested in anything the ECF does other than grading.

[John Reyes]

The view expressed was that direct members are not interested

That's not the impression I get. I've heard plenty of comments that membership fees are too high for what most members get in return, so I think a lot of members would have a view on membership fees, even if they aren't interested in anything the ECF does other than grading.

Ian

ME and Michael have E-mail all the Silver members and it up to them to either Email us back and we can have a say!!
the people that got back to us was happy for this year fees to go up.

some of the direct members do there job, but some other people don't really care!!