CEO succession plan

[Roger de Coverly]

Correct - section 324 of the Companies Act 2006 entitles a member of a company to appoint another person as his proxy to exercise all or any of his rights to attend and to speak and vote at a meeting of the company.

But how do you define member? The ECF insisted for many years that the reference to member in the FIDE rating rules meant Guarantor (white form signatory) and even had a rule which tried to say that you couldn't get or retain an International Rating without signing the form. This is not an interpretation which FIDE itself shares. Such signatories as individuals have never had votes.

Aren't there four categories?
(1) Guarantors with voting rights
(2) Guarantors without voting rights
(3) Non-Guarantors with voting rights
(4) Non-Guarantors without voting rights

So unless you restricted voting rights, or had some intermediate body, if you have all non-guarantors with full voting rights, they could all potentially turn up at the AGM or alternatively give a proxy five thousand votes.

[John Philpott]

Simon Brown wrote

Alex, I think you should leave John Philpott mode to John Philpott......

Roger de Coverly wrote

Are you telling us the ECF Board aren't recording their own discussions and decision making?

Whatever failings the ECF may have, that is not one of them.

[John Philpott]

Roger de Coverly wrote

Aren't there four categories?
(1) Guarantors with voting rights
(2) Guarantors without voting rights
(3) Non-Guarantors with voting rights
(4) Non-Guarantors without voting rights

I am struggling to work out who might fall into category 3. Categories 2 and 4 are academic in terms of the ECF as currently constituted since section 324 only comes into play when somebody has attendance and voting rights in the first place.

[Roger de Coverly]

Whatever failings the ECF may have, that (failing to publish minutes) is not one of them.

Perhaps I was taking Adam's comments too literally

We have failed significantly to deliver minutes of meetings in a timely fashion, which is a problem with many voluntary organisation and other Federations. However insignificant this may seem, it is really important. Not just for those who couldn't attend the meeting!

The minutes of the most recent AGM are on the ECF website and have been for some time. Perhaps Adam meant the unofficial official summaries of Board meetings which have indeed ceased publication but the official documents are still maintained.

[Roger de Coverly]

(3) Non-Guarantors with voting rights
I am struggling to work out who might fall into category 3.

The ECF has abolished the requirement for individuals to sign the white form. In the unlikely event that it gave individuals any worthwhile voting rights, they wouldn't be Guarantors, but would be able to vote.

[Adam Raoof]

I believe that the Board should actually meet more often to review projects and plan ahead. There is naturally a limit on the amount of time a volunteer is going to have available to work on projects for any organisation, and the only way to change that is to pay Directors, or at least permit them to be paid (currently Directors are not allowed any payment, but are allowed reasonable expenses).

Well that's Adam's vision of the ECF. Make it really expensive for average players to take part in chess events, so directors have lots of money to spend on themselves and fancy projects. A minimalist ECF it isn't. That was one of the Regan plans. Charge something like £30 a head for the right to play chess and spend it on - we never really found out.

To be fair, I think this is also the view of other Directors. However being realistic I am not asking for Directors to be paid. However it is probably fair to say that more entrepreneurial and successful endeavors take place outside of the orbit of the ECF than within it, in almost every Director's area.

You are right, when I was referring to minutes of meetings I meant the day-to-day decision making at Board level, and commitments arising from them.

[John McKenna]

A quick comment on what was posted after the CEO's early this morning but before the discussion moved on to voting - the words "Big Society" came to mind with the mention of expanding an already existing volunteer base.
I believe the ECF is losing DCMS grant, if so why not ask for financial support under the "Big Society" umbrella or is there a technicality that would prevent it?

[Andrew Farthing]

I believe the ECF is losing DCMS grant, if so why not ask for financial support under the "Big Society" umbrella or is there a technicality that would prevent it?

The ECF has already lost the DCMS grant. We've been on our own in funding terms since 1 April 2011.

I'm not aware that there are any pots of money available under the "Big Society" umbrella - it seems to be more of a call to arms than a dip into the public purse. The lack of recognition of chess as a sport in England has been a barrier to funding, and there's no prospect of that changing anytime soon. In practice, no one in the public sector is looking to take on new funding commitments, so even if we could break down the "sport" barrier it probably would not generate any funding in the foreseeable future.

[John McKenna]

Thanks for your response pointing out the parlous state of funding.
It's probably clutching at straws, but there seems to be some limited finance for "Big Society".
From the little I know, one avenue seems to be for a volunteer to apply (perhaps in association with a community-based organisation) for financial support to carry out a job.
Naturally, competition for funds is probably fierce and criteria strict but some enterprising volunteer might find a way.
Problem is chess is 'neither here nor there.'

[Phil Neatherway]

A cynical view of the "Big Society" is that it is a way of the Government getting people to do things unpaid which currently someone is employed to do. In other words, it is all part of the cuts in Govt expenditure.

[Matt Mackenzie]

A correct view of the "Big Society" is that it is a way of the Government getting people to do things unpaid which currently someone is employed to do. In other words, it is all part of the cuts in Govt expenditure.

Post altered for greater accuracy

[John McKenna]

While the above views are largely correct there does seems to be a small 'payback' in order to get volunteers onto a path to paid work.