English Chess Forum

Dear all,
I thought I would start a new thread on reports from Direct Members' representatives, so that people can find their DM reps' reports and compare them (both with each other, and over time, from year to year). This hopefully will inform debate and help to bring down the artificial barriers between different categories of membership (after all, we are just being classified by how much money we pay. We are actually all part of the same chess community, and have everything in common with each other).
So, here goes, my report in advance of the April 2021 Finance Council. Buckle up, folks, because this is a fairly blunt one and you may want to be sitting down when you read it.

Report to Silver ECF Members: April 2021 Finance Council meeting
Tim Wall, Silver Members rep
April 20, 2021

The headline news (and perhaps the only useful thing that will come out of the April 24 Finance Council meeting for ordinary ECF members) is that membership fees will stay the same for 2021-22.
Many Silver members may well want to stop reading here, because most of the other items on the Agenda (https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... Agenda.pdf) are about as much use to you and your local chess club as an old-style analog chess clock.
In fact, judging by the resolutions at Saturday’s meeting, the ECF Council (or at least the people putting those resolutions forward) currently seem to have all the wrong priorities.
Rather than working out an action plan to get over-the-board chess going again, to help local clubs and congresses survive and to rebuild the ECF membership (based on the surge in public interest in chess during the lockdown), we are instead discussing the equivalent of ‘How many angels can dance on the point of a pin?’
It may be important to a handful of ECF officials to propose ways to extend their terms in office, and it may be interesting for a few event organisers for them to get more votes at Council meetings, but I think these issues and preoccupations leave the vast majority of ordinary ECF members stone cold.
For the record, I intend to vote the only way my conscience will let me: in favour of regular renewal of officials, and in favour of members’ rights. Therefore, on the Directors’ Terms in Office resolution, I will support option A - that directors be eligible to serve for a maximum of 2 consecutive terms in one post (i.e. more than one 3-year term). Not the 3 or 4 terms, or no term limits being proposed by some people – which seem to me something more akin to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
This is because I strongly believe there should be regular renewal of the ECF Board, and that 4-6 years is plenty of time for one person to hold the same post before allowing someone else to have their turn.

On allocating votes to the organisers of online events, I am against this – as it gives more votes to people who are not accountable to members. At least with county associations, ordinary members can have their say and influence their local delegate.
A couple of months ago, I put forward a proposal that would have given Direct Members (i.e. you) a total of one-third of the votes in any ECF Board election, but the Governance Committee refused to consider it, saying that working out term limits and Council votes for online event organisers was more important.
Finally, there is one reasonable resolution, to make it easier to organise county matches by reducing the number of rating bands. I am in favour of this.
As a Silver Members rep, I welcome your feedback and constructive suggestions. If you would like to express your view through me at Saturday’s Council meeting, please write to me at: [email protected]

TimWall wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:10 am

For the record, I intend to vote the only way my conscience will let me

Taking into account the wishes of the members you represent is out of the question, then?

This is what i have sent out to the silver members and so far i have received quite a few email asking how to vote as at the end of the day, that is what i have been told by the membership

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Silver Members,

I am writing to you all to ask to canvass your opinions and views in advance of the ECF finance meeting too be held on 24th April 2021 via Zoom. This will contribute towards any votes that take place at the meeting by helping to inform me on your wishes.



The Main Talking Points and Motions

ECF Finance Director’s Report

Adam Ashton was elected to be the new Finance Director. When reading his report (please read via the link C34.6-Finance-Directors-Report.pdf (englishchess.org.uk)) you can see that as things currently stand, the ECF will incur an anticipated loss of around £5000. A number of savings have been made in terms of administrative cutbacks. We have also received grants and monies incoming to support us at this time via government funding and without these, we would be looking at a loss of around the £40,000 mark.

I hope you would agree that we would support the Finance Director’s report and accept the Draft financial accounts for the year ending 31 August 2020.



Membership Fees

The ECF is proposing that they keep the direct membership fees the same as the 2020-21 season and I would agree to this. (As of March 2021 from figures from the director of membership, we have 1033 Adult Silver members, 1281 Junior member and 789 new silver junior members, compared to last year 2007 Adult, 1533 junior and 1388 new junior members). Whilst the membership is currently lower in numbers due to covid and no OTB chess, I see that so far over 6701 members have paid their membership fees. This is encouraging and I would hope that we can support chess in this time.



Budget

The Finance Director has presented his budget which you can access via this link https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... dsheet.xls)

It is hoped that we can accept the budget proposals for 2021-22 as set out in the Finance Director documents.

Authority of Variation

The board is asking that they may revise the budget in the light of circumstances as they develop during the summer period and beyond, bringing such revisions before future Council meetings as shall be practical.



The next three are from the Governance Committee

Voting Register

Directors’ Tenure of Office

Votes for Online chess

The Link is on this page (C34.10-12-Governance-Committee-Commentary-on-the-Special-Resolutions.pdf (englishchess.org.uk))

I am asking for your views on how you would like votes to be cast on your behalf, especially the Directors Tenure of Office as there is knock on effects for people like the President, Director of International Chess, the Chief Executive and other people’s roles now and in the future.



County Championship 2021 and County Championship Team rating limit

The Director of Home Chess has put forward what to do about the 2019/20 season and also the 2021/2022 season, as well as running a friendly 2020 Counties “Summer” Competition in August/September time, but the main talking points will be the team rating and will be based on the selection criteria and board ordering rules on the monthly list. It will be the Original Official September list as published unless otherwise specified by the Counties Controller.

The Grading Limits will be proposal on the New ECF Elo grading.

U1400, U1600, U1800, U2000 and Open

It will mean that we will be losing one of the grading bands as it is it at the moment

U100 (1450) U120 (1600) U140 (1750) U160 (1900) U180 (2050) and Open



Overall

I hope you can give me guidance on how you would like me to vote as in the last 6 years as your Silver Direct Member representative, I hope you have been happy with my representation of your views at the ECF Meeting and I will be looking to stand again in the 2021 Election again. As I stated last year:

“I would like to say thank you to every one of you who voted for me and read my election address. I do not take for granted the role I have undertaken over the past few years – I am proud to have been your representative, but I have never rested on my laurels. I am proactive in this role and I feel that I have a good balance of skills and approaches - I canvass the opinions of the Silver members, and it is down to you to guide us and put forward any motions to the AGM & Finance Council.” And as my fellow Rep Tim Wall mentioned in his Election report to you all “we will consult Silver members and aim to put forward as accurately as possible their views at ECF Council meetings, so that rank-and-file members’ interests and opinions are respected and listened to at all levels”

Many thanks,

Your ECF Silver Member Rep

John Reyes
[email protected]

Thanks both. There are three options for Directors appointments. The way this is structured, if individual Council representatives are going to pick their favourite, and by default vote against the other two, it seems unlikely that any of the resolutions will reach the 75 per cent required to rewrite the statutes, and we’ll be left with the status quo. I wonder whether you might wish to consider a compromise by voting in favour of maybe two options, or possibly all three, to give at least one the chance of getting through to effect change, even if it’s not your top pick.

On the County Championships, I believe there could be two alternative rating bands suggested on Saturday. The Board’s proposal is Open; U2000; U1800; U1600; and U1400.

The two possible amendments are:

Open; U2100; U1900; U1700; U1500.
Open; U2050; U1850; U1650; U1450.

Do Silver members have a preference?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:22 am

TimWall wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:10 am

For the record, I intend to vote the only way my conscience will let me

Taking into account the wishes of the members you represent is out of the question, then?

That's a bit hard, Nick. We're a parliamentary democracy based [well, theoretically at least] on MPs voting according to their consciences.

TimWall wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:10 am

So, here goes, my report in advance of the April 2021 Finance Council. Buckle up, folks, because this is a fairly blunt one and you may want to be sitting down when you read it.

So, here goes:

I don't agree with everything which the ECF Directors and the other principal Officers have done over the last year, nor with everything which they are doing and saying now.

But I admire their dedication and commitment in difficult circumstances. In my opinion each and every one of them deserves better than to be subjected to your rant.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:31 pm

That's a bit hard, Nick. We're a parliamentary democracy based [well, theoretically at least] on MPs voting according to their consciences.

According to Tim's own election literature, I seem to remember he saw his job as representing the views of his constituents.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:06 pm

According to Tim's own election literature, I seem to remember he saw his job as representing the views of his constituents.

I suppose it all depends on whether we believe our elected representatives should vote as their electorate tells them or [where the two conflict] for what they believe to be right. In principle, I'm quite sympathetic to the latter view. I also respect Tim's, or anyone else's, right to hold the opinions he or they do. However, in this case, what Tim believes includes

"Not the 3 or 4 terms, or no term limits being proposed by some people – which seem to me something more akin to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
This is because I strongly believe there should be regular renewal of the ECF Board, and that 4-6 years is plenty of time for one person to hold the same post before allowing someone else to have their turn."

The ECF is, in its own way, a business. Anyone remotely familiar with good business practice, which seemingly doesn't include Tim, will know that one doesn't sack a competent director [different question, of course, with an incompetent one] after 4-6 years simply so that someone else can "have their turn". If a main concern of Tim's conscience is that everyone should "have their turn" at running the ECF then I think I'd prefer him to take less notice of it.

Replying to a few of the points raised by Tim in his report.

It's true that most of the motions before Finance Council are procedural and of little interest to the wider membership. Unfortunately if the ECF are obliged by their bye laws to put technical matters to a council vote then its unfair to criticise them for following a process they are obliged to. In terms of what the ECF "should" be doing, it's hard for the ECF to put an "Action plan for resuming OTB chess" and "supporting clubs" in place when a) it's too early to make firm plans when we have no idea of what restrictions may still be in place in the Autumn and b) the ECF has no authority over individual, all of which will have different individual circumstances.

During the pandemic the ECF have been unusually active, not only putting in place a program of online events but also creating and filling a new Director Of Events position, which hopefully means that they will be able to hit the ground running when otb chess resumes.

I also feel that the ECF are being unfairly criticised for the current status quo with regard to member representation. It was the board who a few years ago put forward a series of indicative motions to gauge support for a) one member one vote b) an elected delegate system or c) increased voting numbers for direct members representatives. Council rejected all three of these options, although the last was revisited and eventually passed. It does seem that the ECF board are alternatively criticised for either being undemocratic (taking actions without consulting the membership) and being too democratic (not reforming internal structures when council have rejected motions to do so).

Ultimately the ECF board have a limited remit and much of their work is administrative - competent people should be appointed and left to get on with it. They provide frameworks through which chess in this country can operate, however chess at all levels (master, amateur, junior) rely on the right individuals making the right decisions on the ground - and the ECF should let them get on with it!

It is difficult to see Tim's comments without the context of his long running dispute with Mike Truran. If one of the people in the CSC team runs for CEO against Mike at the AGM I might vote for them, depending on the respective policy proposals. But I am a bit uncomfortable with an attempt to stop him standing with procedural rules.

Generally I see contested elections as healthy, so Council can decide between different proposals. I understand that incumbents have a lot of power in an organisation where a lot of people take the same political view as Andrew. But still, I take the view Council should be trusted to take the decisions.

I'll probably vote for the representation proposals. I think the ECF could indeed have been doing something more useful with its resources. But I already objected to that, and at this point that is in the past, so just a "better or worse?" decision for me.

Quick update: So far, I have received 30 replies to the report I sent to Silver Members. 28 (93%) fully supportive, 1 half-and-half, and 1 against.
Here's a short selection of the comments:
---
"I'm fully supportive of your voting intentions.
My opinion is that the terms for any board roles should be limited, let's get some turnover and some different individuals involved. The only possible exception should be when there are no other volunteers and the ECF could suffer if nobody was appointed."
---
"I haven't been in touch before ... and at the age of 80 I'm usually a "sleeper". But I just wanted to say how easy to read and wholly sensible your e-mail was. I agree enthusiastically with all that you said, and how you will vote.
Well done! And, thank you."
----
"Hi Tim,
Thanks for your email. I really enjoy your style and I believe that you capture the feelings of the silver members.
I believe that if ECF doesn’t focus on OTB chess then membership will start to fall. I maintain my membership because of my participation in local league chess and the occasional Congress. I renewed my membership during lockdown as a gesture of support for the ECF. From what you say it seems that ECF is staying with the “give us your money and p**s off” attitude to the grass roots player."
---
"I can't see how the voting arrangements on item 11 (directors' tenure of office) are acceptable. They are rigged to support either the status quo or the option closest to it. I object to this, and I would want to see you (a) raise an objection to the item being discussed or the resolutions put to the vote at all, requiring that they only be brought when they are fit for purpose; (b) ultimately vote only (A) exactly as you have proposed, to demonstrate that ordinary members do not approve of the directors pushing long-tenure arrangements like this at the expense of discussion of the fragile OTB-play situation.
Thank you for representing us!"

I will post more comments as I receive them from Silver Members.

TimWall wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:09 am

Quick update: So far, I have received 30 replies to the report I sent to Silver Members. 28 (93%) fully supportive, 1 half-and-half, and 1 against.

How depressing.

Nevertheless, I await with interest the policy proposals of those who are actually prepared to do something and challenge incumbent Directors seeking re-election in October.

More comments from Silver Members - just arrived in my inbox:

"Hi Tim,
Good plain speaking from you ........ Thank you!
Good to hear that the existing membership fees will be maintained for the coming year.
The only real thing that matters to me, is to get back to OTB chess asap. I have my limits regarding how long I want to keep looking at a computer screen!
And I also agree with your comments on re-election of officials."
---
"Dear Tim,
Fully support the points in this email. In particular, I think an action plan to get OTB chess going ASAP is what's needed.
My 10-year old has gained from playing in online competitions but after 1.5 years away from the board, he's wilting.
Zoom lessons and staring at a screen for hours on end is not good for younger players.
The combination of online competitions (4NCL, UKCC) together with a return to OTB competitions could be a massive opportunity for chess, and a money spinner to boot."
---
"Hi Tim,
I fully agree that officials looking to stay in post is bad for the game, the last thing we want is the “godlike” figure who has been in post for 20 years and nobody will contradict them (Sepp Blatter springs to mind). No more than 2 consecutive terms and no other posts for another 2 terms. As members we should have a significant say in the ECF board members. I don’t know how the ECF is organised but it should be run for the membership and vague arguments against this smacks of self interest.
That’s my twopence worth."
---
"Tim,
I agree with everything you have said in your email and you have my support to vote for the resolutions as you think appropriate. I agree that a maximum of 6 years in one post for a director is sufficient and that the ECF Board should be regularly renewed.
I think Option A is the sensible option."

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:16 am

It is difficult to see Tim's comments without the context of his long running dispute with Mike Truran. If one of the people in the CSC team runs for CEO against Mike at the AGM I might vote for them, depending on the respective policy proposals. But I am a bit uncomfortable with an attempt to stop him standing with procedural rules.

Generally I see contested elections as healthy, so Council can decide between different proposals. I understand that incumbents have a lot of power in an organisation where a lot of people take the same political view as Andrew. But still, I take the view Council should be trusted to take the decisions.

I'll probably vote for the representation proposals. I think the ECF could indeed have been doing something more useful with its resources. But I already objected to that, and at this point that is in the past, so just a "better or worse?" decision for me.

Well, yes. No-one is going to pretend that the present ECF Board gets everything right [for example, it was idiocy to back the Greek horse in the last FIDE presidential election] but I believe there's a very arguable case that they're making a better fist of it than many of their predecessors. If Tim Wall, or one of his supporters, feels he can do a better CEO job than Mike Truran then the right course is to put this to the electorate. I'll grant his point that any incumbent has a built-in advantage but that's true of all elections and to suggest, as Tim has done, that the situation is comparable to Soviet Russia [with Tim presumably casting himself as the chess equivalent of Alexei Navalny] is risible.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:27 am

If Tim Wall, or one of his supporters, feels he can do a better CEO job than Mike Truran then the right course is to put this to the electorate. I'll grant his point that any incumbent has a built-in advantage but that's true of all elections and to suggest, as Tim has done, that the situation is comparable to Soviet Russia [with Tim presumably casting himself as the chess equivalent of Alexei Navalny] is risible.

Tim has now repeated on Chess.com his initial post in this thread.

On that site he has seen fit to illustrate his comments with a photograph of Vladimir Putin.