ECF Finance Council Meeting 23 April 2022

[Mick Norris]

Papers

Agenda includes Blitz games, Rolling Membership and Ukraine

[Roger de Coverly]

Agenda includes Blitz games, Rolling Membership and Ukraine

Also some follow ups to last year's controversies.

The BCF's PIF to be transferred to the Chess Trust
Directors cannot be Direct Member Representatives.
Direct Member Representatives have to be members of the category they represent, That's all very well, but it amounts to a near ban on Bronze representatives taking part in Congresses and Silver representatives taking part in FIDE rated events.

[Ian Thompson]

Direct Member Representatives have to be members of the category they represent,

... but only at the time they are elected.

That's all very well, but it amounts to a near ban on Bronze representatives taking part in Congresses and Silver representatives taking part in FIDE rated events.

... but only if they want to be re-elected in the future.

In my opinion, the more interesting DM Rep proposal on the agenda is Item 15. Presumably, it's been proposed because it's considered by the proposers that some of the existing DM Reps aren't doing it, which would be hard to disagree with. If it's passed, might it lead to complaints being raised every time a DM Rep does something that some members don't agree with?

[JustinHorton]

Just out of interest, is there any reason that proposers and seconders aren't identified?

[Roger de Coverly]

Just out of interest, is there any reason that proposers and seconders aren't identified?

From the context, they are all Board proposals.

The wording to the proposal on Ukraine and FIDE reads

The motions below were originally proposed by the Durham County Chess Association and
seconded by Tim Wall, ECF Silver Members’ Representative. Unfortunately they were received
out of time and so are here formally proposed by the Chair. The Chair will invite the original
proposers to present the resolutions.

[JustinHorton]

Just out of interest, is there any reason that proposers and seconders aren't identified?

From the context, they are all Board proposals.

It should be possible to say so, no?

The wording to the proposal on Ukraine and FIDE reads
<snip>

Yes, I thought it was quite funny that that was the only time I could see who it was.

[Mike Gunn]

Just out of interest, is there any reason that proposers and seconders aren't identified?

Items 12 to 17 (including the bits about Direct Member Reps) all originate from the Governance Committee. Proposals from the Governance Committee go to the board and they sometimes amend them before they get to Council. Proposals can be placed on the agenda by "requisitionists" and that includes board members, the chair of council and the chairs of governance and finance committees. Most things that go through this process end up as board proposals (but not necessarily). Individual proposers and seconders are not usually specified and are often agreed just before the Council meeting.

[Angus French]

Just out of interest, is there any reason that proposers and seconders aren't identified?

... Proposals from the Governance Committee go to the board and they sometimes amend them before they get to Council.

In my view the Governance Committee has equal standing to the Board - both are elected by Council - and should not be answerable to it.

[Mike Gunn]

You are right - the Governance Committee isn't answerable to the Board but sometimes there has to be interaction between the two. For example we also redrafted the regulations that are going to Council for "noting". As the Board is responsible for deciding what the regulations are, the Governance Committee sent its draft to the board and they adopted them (with some minor amendments). In some cases the board (or some members of the board) may not agree with what the Governance Committee is proposing and will prefer the proposals to go to Council under the name of the Governance Committee.

[Angus French]

You are right - the Governance Committee isn't answerable to the Board but sometimes there has to be interaction between the two. For example we also redrafted the regulations that are going to Council for "noting". As the Board is responsible for deciding what the regulations are, the Governance Committee sent its draft to the board and they adopted them (with some minor amendments). In some cases the board (or some members of the board) may not agree with what the Governance Committee is proposing and will prefer the proposals to go to Council under the name of the Governance Committee.

Well, if there is a difference between the Governance Committee and the Board then this ought to be made clear to Council... you may recall that I resigned from the Governance Committee because it was dictated to by the Board and - worse still - the Governance Committee Chair failed to inform the Committee of the Board's decision which he had acquiesced to until quite some time after.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

Rolling Membership proposal. 2 scenarios:-
a) current non member plays numerous league games during 2021-2022. Takes out Bronze in June 2022 which will expire after 31 May 2023. Plays numerous league games between Sep 2022 and May 2023 for free as now a member?

b) current non member buys Bronze today until 28 Feb 2023. Next season plays 4 league games in March 2023.
League receives bill in the summer as player not a member? Are we now requiring club secretaries and/or captains to keep a record of the exact date their players' ECF memberships expire?

[NickFaulks]

the Governance Committee Chair failed to inform the Committee of the Board's decision which he had acquiesced to until quite some time after.

I have no personal knowledge of that, but it is an entirely different point. For the Board and GC to have a discussion and reach a mutually acceptable position strikes me as normal and reasonable.

[Roger de Coverly]

Are we now requiring club secretaries and/or captains to keep a record of the exact date their players' ECF memberships expire?

That would seem the logic of the proposal. But isn't the membership expiry somewhere on the rating site? As I read the proposal, membership would always begin and expire at the start/end of the calendar month.

Prior to the "NMS" (Northern Membership Scheme) and its variousclones, membership worked on an anniversary approach anyway. But that only really applied to Congress players.
,

[Angus French]

the Governance Committee Chair failed to inform the Committee of the Board's decision which he had acquiesced to until quite some time after.

I have no personal knowledge of that, but it is an entirely different point.

Sure you don't. You weren't party to what happened. But it is not "an entirely different point" to what Mike G originally wrote which was: "Proposals from the Governance Committee go to the board and they sometimes amend them before they get to Council."

[Mike Gunn]

Just out of interest, is there any reason that proposers and seconders aren't identified?

... Proposals from the Governance Committee go to the board and they sometimes amend them before they get to Council.

In my view the Governance Committee has equal standing to the Board - both are elected by Council - and should not be answerable to it.

In fact there is a difference between the Board and the Governance Committee which is that the Board has executive powers and the Governance Committee doesn't. The function of the Governance Committee is to advise both the Board and Council on organisational and constitutional matters. In doing this it should act independently and give the best advice it can. In fact quite a bit of advising goes on which is not visible/ reported on as the existing rules and procedures don't cover all possible situations. I suppose you could argue that all this private advice should be made public but a lot of this stuff is sensitive because it involves individuals.