October 2023 ECF AGM

[Gareth T Ellis]

Class G Direct Members voting in 9.3 regarding Option 2 v No change

Also if all the Bronze and Silver votes were cast for “No change” then the result would have been 136 to 137 …

Not possible, only 136 - 131 at best

[NigelCollins]

There was no option was "None of the above" so an abstention.

Although the voting guidance did include “Stage (1) is a straight vote between the two Board options. If you don't like either your best approach is to vote for the one you dislike least (sic). There is an opportunity later to vote for No Change.” In 9.2 you voted Option 2 rather than an abstention though. I appreciate that the Bronze members wanted the status quo and the important vote was 9.3.

[NigelCollins]

Class G Direct Members voting in 9.3 regarding Option 2 v No change

Also if all the Bronze and Silver votes were cast for “No change” then the result would have been 136 to 137 …

Not possible, only 136 - 131 at best

Surely 136 - 137 is possible? Current 125 votes + 6 further potential votes from Silver rep 2 plus 6 further potential votes from Bronze rep 2.

[Ian Thompson]

Surely 136 - 137 is possible? Current 125 votes + 6 further potential votes from Silver rep 2 plus 6 further potential votes from Bronze rep 2.

Was it 136 - 125 though, as a previous report said:

Final membership vote:
136 - Board Option 2 (which convincingly defeated Option 1 and NCCU in previous rounds)
122 - No Change

possibly because the voting register shows:

Votes.jpg

[John Swain]

Surely 136 - 137 is possible? Current 125 votes + 6 further potential votes from Silver rep 2 plus 6 further potential votes from Bronze rep 2.

Was it 136 - 125 though, as a previous report said:

Final membership vote:
136 - Board Option 2 (which convincingly defeated Option 1 and NCCU in previous rounds)
122 - No Change

possibly because the voting register shows:

Votes.jpg

Another good spot! I've altered my previous comment from its original figures 136-122, then to 136-125 and now back again to 136-122 with this double-counting!

[NigelCollins]

Was it 136 - 125 though, <snip>

possibly because the voting register shows:

Votes.jpg

You’re right, I missed that - so the 9.3 results are incorrect (with 3 extra votes counted) as well as 9.2 (with 18 extra votes counted) and also 9.1 (where Chair of Council voted 2 for and 1 against).

[John Reyes]

I just want to said I read some stuff about the Fire Alarm. i did not know it was going to be going on till i got a email late on the Friday night. when i booked the AGM, we was at our old venue at Hardman Boulevard and because we move venues, i thought it would be a standard Testing of the system, not a full one. if i knew that i would have tried to look at a different venue. i just also want to say that the Venue Zoom is the latest and also i got the venue for free. the only cost was the buffet and someone to serve the buffet. i could not control it and i promised this will not happy again.

[NickFaulks]

John, don't worry. You did a great job setting everything up and the fire alarm was the most awful luck, which you could do nothing about.

Please just ignore Tim Wall's unpleasant personal attacks - everyone knows what he is like.

[Roger Lancaster]

John, I agree with Nick. You have nothing to reproach yourself over.

[Mick Norris]

Some papers now uploaded

In the consolidated report they claim

The following (non-exhaustive) list gives an idea of the extent of these services:
• Maintaining and developing rating services;
• Maintaining and developing the league management system;
• Dealing with new and renewing members;
• Organising ECF tournaments and congresses;
• Producing the ECF’s monthly magazine ChessMoves and annual yearbook;
• Keeping the ECF website up to date;
• Ensuring that facilities such as the events calendar, the registered coaches scheme, the junior
clubs development pathway, the clubs home page, the club finder facility etc are regularly
reviewed and updated;
• Maintaining and developing our complaints/safeguarding/safe space policies;
• Working closely with the Chess Trust and the John Robinson Youth Chess Trust;
• Working closely with Chess in Schools and the Community on prison outreach work;
• Supporting international team trips;
• Running three ECF online clubs;
• Providing training and refresher course for arbiters

That's a long list.

They also claim

For the avoidance of doubt, the Board would like to make clear that although its preferred option is to adopt a single membership fee model for the longer term (on the basis that the cost of providing most ECF membership benefits is broadly the same per member regardless of the amount of chess that a member plays, and that therefore those membership benefits should be available equally to all members regardless of the amount of chess played

How do they justify that statement given that it would seem obvious that the person playing over 100 games a season makes far more use of the ECF office than the person playing 4? Equally should they be asked to make equal financial contributions to the financing of the England international teams?

What Has the ECF Office Ever Done for Us?

Visitors might be interested in knowing something about what the team in the ECF Office does, so we’ve done an analysis of where their time goes. The numbers are reasonably high level, but we’re happy that they’re broadly accurate.

JustGo membership system: maintenance, dealing with new and renewing member matters: 22%
International rating support: 14%
Producing ChessMoves and the annual Yearbook: 13%
Website maintenance and development (e.g. events calendar, registered coaches scheme, club finder facility, news updates, community pages etc): 13%
Supporting ECF tournaments and congresses: 8%
Supporting international team trips: 7%
Game fee/junior event payments: 5%
Bookkeeping, payroll: 4%
Supporting Board and Council meetings: 3%
Other (e.g. general ad hoc enquiries, rating enquiries, registered coaches scheme, certificate of excellence, national title/master points support, press and media enquiries, IT support and maintenance): 11%

A few take-aways

Pretty much all of the Office team’s time is spent on membership-related support.
22% of the team’s time to support the JustGo membership system and handling membership matters effectively represents only around half a full time equivalent person for around 17,000 members, which we think compares pretty favourably with, for example, the United States Chess Federation’s four membership staff for around 90,000 members.
A number of Office services cost pretty much the same per member regardless of membership category: 1., 3., 4., 7., 8., 9. and 10. = 71%.
A number of Office activities are incurred in support of non-local league activities, supporting the thesis that members who play in both local leagues and congresses make somewhat more use of ECF services in some areas than members who only play in local leagues: 2., 5. and 6. = 29%.

The changes that were approved at the ECF’s Annual General Meeting on Saturday 14th October have simplified the membership scheme by combining the Silver and Gold membership categories (removing a barrier to participation in FIDE-rated events), while maintaining the Bronze membership category for those who only participate in club or league chess. The simplified two-tier system means that those who play in congress as well as league chess, and so are likely to make more use of ECF services and office time, will continue to contribute rather more in membership fees to support the ECF’s work compared with players who play only in local league chess – see points 3 and 4 above.

None of the above analysis takes account of the work done by the ECF’s wonderful army of volunteers without whom the ECF could not function. We pay tribute both to them and to our Office staff, who provide the critical services that support both our volunteers and our members.

[Angus French]

How did you come across that Mick? I'd also be interested to know who wrote it.

[Mick Norris]

As usual, while looking for something else!

[Paul Cooksey]

I am very happy it was published. I hope my complaints about the lack of transparency in admin costs over the past ten years were a factor. I will create a separate thread to say how I think this helps us.

[Mick Norris]

Doncaster rep report

I have seen the second draft of the NCCU report, but it hasn't been published yet

Any other reports available?

[Stephen Westmoreland]

Doncaster rep report

I have seen the second draft of the NCCU report, but it hasn't been published yet

Any other reports available?

Tim's report is now out. https://www.mannchess.org.uk/NNotices/2 ... u095mggL_0