April Finance Council

[Roger de Coverly]

2) Started a review of the office which is a good thing albeit it's about 5 months too late. .

Is it relevant that a member of the Office staff is due to retire in the near future? If the Farthing review results in restructuring, that could be an optimum time to implement it.

They then created an artificial position of non-exec Chairman

I gather there was an election - but only for the position of Chairman of Saturday's meeting.

I'm afraid that the "new" board looks and acts exactly like the old board did

New directors, mostly the same Council though.

[Neville Belinfante]

I was at the Council meeting, and it was a lot more civilised than the debate on this thread.

Council had a choice, continue with Chess for Schools or discontinue it. If ECF discontinues CfS, then the plan to sell the Certificate of Merit scheme to schools after they receive their sets cannot work, and the ECF will have little credibility in future negotiations with the DCMS or other government departments.

I briefed Prospective Parliamentary Candidates in High Wycombe yesterday about the CfS project which has DCMS support, and would not be able to discuss chess further with them if the ECF had discontinued their support yesterday. Further information is in the General Election thread.

I have written a report on the meeting, which has been circulated to within Buckinghamshire and to various national organisors who were not at the meeting. If any one wishes a copy of it, send me an email, and I will send it to them.

Regards

Neville Belinfante

[John Upham]

In addition, the ECF received £8,500 sponsorship for the Certificate of Merit programme.

SR told me that the amount was £10,000.

Was there a finders fee, and, if so, would that appear in the accounts?

[John Upham]

I was at the Council meeting, and it was a lot more civilised than the debate on this thread.

It might have been more civilised but was it as objective? I think not.

[Sean Hewitt]

In addition, the ECF received £8,500 sponsorship for the Certificate of Merit programme.

SR told me that the amount was £10,000.

Was there a finders fee, and, if so, would that appear in the accounts?

£10k less VAT is a tad over £8,500.

[Sean Hewitt]

2) Started a review of the office which is a good thing albeit it's about 5 months too late. .

Is it relevant that a member of the Office staff is due to retire in the near future? If the Farthing review results in restructuring, that could be an optimum time to implement it.

The timing of the review and the any subsequent changes are two distinct things. Of course, there would have been nothing wrong with conducting a review, reporting the findings to yesterdays council meeting and then implementing some of the changes post retirement if appropriate. As it is, the board is likely to implement changes without reference to council.

[Sean Hewitt]

Council had a choice, continue with Chess for Schools or discontinue it.

Not true. Chess for Schools was not on the agenda.

If ECF discontinues CfS, then the plan to sell the Certificate of Merit scheme to schools after they receive their sets cannot work, and the ECF will have little credibility in future negotiations with the DCMS or other government departments.

Similarly not true. Any plan to sell CoM to schools after they have received sets is doomed to failure as they will not get sets either quickly enough or at all. For CoM to succeed you have to market it to all schools immediately. That is easier to do once you have walked away from CfS, telling schools why you have had to do so. With CfS still alive (or at least, not fully dead) you can't do that.

I briefed Prospective Parliamentary Candidates in High Wycombe yesterday about the CfS project which has DCMS support, and would not be able to discuss chess further with them if the ECF had discontinued their support yesterday. Further information is in the General Election thread.

I'm not sure on who's behalf you were briefing these candidates but was it the ECF? If not, then what you choose to do as an individual is not relevant to the project. The idea that the project has DCMS support was exposed as a fabrication yesterday by the ECF finance director who told us we are funded by the DCMS elite performance budget specifically for International and Junior Chess. CfS does not fall into either of those categories. It's irrelevant anyway as THERE ARE NO SETS, AND THERE ARE NO PLANS TO PRODUCE ANY SETS.

[Leonard Barden]

[quote= the ECF finance director told us we are funded by the DCMS elite performance budget specifically for International and Junior Chess. .[/quote]

The word elite here should be noted in the context of the ECF's large cut planned in the junior budget and the current dumbed down version (compared with a decade ago) of the junior Grand Prix.

[Carl Hibbard]

Hopefully I can get hold of a copy of this report and PDF it up to here

[William Metcalfe]

I am in constant conversations with players about what i do as Clevelands NCCU rep i also consult Clevelands officers if there is a tricky decision to vote on so i at least talk to my constituents,It helps that i play in 2 leagues and varies congresses so i can find out what other players from differant counties want from the NCCU.
I honestly wonder how many of the ECF reps at council yesterday can say the same.It seems to me a lot of they are there for themselves and not for there constituents AKA there local chess players this is there little power trip.

As to the so called office revue how and why was there a budget increase for admin before the revue has even taken place

[Alex Holowczak]

One Council member who spoke at one point said "We're not spending money on Chess for Schools".

Who said that one then Alex?

Mohammed... something? Mohammed Amin, I think. I've not come across him before. (This is not surprising, I hadn't come across 99% of council before...)

He did have a pre-requisite, that he was coming to Council "fresh" after time away from chess, and had no preconceptions about the project. Presumably, this extends to prior knowledge about Chess for Schools as a whole. I could be wrong...

[Alex Holowczak]

I am surpirsed the comment about the BCF PIF trustees failure to supply figures has failed to attract further comment. Why is the issue of who are trustees not being looked at closely, this is one area that must be dealt with much sooner rather than later. That is of course assuming Council wants to tread on the toes of those they seem to worship! The report says if the turstees dont supply the figures upon request stronger action will be taken- dont hold your breath for that happening. I am rather please I am told old and too ill to get involved in the running of the ECF because I dont suffer fools or those who live in the past gladly.

Yes there are some welcome new faces in the ECF who are trying to do their best but while we have this discredited out of date useless Council system nothing will really change. The NCCU rep attends holding loads of proxies but in reality hes mandated by a very small number of reps. The vast majority of the players in the counties and by that I mean nearly all of them will have had no say at all in decision making process.

Change the system.

The NCCU delegate had a total of 16 votes thanks to his proxies. I think there were 249 total votes, so this is about 6-7% of the total number of votes.

The counties had (I think) 72 votes. The total of the constituent units have no more than 20 between them. So the counties have 3.5 times more of a say. So I don't see how the counties had "no say at all in the decision making process".

[Roger de Coverly]

Mohammed... something? Mohammed Amin, I think. I've not come across him before. (This is not surprising, I hadn't come across 99% of council before...)

He did have a pre-requisite, that he was coming to Council "fresh" after time away from chess, and had no preconceptions about the project. Presumably, this extends to prior knowledge about Chess for Schools as a whole. I could be wrong...

Possibly representing Manchester. If so, then he may have been the person who was the BCF's finance director back in the eighties.

[Paul Buswell]

Mohammed... something? Mohammed Amin, I think. I've not come across him before. (This is not surprising, I hadn't come across 99% of council before...)

He did have a pre-requisite, that he was coming to Council "fresh" after time away from chess, and had no preconceptions about the project. Presumably, this extends to prior knowledge about Chess for Schools as a whole. I could be wrong...

Possibly representing Manchester. If so, then he may have been the person who was the BCF's finance director back in the eighties.

Yes: qualified accountant, competent, pragmatic, intelligent, prepared to innovate: a big cut above the typical Board or Council delegate. He may not be up to speed, but he'll be an asset to any chess organisation.

PB

[Mike Truran]

William, it might have served the democratic process better if all delegates had actually voted as they were mandated to do. The voting system is simply not to be trusted if delegates, particularly those holding large blocks of votes, simply ignore the instructions attached to the proxy votes they hold.