2011 AGM: October 15th

[Roger de Coverly]

Word of caution.....such a scheme needs to be based on a detailed paper that can cover the workings in more detail. One concern I have is about how the suggested voting system and proposals options might work in practice...and not clog up the works with great offerings that might create instability.

I don't think there are any practical changes even remotely on the horizon. Whilst you could, I suppose, open the election of directors and critical motions to a wider electorate, the number of issues for which this is plausible is limited. I suspect you need to retain some sort of body to oversee the directors and have the power to make decisions. So you retain a Council, but make it wholly or partly directly elected by individuals. One other reform would be to remove the voting rights of non-playing bodies, or reduce them to having one vote to cover them all.

[Michele Clack]

Surely Andrew Farthing said that if the membership scheme is brought in then the voting structure could then to be looked at. It's important to get all the infrastructure in place to get the funding on a sound footing so the membership issue needs to be settled quickly.
The important thing is to move forward and a federal structure is after all notorious for adapting to change slowly.
I think what most people who care want is a dynamic and responsive ECF to help protect our game/ sport and spread the benefits of participation. As I have said before Worcestershire are solidly behind Andrew because they know he is capable of delivering that given the chance.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think what most people who care want is a dynamic and responsive ECF to help protect our game/ sport and spread the benefits of participation.

At the risk of being accused of asking this before, in what way exactly does the ECF demanding that players become members of it, spread as opposed to restrict participation?

So spreading participation is "can you play in a match next week?" Hindering participation is "can you play in a match next week, but don't bother unless you're prepared to go the ECF website and sign for membership ?"

[Alex Holowczak]

So spreading participation is "can you play in a match next week?" Hindering participation is "can you play in a match next week, but don't bother unless you're prepared to go the ECF website and sign for membership ?"

This is a good point, because new club members are never asked by treasurers for subscriptions, which might cost £40...

[Roger de Coverly]

This is a good point, because new club members are never asked by treasurers for subscriptions, which might cost £40...

Try the example of county matches, where the participation cost is just the match fee. Try the example of a chess club in an institution where the room cost is free.

You're right on club membership fees, these also can act as a barrier to participation. The problem is that if you don't have a room, you don't have a club. You can however have club rules of different classes of membership where the full annual cost isn't charged for guest players.

Presuming that your county or league doesn't become an MO, the new ECF scheme allows you to cut club fees for full members(hooray), but you ask individuals to go to the ECF site to pay their £ 12. (That is the proposed model, isn't it?). In the longer run, this is quite worrying, because let's face it, the ECF aren't going to be able to hold the £ 12 cost once it becomes the ECF's main source of funding. So every year, the first act of the new season on the 1st September is the ECF demanding renewal money, quite probably a pound or two more than the previous year. If you have a marginal player, one who is thinking of giving up, what better excuse than to blame the ECF? Another worry for club secretaries and treasurers is that if, probably when, the ECF's new scheme drives players away, that the costs of room rental become, or appear to become unaffordable, so that the club becomes uneconomic and closes in its present form.

So in the absence of other factors, does demanding money as a condition of play increase or reduce participation?

[Simon Spivack]

... new club members are never asked by treasurers for subscriptions ...

Alex hasn't joined enough clubs. Some treasurers have weighed up a prospective member to see whether to ask for the money on the first night. An early demand is unusual, though, I'll concede that.

OMOV could make the Board more powerful, there would have to be safeguards, perhaps along the lines of a Cadbury style increase in the number of non-executive directors (from two to at least the Cadbury minimum of three). The Cadbury recommendations include a separation of the positions of CEO and chairman, which we already have in a tweaked form, with two different de facto chairmen as well as a CEO. The governance and finance committees provide a bulwark of sorts against abuses of power.

Why must the chess world do things back to front? Constitution first, money second.

No taxation without defenestration.

[Stewart Reuben]

Herewith a genuine request for information:
Please provide examples of successful (or unsuccessful) OMOV organisations of any type. That can include countries. Kibbutz in Israel used to be successful, I am no longer so sure. Cadbury's is an excellent example.

Roger's entirely valid point about location of funds did not include the Chess Centre Ltd. Personally I was against squirrelling away so much of the JRT money in the way it was done. But that's democracy.

[Mick Norris]

RdC wrote:

I reckon many players don't give a fig for the potential size of the activities of the ECF and who controls its voting rights provided
(a) it doesn't stick its nose in and generally get in the way with annoying rules
and
(b) it doesn't demand unreasonable sums of money, particularly for minimal services.

That may well be true of the ECF as it is now, but I do not for one second believe it would be true of an organisation which engaged with those players who wanted engagement and offered OMOV.

The federal structure does not work, has never worked and will never work.

Its abject failure is seen in the fact that the ECF skirts with bankruptcy while having eye popping amounts of cash in the bank.

I have highlighted the part in bold that is important - I think most players don't care, but the minority that do care, do want engagement - that will be the challenge

[Alex Holowczak]

... new club members are never asked by treasurers for subscriptions ...

Alex hasn't joined enough clubs. Some treasurers have weighed up a prospective member to see whether to ask for the money on the first night. An early demand is unusual, though, I'll concede that.

Hey, I'm a member of three clubs! Admittedly one has a fee of £0. The only thing stopping me paying the others on the first night is that the Treasurer wasn't there.

[Simon Spivack]

Please provide examples of successful (or unsuccessful) OMOV organisations of any type. That can include countries. Kibbutz in Israel used to be successful, I am no longer so sure. Cadbury's is an excellent example.

when I mentioned Cadburys, I was not discussing the chocolate maker taken over by Kraft, but the Cadbury Committee on corporate governance which offered several recommendations. It just so happens that its chairman is a member of the Quaker family that founded Cadburys.

David, of course, is best qualified of those posting here to discuss the best way forward as regards the precise system for the ECF to adopt. Indeed, he has already put out some material.

From what I can see, Stewart is considering several possible implementations of OMOV when looking for examples: I am not certain I understand what he is driving at.

Anyhow, here are a few cases using a loose understanding of OMOV. Those who wish to know more can read about it for themselves.

It could be argued that the East India Company in the eighteenth century was a highly successful OMOV institution. It achieved much in the sense that its territorial possessions were increased and its profits were distributed widely, and not always to its shareholders. Each shareholder had precisely one vote. Theoretically the largest shareholder had no more say than the meanest. This was overcome by Stock Splitting, note that this is not the same as the American version. In the East India Company a major shareholder could parcel out (i.e. "split") his stock to his supporters, greatly multiplying the number of his votes. There were some tremendous battles for control of the company, with enormous sums expended, most memorably between Laurence Sullivan (he was probably from the sept of the O'Sullivans More of County Cork) and Robert Clive (of Plassey fame): conflicts of interest were rife, particularly over Clive's jagir of £27,000 per annum.

Another arguably successful example is that of the United States. Every adult citizen has the right to vote. I'd say that that country has broadly speaking done well. Even though there may be more inequality now than in 1970 (the middle classes have stagnated, whilst the rich have become wealthier still).

Let us turn to Stewart's mention of the Kibbutzim, leaving aside that it is always risky to debate a topic as fractious as the ever unfolding tragedy in the Near East. Originally these collectives were largely devoted to farming; however, financial pressures caused them to diversify. There are bakeries and other factories that are now run. One can add, too, that communal living has become less communal. But what are the aims? It could be said that one (and not one I am comfortable with) objective is to produce elite soldiers for the Israeli Army: the movement has always been successful at that.

Rather than devote time to examples which, in my opinion, have little or no bearing; let us turn to the ECF. The constituent units have 18 votes, counties 76, leagues 73, congresses 52, "other" organisations 12, direct member representatives 8, officers 13, trustees 3 and sundry past officials 3. It is not too hard to work out that certain individuals will have many votes in a small electoral college. I don't want to get personal, but some of those lucky voters are donkeys, they've got where they are by Buggins' turn or because no one else can be bothered. We probably have our own ideas of who these donkeys are, but no matter whom one identifies, their influence is too great and should be curtailed. Failure to do so, in my opinion, played no small role in the deplorable destruction of the Regan Board.

[Mike Gunn]

<initial stuff removed>

The reason for a County or League to become a MO is to collect the membership fees from its members and therefore avoid the higher level of game fees which non-members attract when membership is less than 85%

Wouldn't it be much easier for the league to introduce a rule saying all players must be members, but if any non-member does play the club will have to pay the league £2 per game (regardless of percentages)? That puts the onus on clubs to make sure all their players are members and avoids the extra work and obligations on the league management committee that would arise if they were an MO.

Yes, it would be quite possible for a league to operate in this way - it doesn't have to become a Membership Organisation. In the case of the Surrey Border League (for example) most players come from clubs which play in at least two leagues, and there is no logic in saying one league rather than the other has responsibility for collecting players' subs. The concept is that although the aim is to get as many subs collected at the national level, in the early stages (at least) subs couldl be collected by clubs and leagues as well.

[Mick Norris]

Rather than devote time to examples which, in my opinion, have little or no bearing; let us turn to the ECF. The constituent units have 18 votes, counties 76, leagues 73, congresses 52, "other" organisations 12, direct member representatives 8, officers 13, trustees 3 and sundry past officials 3. It is not too hard to work out that certain individuals will have many votes in a small electoral college. I don't want to get personal, but some of those lucky voters are donkeys, they've got where they are by Buggins' turn or because no one else can be bothered. We probably have our own ideas of who these donkeys are, but no matter whom one identifies, their influence is too great and should be curtailed. Failure to do so, in my opinion, played no small role in the deplorable destruction of the Regan Board.

If full OMOV is a step too far, you could always have some form of electoral college, with a modified version of the existing council structure being responsible for, say, 50% of the overall vote, and direct member OMOV for the other 50%

[David Pardoe]

Good post Simon... In this and other parts of this `federal` organisation many percieve there to be an almost `banana republic` style of basket case democracy at work, for many of the reasons you mention...certainly going back over many years certain jokers have had far too much influence. Some of it driven by `cheque book` diplomancy..some of it by personal self interests/agendas. Various Union/county/league and other bodies have been plagued by this for years, which has stunted chess development and caused much unnecessary disharmony.
Many feel the demise of the BCF, on its 100th birthday was engineered by somewhat cynical and questionable methods. A major vote of members (the largest vote actually taken), came up with 43% in favour of retaining the BCF, I believe, but this seemed to get `overlooked` by the propaganda machine, seemingly geared to axe the old body....but thats water under the bridge now.
However, its no easy task trying to make these bodies `tick`, and for such a group to succeed takes a good level of good will across the various borders. Finding people with the time, ability, patience, and drive to make these missions succeed is certainly never going to be easy...particularly when so many in the chess world seem to want `chess on the cheap`.

[Roger de Coverly]

The concept is that although the aim is to get as many subs collected at the national level, in the early stages (at least) subs couldl be collected by clubs and leagues as well.

Why use the term "sub"? Surely you mean fee or charge.

If the proposal goes through on a 50% vote, the ECF is going to have to live with organisations in the South and West who are opposed to universal or mandatory membership and are going to do as little as possible to comply with it . From that viewpoint, they would make it the individual's responsibility to go to the ECF website and pay the fee. In their own financial interest, there would be a local rule which said you could play three games for nothing, but beyond that, individuals had to pay the ECF's £ 12 charge separately and in addition to the club membership.

[Mike Gunn]

Under OMOV, I suppose individual members would elect the board by postal (or online?) ballot.

Apart from this what role would there be for the existing constituent units/ counties/ leagues/ congresses (if any)? Would there be a role for some sort of representative body to check up on what the board is up to? What powers would such a body have and how would it be composed/ elected?

If we are going to go down the road of OMOV in the near future, these questions need to be answered.