Finance Council Meeting

[John Philpott]

3 hours in (including tea break) and we are onto the budget. Those present could be forgiven for forgetting that this was supposed to be the Finance meeting.

[Andrew Zigmond]

The meeting has proceeded to consider the report of the Chairman of the Finance Committee which was approved with thanks. This was the point of the meeting at which the revised page of British Championship figures was presented to the meeting. The ensuing debate ultimately led to the following motion being proposed

Council considers that the conduct of the President brings his performance of his role into question and calls for a full review of his activities

This was lost on a card vote by 93 votes to 84.

Disappointing but at the same time hardly a ringing endorsement.

[Sean Hewitt]

Meanwhile at the Boleyn Ground it is West Ham 6 (Vaz Te 3, Nolan, Cole, Dicker og) Brighton 0. Given that West Ham beat Blackpool 4 - 0 on the day of the AGM last October, Sean Hewitt has suggested that it would be in West Ham's interest that I missed more matches.

6-0. Need I say more?

[Roger de Coverly]

This was lost on a card vote by 93 votes to 84.

The report providing an update on CAS Arbitration was rejected on a card vote by 103 votes to 73.

So about 20 votes in support of the President denied to Nigel.

Readers of New in Chess can perhaps look forward to a tirade against the ECF Council. Will he mention the Player of the Year vote for 1993-4?

[Jonathan Bryant]

The meeting has proceeded to consider the report of the Chairman of the Finance Committee which was approved with thanks. This was the point of the meeting at which the revised page of British Championship figures was presented to the meeting. The ensuing debate ultimately led to the following motion being proposed

Council considers that the conduct of the President brings his performance of his role into question and calls for a full review of his activities

This was lost on a card vote by 93 votes to 84.

Disappointing but at the same time hardly a ringing endorsement.

Compare this to the AGM Presidential vote.

Also, we could perhaps recall Malcolm Pein being asked to stand again after losing a vote for a certain position. I forget the details - I'm sure somebody can remind me - but the gist of Malcolm's response was that even if he were to win the vote, the fact that such a substantial number of people had voted against him would make his position untenable.

[Roger de Coverly]

Also, we could perhaps recall Malcolm Pein being asked to stand again after losing a vote for a certain position. I forget the details - I'm sure somebody can remind me - but the gist of Malcolm's response was that even if he were to win the vote, the fact that such a substantial number of people had voted against him would make his position untenable.

I don't think it was quite the same. A bizarre ruling had been made that directors weren't allowed to vote on a candidate to join them as a non exec Director. When, after the meeting, the irregularity of this was established, Malcolm didn't see any point in pursuing the question, given the voting.

[John Philpott]

The membership rates item has now been completed. Various amendments were debated, but the only one approved was Sean Hewitt's proposal to remove the discount for 3 year membership. With this amendment, the Board's proposals were approved on a show of hands.

Minimum membership fee for organisations remains at £58.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I don't think it was quite the same. A bizarre ruling had been made that directors weren't allowed to vote on a candidate to join them as a non exec Director. When, after the meeting, the irregularity of this was established, Malcolm didn't see any point in pursuing the question, given the voting.

I agree, it's not the same Roger, but where I think there's a similarity is the presence of a substantial 'against' vote being significant.

[Roger de Coverly]

Minimum membership fee for organisations remains at £58.

That of itself raises questions. If an organisation has 100% Bronze/Silver/Gold turning up for its events, then is its membership cost £ nil or £ 58 ?

[John Philpott]

The meeting has been extended to 6.30 p.m. Unfortunately the Finance Director had to leave at 5.30 even though we have not yet got through to a vote on the budget. Game Fee has been quite hard going, with amendments to amendments being proposed. The principal changes were the quartering of the proposed Game Fees for juniors and the deletion of the 85% rule.

[John Philpott]

Roger De Coverly wrote

If an organisation has 100% Bronze/Silver/Gold turning up for its events, then is its membership cost £ nil or £ 58 ?

£nil

[John Philpott]

With the Finance Director gone and the financial impact of previous decisions unquantified, the meeting voted to remit the budget to the Board, but to allow the expenditure indicated in the budget proposals to be used as the basis of expenditure decisions that need to be taken in the next 3 months. The intention is that approval of a revised budget will be sought through the written resolution procedure.

[Roger de Coverly]

The principal changes were the quartering of the proposed Game Fees for juniors and the deletion of the 85% rule.

You might want to explain that in more detail.

If you run a league event and allow non members to participate, the proposal was that in August 2013, the ECF would , if it had managed to build the necessary IT, send you a bill for £ 2 for every game played by a non-member. This would be discounted to £ 1 per game if you satisfied a test, broadly, that 85% of players were members. If you ran a Congress, you would be expected to pay £ 6 per non Silver or Gold member, regardless of the number of rounds. There were no exceptions for Juniors.

What is the position now?

It's no great surprise that the ECF is having difficulty setting a budget. It has no real idea of its future income, given that it's conditional on the go/no go decisions of around seven or eight thousand individuals.

[John Philpott]

There was no time for a proper discussion of the consultation papers. It was decided to treat the draft ECF Complaints Procedures and the draft Standards of Conduct for ECF Officials as consultations rather than to instruct the Board to adopt these. On Charitable Status, David Welch expressed reservations about the potential for money from the charitable body to be used for non-charitable purposes.

[David Robertson]

With the Finance Director gone and the financial impact of previous decisions unquantified, the meeting voted to remit the budget to the Board, but to allow the expenditure indicated in the budget proposals to be used as the basis of expenditure decisions that need to be taken in the next 3 months. The intention is that approval of a revised budget will be sought through the written resolution procedure.

Good grief!