Feel free to correct meAngus French wrote:Paul, you've attempted to infer far too much.

Feel free to correct meAngus French wrote:Paul, you've attempted to infer far too much.
If you read the various Farthing reports, they break down the 3 FTEs by function. I agree it's not part of the accounts or the regular background notes to the accounts. The Farthing review managed to squeeze up to 2*FTE from the expenditure by not doing things like mailing ChessMoves and copying and mailing Council papers. Also scrapping involvement in "Chess Sets for Schools". It does now seem that the Office is dangerously low on bookkeeping and accountancy skills, given the recommendations of the Finance Committee.Paul Cooksey wrote: I don't think anyone has visibility of what the ECF spends most of its money on, because it is hidden in one pot called "the office". The office is a means to an end, not an end in itself
I did look at that in an old thread, but I think the breakdown was intended to be indicative. It did not cover everything.Roger de Coverly wrote:If you read the various Farthing reports, they break down the 3 FTEs by function. I agree it's not part of the accounts or the regular background notes to the accounts. The Farthing review managed to squeeze up to 2*FTE from the expenditure by not doing things like mailing ChessMoves and copying and mailing Council papers. Also scrapping involvement in "Chess Sets for Schools". It does now seem that the Office is dangerously low on bookkeeping and accountancy skills, given the recommendations of the Finance Committee.
Apart from Andrew Farthing's report I agree. What would be really useful is a breakdown of expenditure on directorships as Roger mentioned elsewhere. Whether that's going to happen is anyone's guess.Paul Cooksey wrote:I don't think anyone has visibility of what the ECF spends most of its money on, because it is hidden in one pot called "the office". The office is a means to an end, not an end in itself
We don't have hard data on how much of the office staff's time is spent supporting each of the directorates, so there is no breakdown of this sort available.Justin Hadi wrote:What would be really useful is a breakdown of expenditure on directorships as Roger mentioned elsewhere. Whether that's going to happen is anyone's guess.
So the Office asks as a travel booking service. Reasonable enough, but it makes the volume of "official" international activity a cost driver for the Office, or if it makes a charge for its services, a revenue creator.Andrew Farthing wrote: Based on my observations and discussions, I can say that the demand for administrative support is quite uneven during the course of the year. If we are making arrangements for junior squads or international teams to go overseas, for example, this can mean that the office spends a greater proportion of its time supporting the Junior and International Directors respectively.
If you have a contested election, Council needs to know the hidden costs in order to take a view on the candidate. Even if the election isn't contested, an informed judgement needs to know.Andrew Farthing wrote: a new director may be more (or less) self-sufficient than his predecessor or may have a more (or less) ambitious programme of activity.
Does that make the number of volunteers a cost driver? If so, then activities now with little popularity such as the National Club competitions could be up for scrapping or redesign to not involve the ECF.Andrew Farthing wrote: None of which has any real bearing on my personal judgement that a staff of three people to support a volunteer base of about 50, covering a range of activities and demands, is modest (to say the least) by any reasonable standard.
You're quite right, Roger. When you put it this way, a staff of 3 does sound a ridiculously low number.Roger de Coverly wrote:In terms of office size, I would rather you asked how many people you need to employ to handle an active chess population of around 12,000. Active in the sense of playing often enough to make it to the grading list. Active in the sense of played at least one game is, or was, around 15,000 unless the graders know a higher figure.
Andrew Farthing wrote: You're quite right, Roger. When you put it this way, a staff of 3 does sound a ridiculously low number.
In which case maybe the ECF should be trying to make the case for a bigger office!Andrew Farthing wrote:When you put it this way, a staff of 3 does sound a ridiculously low number.
But the ECF only spends money on administration to the exclusion of anything else. Whenever it has a budget crisis, it cuts the amounts it spends on chess or professional chess players. Local bodies see next to nothing from the ECF, except grading, which doesn't make material use of the Office.Andrew Farthing wrote: It is revealing in itself that what I continue to argue is a modest expenditure on administration for an organisation of the ECF's size and scope provokes such controversy in some quarters.
I can't say for certain that the ECF volunteer activity would cease if there was no paid-for administrative support. I suspect that the answer is that it would continue in a much-diminshed form. I've said before in this forum that I would never have volunteered to work for the ECF if there had not been an office infrastructure to ensure that there was always administrative support.michele clack wrote:I think I see what Paul is getting at. Although in practice it would be difficult i.e. time consuming and therefore costly to do, if it were possible to break down the office expenses to their constituent parts by core activity then people would think in terms of those activities. Then people might feel that the ECF was better value. As it is quite a few people seem to think it is poor value even though, by both Andrew's and Roger's analyses of the amount of volunteer activity it supports, it sounds very efficient indeed. I don't agree with the last part of Roger's analysis that all this volunteer activity wouldn't stop if the ECF closed down. I suspect that things would gradually start to break down. Since I enjoy playing chess so much, despite being hopeless at it, it's not an experiment that I would want to see tried!
I do understand the point Paul is making, and I have some sympathy with it. In the past, I did look into the possibility of allocating more of the central costs to individual directorates, but I was persuaded by others more expert in financial matters that it was not a practical option.Paul Cooksey wrote:I'll repeat a point I make occasionally, that wanting a clearer breakdown of the ECF's expenditure is not a criticism of the office. In fact I don't think it is fair to the office to show all the expenditure in one pot. It makes them seem like The Department for Administrative Affairs.
If the break down of a £12 membership is, say:
CEO £2
Home £3
International £2
Junior £1.50
Marketing £2
Finance £1.50
I think that is a better way to engage with the membership, than saying the ECF spends £10 in every £12 on administration. It also makes the Directors more accountable for what they do, the election is not for a single Board+Volunteers totalling 50 people. It is for individuals with different plans, which ought to be costed.