Representation on Council and Funding the ECF

[Julie Denning]

OK folks, I have my tin hat on.

Continuing discussion on points raised a couple of days ago on the "ECF demands more money" thread, but starting a new thread as I think this is a much wider discussion.

Appearing to argue against OPOV (go on, humour me - stop calling it OMOV!) democracy or the notion of "no taxation without representation" would be akin to arguing against motherhood and apple pie, as our trans-Atlantic cousins would put it. I anticipate some, incorrectly in my view, will choose to characterise my comments that way. I'm all in favour of democracy and as wide a participation of the playing community as we can get. I'm just not convinced that anyone has yet come up with alternative proposals that would achieve this any better than is done at the moment.

Elsewhere I made the analogy with politics where we, the unwashed, do not get to vote on every proposal from the executive. Rather, we elect MPs who act on our behalf in the intermediary body of parliament. Nearly every citizen above a certain age enjoys the right of OPOV in parliamentary elections. The analogy may not be perfect. In particular, delegates on Council are not organised, and whipped by the executive, along party lines. (Perhaps the Board wishes we were!) However, continuing the analogy, with the exception of ex-officio members of Council and, perhaps, the Direct Members representatives, we have constituencies. In my case, the chess community of Sussex, as represented by our CCA, inter-club league and one congress. Many of these players know me and I know many of them. I consult with them and do my best to represent their views honestly; I remain answerable to them. (To be clear, I don't attempt to consult every graded chess player in Sussex directly. Rather, I consult with main contacts and officials in the organisations and clubs, and a few other specific people who have asked to be included. I rely on those I contact directly to feedback the views of their individual memberships. I suspect some do, while some do not, seek the views if their members.) I can be opposed at the AGMs of both our CCA and league. (In Sussex, our inter-club league is organised independently from the CCA, which I understand is different from many other counties.) Sadly, while it might be an exaggeration to say that our recent County AGMs could have been held in a 'phonebox, they could certainly have been accommodated in any half-decent bus shelter. Our league AGMs are rather more lively affairs. Others may care to comment on how representative this is of other counties. The point I'm trying to make is that the lack of wider participation under the current system doesn't seem to me to be due to some ECF-imposed denial of OPOV, rather it is the failure to get wider involvement in the local community to whom we as delegates are accountable. Virtually all graded players, surely, are involved in a club, league or CCA through which they should have the opportunity to express their views and vote - albeit I accept this can be a rather more convoluted way of appointing a Council delegate than, say, voting directly for an MP in a political election. I recognise that there's little or no opportunity for players in a congress to influence the choice or behaviour of the congress delegate(s). Perhaps Congresses shouldn't be represented directly on Council? (I retreat further below my tin hat.)

It is far from clear to me just what it is that those who are arguing for OPOV (with the inference that we don't have it already) want to happen or how that would ensure greater involvement of the whole chess playing community in the running of the ECF. Roger de Coverly has agreed that something along the lines of Council would still be needed to vote on a number of aspects, including the ECF budget. (Roger, I do agree with a number of points you've made on the previous thread.) Chris Rice argued for OMOV (grrrrh!), but it became clear he was speaking specifically about the Direct Members representatives, who collectively hold less than 3% of Council votes. I must agree that no such representative has ever sought my views. Perhaps these representatives are more of an anachronism from pre-universal membership times who no longer have a meaningful place on Council.

How do those arguing for a new form of OPOV envisage this operating? Do they want direct voting on individual Board proposals, or just in the election of members on Council (or whatever body might assume a similar role in the future)? If the latter, how would such voting be organised? Would it be within local constituencies (surely, similar to what we have at present in theory) or nationally? If the latter, on what basis would candidates stand and be elected, and to whom would they be accountable? What members, if any, would they canvass for views on particular topics, or would they simply vote on the basis of their own views and expect to succeed or fail at the next election on their record? If the latter, there'd need to be recording and publishing of voting records. Just how wide a level of voting participation would we get? No doubt many of those who visit and contribute to this Forum, but beyond that...? Would it really be a better display of democracy?

On a slightly different tack, I perceive that some object to the whole notion of paying a "tax" to play chess. Strictly, of course, it's only to play graded chess. However, let's accept that opting out of grading would rather exclude you from meaningful, competitive, over-the-board chess playing. Hence, we're all caught. You hear the view of "what does the ECF do for me?". Well, if you don't value the grading system, perhaps not a lot. I personally do value it as giving my playing a greater competitive edge. OK, so the bulk of the grading work is done by unpaid volunteers - I know, I'm one of them. However, the ECF does a host of other things that do have to be paid for. I see no prospect of government funding (which was only ever partial) being restored any time soon, so who else should pay other than those of us who play the game? The basic membership covering club, league and county match play has cost just £12 pa (adult Bronze membership online). Such members make up nearly 50% of the adult membership. Damn it, it can cost me more than that in fuel to play in just one away league match! We can argue over the various tiers of membership rights and costs, but the current system is no doubt intended to reflect higher charges on those who play more, while keeping them down for hordes of grass roots players. I'm never going to play in the British Championships or feature in an ECF team (well, I might just squeeze in if they ever instigated a Womens' Veterans U140 team - and overlooked the fact that while I've lived on "the Mainland" for more decades than I'm going to admit to, by birth I'm British, but not English), but I do value having a body organising these things and providing a national focus for our game. I don't want to come across as some sort of ECF stooge. I'm sure some things could be better and I haven't supported every Board proposal, but I'd like to see the system work well, not scrapped. I accept it costs money and I'm one of those who should be expected to contribute to this.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'd just like to have an objective debate. I know many will disagree with me. However, if there's even a minority out there with some sympathy for such views it would be good to hear from you as well in the interests of balance. I welcome responses from any viewpoint, but counter in advance any along the blinkered lines that I haven't understand the question with the equally blinkered "you haven't understood the answer".

Perhaps the outcome of the Constitutional and Governance Review will change the current system drastically. We wait to see.

I prepare to hit the "submit" button with trepidation, anticipating the arrival of the first bullet before I even have time to remove my finger from the mouse. Arrrgh ..............

[Roger de Coverly]

We can argue over the various tiers of membership rights and costs, but the current system is no doubt intended to reflect higher charges on those who play more, while keeping them down for hordes of grass roots players.

I'm not sure that it is. In the Bridge world, the more you play, the higher the income to the EBU. Some members of Council, particularly those from the North, wanted a flat scheme where the most committed players paid no more than the occasional player. When that came out at around £ 18 a head, the original scheme was modified so as to continue to sting the FIDE rated players.

The most expensive chess you can play at a per game level is to be a nominated member of a 4NCL squad and just play one game in the 4NCL all season. Admittedly there is an ECF Director's proposal to modify this.

[Gerry_Jepps]

A very brave post from Julie, which has much common-sense.

Picking up, however, on Julie's analogy between Council delegates and MPs there is at least one important difference. MPs are not allowed to turn up in the Chamber with a pocket full of proxy votes. Although some delegates are very assiduous in canvassing local opinion and are prepared to split their proxies in accordance with local wishes, others are less so (although they may actively collect the proxies). There is at least a suspicion that some Council decisions in the past may have been unduly influenced by bundles of undirected proxy votes. Addressing this problem would improve both transparency and accountability.

[Mick Norris]

I recognise that there's little or no opportunity for players in a congress to influence the choice or behaviour of the congress delegate(s). Perhaps Congresses shouldn't be represented directly on Council? (I retreat further below my tin hat.)

Julie

Let's start with the easy stuff, the answer is no Congresses shouldn't be represented on Council

If you want to reform Council, rather than abolish it (when David Anderton's comment of turkeys not voting for Xmas comes to mind), then you should get a majority for this, and the Congress votes should pass to the Direct Member reps

You might argue the same though about Counties and/or Leagues and/or Unions etc

So, OPOV it has to be - in exactly what form, that's for David Robertson to explain

[David Robertson]

OPOV it has to be - in exactly what form, that's for David Robertson to explain

Again

And again

And agai...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Julie Denning]

Roger de Coverly wrote;

...the original scheme was modified so as to continue to sting the FIDE rated players.

The most expensive chess you can play at a per game level is to be a nominated member of a 4NCL squad and just play one game in the 4NCL all season. Admittedly there is an ECF Director's proposal to modify this.

FIDE-rated events require Gold Membership. At £27 online it's more than double basic Bronze Membership, but still hardly a king's ransom.

Regarding the new proposal, I must admit that as a very lowly grass roots player (although I did take part in a few 4NCL weekends a few seasons ago) I went rather cross-hatched over it. In my consultative message to my membership I took the easy option of asking for players more likely than myself to be impacted to advise me. There's still a couple of weeks to go, but so far I've had no response. I fear I'm going to have to dedicate a couple of brain cells to this one.

[Julie Denning]

Gerry Jeeps wrote:
Picking up, however, on Julie's analogy between Council delegates and MPs there is at least one important difference. MPs are not allowed to turn up in the Chamber with a pocket full of proxy votes. Although some delegates are very assiduous in canvassing local opinion and are prepared to split their proxies in accordance with local wishes, others are less so (although they may actively collect the proxies). There is at least a suspicion that some Council decisions in the past may have been unduly influenced by bundles of undirected proxy votes. Addressing this problem would improve both transparency and accountability.

Gerry, I have mixed views on proxy / multiple votes. It's easy to be cynical when a hand vote appears decisive, but one or two of "the usual suspects" call for a card vote. Conversely, it seems to me that it gets closer to OPOV in giving greater weight to those representing more members. (I guess each of the organisations involved could send along as many delegates as they have votes, vastly increasing their costs but able to exert the same influence in the initial hand vote.) It does, of course, rely on the behaviour of the person holding the votes. Ben Edgell is an obvious example. I don't doubt for a moment his assurances that he reflects the spread of views amongst his members and splits his card votes accordingly. Others may not be so ethical. I admit that I've harvested as many Sussex votes as I can in order to maximise our possible influence, although I think 8 is the most I've managed when I acted as proxy for the SCCU as well, but I do split votes when appropriate. Indeed, given the level of consensus (!) one tends to get from chess players, it means often that I might as well not be there for a code vote as I effectively cancel myself out!

[Julie Denning]

David Robertson wrote:
Again

And again

And agai...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

David, is it you or the half-bottle of red wine that's sending me to sleep?

[David Robertson]

I'm guessing your half-bottle of red wine?

[Nick Grey]

FIDE-rated events require Gold Membership.

Please excuse my ignorance - but is the reason for the higher charge - that ECF have to pay FIDE?

[MartinCarpenter]

Maybe a bit - the membership page indicates a 1 Euro registration fee and £1.50/event fee.

More than that though, its an attempt at 'fairness'. So people playing/willing to pay more more pay more, keeping the barrier for entry as low as possible.

Seems very reasonable really because you have to be quite committed to play in the 4NCL and if the travel/hotel costs don't put you off then a small amount extra on your ECF membership certainly won't!

[Roger de Coverly]

So people playing/willing to pay more more pay more, keeping the barrier for entry as low as possible.

Remind me again why people were so adamant about the abolition of Game Fee and insisted on a per head per year scheme which by its very nature sets a higher barrier for entry?

[Ian Thompson]

More than that though, its an attempt at 'fairness'. So people playing/willing to pay more more pay more, keeping the barrier for entry as low as possible.!

A failed attempt in my opinion.

The ECF is not a business selling goods or services at as high a price as customers will pay, where it would be normal for different customers to be sold the same thing at different prices. It's a membership organisation whose primary source of income is membership fees for which members receive benefits. A membership organisation ought to be charging membership fees in proportion to the benefits the member gets from the organisation.

Charging people who are prepared to pay more in a membership organisation is wrong; you ought to charge at cost, and invite donations (Platinum membership) for people who wish to pay more. "Keeping the barrier for entry as low as possible" sounds very much like Bronze members are not paying their fair share of the costs and are being subsidised by other categories of membership.

[Brian Towers]

On a slightly different tack, I perceive that some object to the whole notion of paying a "tax" to play chess. Strictly, of course, it's only to play graded chess. However, let's accept that opting out of grading would rather exclude you from meaningful, competitive, over-the-board chess playing. Hence, we're all caught. You hear the view of "what does the ECF do for me?". Well, if you don't value the grading system, perhaps not a lot.

Aye, and there's the rub.

I think the real question which needs to be addressed is how must the ECF change to make it more relevant and more valuable to its members. The subtext would be that ECF membership would cost more but bring much greater benefits to its members.

As a first step the ECF should make it a priority to look at what other, more successful, country federations do and look to try and implement what they think are the better ideas. If the ECF is really only a grading facility for the ordinary club member then, I'm sorry, it's not doing its job.

I'm an expat. I'm not an ECF member. I pay £70 a year for my national federation membership which seems a bit steep but it does provide a far better chess experience than the ECF appears to provide as merely a grading provider. There is a pay-per game and pay-per-competition fee which are both much cheaper but I don't know what they are.

My current country provides an extensive structure for arbiter-controlled chess. I play in a league where, at about 1750, I'm one of the weakest players. It is the lowest FIDE rated league, with lower leagues being national rated only. All the big clubs will have at least one FA (FIDE Arbiter) and the smaller clubs which field league sides in a FIDE rated league will have an NA (a FIDE National Arbiter).

I can hear some of the old curmudgeons sneering "We don't need no steenking arbiters". Well, yes you do! Here in the pre-arbiter days you very occasionally got disputes which could become very heated indeed. On one or two occasions this escalated to invitations to "Step outside". Fisticuffs seemed a very real possibility. A firm arbiter with the ability to knock heads together and the power to award both players a loss if they carry on like that can nip that sort of behaviour in the bud.

How can the national federation help with the provision of arbiters? Here FIDE arbiter courses are held regularly and are relatively cheap - about £30 or £40. The federation tags on its own additional requirements for arbiters. To be a FIDE NA you need over 70% in the exam plus some arbitering norms (I think FIDE just require 20 euros). To be a national federation arbiter you need at least 60% in the exam. All the FIDE rated competitions mean getting your FA norms is mostly a matter of time, although if you have a juicily low FIDE rating like mine then you have to fight off the pressure that is gently applied to play and provide cannon fodder for the up and coming juniors rather than arbiter.

What does the British Championships have to offer the clubs? If it is still more or less the same as when I was a BCF member then the answer is "nothing". When I were a lad the British for members of our club was something that the likes of Ken Neat or Paul Bielby went off to play once every two or three years which gave them a 10 point BCF grading boost. For the rest of us it was a mythical beast, pretty much irrelevant to ordinary club players.

Where I live I usually play in the national championships whenever the club chooses to hold a 1/8 final competition. These competitions are held in the clubs and are for qualifiers from the 1/16 finals plus players rated 1800 - 2000 or 2200. The top 20% go on to the 1/4 final stage. The 1/16 finals are nationally rated, the 1/8 finals and above are FIDE rated. How does that help the clubs?

Well, "We're holding a 1/8 final competition for the British Championships on Tuesday evenings - 9 round Swiss - FIDE rated. If you fancy your chances, come and play!". How would that boost participation in your club? Or hold a 1/16 finals competition and put an ad in the local paper inviting players who used to play at school to come along and give it a go.

In the clubs is where all the meaningful chess is played. The ECF gets the bulk of its money from ordinary club players. The ECF should be working with the clubs to make them more successful, thriving organizations. The ECF membership fee should be a lot more than just a grading fee. Other national federations recognize this. Time for the ECF to do likewise.

[Roger de Coverly]

In the clubs is where all the meaningful chess is played.

That's not the case in the UK and hasn't been since the 1970s when weekend Congresses got going. I think it's extremely unlikely that England could have got from nowhere internationally in 1970 to second in the Olympiads in 1986 without the stimulus of an exceedingly competitive weekend circuit.