April 2016 Council meeting

[Roger de Coverly]

Slightly more than the price of a pint of beer spread over three years?

The proposal is that the club player should contribute somewhere between five and nine pints to the ECF for the privilege of being allowed to play in club chess and the cost of a pint or more for a single game. That's in a context where being asked to pay less than the then cost of a pint as an additional cost to enter a Congress or play a handful of league games was slated as a Chess Prevention Tax.

[Angus French]

the extortionate increase in our membership fees

Really?

Slightly more than the price of a pint of beer spread over three years?

Yes, it can be said that proposed increases in membership fee don't amount to much and they can be equated to the cost of a pint or half a pint. On the other hand, members who only play league chess and prospective newcomers to league chess, especially if they are unwaged or on a low income, ask what they get for their £15 (as it currently is) Bronze membership. And the only benefit they see is the receipt of a grade and they then ask: is it worth it?

[Mike Truran]

Well, that's revisiting the age-old (and well-aired) debate as to what sort of chess environment we want in this country. The advocates of closing down all activity that actually costs anything aren't going to change their minds any time soon.

But to claim that the proposed increases themselves are "extortionate" is just silly.

[Sean Hewitt]

Well, that's revisiting the age-old (and well-aired) debate as to what sort of chess environment we want in this country. The advocates of closing down all activity that actually costs anything aren't going to change their minds any time soon.

But to claim that the proposed increases themselves are "extortionate" is just silly.

It's a real shame that the proposals have been put to council so late as it gives representative members very little time to consult and thus, I fear, little chance of anything but a negative outcome to the proposed increases. Is there anyway this could be held over to the next meeting (either AGM or Finance) so that the ECF can make its case and reps consult properly?

[NickFaulks]

It's a real shame that the proposals have been put to council so late

If FIDE were to announce two weeks before the Baku congress that they proposed to raise their fees by a substantial percentage, can you imagine the outcry, not least from the ECF?

[Michael Farthing]

It's a real shame that the proposals have been put to council so late as it gives representative members very little time to consult and thus, I fear, little chance of anything but a negative outcome to the proposed increases. Is there anyway this could be held over to the next meeting (either AGM or Finance) so that the ECF can make its case and reps consult properly?

With great reluctance I am in agreement with Sean. Since November I have felt that the new Board has been working well and sending out cooperatives vibes. It was a change I wholeheartedly supported and have never regretted giving that (moral) support. However, there is a continuing need to build the trust between the Board, the Council and the membership and the 12 day notice of a change not due for well over a year is not contributing to that trust. The money involved, for those of us who play a lot, is insignificant: but we also have a responsibility to open up the game to others - and here there is an issue. In addition, the change of emphasis in the use of membership money is a serious shift in principle. It is this last point more than anything else that convinces me the proposals are unnecessarily and detrimentally rushed and I do suggest that the Board reconsiders.

As things stand at present I shall be pressing to refer the proposal back for resubmission. I do not write it in stone and reserve the right to do one of those unacceptable and deadly U-turns should debate convince me otherwise.

I also think that the presentation of Proposal A in its current form invites acceptance of a package of new initiatives as a job lot and though Mike says that Council can amend, reorganise, pick and what not, and that this is not beyond our capabilities, I beg to differ. To redraft a proposal into a form where individual items can be considered separately is not something large meetings do well: much better to have properly thought out motions present in advance so that time can be used in discussing the principle of these initiatives rather than in redrafting on the hoof.

[Brian Towers]

I also think that the presentation of Proposal A in its current form invites acceptance of a package of new initiatives as a job lot and though Mike says that Council can amend, reorganise, pick and what not, and that this is not beyond our capabilities, I beg to differ. To redraft a proposal into a form where individual items can be considered separately is not something large meetings do well: much better to have properly thought out motions present in advance so that time can be used in discussing the principle of these initiatives rather than in redrafting on the hoof.

Since the proposal has been published in advance what is to stop one or two concerned council members spending a bit of time producing their own redraft in advance? Or is council bereft of such individuals?

[NickFaulks]

Since the proposal has been published in advance what is to stop one or two concerned council members spending a bit of time producing their own redraft in advance?

And then people would have three or four days to consider them ( assuming they could even be circulated satisfactorily ) instead of two weeks.

No, we need a clear and fully explained proposal from the Board, followed by a few months in which it can filter down and be discussed before approval. Ideally it should be available for consideration at various AGMs of vote holders, although that is already a bit tight.

[Brian Towers]

Since the proposal has been published in advance what is to stop one or two concerned council members spending a bit of time producing their own redraft in advance?

And then people would have three or four days to consider them ( assuming they could even be circulated satisfactorily ) instead of two weeks.

Erm, no, Nick. Your attention span didn't quite manage to extend to the bit I quoted -

To redraft a proposal into a form where individual items can be considered separately is not something large meetings do well:

The alternative is not two weeks consideration but a few minutes in the meeting as redrafting is done "on the hoof".

[Michael Farthing]

Since the proposal has been published in advance what is to stop one or two concerned council members spending a bit of time producing their own redraft in advance?

And then people would have three or four days to consider them ( assuming they could even be circulated satisfactorily ) instead of two weeks.

Erm, no, Nick. Your attention span didn't quite manage to extend to the bit I quoted -

To redraft a proposal into a form where individual items can be considered separately is not something large meetings do well:

The alternative is not two weeks consideration but a few minutes in the meeting as redrafting is done "on the hoof".

It will be my first Council meeting, and though bolshy, I am not totally blind to my inexperience. It is a possibility and if others attending Council agree with my view they might like to contact me and help me (or better still: I, them) in such an endeavour. Nevertheless, a rethink by the Board in the way its ideas are presented to the meeting would be cleaner and better.

[Nick Grey]

Mike - I'm entitled to my view. In my line of work we have aims of making 25 percent reductions in costs over 3 years.
it is a lot of beer overall & leaves little time to consult.

I'd rather you would concentrate on cutting the costs of wasteful elections & especially voting for none of the above.
If it costs more to have monthly grading than six monthly then I believe those voting have to justify why.

From some of the notes here on the actual LMS tender process seems to me to be as transparent as a voting process to hold a football world cup in the summer in 2022.

[NickFaulks]

Erm, no, Nick. Your attention span didn't quite manage to extend to the bit I quoted

I assume that you enjoy writing such gratuitous insults, but I thought I was responding precisely to what you wrote. The Board offered proposals A and B, with two weeks to consider them. You suggest that a group of Council members could cobble together a compromise proposal C, which the rest of us would have a few days to consider. I don't see how that helps.

I've read your post yet again, and I don't really know what you are saying. Two weeks is plenty, four days is plenty, a few minutes will do? My position is clear. If the Board wishes to carry the membership with it, a fully explained budget must be proposed three months before significant increases in fees are put to a vote.

[Michael Farthing]

Nick,

I think Brian's point was that in the situation in which we find ourselves having a prepared alternative before the meeting is better than doing it in the meeting - I think. I'm not sure if that was Brian being dismissive of my post or making a genuine suggestion. I've chosen to take it as the latter. I agree, however, that in any case it would be a much less than satisfactory solution.

[Michael Farthing]

Mike - I'm entitled to my view. In my line of work we have aims of making 25 percent reductions in costs over 3 years.
it is a lot of beer overall & leaves little time to consult.

I'd rather you would concentrate on cutting the costs of wasteful elections & especially voting for none of the above.
If it costs more to have monthly grading than six monthly then I believe those voting have to justify why.

From some of the notes here on the actual LMS tender process seems to me to be as transparent as a voting process to hold a football world cup in the summer in 2022.

Several points:

1. My name is Michael. I'm afraid I'm quite tetchy about it - but I'm sure you'll take that on board.
2. If only more people expressed views I'd be a much happier bunny. Please continue to do so!
3. I think the tender process is OK actually. Some of the language may be technical but it is written for people who know what they are doing (hopefully).
4. Wasted elections? Well, reducung the number of elections is part of the proposals before this meeting and I suspect will be less controversial, so you may be in luck with that one. We differ, I'm afraid on 'none of the above' which I believe this year rescued us from a non-functioning board.
5. I agree about the need to justify the LMS and that's one reason why I have put forward the idea of splitting the budget proposals so that individual votes can be taken.

[Angus French]

Ah, Michael, I read Nick's post as a response to Mike Truran (Mike T had earlier responded to a view expressed by Nick)!