ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

[Mike Gunn]

I am (partly) responsible for the minutes in my new role as Chairman of Council. As mentioned above Gary is producing a draft which will be reviewed by Julian (who chaired the AGM) and myself before publication. I discussed the production of the minutes with Gary and Julian after the AGM and made clear my view that what is required is minuting the decisions taken by the meeting rather than a full account of who said what and I trust that the minutes will appear in a timely fashion (at least within the time limit specified in our regulations).

There is a difficulty with budgeting international expenditure which has always existed. Some of the costs are donated by a small number of individuals and the amount they contribute varies from year to year and cannot be predicted when the budgets are drawn up. During the time I served on the board neither the names of the individuals nor the sums they contributed were disclosed to the whole board. We heard at the AGM that Jupiter Asset Management (I think) were putting some money in but they didn't want the amount publicised. I presume that all the money that is contributed goes through the ECF accounts, but it is possible that some does not (e.g. appearance fees for players). In the last few years I recall hearing that because the sponsorship income was uncertain it would be represented by a figure of zero in the budget process and this could lead to confusion about who is paying for what. (I must admit I haven't examined the current figures in detail to check whether this is being done or not.)

Like Paul above, I am personally happy for some of my subscription to go to pay for the international teams but I know from attending meetings over the years that not everyone takes that view. In these circumstances I think it is important that the board is transparent as it is possible to be (while respecting the privacy issues) and that we get accurate historical data on how much has been contributed to the cost of the international teams from external sources. (Making this clear in April would be good in my view.)

[Paul Cooksey]

I don't think it is necessarily that hard Mike. I think the International Director should specify a budget to come from membership income, and anything above that, raised from donors, can be handled confidentially.

The policy I wouldn't vote for is "we always send our best team, I'll raise as much money as I can, and the members pay the rest" But I don't think that is Malcolm's policy, based on what he said in the past. It might have been David Openshaw's.

Seems clear enough, Malcolm is not asking for more money - is that consistent with what has happened and is proposed?

Seems to the point. The only tricky part is Malcolm is inheriting the situation where it was not clear what the existing budget, that he is not asking for more than, was. The problem of aspirational budgets Roger notes.

I'd choose to set the International budget low, because that is what I think the members want. But someone else could set it high. Provided Council knows what they are voting for, no problem. I hope Malcolm's policy is close to mine, he seems willing take most of the responsibility for raising funding. But it did seem there was some uncertainty.

I know I'm open to the criticism I'm giving unpaid volunteers a hard time. But I'm really only asking Directors to share their budget and strategy with Council when they stand for office. I think that is reasonable, given the members are obliged to fund these plans.

[David Shepherd]

I imagine that one of the problems is that some amount of certainty is required. These are professional players who have a living to make, and they will need to know with certainty that if they commit to playing they will be paid the agreed amount. Also to some extent it may be easier to raise funds once the team is known.

Maybe a good system would be to set a budget for a number of years. So for example £x is available for the next three years, which would at least be enough to cover fully the market rate in year one. The players could then fully commit well in advance knowing that the event was fully covered. Funds could then be raised with any surplus put in the pot for future years. If there was a resulting lack of funds for any year then maybe no team or a team of strong younger players could be sent in a subsequent year rather than the very top players.

[Michael Farthing]

Malcolm is raising spending. The net expenditure in the 5 year plan rises from £4775 in 2014/5 to projected £70623 in 2020/1.

[Michael Farthing]

Sorry but it's still piss poor that ECF minutes should take so long to produce.

This, ansd the succeeding comments about the minutes I frankly find quite bizarre.

Two weeks is not long for someone with other work duties to put a long document together and for the chairman of the meeting to review, discuss with colleagues and ensure that a quality job is done that will not be the cause of complaints and corrections at the following meeting. An extra week or two or three is not going to have any effect on practical policy or what the ECF does, or what anyone else does. It is simply that people want instant service because they've grown used to instant service. Learn to wait a bit everyone!

[Roger Lancaster]

Although I fully take MF's point above, I think a real difficulty arises if and when the minutes of a meeting (whether an ECF AGM or anything else) are so long delayed that 'unauthorised versions' are already in circulation and have gained credence. The official minutes, when published, then have to play catch-up over any areas of difference.

[NickFaulks]

I think a real difficulty arises if and when the minutes of a meeting (whether an ECF AGM or anything else) are so long delayed that 'unauthorised versions' are already in circulation and have gained credence.

Precisely. It will be interesting to see how the Board deals with the conundrum of producing a set of minutes that are accurate, but not in direct contradiction of the report already made by one of its members.

[Mike Truran]

Presumably when you rather archly write "one of its members", you do mean MP?

If so, given that what MP reported was pretty much spot on, that shouldn't necessarily prove to be a particular problem.

[Julie Denning]

I think a real difficulty arises if and when the minutes of a meeting (whether an ECF AGM or anything else) are so long delayed that 'unauthorised versions' are already in circulation and have gained credence.

Precisely. It will be interesting to see how the Board deals with the conundrum of producing a set of minutes that are accurate, but not in direct contradiction of the report already made by one of its members.

Nick,

I have already made the point that the report I prepared for the SCCU (and for my Sussex constituents) was as a Council member on their behalf. I made no pretence that it was based on exhaustive notes or an infallible memory. Indeed, I have already put my hand up in response to two commentators (to me in PMs) that my account of one aspect was unduly short and missed an essential point. The one occasion that I produced the official Minutes, I took a full audio recording of the meeting and I would never wish to claim to do justice to the task without that help. When the official Minutes come out, based on rather more scrupulous note taking, I will respect them.

Please accept the report on the SCCU website for what it is. An informal report, primarily aimed at those I represent as a Council member, and including my personal opinions.

[NickFaulks]

I think a real difficulty arises if and when the minutes of a meeting (whether an ECF AGM or anything else) are so long delayed that 'unauthorised versions' are already in circulation and have gained credence.

Precisely. It will be interesting to see how the Board deals with the conundrum of producing a set of minutes that are accurate, but not in direct contradiction of the report already made by one of its members.

Nick,

I have already made the point that the report I prepared for the SCCU (and for my Sussex constituents) was as a Council member on their behalf. I made no pretence that it was based on exhaustive notes or an infallible memory. Indeed, I have already put my hand up in response to two commentators (to me in PMs) that my account of one aspect was unduly short and missed an essential point. The one occasion that I produced the official Minutes, I took a full audio recording of the meeting and I would never wish to claim to do justice to the task without that help. When the official Minutes come out, based on rather more scrupulous note taking, I will respect them.

Please accept the report on the SCCU website for what it is. An informal report, primarily aimed at those I represent as a Council member, and including my personal opinions.

Julie,

As I'm sure you guessed, I had no problem whatsoever with your balanced report.

[Roger Lancaster]

And, for the avoidance of doubt, my earlier post was not intended as a criticism of other reports of the AGM. It was intended solely to indicate, in general terms, a common problem when minutes of a meeting are tardy.

[NickFaulks]

If so, given that what MP reported was pretty much spot on, that shouldn't necessarily prove to be a particular problem.

I presume that you have seen that report, and indeed approved it before it was published. I would certainly hope so. In that case, you are better informed on the current presentation of the ECF Board's views than I am, since I do not intend to buy the magazine.

If you regard

"The plans came in for criticism from a small minority of delegates who, as far as I can see, do not want to spend money on anything, and are content for the ECF to stand still"

as a fair representation of those who questioned your plan to raise fees in order to provide substantial additional funding to international chess ( as instructed by the club players they represent ), then you were not listening.

[Roger de Coverly]

plan to raise fees in order to provide substantial additional funding to international chess

The MP editorial tries to imply that club player fees would be restricted to "basic administration costs". Should it be supposed this excludes costs of International teams and events? The various reports by those who attended the meetings and studied the material presented don't support this conclusion.

[NickFaulks]

The various reports by those who attended the meetings and studied the material presented don't support this conclusion.

You have the same material to go on as those present, which is the five year financial plan. Representatives who tried to obtain clarification at the AGM were treated as you might infer from the tone of the editorial.

[Michael Farthing]

Nick, Mike, everyone,

Lets cool it.

The particular quotation from Malcolm is puzzling to me because it seems to refer to me (amongst others) but does not reflect what I think, nor what I thought I had said. I genuinely think he has missed the point of our (ie the bronze and silver reps) questionning which centred around a mismatch between the sentiments expressed by Board members and the figures rendered. Malcolm's comment was a throwaway remark in an editorial and should not be held as an immutable statement for all time. The last (and actually only) time we have spoken to each other was immediately after the AGM and we parted with a handshake. I would prefer to build on the handshake rather than the editorial. Mike was present at that encounter and knows my regard for him. Nick, I drank with you in the pub after the meeting, as I did in April. I have respect for you too, as you know. I have areas where I disagree with both of you. C'est la vie.