ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
NickFaulks
Posts: 3498
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:12 pm

Michael Farthing wrote: Malcolm's comment was a throwaway remark in an editorial and should not be held as an immutable statement for all time.
Malcolm and I have known each other for a very long time. He does not write things without precise thought and as far as I'm concerned, it's an official ECF statement until he withdraws it or the Board disavows it.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1385
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Michael Farthing » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:23 pm

Ah well! I tried.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:30 pm

NickFaulks wrote: He does not write things without precise thought and as far as I'm concerned, it's an official ECF statement until he withdraws it or the Board disavows it.
Back in the days of BH Wood, one of the last things he would have done is to allow his magazine to become an official platform for the BCF. So is the editorial a view of a witness to the ECF AGM or an official statement on behalf of the ECF? If the latter, it would have been better placed in the ECF's newsletter, rather than in a supposedly independent magazine.

NickFaulks
Posts: 3498
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:51 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: So is the editorial a view of a witness to the ECF AGM or an official statement on behalf of the ECF?
The CEO has opted to write in support of it above, so it can presumably be interpreted as the latter.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1037
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:41 am

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.
If this is true and only a small minority of the ECF members are against subsidizing activities such as proposed by the international director, then the solution is extremely simple: allow for a basic membership fee that does not support such initiatives and for a separate donation supporting those initiatives. If you really think the majority of the ECF members support those plans, then those donations will come through anyway and the minority that oppose them will not forced to that personal expenditure. Everybody happy.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:22 am

I think there are some practical difficulties in reforming the membership scheme. But either way, I'd like to establish what the current situation is.

Presumably Council were happy with the plans, having elected Malcolm, or at least have a lot of trust in him personally, But I hope it is uncontroversial that there should be clarity on international strategy and budgeting.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:50 am

Paolo Casaschi wrote: If this is true and only a small minority of the ECF members are against subsidizing activities
The original quote was delegates rather than members. It's only a minority of attendees at Council who ever bother to consult those they are deemed to represent, but those that have report a lukewarm attitude at best to financing pet projects of ECF directors. That's not a total surprise, given that the consequence of such financing is likely to be a demand from the ECF of anything between £ 5 and £ 30 as the charge for fielding a substitute in a league match or the ECF tax on someone playing their first or even only Congress.

David Pardoe
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by David Pardoe » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:32 am

It looks like a lot of squabbling going on here about ECF actions.. minutes, etc.
As regards the Minutes of the recent ECF AGM... I`d rather wait and see these published in good order than have them rushed out to pander to a few bickering buffoons. Remember, the ECF is manned largely by unpaid amateurs/volunteers, who give up there personal free time to serve our chess community.. so lets have some patience.
In the meantime, those who wish to exchange informal notes on the `instant` web can do so..

As regards our International chess.
I don't know the details on funding, and I`m sure these will come out in due course.
But lets remember that the International chess scene is part of the overall British chess scene.
Part of the spin-off is that our top players represent UK chess, and any spin-off media coverage and other points can reflect well on the UK chess scene as a whole.... and hopefully lead to greater interest in chess in the UK.
So its important that this aspect gets good support.
And of course, its always possible that any of our aspiring players might one day reach these peaks... something that also should be encouraged.
My personal wish is that more of our active top 30 or so players could get the opportunity to compete in such events.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:46 am

A bit harsh to describe Carl as a buffoon on his own site. He is an unpaid volunteer too.

Amongst various points by David that I either agree or disagree with, this is the thing I was trying to focus on
David Pardoe wrote:I don't know the details on funding, and I`m sure these will come out in due course.
I hope he is right.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:20 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Michael Farthing wrote: Malcolm's comment was a throwaway remark in an editorial and should not be held as an immutable statement for all time.
Malcolm and I have known each other for a very long time. He does not write things without precise thought and as far as I'm concerned, it's an official ECF statement until he withdraws it or the Board disavows it.
It's clear to me that it's written by Malcolm Pein the Chess Editor, rather than Malcolm Pein the International Director and that it's only an official ECF statement if it says it is.

The fact is that there are a small number of competent volunteers in chess and unsurprisingly many of them wear multiple hats (ECF, CSC, UKCC, EPSCA, 4NCL, dare i say e2e4). Sometimes, those hats don't always agree. C'est la vie.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Roger Lancaster » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:35 am

There's room for more than one school of thought on this. Mine would be (a) that, since Malcolm has indicated elsewhere an intention to keep his various roles separate, he wrote the piece in his capacity as editor but (b) that, once Mike commented that it was "pretty much spot on", this was tantamount to, or at any rate close to, endorsing it as a semi-official statement. Having said that, I'll concede that Mike also has multiple hats and might consider he was expressing a purely personal view.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1037
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:44 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Paolo Casaschi wrote: If this is true and only a small minority of the ECF members are against subsidizing activities
The original quote was delegates rather than members.
Every time someone complains about members' representation at council I'm reminded how the system is setup to ensure that the members' view is properly accounted for. Therefore delegates or members should be equivalent with respect to that quote. If they are not, then we have one very good proof that the ECF governance system is broken.

NickFaulks
Posts: 3498
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:45 am

Sean Hewitt wrote: It's clear to me that it's written by Malcolm Pein the Chess Editor, rather than Malcolm Pein the International Director
That was what I thought and hoped.

However, when the CEO weighs in with
Mike Truran wrote: given that what MP reported was pretty much spot on
it does start to look more official.

I am of course hindered by not having access to the article in which delegates who attempted to pass on the feedback received from their constituents are reported to have been belittled and misrepresented.

edit : thanks, Roger, for saying this more succintly and faster!

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1320
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:46 am

The minutes are now on the ECF website but I don't think they tell us anything we didn't know before.

Regarding the comments made by Malcolm Pein in his editorial; he refers to a `small minority of delegates` who `do not want to spend money on anything and are content for the ECF to stand still`. Obviously he doesn't specify who the delegates were and what constituency they might have been representing.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:21 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: Obviously he doesn't specify who the delegates were and what constituency they might have been representing.
The problem for the ECF which membership makes much clearer is that when the ECF proposes a spending programme, it is spending other people's money. If that's out of sponsorship or legacies, that shouldn't be a major problem, it's when it comes from the club players that the "delegates" represent then it is. A few years ago, there was perpetual wailing and gnashing of teeth whenever the BCF/ECF put up Game Fee to finance increased expenditure. Why should the same not apply to per head per year levies?

Post Reply