ECF AGM 2018

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Brian Towers
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Brian Towers » Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:05 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:57 pm
Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:51 pm
But did note he faced the decision whether to enter the British or major open himself recently.
I didn't mention it at the time, but as it happens, he did neither - he accepted an invitation to be an arbiter at it instead.
Indeed. Looking at his FIDE arbiting record - https://ratings.fide.com/arbiter_hist.p ... ent=411450 (free login required to see all details) - gives the lie to the suggestion that he faced much in the way of a decision. 23 out of his 43 FIDE arbiter positions to date have been at British Championship events of one kind or another. He is very much an insider at these events but on the arbiting side not the playing one. In retrospect, given the extent to which Adrian Elewin was the establishment candidate, it is amazing that Tim Wall got as many votes as he did.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17303
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:24 pm

Brian Towers wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:05 pm
Looking at his FIDE arbiting record - https://ratings.fide.com/arbiter_hist.p ... ent=411450 (free login required to see all details) - gives the lie to the suggestion that he faced much in the way of a decision.
Looking at his playing record on the other hand, shows that he played in the Championship in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2016. That rather implies the British Championship can rank above arbiting, which in turn ranks above the Major Open or Senior events if eligible.

He would be amongst the ranks of the soft qualifiers excluded by the recent reforms.

Angus French
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Angus French » Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:14 pm

One thing I was confused about at the meeting: somehow the agenda item for the increased budget for the current year (item 12) - and presumably the two years which follow (though the agenda item doesn't say that) - and the agenda item for increased membership fees for future years (item 13) were discussed together and voted on together, as one item. One minute there was discussion on membership fees and then we switched to, say, the women's chess budget and then we went back to membership fees and so on. Would it not have been better to keep the two agenda items separate and split the one for the budget into four sections (Development Manager, Women's Chess, the Office, and International)? I think it was clear that some of the areas of proposed expenditure were more popular than others. And what if people wanted to vote for some expenditure but not all of it and for no increases in membership fees?

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1687
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:35 pm

I got the impression that there was an expectation that there would be amendments for separate consideration. The debate was so erratic however that (a) no one got around to suggesting it and (b) we were then in grave danger of running out of time. The fact that motions were printed in the accompanying papers and not specified on the agenda and the lateness of some of the accompanying papers is a matter of concern.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Mike Gunn » Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:44 pm

Angus, there is a reason for this. The agenda had to go out one day before the board was due to meet and agree detailed proposals. My first draft agenda contained one agenda item covering this but the Finance Director said: no, I want 2 items one on the budget so we ended up with item 12 and 13. When the supporting papers turned up we had just one motion for discussion (on page 9 of the Challenges ... paper) which covered the budget, new proposed membership rates and the request for money from the PIF. There was another page which just listed membership rates. From the procedural point of view the meeting needs a motion to discuss, possibly amend and vote on and the Challenges motion covered all the points, so I decided that was the vehicle for the meeting to debate and decide upon. In the meeting I tried to explain this but I failed to say we wouldn't go on to discuss the membershp rates page afterwards. After the meeting I discovered that this point confused several representatives who were expecting a separate vote on item 13.

It is my strong view that Couhcil meetings need an agenda which spells out precisely what we are going to vote on and we don't have to search through supplementary documents to understand what is going on. I will do what I can to try and make sure that this happens in the future.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1687
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:59 pm

Mike,

The Board, like other requisitionists, surely has a duty to meet the time constraints for submitting motions for discussion. As Chairman, can you not simply make it clear that if motions are submitted late then they don't make it? I am not one for rigid adherence to the letter of the law in defiance of the spirit, but late and confusing agendas are against the spirit because otherwise proper consultation of representatives with their principles is at best difficult, and for this meeting on some matters, was impossible (quite apart from the fact that following what was happening was pretty difficult). I'm sure if the Board knew they would not meet with tolerance on this minds might be more concentrated and dates of Board Meetings better planned? [On the last point I have been given assurances that the timetable for next year has been agreed and this point taken on Board (sorry, couldn't resist that)].

NickFaulks
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:07 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:44 pm
Angus, there is a reason for this. The agenda had to go out one day before the board was due to meet and agree detailed proposals.
Perhaps the Board might have seen that one coming?

edit - I see this is not an original thought!

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2531
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:17 pm

"It is my strong view that Couhcil meetings need an agenda which spells out precisely what we are going to vote on and we don't have to search through supplementary documents to understand what is going on. I will do what I can to try and make sure that this happens in the future."

Well, yes...

But it's hardly a new problem is it? I remember meetings where motions the Board didn't like were put at the end of the agenda, then some Board lackey would ramble on about nothing to ensure there was no time to discuss them. Having unclear agendas is much the same sort of trick.

"The agenda had to go out one day before the board was due to meet and agree detailed proposals. "

Did anyone consider having the board meeting earlier? That would seen an elegant and simple solution. Sorry Nick, I thought I might have to explain your point...

Mike Gunn
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Mike Gunn » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:29 pm

I do believe the board made considerable efforts to find a date but couldn't find one which a majority of board members could manage. The previous meeting had been cancelled.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Mike Gunn » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:37 pm

Michael, Generally, I agree. I believe we did stick the letter of the law, but we could have done much better! In any case Council will get another bite at the cherry in April ...

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1687
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:49 pm

Thanks Mike. I think a peace treaty is in order on that basis!

I think Kevin's point about "motions the Board didn't like were put at the end of the agenda" is something I do remember, but it was a different Board and though the effect was as Kevin describes I would not be prepared to accuse them of premeditated delay tactics. That scenario has vanished and nowadays we complete agendas (tight on Saturday - but still managed). The comparison of that situation with the problems discussed in this thread I do not think is valid: I do not believe that any of these difficulties were intentionally devised so that the Board would get its way. The explanations given are perfectly convincing as to why things happened. Hopefully, they can be avoided in future.

Nick Grey
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Nick Grey » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:15 pm

I think that the counting was poor but as one was Michael Farthing (seeming not to manage a list)
I spent a lovely morning having my flu jab. More than 600 in a few hours. Listing I knew in 9.06 - 9.30 slot & about 80 in - as is a book in process.
So basic colours on lists etc & not only that but was in my list on Mon morning.
Volunteers ought to be able to count. Focus on that point switch off from the politics.
I'm sure Mike Gunn was excellent.

I'm hoping for that quiet time to call the office on 18th. The work phone ropy this week - too many callers put through when ought to have been put through to Hr services not schools finance.

Post Reply