ECF National Secondary Schools Co-ordinator

[Roger de Coverly]

Except that there is no demand for membership unless the event is graded.

The Board might wish to clarify its position, but my understanding would be that it decided :-
(a) all events run in the name of the ECF would be graded and
(b) all players in these events would have to be members.


I'm not sure that (b) is necessarily tied to grading as it must also relate to revenue raising, but if the ECF wants to backtrack, it could withdraw some of its own events from grading.

[Angus French]

According to the minutes, the motion which the ECF Board voted on and approved was "That people playing in events organised and graded [my emphasis] by the ECF must be ECF members". I guess that implies that some ECF-organised events aren't graded. It would be useful to have a list of ECF-organised events and to distinguish between graded and not graded (if they aren't all the former).

[Andrew Zigmond]

Just literally caught up with todays posts. The present situation seems to be that four board members voted for this decision and three voted against it. The result has cost them one enthusiastic officer and nobody (to the best of my knowledge) has spoken in favour of the decision apart from one board member who contributes to this forum and has attempted to justify his action. With such a groundswell of opinion the board should see common sense and make a U turn; even if its presented as a temporary measure while further discussion takes place. Such a move would probably enhance the standing of the board - for once they would give the impression of listening.

Roger mentions above (I haven't time to cut and paste the actual quote) about the problems caused by anomolies and exemptions. The argument against exemptions, taking the Yorkshire situation as an example, is that many ECF members would feel short changed as a result - a point I understand. However nobody appears to feel short changed by the possibility of Secondary Schools events receiving an exemption, instead the majority see it as perfectly logical.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't recall a membership proposal from the junior organisation

I think the point was that junior organisations independent of the ECF checked how much they were paying to the ECF under the then existing Game Fee rules. They then checked how much they would have to ask to make participants in their events ECF members. Having noted how much more it would cost, they then lobbied for concessions.

Anyone already an ECF member by virtue of playing in the 4NCL or other FIDE rated tournaments probably got a rebate by virtue of the abolition of League Game Fee. As the ECF was looking to raise at least as much as it did previously, these rebates had to be financed from somewhere. Whilst less active club players not already part of MOs was one source, another was, or would have been Junior organisations.

[Roger de Coverly]

However nobody appears to feel short changed by the possibility of Secondary Schools events receiving an exemption, instead the majority see it as perfectly logical.

It's only logical if the premise that compulsory ECF membership is a barrier and a disincentive to participation is accepted. The voting of the ECF Board suggests a rejection of this premise. The voting membership on Council perhaps wavered on the issue with the concessions on residual Game Fee and Pay to Play enough to get floaters on board. It remains an unanswered question as to whether the ECF Board wish to press on to remove all the watering down that enable non-members to continue to participate in English events.

[Neill Cooper]

For low activity and new players, they wanted to hang to Game Fee because in the absence of free membership, it's a cheaper option to pay for the event as a whole than add the cost of membership to the entry fee.

I don't recall a membership proposal from the junior organisation

Item 21 of the ECF Council meeting April 2012 - http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ership.doc

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Some excellent comments on this thread. I hope some of what is being said is either being noted or will be communicated back to the ECF Board in some way, preferably by those who have a track record at objectively summarising such discussions. I particularly like the 'heavily discounted/ free Rapidplay' idea.

[Sean Hewitt]

I don't know why the board took the decision it did, since the discussion is not minuted. But the idea that the promotion of junior chess is incompatible with a membership scheme seems a bit far fetched.

The main issue was one of consistency; both with other events run by the ECF (which, not unnaturally, require membership) and with non-ECF events which don't get exempted from contributing financially.

I disagree with Sean's comment that everyone has to contribute financially. As an ECF member, I expect part of my membership to be spent subsidising some activities for the greater benefit of English chess. Junior chess is one of these.

I think we are actually agreeing here. I don't believe in silos where each budget has to be balanced so if Junior chess needs an extra £20k per year, we should find it and fund it.

But I have written before at my frustration that the junior organisation is hanging on to game fee. Membership is a promotional tool, as well as a revenue generator. Picking up Alex's supermarket analogy, one of the most successful and imitated promotional tools is Tesco's Clubcard. Collecting the contact details of juniors seems to me very useful, even if the only thing the ECF ever did was email them with events in their area, and even if the membership was given away free.

I am sure that many school players are put off by £12 membership. But there is no reason why this has to be the fee for juniors, I would have been much happier if there was a lower rate junior membership than I am with the legacy game fee. Frankly I imagine game fee was a disincentive too, let's not pretend we were doing well promoting junior chess in England until very recently.

Absochuffingloutely. I've made that exact point to my Board colleagues. I'm not sure I'd agree with free membership (people often deem such things to be worthless) but I can't get a straight answer from the junior chess community as to what the barrier is. When it was suggested that the cost was too expensive, I advocated heavily discounted membership with some goodies thrown in. Then I was told that the problem was that membership was administratively too burdensome. Yet adult clubs seem to manage it, and schools cope with the mountain of bureaucracy they face in other areas. Anyone ever completed a risk assessment?! The FA requires schools to affiliate each year, which somehow they manage to do. I fear the truth is that some junior organisers don't like membership because they don't like membership.

Regarding this dispute, I regret that Neill has been alienated. He seems to have been doing a good job locally. But I don't entirely accept there should be separate rules for ECF events, I think grading the UKCC would be just as useful. As long term forumites know, I would prefer to see chess organised outside the ECF, and the ECF giving its titles to those events it thinks are best promoting its aims. It is too hard to make the right strategic decisions, if the organisers of particular events are lobbying for their model at the same time.

I agree, and I wish he would reconsider. If fact, if any junior organiser is prepared to work constructively with me to design a membership scheme that the majority could live with I'd be delighted. Such offers have fallen on deaf ears in the past but maybe now might be a good time to think how this could be achieved?

Finally, if I could see this decision in the context of how the ECF is promoting membership I might understand it better. Honestly, I felt the same about the calendar issue, that it didn't have enough strategic underpinning. So it looked arbitrary, even if it was well intentioned. But I am reluctant to criticise a volunteer doing a job they didn't want too strongly, and frankly an organisation with vacancies for key leadership positions is going to be weak in these areas.

Paul - see my previous answers. The strategy is clear to my mind. The ECF want as many English chess players to be ECF members as possible for reasons that you clearly well understand. That strategy gets undermined by exemptions, particularly secret ones (which is what happened to game fee). Unfortunately, some junior organisers do not seem to get that having a database of 5000+ chess playing kids would be good for them as well as the ECF. The motion to introduce junior game fee was a missed opportunity of huge proportions for junior chess in England.

[Sean Hewitt]

Something which has bothered me for a while (going back to the previous Board) is: what do the Non-Executive Directors perceive their role to be?

In my view, it's to bring extra perspective and to try to ensure a balance in decision making. Scrutinising what the executive directors do is a large part of this.

If there's a risk that a decision will be taken too quickly and without due consideration and consultation, the NEDs should, I believe, recognise this and step in.

In my mind, it's three fold. Firstly strategic. Advise on matters of company wide strategy. Secondly, to review and comment on the activities of the executives and thirdly to ensure that the company does not embark on an illegal or massively risky course of action. So I think we broadly agree.

If a proposal appears to affect one Directorate in particular and if the Director concerned is against the proposal then, again, I think the NEDs should recognise this and take action.

The NEDs do not have a right of veto. So whilst they can raise points, they cannot over-ride the will of the Board as a whole. Of course, in respect of the decision at hand, the issue transcends directorships. It goes to the core of the ECF as a membership organisation. As such, the company strategy should trump the will of any one director.

[Roger de Coverly]

The motion to introduce junior game fee was a missed opportunity of huge proportions for junior chess in England.

It wasn't a motion to introduce Junior Game Fee, it was a motion to retain Junior Game Fee. This was a measure to avoid the introduction of a massive price hike caused by the introduction of per head costing. I'm afraid the ECF Directors just don't get it about the drawbacks of per head costing and its impact on new and occasional players.

What's the position on residual adult Game Fee? Will there be a proposal to remove that as well and reach a position where it is necessary to become an ECF member to be allowed to play in any graded or rated competition?

[Roger de Coverly]

In my mind, it's three fold. Firstly strategic. Advise on matters of company wide strategy. Secondly, to review and comment on the activities of the executives and thirdly to ensure that the company does not embark on an illegal or massively risky course of action.

Adopting a policy which if put to a vote at a meeting of the voting membership, would likely to have been rejected by a large margin doesn't come into it then.

I fear the truth is that some junior organisers don't like membership because they don't like membership.

In other revelations, Pope found to be a Catholic. Why should everyone in the chess world be compelled to accept the principle that you need to be an ECF member before sitting down to play a graded game of chess? The ECF supporters of membership got a watered down version of compulsory membership through on a 70% vote. The April meeting voted to water it down even more as far as Juniors are concerned. The October meeting vetoed the proposal of a prospective candidate for President to review the scheme as implemented. I don't think the ECF Board has a particular mandate for changes of principle.

[Alex McFarlane]

the company strategy should trump the will of any one director.

I accept this. Perhaps you can explain why the Board did not suggest to the recent Finance Meeting that the proposals for exemptions be rejected. These exemptions clearly went against the company strategy.
As a NED are you investigating all the Directors who voted for, and indeed proposed, these exemptions. If not, then your whole arguement about fulfilling your duties falls.

Membership is clearly deterring juniors from playing. There has already been a withdrawal from the U8s at the British as the parent refused to pay the membership fee. It is believed a number of local juniors will not enter for the same reason.

As an aside, Ned is a derogatory term applied in Scotland to hooligans, louts or petty criminals, latterly with the stereotypical implication that they wear casual sports clothes!!!!

[Sean Hewitt]

It wasn't a motion to introduce Junior Game Fee, it was a motion to retain Junior Game Fee.

That's just wrong. Junior game fee had been done away with when council voted to introduce the membership scheme. It was introduced off the hoof at last years finance council meeting and meant that council was unable to approve the budget because it had no idea of the effects of what it has just voted to do. Utterly preposterous.

What's the position on residual adult Game Fee? Will there be a proposal to remove that as well and reach a position where it is necessary to become an ECF member to be allowed to play in any graded or rated competition?

When I get my crystal ball back from the shop, I'll be sure to let you know.

[Sean Hewitt]

The present situation seems to be that four board members voted for this decision and three voted against it. The result has cost them one enthusiastic officer and nobody (to the best of my knowledge) has spoken in favour of the decision apart from one board member who contributes to this forum and has attempted to justify his action.

They have, just not on the forum. Is it any wonder?

With such a groundswell of opinion the board should see common sense and make a U turn; even if its presented as a temporary measure while further discussion takes place. Such a move would probably enhance the standing of the board - for once they would give the impression of listening.

A handful of anti-membership forumites does not a groundswell make. Take any previous decision that the forum has whinged about. Invariably, significant numbers of people approach me and say that what a sensible idea xxx is. They are pleased that the Board is starting to see farther than the end of its nose. Would they say this on the forum? No way! I find the forum very useful for many things but, like it or not, it is not representative of chess in England.

[Roger de Coverly]

Junior game fee had been done away with when council voted to introduce the membership scheme.

Game Fee was still running at the time of the April 2012 meeting as the rates of Game Fee for 2012-13 had yet to be set in stone. With the reluctance of the ECF Board to propose constitutional changes abolishing Game Fee at the October 2011 meeting, the membership structure continued to rely on the Game Fee regulations. These required the April 2012 meeting to take a vote on the issue of the amounts, which it duly did. It made the Budget a bit chaotic, but if the Board wasn't prepared to have a 75% vote to nail all the details of its proposed scheme, an ambush was always possible.