ECF Reporting of Board meetings

[Roger de Coverly]

If this is going to be an issue, would it be advisable to start a new thread on the subject?

Whilst it's accepted that summaries of Board meetings didn't always contain the whole picture, what they left out could be eventually as illuminating as what they put in. If it's important to know that the Board discussed a subject and took a decision, you don't find out in a timely manner when your source of information is a set of redacted minutes published months after the meeting.

Here's an example. The British Chess Championship Congress has gained an extra day or two at the start and end. Was this discussed by the Board and is it connected with a move to holding the Championship itself over 9 rounds?

Looking backwards, it varies with CEO. One of Martin Regan's planks was improved communication and he did from time to time send out circular emails explaining what the ECF was doing. Chris Meier also ncouraged reporting, even going to the stage of having a Board meeting or two opened up to outside observers. The Board went silent during the Andrew Farthing era, very possibly because it had at least one major issue to be silent about. Even such novelties as a CEO blog on the ECF website fell by the wayside.

[John Swain]

In the light of some comments on other threads, is it not about time that the ECF Board joined the twenty-first century and published the way members vote on particular issues? Why the obsession with Politburo-like secrecy? It would be far more democratic for Board members' views to be known and then, if they wish to stand for re-election, their track record could be examined along with their promises for the future. If you have sound reasons for voting a particular way, you should not be afraid to stand by your views subsequently and be held accountable. It would soon become apparent if there was a cabal on the Board which always backed up each other's decisions.

[Neville Belinfante]

I dont understand why there has to be a delay of a month or more before publishing redacted minutes. If there were appointments for particular positions discussed, then there needs to be a delay of say 24 hours so the applicants can be told in person if they were successful or not. Once that is done, points discussed, decisions made and actions taken should be published

[JustinHorton]

Presumably there does need to be a certain delay before minutes are written and agreed though?

[Sean Hewitt]

Presumably there does need to be a certain delay before minutes are written and agreed though?

Correct. The minutes secretary needs some time to pull together the minutes of a meeting which can commonly be three hours long. That's not a trivial task in my book. These draft minutes then need to be agreed before publication.

Of course, there will be a vacancy for minutes secretary should David Eustace be elected FD so anyone wanting to improve matters need volunteer for the position.

[Sean Hewitt]

In the light of some comments on other threads, is it not about time that the ECF Board joined the twenty-first century and published the way members vote on particular issues? Why the obsession with Politburo-like secrecy? It would be far more democratic for Board members' views to be known and then, if they wish to stand for re-election, their track record could be examined along with their promises for the future. If you have sound reasons for voting a particular way, you should not be afraid to stand by your views subsequently and be held accountable. It would soon become apparent if there was a cabal on the Board which always backed up each other's decisions.

I agree. I have more than once asked for the way that I have voted to be specifically minuted. I believe that I am the only Director to have done this this year.

[John Swain]

In the light of some comments on other threads, is it not about time that the ECF Board joined the twenty-first century and published the way members vote on particular issues? Why the obsession with Politburo-like secrecy? It would be far more democratic for Board members' views to be known and then, if they wish to stand for re-election, their track record could be examined along with their promises for the future. If you have sound reasons for voting a particular way, you should not be afraid to stand by your views subsequently and be held accountable. It would soon become apparent if there was a cabal on the Board which always backed up each other's decisions.

I agree. I have more than once asked for the way that I have voted to be specifically minuted. I believe that I am the only Director to have done this this year.

Good for you, Sean. If you're re-elected, I hope you're alongside other Directors of a similar persuasion and open government can flourish!

[John Upham]

I agree. I have more than once asked for the way that I have voted to be specifically minuted. I believe that I am the only Director to have done this this year.

Are you able to state for the record what or who have blocked this reasonable request?

I'm hoping for more than "some members of the board".

[Sean Hewitt]

I agree. I have more than once asked for the way that I have voted to be specifically minuted. I believe that I am the only Director to have done this this year.

Are you able to state for the record what or who have blocked this reasonable request?

I'm hoping for more than "some members of the board".

No-one. When I've asked for the way I voted to be recorded, I believe it has been.

[John Philpott]

Sean Hewitt wrote

Correct. The minutes secretary needs some time to pull together the minutes of a meeting which can commonly be three hours long. That's not a trivial task in my book. These draft minutes then need to be agreed before publication.

How much time is reasonable though? A Council meeting can be significantly longer than a Board meeting, and producing the minutes is an even less trivial task, yet I cannot help thinking that the deadlines prescribed by the Procedural Bye Laws of 10 weeks for the Board to consider the draft minutes and 13 weeks for these to be published on the ECF website are a little too generous. As a minute taker for other organisations, I have invariably found that the longer the minutes are left, the harder it becomes to compile these.

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean Hewitt wrote

Correct. The minutes secretary needs some time to pull together the minutes of a meeting which can commonly be three hours long. That's not a trivial task in my book. These draft minutes then need to be agreed before publication.

How much time is reasonable though? A Council meeting can be significantly longer than a Board meeting, and producing the minutes is an even less trivial task, yet I cannot help thinking that the deadlines prescribed by the Procedural Bye Laws of 10 weeks for the Board to consider the draft minutes and 13 weeks for these to be published on the ECF website are a little too generous. As a minute taker for other organisations, I have invariably found that the longer the minutes are left, the harder it becomes to compile these.

I think I suggested some years ago (long before I joined the board) that a month felt about right to me. I continue to think that's about right, though I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. That said, the Board operates the company day to day, and it should not be for Council to seek to micromanage the Board.

[Roger de Coverly]

That said, the Board operates the company day to day, and it should not be for Council to seek to micromanage the Board.

If the Board take a decision that has a wide impact, it shouldn't be necessary for those affected to have to wait for a set of redacted minutes to be told what it was.

[Roger de Coverly]

Minutes of the September meeting are now available.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -Final.pdf

It appears there is a paper on revisions to the membership scheme.

Potential Changes to Membership Scheme
The paper previously circulated was discussed.

but they aren't going to say what it suggests or present it to Council either at the AGM or the Finance meeting.

It was agreed to defer any decisions until next Spring so data from Year 1 could be examined, together with the experience of the renewal process, to support any proposals.

As suspected they aren't going to take any action or raise any protest against FIDE's attempt to prevent new players taking part in Internationally rated chess.

Requirement for FIDE Identification Numbers (FINs)
Although the Board deplored how FIDE had introduced this requirement (suddenly, without warning), it was agreed no further action would be taken.

[David Sedgwick]

It appears there is a paper on revisions to the membership scheme.

Potential Changes to Membership Scheme
The paper previously circulated was discussed.

but they aren't going to say what it suggests or present it to Council either at the AGM or the Finance meeting.

It was agreed to defer any decisions until next Spring so data from Year 1 could be examined, together with the experience of the renewal process, to support any proposals.

Why should deferring decisions until the Spring mean that proposed changes won't be put to the Finance Council Meeting in April?

From the Report of the Director of Membership and Marketing:

Various suggestions for minor adjustments to the membership scheme have been made me to me and to other Directors. These will be considered during the autumn and winter with the intention of putting the agreed changes before the Finance Council meeting. This is appropriate since membership fees are a significant part of the Federation's income and any changes potentially have a financial impact.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why should deferring decisions until the Spring mean that proposed changes won't be put to the Finance Council Meeting in April?

If the Report of the Director is more definitive than the Board minutes, as presumably it is, then the April Council meeting may get to decide. There's still a "report", the content of which isn't being disclosed to the voting membership.