2011 AGM: October 15th

[Carl Hibbard]

It must help once you realise that 75% has no chance to decide that 50% is more than enough!

[Alex Holowczak]

It must help once you realise that 75% has no chance to decide that 50% is more than enough!

I was at the Skype Board Meeting when this came to light. I was so surprised by it - I'm sure other Board members were too - that I asked the question explicitly, thinking I'd got it wrong. I hadn't.

[Roger de Coverly]

If the changes are passed I hope that people will respect the democratic decision and try to make the new system work.

What are you saying to leagues and counties who express opposition, in some cases, near unanimous opposition to the proposals? Is it basically a case of, "pay up or leave the ECF?"

A 50% vote is absolutely asking for future trouble for reasons I'll leave people to figure out for themselves.

[Alex Holowczak]

What are you saying to leagues and counties who express opposition, in some cases, near unanimous opposition to the proposals? Is it basically a case of, "pay up or leave the ECF?"

I think that's an improvement on saying to leagues and counties who express support, in some cases, near unanimous support for the proposals that we're pandering to the wonts of a vocal minority.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think that's an improvement on saying to leagues and counties who express support, in some cases, near unanimous support for the proposals that we're pandering to the wonts of a vocal minority.

There is a difference though. Leagues and counties who wish to pay for their voting membership of the ECF on a per head basis can already have the facility to do so. In fact leagues and counties have a choice of payment methods at present. They will still do so in the future. What is being proposed is that the per game payment method will be made uneconomic for most practical purposes.

[Alex Holowczak]

What is being proposed is that the per game payment method will be made uneconomic for most practical purposes.

Fair enough. I have no problem with that proposal at all, if the idea is to shift to one method of funding for the sake of simplicity. Which it is. Equally, I wouldn't mind if the opposite proposal were made (i.e. membership were made uneconomic), but Council rejected it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Fair enough. I have no problem with that proposal at all, if the idea is to shift to one method of funding for the sake of simplicity. Which it is. Equally, I wouldn't mind if the opposite proposal were made (i.e. membership were made uneconomic), but Council rejected it.

I have to say that an organisation which claims that a billing method which requires counting games by membership status is difficult and expensive, is going to cope badly with a need to apply an 85% test after screening less active players and then apply a variable Game Fee rate. You might claim simplicity, but it won't be simple for club and county treasurers. Stewart Reuben claimed that the old registration system was simple. In a way he was right, but only from the point of view of the BCF. Under registration, the BCF collected per head fees exclusively from county associations. The head count was based not on their actual numbers but their deemed numbers. In theory, you were supposed to be registered to play in BCF competitions. This was impossible to police, given the absence of a central register.

I thought the switch to membership was ideological, in other words hidden benefits will suddenly accrue to the ECF once it has a closer relationship with players. In some respects, the ECF still isn't offering individual membership, since despite becoming the payors of the ECF, individual players will have no effective say in the ECF's decision making processes.

[David Robertson]

the ECF still isn't offering individual membership, since despite becoming the payors of the ECF, individual players will have no effective say in the ECF's decision making processes.

...which, in my opinion, is why the present proposals will not do; hence Council should remit the Farthing paper until that matter is addressed

[Alex Holowczak]

Fair enough. I have no problem with that proposal at all, if the idea is to shift to one method of funding for the sake of simplicity. Which it is. Equally, I wouldn't mind if the opposite proposal were made (i.e. membership were made uneconomic), but Council rejected it.

I have to say that an organisation which claims that a billing method which requires counting games by membership status is difficult and expensive, is going to cope badly with a need to apply an 85% test after screening less active players and then apply a variable Game Fee rate. You might claim simplicity, but it won't be simple for club and county treasurers. Stewart Reuben claimed that the old registration system was simple. In a way he was right, but only from the point of view of the BCF. Under registration, the BCF collected per head fees exclusively from county associations. The head count was based not on their actual numbers but their deemed numbers. In theory, you were supposed to be registered to play in BCF competitions. This was impossible to police, given the absence of a central register.

I thought the switch to membership was ideological, in other words hidden benefits will suddenly accrue to the ECF once it has a closer relationship with players. In some respects, the ECF still isn't offering individual membership, since despite becoming the payors of the ECF, individual players will have no effective say in the ECF's decision making processes.

(1) There will be a central register that the levy didn't have. There is one at the moment for members. The advent of computers have made this possible and realistic.
(2) With one income stream, any battles faced with policing can be focused on one thing, rather than a combination of two or three things.
(3) The experience of club and county treasurers is that it is simple. Just ask the existing MOs, who actually have practice at this already.
(4) The "85% test" exists already, in so far as the e-mail sent to graders - which can just as easily go to the office, or anyone - gives a number of members and a number of non-members. It isn't difficult to turn that into a percentage.

[Alex Holowczak]

the ECF still isn't offering individual membership, since despite becoming the payors of the ECF, individual players will have no effective say in the ECF's decision making processes.

...which, in my opinion, is why the present proposals will not do; hence Council should remit the Farthing paper until that matter is addressed

There's nothing wrong with accepting this proposal, and then proposing change to voting structures for the April Council meeting. I.e. get the funding mechanism sorted now in time for 2012/13, then worry about the voting at the next Council meeting; the last under the Game Fee/Membership hybrid. This way the new voting system can be in place for the first Council meeting under the new regime. There's still time for the change you want to happen, to happen.

The idea of voting reform was presented in the consultation papers, but virtually no one replied to it.

[Carl Hibbard]

(1) There will be a central register that the levy didn't have. There is one at the moment for members. The advent of computers have made this possible and realistic.

But it always seems to be forgotten that a large number of people do not have access to the internet?

[Paul Sanders]

(1) There will be a central register that the levy didn't have. There is one at the moment for members. The advent of computers have made this possible and realistic.

I believe that the wonderful and inventive BBC Model B could make light work of such a task, many thanks to our Great British Boffins!

[Paul Sanders]

(1) There will be a central register that the levy didn't have. There is one at the moment for members. The advent of computers have made this possible and realistic.

But it always seems to be forgotten that a large number of people do not have access to the internet?

They can always pop down to the local library or internet cafe.

[Alex Holowczak]

(1) There will be a central register that the levy didn't have. There is one at the moment for members. The advent of computers have made this possible and realistic.

But it always seems to be forgotten that a large number of people do not have access to the internet?

They can always pop down to the local library or internet cafe.

Well, to maintain a central register, and a policing structure, it is not the players who need access to a membership list. The people who need to see, in order of importance, are:
(1) The Office
(2) The Board
(3) League/Congress Officials
(4) Club Secretaries

(1) and (2) have Internet access. 99% of people in (3) will have Internet access. At least 90% of people in (4) will have Internet access. Arguably, if errors are made by (3) and (4), the people in (1) and (2) will point it out.

I don't think Internet access is an issue.

[Carl Hibbard]

I don't think Internet access is an issue.

Sorry I meant more to register as a member, isn't the suggestion to run online registration/checking etc. not that I trust the ECF to organise such an option