2011 AGM: October 15th

[Michele Clack]

At the Worcestershire meeting Andrew Farthing specifically said that those people who couldn't or didn't want to enter online would be able to send in a paper application under a membership system.

[Alex Holowczak]

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.

As Michele states, you'll have online and paper if you want it.

A club secretary could quite easily collect the subs and pay ECF online for all his members at once. Or a league could. Or they could do it via paper forms and a cheque. The Birmingham League has a Paypal account now, so it should be able to make such a payment for all its members quite easily. If I can get the Birmingham League to set up a Paypal account - and let's face it, it's hardly a beacon of radical changes - I'm sure other leagues can manage it.

You could set up the objects in the online shop that equate to Gold, Silver and Bronze and at the Concessionary rate. Then fill in the information, and make the payment. It ought to be very easy.

[Roger de Coverly]

(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.

Have you read the small print? The 85% test is after removing non-members playing not more than three games.

(1) for League and Club games where not less than 85% of the competitors playing in the League/competition in question are Direct Members the respective rates shall be reduced to £1 per game for Standard graded games and £0.50 per game for Rapidplay graded games and in calculating the figure of 85% competitors who are not Direct Members who play not more than three games in the League per season/competition shall not be counted.

I don't know if it's intentional, but that's a good deal more generous than what I thought was the original proposal.


Any club or county treasurer wanting to predict their expenditure is going to have to monitor this as well. That isn't something that has to be done at present.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the Worcestershire meeting Andrew Farthing specifically said that those people who couldn't or didn't want to enter online would be able to send in a paper application under a membership system.

I'm sure he did and in practice such a system would likely to be made available. I would have asked how this affects the supposed savings in the Office from abolition of Game Fee. Don't forget that it isn't just a one off. With the abolition of multi-year memberships, the payment process has to be done every year. Presumably the Office would have to send a (postal) reminder. How long would it be before someone noticed that it cost £ 12 to collect a £ 12 membership and therefore the cost needed to be in the £ 20 to £ 25 range to make it worth collecting.

[Sean Hewitt]

(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?

True, but 82.5% of the population do have access to the internet.

[Alex Holowczak]

(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.

Have you read the small print? The 85% test is after removing non-members playing not more than three games.

Yes. Again, this information can easily be acquired from the grading database, and inserted into the aforementioned e-mail.

Any club or county treasurer wanting to predict their expenditure is going to have to monitor this as well. That isn't something that has to be done at present.

As long as it collects all the membership fees it needs to, then its expenditure will be £0, because the money coming in from players by means of an ECF Membership Fee will equal the money that he's sending out to the ECF.

A league could write rules to prevent non-members from playing if that's what it wants. The penalty can be a fine which is equivalent to the Game Fee they'd have to pay.

[Roger de Coverly]

A club secretary could quite easily collect the subs and pay ECF online for all his members at once. Or a league could. Or they could do it via paper forms and a cheque.

Of course they could. You cannot however claim with any credibility that this can be done at no extra cost in volunteer work.

[Andrew Farthing]

I'm sorry not to have posted on this since the AGM papers were published. I was in Battle yesterday visiting the ECF office and only had a few minutes at the end of the day to check e-mails and couldn't visit the Forum within the available time (no WiFi at my hotel last night). I've now moved on to Fareham, where I'm playing in the Spectrum congress, and I do have WiFi access.

On the 75%/simple majority issue: Sorry to disappoint, but there is no conspiracy here. Given the scale of the changes involved in restructuring the financing of the Federation, I had always assumed that they would involve changes to the Articles and the Byelaws. David Anderton very kindly agreed to draft the changes for me, and he achieved it in a remarkably economical way, with very little change within the Articles. I had no intention to deceive. Frankly, I was astonished by the minimal changes to the Articles, but having looked at them carefully, I can see that the drafting makes sense.

The result is that, under the ECF's rules, most of the changes require only a simple majority, and just a couple of points need 75%. As has been pointed out, I've commented previously on the need to achieve a broad consensus, and therefore I shall be paying close attention to the size of any majority achieved. It doesn't affect the outcome - if the changes are passed under the ECF's rules, they are passed - but of course it's a consideration in assessing the risks of implementation and how these might be managed. I'm not going to speculate any further on this and will await the outcome of the votes.

On the methods of joining: Individuals will be able to join online, over the phone or by post. Depending upon the preferences of the local organisations, they may also have additional options for joining as part of a collective submission.

Re individual member voting rights: I've commented on this in the papers and previously on the Forum. As I've said before, individuals currently have more influence than they give themselves credit for, but they need to make their views known to the various delegates who represent them. As I've also said before, constitutional changes are not ruled out, and there is still time before the membership scheme would be implemented if Council wishes changes to be brought in concurrently.

[Alex Holowczak]

A club secretary could quite easily collect the subs and pay ECF online for all his members at once. Or a league could. Or they could do it via paper forms and a cheque.

Of course they could. You cannot however claim with any credibility that this can be done at no extra cost in volunteer work.

Oh, but I will!

For the Birmingham League, the sort of information that'll be supplied by club secretaries to the league secretaries anyway (for the purposes of grading and 4.3) will be the sort of thing that the ECF wants on its membership form. All that would have to happen is that the BDCL forwards this document, with a few amendments to get rid of the stuff it doesn't want, to the ECF Office.

Then it writes out a cheque and posts it, as it does now with Game Fee.

[Roger de Coverly]

As long as it collects all the membership fees it needs to, then its expenditure will be £0, because the money coming in from players by means of an ECF Membership Fee will equal the money that he's sending out to the ECF.

A league could write rules to prevent non-members from playing if that's what it wants. The penalty can be a fine which is equivalent to the Game Fee they'd have to pay.

As I understand it, a league or county does not have to formally set itself up as an MO. Instead it can just direct its clubs or players to pay for their ECF memberships in person at the hypothetical ECF site. You may or may not get 100% compliance. If you don't get 100% compliance, you need a budget for ECF non-members. If you restrict them to three games each, you can get away with a nil budget. Otherwise you have to budget for Game Fee at £ 2 or £ 1 per game per head. Alternatively you bar non-compliant non-members either by deeming their games to be defaulted, by removing their games from the grading files or by structuring your competitions into member and non-member. Whichever way you look at it, the ECF will be forcing you to write rules you really don't want to have.

Of course if you play enough chess, your existing league entry fees will be enough to cover memberships for all your players and financial issues won't arise. There are those posting here who tell us that membership doesn't represent a price hike to the average club or league.

[Roger de Coverly]

On the 75%/simple majority issue: Sorry to disappoint, but there is no conspiracy here.

There might not be conspiracy, but there is credibility. You are making a major change in the relationship between club players and the ECF in that you are establishing an expectation, a compulsion even, that to play graded club chess you need to be an ECF member. Regardless of whether you can do this with a 50% majority, such a major change should be done with a 75% majority and the votes arranged in such a manner.

(edit) It's one of those issues which you probably need 90% or even nem con. To the best of my recollection, the original Game Fee proposals had something like that level of support, even if the local leagues in Yorkshire and Lancashire subsequently dissented. (/edit)

[Steve Rooney]

On the 75%/simple majority issue: Sorry to disappoint, but there is no conspiracy here.

There might not be conspiracy, but there is credibility. You are making a major change in the relationship between club players and the ECF in that you are establishing an expectation, a compulsion even, that to play graded club chess you need to be an ECF member. Regardless of whether you can do this with a 50% majority, such a major change should be done with a 75% majority and the votes arranged in such a manner.

Roger is right that this raises serious questions about credibility. Achieving 75% in favour of the proposals would give confidence that there would be a healthy and viable conversion rate to membership and raise the required revenue. If support falls well short of 75% then the whole project may be a non starter.

[Carl Hibbard]

If support falls well short of 75% then the whole project may be a non starter.

As I posted previously this has been a done deal for quite some time given the nature of the block vote type mechanism but 75% probably won't be achieved yes

[Roger de Coverly]

As I've said before, individuals currently have more influence than they give themselves credit for, but they need to make their views known to the various delegates who represent them..

I don't think that's the case. A delegate representing a league or county should regard themselves as mandated by the local AGM or Exec and shouldn't be unduly influenced by individuals directly lobbying them. We had this issue at the time of the Walsh v Short issue, or even Paines v De Mooi. The popular vote was in favour of Nigel and in some organisations this caused conflict with the delegate where the delegate was in favour of Gerry.

[David Robertson]

Re individual member voting rights:...individuals currently have more influence than they give themselves credit for, but they need to make their views known to the various delegates who represent them

Chance would be a fine thing. But I (& several hundred others) have no practical chance of even this limited franchise. Currently, I play or plan to play in four local leagues:

* MCA (Liverpool & District)
* CDL (Chester & District)
* WL (Wirral)
* WDCL (Warrington & District)

From the ECF Electoral Register that I read a few days back, it appears that MCA & WL are lapsed; WDCL has no status (neither member nor lapsed); and only CDCL is paid up. So a sizeable chunk of NW England has been disenfranchised, even within the attenuated 'democracy' of ECF. By whom have we been disenfranchised? Not by popular vote, that's for sure. But even when we have had delegates, they neither report back nor take instruction. It goes without saying that they never consult. Always happy to cast their sheaves of proxies though. Makes for a cosy life - and an unrepresentative, remote ECF.

Finally, let's assume my delegate agrees with me. Wherein lies that delegate's mandate? In meeting my wishes? In observing the wishes, if any, of the delegating body? Or in whatever prejudice the delegate himself possesses?