AGM : 15 October 2011

[John Philpott]

Jonathan Bryant wrote

If there's a spare moment can we have a similar breakdown for some of the other positions. By which I mean the president, of course.

Save for Junior and Marketing, all Director/Officer votes including President were by show of hands and were overwhelming, so no card vote was called for, and I therefore do not know the multiple votes for/against as multiple votes were not cast. I noted in earlier posts the votes against in the room or by directed proxy. There was no noticeable difference in the number of hands that went up in favour of the President compared with anybody else: there was one vote against in the room, and one abstention among the directed proxies.

The SCCU change to the County Championship rule was approved.

The West Ham match finished 4 - 0 - hopefully there will be extended highlights on the BBC Championship programme later tonight.

Time to go home.

[Laurie Roberts]

does this mean we have a Membership model? Or was a sufficient % not reached?

[Brendan O'Gorman]

does this mean we have a Membership model? Or was a sufficient % not reached?

A simple majority was all that was required.

[Roger de Coverly]

does this mean we have a Membership model? Or was a sufficient % not reached?

What they've done is to change the Game Fee rates and extend member exemptions from Game Fee to leagues. This could be done with a 50% vote. The only material constitutional change was that new players, as individuals, no longer have to sign the £ 1 Guarantor form. No award of voting rights to individuals at all, in fact some organisations are likely to get votes for no direct payment to the ECF whatsoever.

They have presumably abolished Family and multiple year memberships in passing.

[David Robertson]

Is this end of the debate or merely the end of the beginning?

Definitely the latter, longer-term, since I doubt many have the energy to pursue the matter for a while.

The vote delivers two important gains, in my view:

* a membership basis for ECF financing
* tiered membership to reflect some (crude) approximation of commitment to the game

But serious problems remain:

* a colossal structural disjunction between membership and Board/Council
* a voluntary organisation financed by compulsory membership

Both are unsustainable, medium- to long-term, if wider experience is a guide.

Hence, although I disagree with RdC on the fundamental issue, I don't demur from his forebodings. We'll just have to see how membership financing settles down. If things go wrong, a deeper crisis will follow. Either way, reform of the policy participation process cannot safely be delayed

[Laurie Roberts]

Thanks

So to be clear, from 2012/2013 we are in the Membership model where we pay £12 a season. i.e. no further votes are needed?

The posts here seem to indicate there is more to come? But I think you just mean details of implementation?

[Roger de Coverly]

So to be clear, from 2012/2013 we are in the Membership model where we pay £12 a season. i.e. no further votes are needed?

They left all the old Game Fee rules in place, which include a vote on both Game Fee and membership amounts at the April Finance Council meeting. It's £ 12 a head for league and county chess, an extra £ 6 to play in a Congress and another £ 9 on top of that to play in an internationally rated event.

[Alex McFarlane]

Steve Gidden's take on the AGM http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress. ... in-infamy/

Would anyone who voted for the acceptance of the former Director of Marketing's report care to tell me how he would have prevented what happened as he has speculated in his 'report'?

Another official (and I don't mean Lara) made a formal complaint about this report which was rejected on the grounds that a Director could report on events happening between AGMs. This does not explain how pure speculation can be considered to be reporting on a situation. The use of the word 'initially' is also unclear. At what time was 'initially'? I assume it to be at the same time as Mr DeMooi's Friday evening tweet informing his followers but no official of his intentions. If this is confirmed then I am quite happy to say that the report is acceptable, though it could also have said that if the organisers were informed initally then they too could have prevented the situation.

[Andy Howie]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I get the impression that Steve is not a fan of the ECF. I'm not sure what gives me that impression...

[John Philpott]

Steve Giddins latest blog post appears to have the title "A day that will live in infamy..."

For some reason this brought to mind Kenneth Williams as Julius Caesar saying "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me", which many regard as the funniest film one-liner of all time.

[Paul Cooksey]

Would anyone who voted for the acceptance of the former Director of Marketing's report care to tell me how he would have prevented what happened as he has speculated in his 'report'?

I can't answer, since I only attended as an observer. But pending the official minutes, points made which I think may have been relevant were:
1. Directors are entitled to state their opinions on matters within their responsibility in their reports, as well as facts. (cf Dr Shorts report!)
2. The meeting may have doubted Stewart could have avoided any issue (and the laughter when this point was made suggested it did). But given he is the Director responsible for public relations, he is entitled to think his involvement might have had some impact on subsequent reporting.
3. It was also said that if Stewart had been the one to approach CJ, he would be the one dealing with any personal criticism from uninformed websites. As a senior ECF official, a risk he has accepted, in a way Lara had not.

It was clear Alex had support in the Council, given a proposal to note Stewart's report rather than accept it. But this was defeated, and the report then accepted, so the majority clearly felt Stewart had not overstepped the mark.

Andrew Farthing again took the opportunity to say the board considered their was "no foundation" for an accusation of homophobia.

I find Giddins as offensive as ever. I'll count to ten before commenting on his latest excretion

[Alex McFarlane]

Thanks Paul.

Was any comment made about the accusations of bigotry by and brutish treatment by several officers which were also made?

Why didn't Stewart involve himself? When he saw the clothing being worn he could have spoken without being asked? You can't have your cake and eat it.
Stewart has never previously been known to sit back and await being asked.

[William Metcalfe]

So what is the issue with the finances and is there a finance report that i can look at

[Alex Holowczak]

So what is the issue with the finances and is there a finance report that i can look at

Here's the Finance Director's report.

[John Philpott]

William Metcalfe wrote

So what is the issue with the finances and is there a finance report that i can look at

Alex Holowczak has provided a link to the report There are several loose ends that the Finance Director's work commitments have not allowed him to investigate properly yet. In my own report I suggested giving consideration to changing the year end to 31 August in line with the new membership year and laying the accounts before the April Finance Council meeting, which would allow more time for preparation: the Finance Director did not dismiss this idea out of hand.