AGM : 15 October 2011

[Alex Holowczak]

I had indeed identified you by the West Ham shirt

John wanted to make sure that someone could be accused of attending the ECF AGM wearing an inappropriate T-shirt.

[Alex McFarlane]

Can anyone direct me to the location of the voting procedure for AGMs and Council Meetings? In particular, I am looking for a published explanation of where the policy for taking a vote by show of hands v by 'card' is explained.

If this is not on the ECF website can anyone say what explanation, if any, was given on this prior to or during the meeting.

Thanks again.

[Paul Cooksey]

The BCF Board is the same as the ECF Board, and those present (only Stewart Reuben and Peter Purland were missing) were all sitting at the top table.

and CJ de Mooi also absent, of course

[Alex Holowczak]

Can anyone direct me to the location of the voting procedure for AGMs and Council Meetings? In particular, I am looking for a published explanation of where the policy for taking a vote by show of hands v by 'card' is explained.

If this is not on the ECF website can anyone say what explanation, if any, was given on this prior to or during the meeting.

Thanks again.

I can't copy and paste it for some reason, but see the Handbook here.

The relevant article is A26 on page 18. Effectively, a card vote (a "poll") can be called either by the chairman (as distinct from the Non-Executive Chairman, who might not be present, and thus not chairing the meeting!) or 20 members entitled to vote present in person or by proxy.

There are other things requiring polls, mentioned in subsequent articles.

[Paul Buswell]

I apologise for being lazy... I haven't read all (well, any) of the actual proposals because I didn't expect them to be passed, and sufficient unto the day, etc.

No problem. You may be unaware that I am heading the ECFs effort to support the Kirsan's Extraterrestrial Research Initiative. You should therefore send £1000 per member immediately, if you PM me I'll pass on the details of the Nigerian IM who is handing the banking

My club, as an ECF Corporate Vice-President, has exemption from game fee on its internal results. Playing in those internal competitions, both standard play and rapid, we have a small number of players whose chess abilities are... shall I say, extremely modest, compared with their clubmates. They only participate internally, they don't play League or Congress chess. What are the cost implications for us as a club or for them as individuals for their internal results to be graded?

As things stand, it is up to the April ECF Finance Council to set the charges, as they have in the past with game fee and membership. But including the indicative numbers suggested:
1. There will be a complete exemption for players with a very low number of games in a year, up to 3 has been suggested
2. £12 is proposed for the basic Bronze membership. Some clubs seem to be intending to collect from their members with the club subs. The ECF may offer a £1 rebate for early payment (October)
3. A game fee applies to League and Club results submitted for non-members. The numbers suggested is £2, reduced to £1 if 85% of players in the competition are ECF members.

So you will likely have to encourage membership, or charge a fee for the internal tournament to cover game fee. The ECF is explicitly hoping you will do the former.

Thank you. I do have some old Monopoly Money, if KERI deals in that currency.

I will have to do the maths. We already subsidise club subs for certain members who are hard up, but that subsidy did not envisage fees to external organisations. Unless we extend subsidy we may have a very small number of players priced out of participation in graded competitions.

PB

[Sean Hewitt]

I apologise for being lazy... I haven't read all (well, any) of the actual proposals because I didn't expect them to be passed, and sufficient unto the day, etc.

No problem. You may be unaware that I am heading the ECFs effort to support the Kirsan's Extraterrestrial Research Initiative. You should therefore send £1000 per member immediately, if you PM me I'll pass on the details of the Nigerian IM who is handing the banking

My club, as an ECF Corporate Vice-President, has exemption from game fee on its internal results. Playing in those internal competitions, both standard play and rapid, we have a small number of players whose chess abilities are... shall I say, extremely modest, compared with their clubmates. They only participate internally, they don't play League or Congress chess. What are the cost implications for us as a club or for them as individuals for their internal results to be graded?

As things stand, it is up to the April ECF Finance Council to set the charges, as they have in the past with game fee and membership. But including the indicative numbers suggested:
1. There will be a complete exemption for players with a very low number of games in a year, up to 3 has been suggested
2. £12 is proposed for the basic Bronze membership. Some clubs seem to be intending to collect from their members with the club subs. The ECF may offer a £1 rebate for early payment (October)
3. A game fee applies to League and Club results submitted for non-members. The numbers suggested is £2, reduced to £1 if 85% of players in the competition are ECF members.

So you will likely have to encourage membership, or charge a fee for the internal tournament to cover game fee. The ECF is explicitly hoping you will do the former.

Thank you. I do have some old Monopoly Money, if KERI deals in that currency.

I will have to do the maths. We already subsidise club subs for certain members who are hard up, but that subsidy did not envisage fees to external organisations. Unless we extend subsidy we may have a very small number of players priced out of participation in graded competitions.

PB

Don't forget to factor in the saving from not paying for corporate VP status anymore.

[Roger de Coverly]

1. There will be a complete exemption for players with a very low number of games in a year, up to 3 has been suggested
.

I don't think that's the case. It was in the original proposal but dropped once they decided to use the Game Fee regulations. The only reference to 3 games is in the calculation of the 85% test to determine whether the Game Fee is £ 1 or £ 2. Game Fee regulations have never exempted games played by ungraded or low volume players and don't do so after the changes. Unless the meeting changed something that hasn't yet been reported.

I will have to do the maths. We already subsidise club subs for certain members who are hard up, but that subsidy did not envisage fees to external organisations. Unless we extend subsidy we may have a very small number of players priced out of participation in graded competitions.

Your vice-presidency form of membership is being abolished, so you will have to pay £ 2 per game (possibly £1) up to a cap of £ 12 per head. If you have players playing a limited number of games, they or your club will have to pay more.

[Paul Cooksey]

1. There will be a complete exemption for players with a very low number of games in a year, up to 3 has been suggested.

I don't think that's the case. It was in the original proposal but dropped once they decided to use the Game Fee regulations. The only reference to 3 games is in the calculation of the 85% test to determine whether the Game Fee is £ 1 or £ 2. Game Fee regulations have never exempted games played by ungraded or low volume players and don't do so after the changes. Unless the meeting changed something that hasn't yet been reported

I may be in error. I did not write notes on this point, but my recollection is a senior board member referred to the 3 game exemption when debating the membership proposals. My impression was setting of an exemption was within the discretion of the April Finance Council meeting. But I'll defer to whatever the official minutes say.

Naturally, the game fee proposal was not voted on itself, but rather only those articles and bye laws that were inconsistent with it. I imagine the board will consider they have a mandate for the proposal, Council seemed clear they were voting on the principle. But constitutionally there seems a lot of room to define the details of the scheme. (Richard Haddrell made a large number of suggestions to improve drafting, at a point when the meeting seemed keen to vote. I feared a little for his safety!)

[Roger de Coverly]

I did not write notes on this point, but my recollection is a senior board member referred to the 3 game exemption when debating the membership proposals. My impression was setting of an exemption was within the discretion of the April Finance Council meeting. But I'll defer to whatever the official minutes say.

So the scheme still changes as we watch. The existence or otherwise of a three game exemption and how tightly or loosely it will be worded is very important to leagues in formulating their future policies and rules.

[Paul Cooksey]

The existence or otherwise of a three game exemption and how tightly or loosely it will be worded is very important to leagues in formulating their future policies and rules.

Again, my personal view, but I think this was the meeting that agreed the principle. The detail is still to come, primarily in April.

From my local perspective, I found the brief discussion of the IT solutions required for a successful go-live interesting. Where there are overlapping leagues, the ability of members to join easily online seems to me very significant. Andrew Farthing stated he had had discussions with vendors, but could not expand on the details at this point.

[Sean Hewitt]

From my local perspective, I found the brief discussion of the IT solutions required for a successful go-live interesting. Where there are overlapping leagues, the ability of members to join easily online seems to me very significant. Andrew Farthing stated he had had discussions with vendors, but could not expand on the details at this point.

Fingers crossed for a proper ITT (Invitation to Tender).

[benedgell]

At the AGM Sabrina Chevannes spoke about receiving a number of abusive emails following her decision to apply for the role of Junior Director, primarily related to her suitability for the role at her age. It was very disappointing to hear, and I hope the people who wrote said emails feel thoroughly ashamed.

[Roger de Coverly]

Again, my personal view, but I think this was the meeting that agreed the principle. The detail is still to come, primarily in April.

It makes quite a potential difference to the budgeted income. Take for example a university "social" team. If they have around twenty players who could play in a six board team, their expenditure isn't around £ 240 on memberships, but £ nil if they can manage team selections to play no more than 3 games each.

What I wonder constitutes an event? The three divisions of Berks are probably a single event but what of the multiple grade restricted competitions of the Surrey Border? You are even allowed to play for multiple clubs as long as they aren't in the same division.

[Carl Hibbard]

From my local perspective, I found the brief discussion of the IT solutions required for a successful go-live interesting. Where there are overlapping leagues, the ability of members to join easily online seems to me very significant. Andrew Farthing stated he had had discussions with vendors, but could not expand on the details at this point.

Fingers crossed for a proper ITT (Invitation to Tender).

Funny that one

[John Upham]

Cricklewood United.

Was this the team supported by The Goodies? I assumed it was fictional or is it more akin to Fly Fishing by JR Hartley?