Grading and ECF membership benefits

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Splitting off this topic from here:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 701#p81701

In that post, it is stated that:

"We are also ending the service by which members can get their games graded overseas if they register their intention to play in advance with the IRO"

I vaguely recall this being raised somewhere else. Can I ask where this was raised previously and what the process is for deciding what happens to all the benefits that were distributed among the various membership classes? IIRC, this bit about submitting such games to the International Rating Officer (IRO) was (still is?) a benefit of Direct Membership, but I'm hoping someone will correct me if I have that wrong.

I'm also looking at what is contained in the October 2011 document "Bye-Law-No-2-Game-Fee-Oct-2011.doc" (I would link to it, but Google is insisting on some ridiculously long link and I've lost the more direct one). Is what is contained in this document what will happen, or are the details mostly at the discretion of the directors responsible?

The bit I want to ask about is this: "N.B. at 1st June 2005, Game Fee has been waived for: events organised, solely for the benefit of their own members by the Braille Chess Association and the English Deaf Chess Association and for results of all categories of Direct Members, except Corporate Vice Presidents, playing in registered congress events."

That is enclosed in brackets and placed as a sort of appendix to 4.7. What I want to know is whether that is the current situation, or whether that is just background to help explain how things are changing?

[Roger de Coverly]

The bit I want to ask about is this: "N.B. at 1st June 2005, Game Fee has been waived for: events organised, solely for the benefit of their own members by the Braille Chess Association and the English Deaf Chess Association and for results of all categories of Direct Members, except Corporate Vice Presidents, playing in registered congress events."

What you are reading is the present situation, except that as well the ECF Board decided not to charge Game Fee for domestic grading on any internationally rated event regardless of whether the players were ECF members.

I don't know why the Board find it difficult to understand why Game Fee income is falling. It tends to be a side effect of granting exemptions.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't know why the Board find it difficult to understand why Game Fee income is falling. It tends to be a side effect of granting exemptions.

The exemptions to the BCA and the EDCA are documented in the Game Fee regulations, therefore they can be deemed "passed by Council". The BUCA website advertises a half price offer for university clubs, but I don't recall any documented approval of this.

[Alex Holowczak]

The BUCA website advertises a half price offer for university clubs, but I don't recall any documented approval of this.

Oh, there isn't any. The ECF gets the full rate from us. BUCA just pays the other half on behalf of its members.

[Roger de Coverly]

The BUCA website advertises a half price offer for university clubs, but I don't recall any documented approval of this.

Oh, there isn't any. The ECF gets the full rate from us. BUCA just pays the other half on behalf of its members.

Ok fine.

[David Pardoe]

Talking of Membership benefits...top of the list should be voting rights for all members.
This has been mentioned in various threads, but seems to have disappeared from the radar.
I hope it will be on the agenda for formal discussion at this years ECF AGM.

Giving players this key right of direct participation in ECF affairs is highly desirable, and will help to engage players more directly in the business and running of the ECF. More, it would improve accountability.
I`ve mentioned that I believe the scheme should be run in parallel with current `delegate voting`, and actioned on a strictly `online` basis.
If you say that the ECF Membership was circa 10,000 and that probably only 5-10% would actually vote, that could give a vote prospect of 1,000. If we said that 10 Membership votes were equivalent to 1 Delegate vote, that would give a probable effective membership vote of 100 votes. This might be quite significant, and would be a strong incentive for members who wish to participate.
Note carefully... I`m not suggesting the online votes replace the current delegate voting, but that these should run in parallel.

[Roger de Coverly]

Bumping this thread back to the top.

In http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=18419, the ECF now (10th April 2012) states

It was previously announced that the service available to ECF Direct Members allowing them to submit the results of games played outside England for grading was being withdrawn. This was incorrect, and this member benefit will continue to be available.
It should be noted that members must give prior notice (before the event takes place) of their intention to submit results in this way (see submission form available at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=19). Results must be sent within one month of the end of the event.

So why the initial announcement and subsequent climbdown?

(edit) The submission form was last modified August 2010. Previously you wrote/emailed directly to the IRO declaring your intention to play in a non-English event. Now you write to the Battle Office. The practice for players of dealing directly with the IRO dates back at least as far as when the late George Smith was IRO. That's probably the "domestic grading issue" that David Sedgwick alluded to on another thread. (/edit)

[Andrew Farthing]

So why the initial announcement and subsequent climbdown?

(edit) The submission form was last modified August 2010. Previously you wrote/emailed directly to the IRO declaring your intention to play in a non-English event. Now you write to the Battle Office. The practice for players of dealing directly with the IRO dates back at least as far as when the late George Smith was IRO. That's probably the "domestic grading issue" that David Sedgwick alluded to on another thread. (/edit)

It was (as stated on the website) an error - a case of someone misremembering, some months after the event, a decision taken by the Board and acting accordingly.

The Board discussed a proposal from the grading team to abolish this member benefit at its meeting during the British Championships last year. There was no support for the proposal. Nevertheless, due to the misremembering alluded to above, the change was announced. It shouldn't have been. I spotted the error when writing up the summaries of the Board meetings from the second half of 2011 and rescinded the announcement.

The point about the postal address for the prior notification is just pragmatism, pending the appointment of an IRO. The form will be amended again to show the new IRO's contact details once the appointment is made, almost certainly on Saturday morning before Finance Council.

[Roger de Coverly]

It shouldn't have been. I spotted the error when writing up the summaries of the Board meetings from the second half of 2011 and rescinded the announcement.

It took two months to notice (see the date at the start of this thread) and the threat of hostile questioning at the Finance Council. There seemed belief in a number of quarters that it was ECF policy and it was almost defended as such.

That asks other questions of principle:-

(a) if, when withdrawing membership benefits, should they not run for the balance of the year(s) of membership?
(b) whether such a change should at the very least be announced to Council, even if they aren't given the chance to vote on it.
(c) why the issue came up in a clash between the Home Director and a high profile organiser.

[Alex Holowczak]

It took two months to notice (see the date at the start of this thread) and the threat of hostile questioning at the Finance Council.

To be honest, I don't think "the threat of hostile questioning at the Finance Council" was anything to do with it.

[David Sedgwick]

So why the initial announcement and subsequent climbdown?

(edit) The submission form was last modified August 2010. Previously you wrote/emailed directly to the IRO declaring your intention to play in a non-English event. Now you write to the Battle Office. The practice for players of dealing directly with the IRO dates back at least as far as when the late George Smith was IRO. That's probably the "domestic grading issue" that David Sedgwick alluded to on another thread. (/edit)

With regard to your last sentence, that wasn't in fact the matter to which I was alluding.

I was referring to the then common practice of the IRO also handling the ECF (then BCF) grading of FIDE rated events. This still continues to some extent, although I think it's now much less common.

I'm very pleased to learn from Andrew Farthing's reply that an IRO is likely to be appointed next Saturday. However, it should be noted that the workload of the IRO, whomever it may be, has greatly increased in 2012 owing to the significant number of English Rapidplay and Blitz events now being FIDE rated.

If the new IRO can also provide the necessary service for the continued ECF Grading of foreign results upon prior request, then all well and good. However, this is not something that has to be done by the IRO and I've already suggested that it might make sense to find a separate volunteer to undertake this task.

Moreover, I would have thought that, under the new ECF membership arrangements, it would be perfectly reasonable to restrict this service to Platinum and Gold members.

[Roger de Coverly]

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 678#p83678 was the thread. Nowhere in the thread is it suggested that the ECF directors as a whole hadn't actually agreed to the proposal. If it hadn't been agreed and any of the Directors, or their alternates recalled not agreeing to it, they had two months to read the forum and notice the issue. It's quite a core point, since whilst the numbers playing outside the UK are limited, it also affects those, such as Ernie, who might be tempted by a Scottish, Welsh or even Irish event.

I suppose a more general question, which could have been asked this time last year and at the AGM is

Is there anything the Board have discussed or decided which they have "forgotten" to tell Council about.

.

[Alex McFarlane]

Whilst I totally agree about notification in advance for rating outside England, shouldn't this now be relaxed to accommodate players who have been misinformed and therefore have suffered. Remember there may have been players who decided not to register a tournament in the last 6 weeks as they would be unable to do so in the future.

The question remains, who did the misinforming? It would also have been noticed if the ECF published minutes of meetings and were more open about its activities. Players suffer from poor administration again.