ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

[Mick Norris]

Ah, I am a halfwit. Please carry on without me.

[Julie Denning]

I have been taken to task by 2 people already that in my SCCU report I glossed over the item on the Strategy Statement to the point of giving the wrong impression. On reflection, and scratching my aging grey memory cells as best I can, I shouldn't have said the Statement was approved by Council. There were a number of comments from the floor and a certain amount of disappointment from the Board that these had not been submitted sooner as the Statement had been advertised on the ECF website back in July and comments requested. The CEO repeated this request and such comments will be considered for any updating of the document and further consideration by Council. I think, though, the point remains that this will always be a document subject to frequent updating.

I'm sure the official Minutes will cover this more fully than my brief notes at the meeting did.

[Mike Truran]

Julie's recollection (after having scratched her ageing memory cells) is correct - at least as far as my own ageing memory cells recall.

Feedback received since the AGM suggests that there are no particular showstoppers in the strategy statement as presently drafted. We will of course reflect on points raised and amend/update as appropriate, but in the meantime will press on with the various objectives included in the strategy statement to the best of our ability.

PS Julie, I do hope that the scratching involved was purely metaphorical. If not, we may require a new NED ere long.

[Angus French]

Julie's recollection (after having scratched her ageing memory cells) is correct - at least as far as my own ageing memory cells recall.

Feedback received since the AGM suggests that there are no particular showstoppers in the strategy statement as presently drafted. We will of course reflect on points raised and amend/update as appropriate, but in the meantime will press on with the various objectives included in the strategy statement to the best of our ability.

PS Julie, I do hope that the scratching involved was purely metaphorical. If not, we may require a new NED ere long.

Mike, I'll be submitting some comments shortly.
To be clear, though: there was a vote and Council decided to refer the Strategy Statement back to the Board.

[Mike Truran]

Indeed.

To be clear though: we're not going to sit on our backsides doing nothing until it does go back to Council. I repeat - no showstoppers were raised during the Council meeting or after it.

[David Sedgwick]

There were a number of comments from the floor and a certain amount of disappointment from the Board that these had not been submitted sooner as the Statement had been advertised on the ECF website back in July and comments requested.

Sorry, but that's tough.

The proper place for members of Council to comment on papers submitted to Council is at meetings of Council.

[Mike Truran]

I'm sorry David. That's just can't be right. Of course Council members can comment at the meeting itself - that is their right. However, common courtesy (and efficiency) suggests that if papers are issued beforehand specifically asking for comment then Council members should rouse themselves to do so. Otherwise we would have a crescendo of activity for half a day twice a year with nothing in between, rather than a regular flow of information in between Council meetings.

Moreover, if the Board has been (rightly) criticised in the past for poor communication to Council members - something we have worked hard to put right, then it behoves Council members to communicate as well when they are invited to do so.

Unless of course you see the whole process as some sort of twice-yearly formal ritual......

[Angus French]

Well, sure but there is lots to consider and consult upon for Council meetings and the Board might also avail itself of comments made on previous versions of its Strategy Statement.

[David Sedgwick]

I'm sorry David. That's just can't be right. Of course Council members can comment at the meeting itself - that is their right. However, common courtesy (and efficiency) suggests that if papers are issued beforehand specifically asking for comment then Council members should rouse themselves to do so. Otherwise we would have a crescendo of activity for half a day twice a year with nothing in between, rather than a regular flow of information in between Council meetings.

Moreover, if the Board has been (rightly) criticised in the past for poor communication to Council members - something we have worked hard to put right, then it behoves Council members to communicate as well when they are invited to do so.

Unless of course you see the whole process as some sort of twice-yearly formal ritual......

When I was a member of Council, I considered it my duty to attend meetings twice a year, to study the papers beforehand, and to turn up to Council meetings ready to comment with as much intelligence as I possess.

That was the accepted practice for many years.

Then in the present decade, aided by the growth of the internet, Boards started to publish documents between meetings and to ask for comments by intermediate deadlines. This not only curtails the exchange of views at Council meetings but requires a continuous rather than a twice yearly commitment from Council members.

It is one of the reasons why I no longer serve.

[Carl Hibbard]

This forum has that effect now good or bad.

[Roger de Coverly]

This not only curtails the exchange of views at Council meetings but requires a continuous rather than a twice yearly commitment from Council members.

Prior to the establishment of the ECF in 2005, BCF Board meetings had something of an overlap with Council meetings, given the potential headcount of attendees at Board meetings who were there because they represented an organisation.

It might have been possible to set up the ECF's in house forum as a virtual Council meeting. Anyone could read, but only named Representative members could post. Nothing is truly confidential at Council meetings, given that the attendees, in theory at least, have to report back to their sponsoring bodies. You could nevertheless have a section confidential to Council members and invited guests provided it was accepted it would leak.

[Roger de Coverly]

This forum has that effect now good or bad.

Discussion was always continuous, the BCF held Board meetings with numbers of potential attendees in the twenties or thirties. In addition the "letters" pages of Chess, the SCCU Bulletin, the BCF's Newsflash offered other avenues for debate, if in slow motion. From the 1990s onwards, "early internet adopters" could converse on the rec.games.chess.* newsgroups or the Compuserve chess forums.

In the Gerry Walsh era, it was possible to discuss the BCF/ECF without the BCF/ECF having much of a clue it was being discussed.

[Roger de Coverly]

The November issue of Chess has just arrived.

In it Malcolm Pein comments that there was

a major policy shift at the last ECF Council

.

He's referring to this

basic administration costs in the future covered by membership fees. Development plans for international chess and junior chess will be supported by the capital funds and future bequests and sponsorship

.

Do those who attended the meeting recognise this change of policy? I'm not sure whether the expenses of International teams count as "basic administration" or "development".

It's a high risk policy to rely on future bequests and sponsorship, since if these don't materialise your planned activities go down the tubes.

[Michael Farthing]

Malcolm said this in the meeting and it was confirmed by David Eustace, but the proposed five year budget showed by the end year that 50% of the proposed membership fee increases were being used to support international chess. David Eustace reluctantly conceded this and promised to see if the figures could be rearranged.

[Angus French]

I'd like to see the text of Malcolm's piece.

So far as I read it, the Five-year Plan has significant increases in expenditure on International chess and most of this is set to be funded from the ECF's accounts; essentially out of income from membership and game fees. I expressed concern about this at the AGM and also by email to Malcolm beforehand. See here for a chart showing actual and projected expenditure on international chess for the years 2006/7 to 2020/21.