Category Archives: Reports

The SCCU Executive Committee

The SCCU Executive Committee The SCCU Executive Committee The SCCU Executive Committee meeting was held in London on 7th April.  Detailed Minutes are being produced, but I will just try to summarise what I see as the main points from our meeting.

There was quite a lot of discussion on Junior Chess matters.  The Junior Organiser (Angela Eyton) reported that there had been fewer teams this year in the U14 / 130 league and the inter-zonal final had yet to take place.  She intends consulting interested parties on possible changes to the rules and age / grading limits.  The Junior Jamborees had taken place, hosted by Richmond Junior Chess Club.  A new entrant had been Maidenhead Juniors, who have applied to affiliate to SCCU as a Non-County Member.  This might be controversial as Berkshire Juniors are already a Non-County Member, although they didn’t take part in either League or Jamboree this year.  Paul McKeown (Richmond Juniors) suggested that we might introduce an U18 League, which he would be happy to organise.

[Post-meeting note:  Hampshire Junior Chess Association is being “restored to health” and have also applied to become a Non-County Member of SCCU.]

Clearly a few things to sort out, but I’m encouraged by the interest in our junior activities.

Michael Flatt noted this had been his first season as County Match Controller and expressed gratitude for the cooperation of team captains.  Michael has also picked up the job of Webmaster.  He initially created a new website specifically for County Match matters, but this will progressively replace the original site created by Richard Haddrell.  Michael reported that because of the way Richard’s site had been set up, it wouldn’t be possible for him to take it over and it is presumed it will disappear once the last subscription paid by Richard runs out.  However, all material from Richard’s site is secure and will continue to be made available.

A few seasons ago I stepped into the vacant role of Grading Secretary, but with Michael Flatt now acting as Webmaster, he uses a results package that creates ECF grading files.  Hence, there had been no need for any action on my part this season.  It will be proposed at the SCCU AGM that Michael formally picks up this title as well.  I could always act as back-up if this became necessary.

Mark Murrell reported on Safeguarding matters, a role he also fulfils for Essex County Chess.  He has undergone 2 levels of training and a final level was planned for this month (May).  The need for record keeping was raised, noting that the ECF insurance policy requires records to be kept for 30 years.  It was agreed that the Junior Organiser would produce a report on this year’s Junior Jamborees, summarising the event, those involved in running it and any significant points, if any, that arose.  This is something that I believe all our clubs with junior members and Sussex Junior Chess need to ensure is addressed.  The concern being that this is an area where a complaint might only surface many years later, when those involved have moved on and the organisation must be able to produce an account.

David Sedgwick, on behalf of Chess in Schools and Communities, proposed a nomination for a BCET award which the meeting endorsed.  A further SCCU nomination is also anticipated.

At the time of our meeting it was anticipated that the ECF would introduce new qualification rules from 2018 for the British Chess Championships that would severely curtail the number of places that each Union could award to congresses.  The likely outcome was that we would only be entitled to make one nomination, this being for the SCCU Champion.  It was agreed that this honour should be given to the Thanet Congress.  [Since the meeting, this curtailment has been confirmed.]  

Paul Shepherd (Surrey CCA) tabled a discussion paper on the SCCU Rules concerning disputes arising from our County Matches.  Views were mixed, with some concerned that the procedures might become overly complex and prescriptive.  However, based on this discussion it is anticipated that Surrey will put a formal proposal to the SCCU AGM in July.

Progress on SCCU 125th anniversary events was noted.  The SCCU entry for the World Senior Teams Championships, as referred to at the start of this report, was noted.  It was agreed that the North vs South (of the river) match should take place on 16th September.  A venue has yet to be confirmed.  Chris Majer will be captain for the North team, whilst Mike Gunn will captain the South team.  I hope that Sussex players will come forward in due course and we will be well represented in what is hoped will be a match involving at least 63 boards (i.e. >125 players).

Finally, we got around to discussing the agenda for the forthcoming ECF Finance Council and how SCCU should use its votes.  Regarding the proposal to abolish Game Fee, Chris Majer reported that he was mandated by Hertfordshire to vote against, but the majority of the Committee were supportive of the proposal and the SCCU votes should be cast in favour.  We also agreed to support the proposed ECF budget, whilst we should vote against all of the options on voting reform, this being clearly inline with our submission to the ECF consultation paper.

Now for the ECF and BCF Finance Council meetings, which were held in Birmingham on 22nd April.  Once again, I was disappointed by the low turnout.  I noted just 22 attendees other than Board Members and Chairs of Standing Committees.  I had 11 votes at the ECF Council meeting, these being 9 in my own name (SCCU 3, Sussex CCA 1, MSCL 4 and one as a Director) and 2 proxy votes (Crowborough Congress and Platinum Members Representative).  At the BCF Council meeting I had 3 votes, these being 1 each on behalf of SCCU and Sussex CCA and 1 as a Director.

The meetings were chaired by Mike Gunn in his newly-establish role of Chairman of Council.  They started a little earlier than usual, at 12:30, as it was anticipated that the ECF Council agenda would inspire lengthy discussion.  In the end this anticipation was misplaced, and I believe these were the first Council meetings I’ve attended where a Procedural Motion to extend the meeting was not required.

The BCF Council was held first.  There was just one substantive item on the agenda.  This concerned the Trustees of the John Robinson Youth Trust (JRYT) giving consideration in future to making grants out of capital from the trust, rather than only distributing income from the investments.  (See http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/C24-BCF-Agenda.pdf  for details. )  Stephen Woodhouse (Non-Executive Director) introduced the proposal. He reported that he had read John Robinson’s will and it contained no stipulations in this regard.  The practice of only distributing income appeared to have stemmed from an earlier BCF Council decision to give the Trustees “guidance” in this regard.  It would be valid for Council now to decide to alter that guidance.  It was pointed out that, if passed, the motion would in no way bypass the responsibilities of the Trustees to examine any request for funding, but it would give them greater discretion in the use of capital.  David Welch, speaking as the Merseyside delegate, rather than as a Trustee of the JRYT), spoke passionately against the proposal.  He suggested that the JRYT was being picked on whilst the ECF had access to other capital resources that they could use instead.  He also suggested that the Haddrell bequest would be able to support the financial needs of the Junior Academy for years to come.  On a hand vote, the motion put to Council was passed by 14 votes to 8.  I voted in favour.

We then convened as the ECF Council.  With housekeeping matters and accuracy of Minutes of the October 2016 AGM disposed of, there was a Matter Arising item.  Amanda Ross, attending as a non-voting guest, raised the project to establish a Mind Sports Centre in London.  She was concerned that the ECF had lost interest in pursuing this.  She understood that at the Finance Council last year it had been agreed, subject to due diligence by the Board, to the ECF contributing 50% of the cost of further feasibility work and a willingness to invest £100k in the project if it went ahead.  I was amongst those who pointed out that we did not recall any such agreement to a potential £100k investment, and a quick check of the relevant Minutes confirmed that the agreement only covered the on-going feasibility studies.  

At this point a Procedural Motion was raised by the London League representative that the agenda items on voting reform and game fee be deferred to a dedicated Meeting as they demanded greater consideration and debate than could be afforded as part of the current meeting.  This was put to, but rejected by, Council.

The gist of the proposal to abolish Game Fee, actually presented as amendments to Bye Law No. 2, was a carrot and stick approach.  The carrot was that non-Members would be permitted to play up to 3 graded games in any club or league competition without charge.  The stick was that on playing a 4th game in any such event, they, or the league / club, would be hit with a £25 charge.  I saw merit in these proposals on a number of grounds:
they were in line with the intention at the time the current Membership scheme was introduced that the Game Fee option would be temporary
it would address a concern that the immediate need to pay either a Membership or Game Fee could be a disincentive for newcomers
it would alleviate significant administration work for the ECF office in tracking and invoicing what are often quite trivial amounts
it was appropriate that there was a degree of weight in the “stick” element to encourage membership uptake.

However, there was significant disagreement amongst Council members on the last of these points.  After much discussion an amendment was put to Council that the penalty for playing more than 3 games be reduced to the level of the Bronze Membership Fee.  This was passed by 16 votes to 11 on a hand vote.  (I voted against.)    The substantive motion, as thus amended, was then voted on and passed by 29 votes to 1 (that being Chris Majer in accordance with the mandate he had from his County).

We then turned to Financial matters and the proposed budget for 2017 /18.  There was general concern at the lack of out-turn figures for the financial year ended 31st August 2016.  John Philpott had been doing the bulk of the bookkeeping in his role as Financial Controller.  Whilst not wishing to diminish the enormous contribution John had made to the running and financial wellbeing of the ECF over many years, he had yet to put in place adequate backups or taken steps to hand over these functions.  His premature death had therefore created significant problems.  These are very much in hand now, with the bookkeeping function out-sourced to a company that is computerising the accounts.  However, the Finance Director was not yet able to provide definitive figures for the end of the last financial year, although no great surprises are envisaged.

My notes will not do justice to all the discussion points that were raised, but I will try to highlight the more significant ones.

David Eustace (Finance Director) reported that the Richard Haddrell bequest was expected to amount to around £400k.  Richard’s will stipulates that this is to go to the Chess Trust and used to benefit junior chess activities.

Angus French had questions regarding the Junior Directorate figures.  A meeting is to be arranged involving Angus, David Eustace and Traci Whitfield (Junior Director).

There was significant discussion on the forthcoming move of the ECF office to larger accommodation in the same building as it currently occupies.

[The background to this, as best as I understand it, is as follows.  In early 2015 the library had been given its marching orders from its university home in Hastings.  The then Board put two options to the 2015 Finance Council.  The first was to move to larger offices at Battle – the same offices as are now being taken up – which would provide space for the library as well.  The second was to move the library into commercial storage whilst seeking a long-term solution.  It was envisaged that such storage would cost around £2,500 pa and provide sufficient space to allow on-going sorting and at least limited public access.  This second option was significantly cheaper.  Council went for the second option and the library was duly boxed up and put into storage in Eastbourne.  However, the anticipated annual cost of £2,500 proved unrealistic.  It is currently more like £3,500 and, even then, is not buying sufficient space to permit any meaningful access or sorting.  No progress has been made on finding a cheaper long-term solution.  In the meantime, the alternative office space in the building at Battle had remained vacant.  Going back a further 2 or 3 years, the ECF had reduced the office staffing and moved those who remained into their current smaller office space (from yet another office suite in the same building) as a response to the loss of government funding that had been running at £60k a year.  This office space is seen as very marginal with essentially no spare working space for anyone else (Director / bookkeeper / auditor or anyone else who might need to visit).  The current Board therefore decided once again to investigate the option of moving into the larger office suite that had been considered, but rejected by Council, in 2015.  This was seen as being of clear benefit for the working of the office, whilst again having the additional benefit of providing space for sorting and displaying the library.  Although it could be argued that circumstances had changed since 2015, particularly regarding the anticipated cost of, and access to, the commercial storage, it was felt that what was being proposed was not sufficiently different from what Council had rejected then, that it could  be decided by the Board without being put to Council first.  The next twist in the saga was that the ECF became aware that the landlord of the Battle offices finally had another prospective tenant who was keen to rent the larger office suite we were looking at and that if we delayed a decision until after this Finance Council, we would very likely have lost the option.  To resolve this conflict between time and the need to consult Council, the Board put out a consultation paper to the Membership at large on the 8th March requesting comments by 13th March.  The only response – expressing concern – was from Angus French.  Given this limited response, the Board authorised the signing of the lease for the larger offices.  After allowing for the saving on the cost of storage in Eastbourne, the net increase in ECF accommodation costs is about £5k pa.  The move is currently underway and the library will be moved over the next few weeks.  Moral of the story: if anyone offers you a large collection of books, only accept if they also provide the finance for their upkeep!]

A final vote was taken on the proposed budget, including increases in Membership Fees (but excluding references to Game Fee as the abolition proposal, albeit amended, had been passed by Council) and was passed by 27 votes to 4.  I voted in favour.

The final substantive item on the agenda was the proposals concerning possible voting reform.  Passionate arguments were advanced both for and against reform, including by myself.  I emphasised I was not speaking as a Director as I was at odds with the majority of the Board on this matter.  I referred to the SCCU response to the consultation paper and which had been appended to the final paper put to Council.  I stressed that I was not against the ECF operating democratically, but that I did not believe any of the current proposals would bring about effective democracy.  My concern was that experience showed that only a tiny minority of the Membership ever took an interest in ECF matters, other than the level of their Membership Fees, and that greatly expanding the voting rights given directly to Members would be vulnerable to factional interests gaining undue influence.  As an example, I referred to the response to the current consultation.  At 25 responses it was better than some other consultations, but still only represented 0.25% of the total membership.  Despite my personal misgivings, I conceded that in the card voting that was proposed I would split my votes with regard to “Option 3”, which proposed retaining the current concept of a Council, but with significantly greater voting power given to Direct Member Representatives.  From other contributions to the discussion, I felt that those present were pretty evenly split between those who sympathised with my views and those who fundamentally disagreed.

For details of the various options, please refer to http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/C26.8.1-Possible-Voting-Reform.pdf .  The intention of the voting at this meeting was to judge whether any of the suggested options had sufficient support to justify a detailed proposal being put to the next AGM in October.  Noting that any such changes would require amendment to the Articles of Association, they would require a 75% majority of the votes cast.  Voting at this meeting was by the card method, with the following outcomes:
Option 1 (pure “OMOV”) :  For: 12,  Against:  191
Option 2 (all Council Members elected by direct member voting):  For:  15,  Against:  188
Option 3 (existing Council members but with increased voting rights for Direct Member Representatives):  For: 119,  Against:  84,  Abstention:  1  (Majority of 58.3% in favour)

(I voted against Options 1 and 2 and split my votes on Option 3 as 4 For and 7 Against.  I didn’t try to allocate specific votes for and against Option 3, but felt this was an honest representation of the range of views that had been given to me from my own consultations.)

Whilst Option 3 clearly received majority support, this support was significantly below 75%, indicating that any such formal and detailed proposal put to Council at the next AGM was unlikely to be passed.  However, in on-going discussion, it was felt that there would be merit in giving further consideration to some lesser means of increasing the votes allocated to Direct Member Representatives.

As there was a significant break in proceedings whilst the above voting was counted, the Chairman had called for any items of AOB.  Phil Ehr raised a number of points.  He suggested that the Board should reflect upon the possibility that undue stress had been placed on John Philpott and this might have contributed to his demise.  Once again, he couldn’t resist taking a swipe at the Finance Director who, he felt, needed a rest.  Phil also reported that he had recently visited Andrew Paulson, who was now in poor health.  One duty that Phil had retained for the ECF was as a joint representative (along with Mike Gunn) to the Sport and Recreation Alliance.  He announced he would be standing down from this responsibility from the end of April.  His reason was that he intended returning to the USA, where he was hoping to run for Congress as a Democrat in 2018!  He would, however, be splitting his time between the USA and the UK for family reasons, so might still be able to attend our Council meetings.

Malcolm Pein (International Director) reported that there might be a sponsor to run an English Rapidplay Championship.

The next AGM will be held in London on 14th October.

The meeting closed at 17:15.

Please get in touch if you want any further information on anything to do with these meetings.

Regards

Julie

ECF Finance Council

Dear All,

The annual ECF Finance CouncilECF Finance CouncilECF Finance Council, and associated BCF Council, meetings will take place on Saturday 22nd April in Birmingham.  I invite your comments on any of the agenda items.

The ECF Finance Council Agenda is somewhat limited, but nonetheless meaty, consisting of just 3 substantive items.  These are a proposal to abolish Game Fee, the budget for 2017 / 18 and possible voting reform.  The first two are, to some extent, inter-related.

Taking each in turn:-

1.  Abolition of Game Fee (  http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Abolition-of-Game-Fee-Final-1.pdf  and  http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/C26.6.1-Proposed-Bye-Law-No.-2.pdf  ).
When the Membership Scheme was introduced a few years ago a Game Fee fall back option was retained.  It was said that this was intended to be a temporary situation whilst we all got used to the Membership option, and the fee was set at a level that was intended to act as an incentive for most people to become Members.  Currently, the Game Fee is set at £2.50 per adult standard game or £1.25 per adult rapid game.  Corresponding amounts of 60p and 30p apply in exclusively junior events.  There have been 2 main criticisms of this system.  From the ECF’s standpoint, it is labour intensive to identify and collect what are often quite trivial amounts.  From a club’s standpoint, even at the relatively low value of £2.50, it has been seen as a disincentive for newcomers to get a taste of competitive chess playing.  The gist of the new proposal is to allow someone to play up to 3 games in any League or internal club competition without being an ECF Member, or facing a Game Fee, but then to hit any League / club in which they play 4 or more games with the rather heftier fee of £25 (adult) or £12 (junior) for each player playing 4 or more games without becoming a Member.  (This would be applied separately for each League / club, so if someone played in more that one League / club, they could play up to 3 times in each without incurring a charge.)  So, still a carrot and stick approach, but I think it would be a beneficial change in minimising workload for the ECF and giving some freedom for new or occasional players to play a few competitive games without immediately being hit by an ECF charge – albeit a rather big hit after 3 games for any still averse to carrots.  It is expected that the new charging system would be fiscally neutral compared to the current system.  So-called “Pay-to-Play” fees in a congress where someone lacked the appropriate level of ECF Membership would still apply.  The concept of “Deemed Game Fee” will continue to exist to determine Council voting rights – pending any changes from the voting reform proposals.

2.  Budget for 2017 / 18  (  http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/C26.7.1-ECF-Finances-April-2017.pdf  and  http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/C26.7.2-Detailed-Forecast-and-2017-18-Budget.xls  )
A lot of work has been going on behind the scenes to recover from the loss of John Philpott on the eve of last autumn’s AGM.  The bookkeeping function has been outsourced and the accounts are being computerised.  This is still a work-in-progress, but amongst the benefits it should facilitate the regular production of management accounts – the lack of which has been something that the ECF has reasonably been criticised for up till now.

At last year’s Finance Council, increases in Membership Fees were rejected.  However, at last October’s AGM, Council indicated support for a forward plan that included increases for 2017 / 18 and again in 2019 / 20.  This was not a binding vote by Council, but if Council was now to overturn the 2017 / 18 increases that the Finance Director has included in his proposed budget, it would indicate just how difficult it would be for any forward planning.  The proposed increases (for adults, with new rates in parentheses) are Bronze £1 (£16), Silver £1.50 (£23.50) Gold £2 (£34) and Platinum £10 (£70). 

A criticism that was raised by Council at the last AGM was that it wasn’t sufficiently clear what was intended to be covered by current income from Membership / Game Fees and what needed to be funded by sponsorship / donations, reserves or drawdown of capital from the Permanent Invested Funds (PIF) or John Robinson Youth Trust (JRYT).  The data at the foot of the Summary tab in the budget spreadsheet is intended to address this.

The ECF has had some success over the last couple of years in attracting sponsorship money, but as things stand today the proposed expenditure does anticipate a need for some capital drawdown.  As the FD indicates in his Paper, the PIF Trustees have been reasonably receptive to such a request but, so far, the JRYT Trustees have declined to shift from their current practice of only distributing income from the funds entrusted to them.  My fellow non-exec director, who is a qualified lawyer, has reviewed John Robinson’s will and indicated that it did not contain any such restriction on use of capital, so a renewed approach to the JRYT Trustees is intended, but if still unsuccessful the financial plans will need further review.

If the proposal to abolish Game Fees in their current form, as discussed above, is rejected by Council, it is intended that there will be a proposal to increase Game Fees in line with the proposed increases in Membership Fees.

3.  Voting Reform  (  http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/C26.8.1-Possible-Voting-Reform.pdf  and  http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/C26.8.2-Results-Possible-Voting-Reform.pdf  )
I consulted with you previously on these proposals that have come jointly from the Board (but with severe reservations from me) and the Governance Committee.  As a result of the ECF’s consultation, no substantive changes have been made to the Paper being put to Council.  The second document referenced above is a summary of the responses the ECF received to the initial consultation, compiled by the Chairman of Governance.  It records there were only 25 respondents, and I understand many of those simply indicated a preference for one of the proposed options but with no discussion.  The Paper has the response I coordinated on behalf of the SCCU annexed to it.  This limited response in no way surprises me, but reinforces my view that whilst giving greater weight to direct voting by Members sounds wonderfully democratic, it could only expect to attract very limited participation and not be likely to reflect the views (if any!) of the Membership at large.    I anticipate that this is one item on which I will wish to address Council as a Council Member rather than as a Director!

The BCF Council agenda contains just one substantive item at present.  This is a proposal that Council endorses the request to the JRYT Trustees to release capital to support junior chess activities.

Your comments are invited on any of these matters.  The SCCU Executive Committee will be meeting this Friday (7th April) to determine its voting intentions for the Council meetings.

Regards

Julie