October 2023 ECF AGM

[NickFaulks]

But looking at our experience with covid, trying to find 2000 people willing to pay £50 in return for the right to elect directors?

The current problem is finding people willing to be elected for the more demanding roles.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The usual proposal of one member one vote isn't going to work because (as we know) it's very difficult to interest ordinary chess players in the issues which a body such as the ECF has to address and the results of elections from an electorate of a few hundred are going to be fairly random."

The other issue is that if you walk into an average club and ask members tricky questions, like (1) Name as many ECF officials as you can, and (2) Name the latest Open Team for the Olympiad, you will get very few correct answers.

I'm not saying that "one member one vote" would be inferior to the current system.

[John Reyes]

the venue should be good for Zoom and cheaper as i have sorted it out for the ECF

[Roger de Coverly]

Copy of email sent to Gold members

--
Dear ECF Gold Members,



We are writing to you to ask you for your views and feedback on the issues coming up at this year’s ECF Annual General Meeting on Saturday October 14. As your representatives, we have a total of 12 votes to cast on your behalf at the AGM. Based on your responses, we will cast them proportionately.



All the papers for the AGM, including the agenda, can be viewed here: https://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/e ... and-board/



The biggest issue to be decided is how many membership categories there should be for ECF members from September 2024.



There are 4 options on the table:

ECF Board Option A: Gold, Silver & Bronze are combined, with a membership fee of £33. Bronze members will have the choice to stay as Bronze members on £18, but if their membership lapses or is upgraded, they will not be able to revert to Bronze later.
ECF Board Option B: Gold and Silver are combined, with a membership fee of £33. Bronze members may continue at £18.
Northern Counties (NCCU) proposal: One adult membership category of £25, plus junior/student membership of £10. All members eligible for free rating of their games in ECF- and FIDE-rated events.
No change.
We prefer 3), the Northern Counties’ proposal. We believe it simplifies ECF membership and gives all members equal rights, removing barriers to players taking part in congresses and other tournaments. We do not believe it will lead to Bronze members giving up playing league chess.



The other key votes will be for the elections for Director of Home Chess and Non-Executive Director, which are being contested. We invite you to read candidates’ election addresses and tell us which way you would like us to cast our votes.



Director of Home Chess candidates’ election addresses:

Tim Wall

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... -Chess.pdf

Nigel Towers

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... -Chess.pdf



Non-Executive Director candidates’ election addresses:

Katarzyna Toma

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... rector.pdf

Sarah Longson

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... rector.pdf



You can express your preferences via this form (by Thursday 12 October at the latest): https://britchess.wufoo.com/forms/consu ... -agm-2023/

[Mick Norris]

Will be interesting to see if Tim votes for himself for DoHC and for his NCCU membership proposal

[John Swain]

Will be interesting to see if Tim votes for himself for DoHC and for his NCCU membership proposal

Tim has canvassed the opinions of Gold members about how to vote for the various candidates and proposals and intends to split his votes, as one of the Gold members' representatives, in proportion to their views. This is an altruistic approach. An alternative would be to canvass opinions and then cast all votes for the majority opinion. Perhaps one's views about the merits or otherwise of these two approaches will depend on whether we prefer first-past-the-post or proportional representation for political elections.

There is a third, less commendable, approach which is to canvass no one, whether members, players, parents or captains and then cast all votes in the same way.

Which of these three approaches will be adopted by the two biggest voters, 4NCL and UKCC (sixteen votes each)?

[GrahamStuart]

You can express your preferences via this form (by Thursday 12 October at the latest): https://britchess.wufoo.com/forms/consu ... -agm-2023/

Many thanks for the links.

When completing the form members have to state their preference for both Membership changes and Directors. It would be better to have the option to state your preference for any of these, and not all (if that is your choice). The reason for this is that if you have strong feelings for say the membership change but have little knowledge or preference on the Directors, by selecting one you are affecting the data.

Unfortunately this would likely be the first option on the form. It may be that the view should be that members should have opinions on all the points, but in reality membership changes are likely to be of more importance to members than the Directors.

[Ian Thompson]

When completing the form members have to state their preference for both Membership changes and Directors. It would be better to have the option to state your preference for any of these, and not all (if that is your choice).

Agreed. It should also have "None of the candidates" for the contested elections and "Not the candidate" for uncontested elections.

[John Swain]

Will be interesting to see if Tim votes for himself for DoHC and for his NCCU membership proposal

Tim has canvassed the opinions of Gold members about how to vote for the various candidates and proposals and intends to split his votes, as one of the Gold members' representatives, in proportion to their views. This is an altruistic approach. An alternative would be to canvass opinions and then cast all votes for the majority opinion. Perhaps one's views about the merits or otherwise of these two approaches will depend on whether we prefer first-past-the-post or proportional representation for political elections.

There is a third, less commendable, approach which is to canvass no one, whether members, players, parents or captains and then cast all votes in the same way.

Which of these three approaches will be adopted by the two biggest voters, 4NCL and UKCC (sixteen votes each)?

Mike Truran, as an ECF Director, can't post on this Forum on ECF matters, but he has told me that he has canvassed the opinions of 4NCL captains (but has not, as yet, been inundated with responses!)

[John Reyes]

The silver Rep will be sending something out tomorrow to the members hopeful will be at the office today

[John Reyes]

The silver Rep will be sending something out tomorrow to the members hopeful will be at the office today

[John Reyes]

Hello Silver Members.

We are John Reyes and Gavin Cartwright. We would like to thank all of you who voted for us, we do feel honoured to be selected as your reps.

Hopefully you know John from his previous service. Gavin is based in the Midlands but has played in many locations around the country. As mentioned in his election address, his key desire is to ensure that we are getting as many views on how we should vote as possible. Gavin and John share this view and have already agreed to work very closely together to represent you.

The AGM is coming up and you should have received several emails about a proposal to change the membership structure. There are also several positions that need to be voted on. There is also a survey for you to complete on that and I urge you to do that. So, as your reps we would like to reflect as best we can your views. So, we have completed a very short survey for you. It doesn't require any sign in so unless you enter your email address in the last question none of your data will be collected by completing it. It's the first time trying this particular method of writing a survey so apologies if there any bugs with it. Please let us know and we will try to fix them.

Lastly, whilst we want to hear your views on the proposal, we believe it is important that you know where we are on it. We are neutral as to whether we should or shouldn't change the membership structures. We can see points for both. However, we are clear that if we are to change, we should keep a separate "Bronze Membership" ie option 2. Our reasoning is as follows. We know a lot of chess players who mostly want to just play at club nights for fun or in a league. They might join the ECF Bronze so that they can occasionally play in league matches but it isn't the be all for them and they will never play in any tournaments. We do not think that we should be making it more expensive or harder for that sort of player. If they do decide to become more serious about chess, then they can always upgrade their membership. We can see that for someone like us who only plays occasional tournaments and isn't really concerned about their FIDE status it might be more expensive to merge with Gold, but we don't think the cost change would affect our attitude towards membership. So, our view would be either keep things as they are or vote for option 2. Without any further information to sway us, we would tend to vote to keep it as it is for now and review again in a year.

However, as mentioned we are here to represent your views so we will reflect what the survey result says.

Here is the survey:

https://forms.office.com/e/f5SmL98TCJ


Kind regards
Gavin Cartwright and John Reyes
Silver Membership Reps"

John Reyes: [email protected]
Gavin Cartwright: [email protected]"

[Mick Norris]

Is the Governance election a new thing? It wasn't on the Gold reps survey

On a separate point, we have the ECF Survey results

[Ian Thompson]

There is also a survey for you to complete on that and I urge you to do that. So, as your reps we would like to reflect as best we can your views. So, we have completed a very short survey for you.

Question 1, option 1, doesn't make much sense when the Board has said its membership options are cost neutral overall and the fees with the existing membership structure would have to increase if things are more expensive.

So, our view would be either keep things as they are or vote for option 2. Without any further information to sway us, we would tend to vote to keep it as it is for now and review again in a year.

What's the point in waiting a year? What might be different in a year's time from now?

[Kevin Thurlow]

Only 298 responses does not make inspiring reading. It would be interesting to ask everyone else (well, yes, they probably wouldn't answer...) why they didn't answer.

A) We don't care
B) Nobody will listen to us anyway
C) Other, please specify