ECF demands more money

[Julie Denning]

.... "OMOV is an obvious one"

Now I'm feeling disenfranchised!

[Chris Rice]

.... "OMOV is an obvious one"

Now I'm feeling disenfranchised!

One man one vote
One maiden one vote
One madame one vote

[Angus French]

Who represents the "grass roots" players who pay the "game fee"? They will be the victims of the 323.73% increase. Joining the ECF it is not everyone's cup of tea. It's not solely a matter of the subscription. Others may not be ready to join.

In answer to this question and Jonathan B’s earlier point about representation for payers vs. representation for players... The vast majority of Council votes are held by Full Members (leagues, tournaments etc.) and allocated by deemed payment: Full Members get one vote for each 1,000 standard graded results (or part thereof) which are submitted and paid for - or deemed to have been paid for - by their organisation. This scheme gives representation to game fee payers and, arguably, also to individual members - effectively their membership payments are considered to be split among the leagues, tournaments etc. in which they play, according to how many games they play. I agree this model is hardly appropriate (it comes from and belongs with the old, game fee-based, system) and should to be replaced... FWIW, I favour keeping Council and using OMOV to elect Council representatives though I see this wouldn't cater for game fee payers.

[Phil Neatherway]

The game fee payers are not members of the ECF, so why should they be represented?

[Paolo Casaschi]

Who represents the "grass roots" players who pay the "game fee"? They will be the victims of the 323.73% increase. Joining the ECF it is not everyone's cup of tea. It's not solely a matter of the subscription. Others may not be ready to join.

In answer to this question and Jonathan B’s earlier point about representation as a payer vs. representation as a player... The vast majority of Council votes are held by Full Members (leagues, tournaments etc.) and allocated by deemed payment: Full Members get one vote for each 1,000 standard graded results (or part thereof) which are submitted and paid for - or deemed to have been paid for - by their organisation. This scheme gives representation to game fee payers and, arguably, also to individual members - effectively their membership payments are considered to be split among the leagues, tournaments etc. in which they play, according to how many games they play. I agree this model is hardly appropriate (it comes from and belongs with the old, game fee-based, system) and should to be replaced... FWIW, I favour keeping Council and using OMOV to elect Council representatives though I see this wouldn't cater for game fee payers.

True representation comes only with accountability: individual players have no explicit way to select their "representative", or to sack them if they are not happy with them. Even if you allocate votes to the farmers based on how many sheep do they have, this does not mean the sheep are "represented"...

[Roger de Coverly]

FWIW, I favour keeping Council and using OMOV to elect Council representatives though I see this wouldn't cater for game fee payers.

How about a mixture of Lords and Commons? You have those who are appointed or elected by Counties, Leagues and Congresses and those, who may be the same people with extra votes who are elected by a wider franchise. If felt necessary, you could "rotten borough" the wider franchise and confine it to Platinum members. With Congresses no longer directly financing the ECF, their voting power is problematic because they are mostly unaccountable. Counties and Leagues have AGMs, so the Council member can be replaced if enough people want them ousted. No such power exists to restrain Congress representatives, other than the local Congress committee where such a body exists.

I think some form of body of limited size is going to be necessary to elect Directors, approve Accounts and Budgets and more generally require Directors to report at half yearly meetings.

[Angus French]

True representation comes only with accountability: individual players have no explicit way to select their "representative", or to sack them if they are not happy with them. Even if you allocate votes to the farmers based on how many sheep do they have, this does not mean the sheep are "represented"...

I agree!

[Angus French]

The game fee payers are not members of the ECF, so why should they be represented?

Because they contribute to the ECF through payment of game fee (almost £14K is forecast for 2014/15) and ought to have a say in the setting of game fee [rates].

[Phil Neatherway]

There not many organisations that would consider it appropriate for non-members to have a say in how they are run.

[Roger de Coverly]

There not many organisations that would consider it appropriate for non-members to have a say in how they are run.

With the federal structure of the ECF, it's chess organisations that have the voting power, not individuals. So it comes down to the decision making process for the League or County whose electorate may or may not be restricted to individual members of the ECF in their own right.

As for as the ECF is concerned it doesn't consider it appropriate for individual members to have a say in how it is run. Or at least that's the impression it sometimes gives.

[Laurie Roberts]

The ECF now has contact details for the majority of people that play graded chess in the UK. And I suspect the majority of those involve email addresses.

Even if OMOV is not going to occur in the short term, on major issues the ECF could run on-line polls by emailing polls to those who are content to receive such emails (the first email could have an unsubscribe option). These polls could be useful to inform the relevant ECF officials / AGMS of grass roots thoughts when there are major issues. They couldn't be over-used but used occasionally.

It is pretty cheap to do this and you can set them up so you have one vote per email address to combat fraud etc

As a minimum they could be used by the bronze, silver, gold and platinum reps as a way of engaging with their constituencies

[Chris Rice]

The game fee payers are not members of the ECF, so why should they be represented?

Because they contribute to the ECF through payment of game fee (almost £14K is forecast for 2014/15) and ought to have a say in the setting of game fee [rates].

Angus, wouldn't any concerns over the level of game fees be taken care of by an appropriate complaints procedure process? I kind of agree with Phil's point that I can't really see the need for formal representation when they are not ECF members.

The ECF now has contact details for the majority of people that play graded chess in the UK. And I suspect the majority of those involve email addresses.

Even if OMOV is not going to occur in the short term, on major issues the ECF could run on-line polls by emailing polls to those who are content to receive such emails (the first email could have an unsubscribe option). These polls could be useful to inform the relevant ECF officials / AGMS of grass roots thoughts when there are major issues. They couldn't be over-used but used occasionally.

It is pretty cheap to do this and you can set them up so you have one vote per email address to combat fraud etc

As a minimum they could be used by the bronze, silver, gold and platinum reps as a way of engaging with their constituencies

Seems sensible and I guess could be done via one of the two forums?

[Mike Truran]

Why is the title of this thread "ECF demands more money" anyway? The ECF isn't demanding more money - it's asking Council to approve a request for more money.

I suppose it's just another example of a sly little distortion in the hope that nobody will notice.

[benedgell]

Out of interest, what do people think of Item 11 on the Agenda?

11. Proposal by William Armstrong (Direct Members’ representative) and Andrew Leadbetter (representative member of the Staffordshire County Chess Association)

“That in fixing membership fees, the ECF should narrow the gap between Bronze and Silver so that eventually the two categories can be merged into one”.

[E Michael White]

Out of interest, what do people think of Item 11 on the Agenda?

<<.............>>

“That in fixing membership fees, the ECF should narrow the gap between Bronze and Silver so that eventually the two categories can be merged into one”.

I think this should be rejected and instead the bronze level subscriptions paid into the Chess Trust, the new charitable arm of the ECF, and leave the PIF where it is. Properly configured this could have tax advantages and be a natural setup.