Open points for Membership Scheme at April Finance Council

[Paul Cooksey]

Maybe we need to discuss the open points before we move onto clarifying practical matters.

My understanding is that constitutionally, Articles and Bye Laws were updated by the AGM in a way which allows a membership scheme of the type the board proposed. Strictly speaking, the membership proposal itself was not voted on. But it seems clear that the Council gave the board a mandate to implement it.

I believe the Finance Council historically decides on membership levels. I imagine the board will propose as suggested, unless the accounts contain a really nasty surprise when validated. But what is the position if a real member supporting game fee proposed £0 (or £0.01) membership, or a supporter of compulsory membership proposed a game fee of £12? Would further votes be necessary?

Regarding Roger's question on three free games. Is it within the power of the April Council to set such exemptions?

[Alex Holowczak]

But what is the position if a real member supporting game fee proposed £0 (or £0.01) membership, or a supporter of compulsory membership proposed a game fee of £12? Would further votes be necessary?

Council has the ability to do this. It always has. Council can propose both Membership and Game Fee of £0, thus bankrupting the ECF overnight. It requires a simple majority to do this, just as it does with anything else.

Regarding Roger's question on three free games. Is it within the power of the April Council to set such exemptions?

They could, but I assume that this would need amendments to the bye-laws, so you'd need to draft them and get the support of whoever qualifies as "Requisitionists". Then you can get it on the Agenda in April.

[Paul Cooksey]

Regarding Roger's question on three free games. Is it within the power of the April Council to set such exemptions?

They could, but I assume that this would need amendments to the bye-laws, so you'd need to draft them and get the support of whoever qualifies as "Requisitionists". Then you can get it on the Agenda in April.

Reading them I wasn't sure. You couold argue there is scope for a "Tin" membership at £0 for players playing up to 3 games. Maybe one for John Phillpott.

That said, perhaps more important what the board's intention is. Alex - is your understanding that free games is not part of the proposal mandated?

[John Philpott]

Alex Holowczak wrote

Council can propose both Membership and Game Fee of £0, thus bankrupting the ECF overnight. It requires a simple majority to do this, just as it does with anything else.

True in the case of Membership but not of Game Fee. Under Article 32(1) the level of Game Fee is determined by a median vote.

[John Philpott]

PAul Cooksey wrote

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Paul Cooksey wrote:
Regarding Roger's question on three free games. Is it within the power of the April Council to set such exemptions?

They could, but I assume that this would need amendments to the bye-laws, so you'd need to draft them and get the support of whoever qualifies as "Requisitionists". Then you can get it on the Agenda in April.
Reading them I wasn't sure. You couold argue there is scope for a "Tin" membership at £0 for players playing up to 3 games. Maybe one for John Phillpott.

That said, perhaps more important what the board's intention is. Alex - is your understanding that free games is not part of the proposal mandated

Who is John Phillpott?

Members qualifying as "the requisitionists" can indeed propose any amendments to the Bye Laws that they consider appropriate, and if approved by Council these will represent the ground rules going forward. It would be theoretically possible to have a concept of "tin" membership in the Membership Bye Laws, but an alternative way of achieving the same effect would be to write an exemption into the Game Fee Bye Laws. The Board has the power under 4.7 of the Game Fee Bye Laws to waive or vary the payment of Game Fee in respect of specified categories of chess competition and/or specified categories of person, and it could use this power, if it were so minded, without there being a Bye law amendment, to exempt the payment of Game Fee for those playing 3 or less games. However, I have no reason to think that at present the Board is likely to be so minded.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex Holowczak wrote

Council can propose both Membership and Game Fee of £0, thus bankrupting the ECF overnight. It requires a simple majority to do this, just as it does with anything else.

True in the case of Membership but not of Game Fee. Under Article 32(1) the level of Game Fee is determined by a median vote.

Right, but if > 50% of people choose the same number, then that number will always be the median. If that number so happens to be 0p, then 0p will be the median, and thus the Game Fee. So it's still a simple majority.

They could set it to -1p...

[Peter Turner]

Right, but if > 50% of people choose the same number, then that number will always be the median. If that number so happens to be 0p, then 0p will be the median, and thus the Game Fee. So it's still a simple majority.

Perhaps if the other 50% were more sensible and voted for a £1 game fee the median I think would be 50p.

[Alex Holowczak]

Right, but if > 50% of people choose the same number, then that number will always be the median. If that number so happens to be 0p, then 0p will be the median, and thus the Game Fee. So it's still a simple majority.

Perhaps if the other 50% were more sensible and voted for a £1 game fee the median I think would be 50p.

Hence the "greater than" sign.

If > 50% vote for 0p and < 50% vote for 100p, then the Game Fee is 0p.
If 50% vote for 0p and 50% vote for 100p, then the Game Fee is 50p.
If < 50% vote for 0p and > 50% vote for 100p, then the Game Fee is 100p.

Those are the three cases in that scenario. Usually you get a wide-range of potential values, say from 54p to 60p in the last meeting. So the median is a sensible way of doing it.

However, if a simple majority of Council wants 0p Game Fee, it could get it. Equally, a simple majority of Council could set membership to £0 if it wanted it.

Council hasn't yet shown any desire for this!

[Peter Turner]

Alex Holowczak wrote

Council can propose both Membership and Game Fee of £0, thus bankrupting the ECF overnight. It requires a simple majority to do this, just as it does with anything else.

True in the case of Membership but not of Game Fee. Under Article 32(1) the level of Game Fee is determined by a median vote.

I did see the greater than sign, I'm not a mathematician but I don't think majority and median mean the same thing.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex Holowczak wrote

Council can propose both Membership and Game Fee of £0, thus bankrupting the ECF overnight. It requires a simple majority to do this, just as it does with anything else.

True in the case of Membership but not of Game Fee. Under Article 32(1) the level of Game Fee is determined by a median vote.

I did see the greater than sign, I'm not a mathematician but I don't think majority and median mean the same thing.

Their common property is that if 50% agree on a specific number for the Game Fee, you get the same result as a simple majority.

"I propose Game Fee of 0p". If a simple majority are in favour (say 51%), then that's the Game Fee.

The poll referred to in the Bye-Laws requiring a median means that if the same 51% write "0p" on their card, then that's the Game Fee.

Game Fee rarely tends to have a simple majority in favour, so it's never an issue. So if a simple majority of people wanted Game Fee of 0p and Membership at £50, they could get it. Equally, if a simple majority of people wanted Game Fee at £2 and Membership at £0, they could get it. They always could.

[John Philpott]

Alex Holowczak wrote

If 50% vote for 0p and 50% vote for 100p, then the Game Fee is 50p.

This is not correct. In such a scenario the median would lie between 0p and 100p, and the Chairman would be required to exercise a casting vote under Article 32(1) to determine which of the two it would be.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex Holowczak wrote

If 50% vote for 0p and 50% vote for 100p, then the Game Fee is 50p.

This is not correct. In such a scenario the median would lie between 0p and 100p, and the Chairman would be required to exercise a casting vote under Article 32(1) to determine which of the two it would be.

Fair enough. The median as a statistical calculation would be 50p. The Chairman's casting vote, from reading 32(1), doesn't necessarily have to be 0p or 100p though? So he could still choose 50p?

[John Upham]

Alex,

Please stop using logic and common sense in these matters: you are upsetting people.

You must realise by now that a working and/or focus group(s) will need to be set-up and make eventually recommendations after several poorly attended meetings that are no longer relevant to the subject under original discussion.

Use the MoD and NHS models for procurement. They achieve the highest possible scores for decision making obfuscation.

[John Philpott]

Alex Holowczak wrote

Fair enough. The median as a statistical calculation would be 50p. The Chairman's casting vote, from reading 32(1), doesn't necessarily have to be 0p or 100p though? So he could still choose 50p?

Some sources do indeed suggest that it will normally be the case that where, among an even number of values, there is no single middle value, the median should be taken as the mean of the two middle values. However, that does apply to the determination of Game Fee given the wording of Article 32(1). The Chairman is specifically required in these circumstances to exercise a casting vote. Such a vote can only be between 0p and 100p, and 50p is therefore not an option.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex Holowczak wrote

Fair enough. The median as a statistical calculation would be 50p. The Chairman's casting vote, from reading 32(1), doesn't necessarily have to be 0p or 100p though? So he could still choose 50p?

Some sources do indeed suggest that it will normally be the case that where, among an even number of values, there is no single middle value, the median should be taken as the mean of the two middle values. However, that does apply to the determination of Game Fee given the wording of Article 32(1). The Chairman is specifically required in these circumstances to exercise a casting vote. Such a vote can only be between 0p and 100p, and 50p is therefore not an option.

That clears that up!

One final question: Is there an Article that says the Game Fee rate must be an integer? E.g. what if a majority of people vote for 51.9p, and it it thus the median? I know the various fractional rates get rounded up to the nearest whole penny (32(3)), but what about the standard rate itself?