Report on ECF Board Meeting No. 23

The 23rd meeting of the ECF Board took place on Saturday 7th June 2008 at the Cock Tavern, 23 Phoenix Road, London NW1. This report is a digest and summation of the decisions taken. It is not an official ECF document.

Present:

Directors: Gerry Walsh (GW), Chris Majer (CM), Robert Richmond (RR), Cyril Johnson (CJ), Peter Purland (PP), Stewart Reuben (SR), Peter Wilson (PW), John Wickham (JW).
Chairman of Governance: John Philpott (JP).
Office Manager: Cynthia Gurney (CG).
By Invitation: Brian Smith, London League (BS), Richard Haddrell SCCU (RH), Julie Johnson (MCCU), Alan Martin (AM), David Anderton (DA), Charles Wood (CW).

1. Appointment of NED

Alan Martin was appointed.

2. Constituent Unit Consultation

Questions from the NCCU were discussed. It was agreed that CM and RR would provide a response to the NCCU. The NCCU questions and the responses provided are attached as an annex. It was noted that RR would be attending the NCCU AGM by invitation.

Membership strategy was discussed. RR commented that this topic had divided two Boards. While the North is very enthusiastic other parts of the country are not and there seems little hope of consensus. It was suggested that the ECF should investigate why the English Bridge Union was switching to a scheme equivalent to Game Fee.

It was agreed that the objective in the Business Plan to develop a credible universal membership scheme to put before Council had been addressed through the consultation exercise at the April Council meeting and so should be removed from the Business Plan. A credible membership scheme didn’t have to be mandatory, however 100% membership remained an aspiration.

It was agreed that a response to the editorial in Chess magazine would be produced. It was agreed that a policy statement for the current Board would be “Business as usual responding to new challenges”.

SR stated that it was important to know whether Board members intended to seek re-election so that successors could be sought for vacancies. At SR’s suggestion, the Board members were all asked to make a statement of whether they intended to continue to serve the Federation beyond October:

SR: Would continue beyond October but didn’t see himself as a long-term solution due to age. Finding a replacement for Congress Chess was likely to be more problematic than International.
PP: Intending to serve ECF for 3-4 years.
CJ: Intending to stay 2-3 years to rebuild Home Chess.
RR: Currently 50-50 about whether to continue beyond October, would depend on how current Board shaped up.
GW: Intending to stand for re-election.
JW: In two minds whether to continue beyond October. Hoping to put recent frustrations behind him.
PW: Intending to stand, but might be interested in a different post.
AM: Would stay to help re-establish the Board on an even keel.
CM: Intending to review the practicality of continuing in Office based on his ability to cope with current job and CEO role.
JP: Was enjoying the current challenges and would stand with the proviso that he would not be able to attend all meetings.
DA Would continue to provide legal advice.

It is thought that Mike Adams (Chairman of Finance Committee) will seek re-election. There is a need to check the situation regarding Geoff Steele (Company Secretary). It was noted that there remained a need for a Press Secretary.

3. Admissions to Membership

Stockport League and Barnet Chess Congress were (re)admitted to membership.

Leicestershire & Rutland Chess Association is in the process of changing to a company limited by guarantee. Consequently, there is a need to transfer the MO agreement from the old association to the new company. The following proposal was agreed nem con:
“The MO agreement with Leicestershire & Rutland Chess Association be terminated and a replacement agreement signed with the same terms, conditions and obligations with Leicestershire & Rutland Chess Association Ltd, "

4. Chess for Schools Status Report

CW explained the importance of the Every Child Matters (ECM) policy (http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk) This policy needs to be understood by as many chess bodies as possible as it is the main reason that that state run organisations ignore chess coaching requests. There is a need for the ECF to give guidance on this policy as it is important that the correct terminology is used in any approaches, however free advice on ECM is available from LEAs. An understanding of the ECM policy gives us an ability to open council doors to discuss the future of the Chess For Schools project. Local organisations can apply for grants from LEAs but will need references of achievement.

The project to provide the chess sets is virtually up and running. Holloid has 20 tons of raw plastics for re-cycling. It will take one approximately one year to get the sets to schools. An action plan is being developed with haulage companies and CW is making sure the Office has the names of the companies in their database. Things are made difficult by the current fuel prices. CW is approaching other organisations. Schools need to email the Office to register and such requests are still coming in. No schools will be disappointed. Approaches for sets had to be from schools rather than from other chess organisations (e.g. junior chess clubs). The ECFB needs to get to grips with the scheme, e.g. there is a need to get Andrew Martin involved. Holloid wished to be linked to any follow-up programme. Other follow-ups include other youth areas and chess in prisons.

There are 276 LEAs, with variations in the application of policy; key points are:
i) Public liability Insurance from organisation of £5-10M;
ii) Child Protection Policy;
iii) CRB.
Some MPs have written to schools. There is a need for an approach to the National Association of Head Teachers, e.g. write an article for their magazine or try to address one of their sessions. Some LEAs are very enthusiastic, one already has 85% of schools signed up and is aiming for 100%.

A key weakness currently in the chess infrastructure is that the problem of how to getting kids to come through the play chess adults. There are different levels of chess organisational infrastructure in different counties. The ECF doesn't have a formalised coaching structure covering the country: it’s all piecemeal. Need to exploit educational aspects such as special skills/special needs. Also need to check what FIDE is doing and align ourselves with it.

In response to a question, CW explained that he is doing this work on a voluntary basis. One year from now his involvement in the project would end, need to think beyond this. LEAs will pay new volunteers for a follow-up.

RR expressed the view that there was an opportunity to seize on the scale of 4NCL and the UK Land Challenge. Commercially there were follow-up products and services to sell and this could transform the finances of the Federation. Follow-up possibilities included:
- Extra sets if the sponsors were interested;
- Basic certificate of excellence, knows how to play: This could be equivalent to swimming certificates;
- The Right Moves magazine;
- Products on how to play chess;
- Junior grading was suggested as an addition.
We will need to build a country-wide infrastructure (including registered coaches, etc) and to approach every LEA regarding follow-up/training. The project would need funding initially, but should then become a revue earner.

CW stated that the earliest we could start delivering sets is about the end of June. However, it may be better to hold back deliveries until the beginning of September (post school holidays). The delivery schedule is to be agreed with the sponsoring haulage companies. The order of deliveries would depend on the haulage companies. We need to include an information pack with the sets (ECF and competitions). DA suggested that we need contracts in place to confirm the arrangements.

It was agreed that
a) A follow-up package would be developed and offered to schools.
b) To approach the John Robinson Fund/PIF for a loan to fund the initial phase of the follow-up.
c) To set up a Task Force to develop the ECF side of Chess For Schools, consisting of GW, PW (Chair), RR, PP, and CW. This group should co-opt people as they saw fit.
d) Once the Task Force had their initial ideas sorted a Board meeting would be called by telecon to implement any necessary policy elements.

5. Director’s Reports

CJ stated that he had an initiative to help new chess clubs start-up. 6 sets and Boards would be made available on a sale or return basis for a cost of £60. CJ stated an intention to take over responsibility for Chess in Prisons.

Jessie Gilbert Celebration International 16-25 August in Coulsdon. The JR Trust is supporting this event as are the Friends of Chess and FIDE at SR’s recommendation (a new departure for that body). It was agreed that ECF would offer £1,000 to the Jessie Gilbert memorial congress from the Ron Banwell Legacies Fund money in his name.

English seniors: It was agreed to franchise this event out to Notts along the lines requested by Neil Graham with the precise financial terms to be agreed in consultation with the Finance Committee.

The entries for the British Championships are running at 80% of last year at the moment. Stephen Connor has provided us with a superior website for the Championships. The cost of having a banner outside the hall is £1700. SR didn’t consider this expenditure justified. The Board concurred.

SR suggested that there was now a need for a seminar for new organisers. The World Junior championships would help with this.

6. Charitable status

The JRT was discussed. DA stated that the income generated by the trust has to be apportioned in some way. Most of the money generated had been provided to the ECF (the main exception being BWCA). Capital expenditure cannot be approved by the trustees, it can only be sanctioned by Council. Loans may be possible, but this reduces the income stream and so is not a solution. RR suggested that in the future if the ECF becomes a charitable company it may be possible to move the money back under direct ECF control. DA stated that he didn’t see any benefit from this and it would put the money at risk if in the future there were a claim on the ECF.

A document explaining the latest rules on charitable status will appear on the Charity commission’s website at the end of June. The ECF needs to prepare to respond to it and decide on any necessary organisational changes. It is thought that professional chess aspects (essentially International and British championships) were bars to the ECF obtaining charitable status. Consequently, the ECF should look at separating them off into separate organisations. A number of key questions to be addressed before proceeding were identified:
1. Would the professional chess body be a separate entity or a subsidiary?
2. Where would the income stream for professional chess come from? Transfers from the charitable company to the professional organisation would not be permissible.
3. What would happen to the DCMS grant? Would it go to one organisation or could it be split?
4. Can we get all of the ECF cleared for charitable status? Need to get advice on this from Charity Commissioners.

Application for recognition of chess as a sport. It was agreed to get a paper by Dr. Helmut Pfleger translated to provide supporting evidence for the application.

7. IT Issues

It was noted that the website did not have up-to-date information about Home Chess competitions. This was thought to be due to the information not reaching the Office; CJ undertook to address this. The need to give the ECF website a face-lift was noted.

It was stated that adverse postings on the ECF forum had caused problems with potential sponsors. It was agreed that the “ECF Forum” would be named the “English Chess Forum” and a disclaimer added.

Appendix A
Comments / Questions provided by NCCU for the ECF Board Meeting
With Responses provided.

Dear David

Thank you for your questions, to which we provide the following responses (the ECF response is shown in Italics at the end of each paragraph).

We were greatly disappointed that Martin Regan and 3 other Directors resigned after the recent Finance Council meeting because they seemed at long last to be moving the ECF forward in a progressive and ambitious way that we in the NCCU supported.

a) I was at the Council meeting myself and must admit that as it was the first one that I had attended then I did not appreciate at the time the nuances of all that was going on – and so some of these comments are with the benefit of hindsight. However, it was apparent that some of the decisions basically stopped money from going to the Board to use towards the Business Plan and kept it under the control of a separate body. The discussion and subsequent decision about Chess Centre Ltd were particularly depressing and indicative that the Council were not prepared to give any financial backing to the Board. There also seemed from some people to be complete resistance to the concept of a Membership Scheme – not only stopping the benefits from being spread to players across the country but in effect cutting off another avenue of increasing revenue. The Game Fee can only be raised so much without diminishing returns setting in.

The interpretation on access to CCL funds is entirely erroneous. The budget, which funds the Business Plan, was approved by Council in full. Had any activity in the Business Plan been reliant on funding from CCL then this would have been identified in the budget. It is surely reasonable in a democracy for differing views to be held and this applies to the Game fee v Membership debate. Note that there is broad parity between Game Fee and MOs in the total level of contribution to the Federation.

b) Having a Board of any organisation without control of the finances makes it powerless when it comes to any important decisions. The elected Board are in reality beholding to those who hold the purse strings (ie the Council and the Trustees) and who have an effective veto over any spending plans. So the question arising from this is what can no be done within the ECF to help fund the Board to implement its Business Plan? If the answer is nothing then what is the point of having the ECF – and in particular, for the NCCU, what is the point of our supporting what will become an increasingly ineffective organisation? Why should we continue to send the proceeds of our Membership Organisation to the ECF when there is so much money available to it – but not made available to the Board?

No further action is required to fund the Business Plan it is fully funded. The ECF is a Federation of member organisations. Those organisations provide much of the funding and so it is not inappropriate they decide how much money they are willing to pay. Presumably the NCCU agrees that Council should set the overall budget, since later in this document they state what they believe to be the maximum acceptable membership fee.

c) The NCCU embarked on the Membership Scheme to increase the amount of chess being played; to make congresses cheaper and more attractive; to involve players more in the running of chess; to increase the membership of the national body; and, to raise more money than was achieved via Game Fee – some to be retained in the north but mostly to support the ECF. All these have been achieved but it may be increasingly difficult to persuade the players who subscribe; the volunteers who administer the Scheme; and, the County representatives that the finance that we generate should just go towards gap funding an organisation that refuses to help itself – and which produces no tangible benefits to players in the north, to junior chess development or even to help achieve creditable performances by the national teams.

MO agreements are mutually beneficial and as stated previously there is broad parity between Game Fee and MOs in the total level of contribution to the Federation. Your remarks about gap funding are not understood. The ECF would point out the Chess for Schools initiative, which will put 10 chess sets and Board in every school in England. Follow-up plans for this are being developed. Surely this is a tangible benefit?.

In addition, I have received the following specific questions from the County representatives -

1. Ref the 2008/09 ECF Business Plan –
'Other Aims'

No 5 ' To develop a credible universal membership scheme to be put before Council'?

Are the ECF going to go forward with this? If so, who is leading it? Are Unions/leagues going to be canvassed? What is the timetable? Which Council meeting is being aimed for?
If the ECF are not going to do this, could they convince the NCCU that it is still worth continuing with an NCCU MO?

The current Board sees 100% membership as an aspiration. It was plain from the reaction at Council that the groundwork has not been laid to persuade other parts of the country of the need to change from Game Fee. Therefore, it is fruitless to proceed with universal membership plans at this time. Instead the Board believes that the membership base should be extended through growth of MOs and FIDE rated events/players. The case for the NCCU to operate a MO scheme should be based on local considerations rather than whether or not there is a universal membership scheme.

2. Regarding the new Board - the NCCU had confidence that the old ECF Board could develop membership and relevance of the organisation to the North - how is confidence going to be restored when the return of some of the 'familiar faces' when last on the Board, caused such a rift with the NCCU? And indeed convince the NCCU of any merits of staying with the ECF at all? - (For the vast majority of Northern members, the ECF is irrelevant).

The benefits of the NCCU being affiliated to the ECF include:
4. the British Championships being held in the North four times in the last ten years; it hasn’t been in the South or Midlands in that period;
5. The ECF Rapidplay has with one exception been held in the North for twenty years;
6. ECF grading;
7. FIDE rating;
8. Participation in the county championships.

3. What priority ECF initiatives can we see between now and the October Council? How many of these will affect the North?

The current priority initiative is “Chess for Schools “.
An additional initiative is the opening today of the national chess library.

4. If the ECF has so much money in its different funds/trusts etc (muted at nearly £1m), are there any plans to use some of this to benefit chess? Players in the North will be asking this question when they are increasingly being asked to put their hands in their pockets.

The Board has agreed plans with the PIF Trustees for an increase in the level of income to the federation to pay for or sustain activity. Investment income from CCL will be part of this increased income. The policy of both the JR Trust and PIF will be to make available the real return on investments over and above inflation.

5. What is the long term vision of the new Board, if they stay in post, which direction are they going in? (1. new constitution? Omov? 2. stay as you are? 3. Increase game fee? 4. Overhaul the membership categories?).

The current “vision” of the Board is business as usual responding to new initiatives (e.g. Chess for Schools). A long-term vision will be defined in the Strategic Plan that will be presented to Council in October.

6. The NCCU believe that increasing membership is the right way forward, with a plan to increase benefits (seeing tangible benefits, other than just a grade) over time (5 year plan?), which could justify an increase in membership fees (£10-15 max). Anything less, will lead to disillusionment with any system that is not attractive.

The Board agrees that increasing membership is the right way forward, but believes that this needs to be done by consultation.

As you will be aware, there is a motion going to the NCCU AGM on 14th June to the effect that the NCCU severs its connection with the ECF and recommending that the individual counties do likewise. Of course, the would be an action of last resort and not something to be lightly undertaken, but it would helpful for our meeting if the ECF Board could give some positive responses to the points that we have made.

In addition to the responses given above, Robert Richmond will come to your AGM and will answer any further questions or expand on points made.

Chris Majer                Robert Richmond
ECF Chief Executive    ECF Finance Director