ChEx – the Chief Executive's blog

As soon as humanly possible, I’ll be producing the official minutes of the ECF’s Annual General Meeting, held at the Euston Square Hotel, London on Saturday, 15 October.  In the meantime, what follows is a summary of the main decisions taken.

Extended sentence

To begin on a personal note, I was re-elected as Chief Executive with no votes against.  This means that ChEx readers will have to put up with another twelve months of my ramblings.  (Sorry about that.)  Although there was no candidate opposing me, I did not take my re-election for granted, and I am grateful for the support shown.  I’m sure that I made mistakes during my first year, and doubtless there will be things I get wrong in the months ahead as well.  I do promise, however, that I shall give of my best and follow my conscience and my judgement in trying to do what’s right for the ECF and English chess.

Achievement Report and Long Term Strategic Plan

Both papers were approved nem con [none against] and without any questions posed or comments made.  As the author of the papers, I confess that I was ambivalent about this.  I may be in a tiny minority in believing this, but I genuinely do think that these documents are an important part of the ECF’s health as an organisation.

It’s a common enough reaction among chess players to question the value of the ECF and to ask what it actually does, so the Achievement Report has to be tested against whatever benchmarks members wish to apply to see if the reported actions are adequate.  Similarly, when a planned action was not completed, is the explanation satisfactory?

With regard to the Strategic Plan, I acknowledged during the meeting that this was something of a holding document, as the ECF makes a transition from its current form to something (or rather, two somethings) different.  I did try to set out some indication of how a split into a charity and a non-charitable body would affect the goals and nature of the organisations, and this is something on which members need to be reflecting.

The “glass half empty” part of my nature causes me to worry about the absence of challenge.  Members’ time is limited, of course, and I’m sure that the issues relating to funding had a greater immediacy and prominence in the minds of many, but we do need to be looking further ahead as well.

I should very much welcome feedback on either document if readers want to contact me in the usual way.

Directors’ reports

All of the directors’ reports were received and approved.

The Director of Finance’s report led to lengthy discussion of the draft ECF annual statement of accounts, which showed a deficit for 2010-11 of £5.6k.  This was a disappointing outcome, to put it mildly, given the expectations of a significant surplus during the bulk of the year.  An unexpectedly heavy workload in the Director of Finance’s day job meant that there had been very little time to delve into the reasons for the deficit or to finalise the accounts.  Unfortunately, this left the Board and Council without definitive answers to their questions, and approval of the accounts had to be postponed.  It will take place as soon as practicable by mail and e-mail.

One sentence in the Director of Marketing’s report proved controversial.  Referring to the incident prior to the British Championships prizegiving, Stewart Reuben stated, “Had the Marketing Director been consulted initially there would have been no problem.”  Many felt that this assertion was questionable, and a statement to this effect from Alex McFarlane was read by the Chairman.  Council members reiterated their support for British Championship  organisers, and I took the opportunity to repeat the Board’s view that the regrettable accusations made by some following the incident were entirely without foundation.  A proposal to note (rather than approve) the Director of Marketing’s report was overwhelmingly defeated; Council members appeared to accept that the statement was the expression of an opinion which, whilst they might not agree with it, was within the director’s right to express.  The report was approved on a show of hands, with 3 votes against.

Directors and Officers Responsibilities

A number of changes were approved, removing outdated references (to a Manager of Chess for Schools and to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport) and bringing responsibility for the Voting Register Officer under the Non-Executive Chairman, a more natural home.

The age limit for the players covered by the Director of Junior Chess & Education was lowered from 21 to 18.  This brought the regulations into line with existing practice, whereby the Director of International Chess has dealt with the World Junior Championships (for U21s) rather than the Director of Junior Chess.

Elections and Appointments

Every year at the AGM, the members of the Board are elected, along with the FIDE Delegate and the Chairmen and members of the Finance and Governance Committees.

The results of the Board elections were as follows:

• President – CJ de Mooi was re-elected on a hand vote, with 1 vote against;
• Chief Executive – Andrew Farthing was re-elected on a hand vote, nem con;
• Non-Executive Chairman – Mike Gunn was re-elected on a hand vote, nem con;
• Director of Finance – Gareth Caller was re-elected on a hand vote,  nem con;
• Non-Executive Directors – John Wickham and Jack Rudd were re-elected on a hand vote, nem con;
• Director of Home Chess – Adam Raoof was re-elected on a hand vote, with 1 vote against;
• Director of Junior Chess & Education – Phil Ehr was elected in a poll, defeating Sabrina Chevannes by 107 votes to 91 (with 4 votes for “Neither of the above”, 1 spoiled ballot paper and 3 abstentions);
• Director of International Chess – Lawrence Cooper was re-elected on a hand vote, nem con;
• Director of Marketing – Tim Woolgar was elected in a poll, receiving 95 votes in favour against 89 votes for “Not this candidate” (6 abstentions).

Nigel Short was re-elected as the ECF’s FIDE Delegate on a hand vote nem con.

John Philpott was re-elected as Chairman of the Governance Committee on a hand vote nem con.  Richard Haddrell and Andrew Leadbetter were likewise re-elected to the committee (with 1 vote against in the case of the latter).

There was no candidate nominated in time for Chairman of the Finance Committee.  However, Mike Truran has offered his services, and the Board expressed its intention to appoint him and sought Council’s views.  None of the members present objected.  Ray Clark, John Philpott and Ian Reynolds were all elected to the Finance Committee on a hand vote, nem con.

Goatcher Chandler was reappointed as Auditor.

The Future Funding of the ECF

It will be recalled that the Finance Council in April 2011 voted in favour of moving to a membership scheme as its future funding model.  Following a period of consultation, the AGM was presented with a paper setting out the final version of the membership proposals and a set of detailed changes to the Articles and Byelaws for approval.

Following considerable discussion, the results of the polls were as follows:

• The amendments to Articles 1.1 and 5.14, removing the need for individual Direct Members to sign the £1 guarantee, were approved by 184 votes to 22, a majority of 89%;
• The amendment to Article 30(1), concerning the allocation of voting rights based on actual or deemed Game Fee, was approved by 156 votes to 23, a majority of 87%;
• The changes to Byelaw No.1 (Direct Members) were passed by 137 votes to 57, a majority of 71%;
• The changes to Byelaw No. 2 (Game Fee) were passed by 134 votes to 61, a majority of 69%.

An amendment to Byelaw No.2, seeking to exempt members of national federations other than the ECF from payment of the “Pay to Play” fee for congresses was defeated in a hand vote 19-8.

It should be stressed that Council did NOT set the membership or game fee rates at this time.  The ECF’s rules require that this is done by the Finance Council (i.e. in April 2012).  The meeting was asked to note a paper setting out the rates which the Board proposes to present to Finance Council next April, which it did on a hand vote, with 2 votes against in the room and 10 directed proxies against.

County Championship rules

An amendment granting the Director of Home Chess discretion to nominate a central venue for the Final of each Championship, subject to Board agreement.  This amendment, from the SCCU, was intended to give flexibility to the Director of Home Chess, so that, if the finalists are from the same geographical region, it would not be mandatory to insist that both travel to a central venue when a more local solution might be preferable.

Comments

For most people, the decision over the funding proposals will be the dominant feature of this year’s AGM.  Some members expressed deep reservations and questioned whether they would continue within the ECF if the changes were implemented.  Others were clearly anxious about specific aspects.

I am extremely conscious of these concerns.  I recognise the scale of the challenge in the months ahead, not least to communicate effectively with players and organisations across the country to explain what is happening and to try to persuade as many people as possible of the benefits and value of supporting the national federation.

There are anxieties about the implementation of this project, particularly the IT solution for online membership.  I understand these concerns and the reasons for them.  I shall be committing as much time as possible to ensuring that the project is carried out in as professional a manner as possible.  For many, this statement may be a cause for scepticism, and I understand this.  However, I have experience of implementing projects on a much larger scale and of greater complexity in the past, and I am optimistic that this can be done in a satisfactory way.

I shall report progress over the coming months.  For now, I would ask for patience.  I know that people have many questions about the practical details of the scheme but would respectfully ask that the Federation be given some space to work at this time.

“Old friends / Sat on their park bench / Like bookends”  (Paul Simon)

This rather touching, if melancholy Simon and Garfunkel song about old friends and ageing was resonating in my mind as I was driving back home to Worcester on Saturday evening.  Paradoxically perhaps, I had spent the day watching a collection of worryingly good juniors playing in the Witney Rapidplay, which I was attending in order to present the prizes, along with the ECF Website of the Year Award for the splendid Witney Chess Club site.

The event itself had been a genuine pleasure to watch.  It was run by a friendly and capable team of local players, led by Alan Kennedy, whose relaxed warmth and wit in introducing the event set the tone for what followed and made sure that the players and their parents had a stress-free, enjoyable day. I’m grateful to Mike Truran for the invitation and for his kind hospitality, despite his not having the decency to let me win our blitz game.  (Alan beat me 2-1 as well – really, is this any way to treat an honoured guest?)

Days like this help to recharge the batteries of this occasionally weary soul, preventing me from drowning in the murky waters of the ECF’s funding debate and other important but not always uplifting matters.  They’re a reminder of what a joy the game of chess is and of the decency of the vast majority of people involved with it.  There have been days over the last couple of months when my work for the Federation has left me feeling anything but joyful, so the reminder was both timely and very welcome.

Everyone I spoke with was unfailingly friendly, and the conversations touched on everything from junior development programmes (Witney Chess Club’s is self-evidently a tremendous success, built upon a determined effort to reach out to local schools and provide a supportive and encouraging environment) to daytime chess clubs for older people and the age-old question, “How do we attract and retain more female players?” (to which I wish I had a good answer).

One doesn’t expect to solve the problems of English chess through chats like these, but it all helps.  I did learn a useful tip for those looking for a best-selling snack treat: chocolate frogs.  Helen Hackett, of Hackett’s To Go, who was providing the abundant catering for the event, could hardly restock the supply fast enough.  Junior event organisers, take note!

The day before, I had accompanied a small delegation from the Worcestershire Chess Association to the home of the remarkable Bert Foord, where we were to present an engraved glass gift as a token of the association’s appreciation for Bert’s astonishing twenty-five years as WCA Treasurer, a post he had relinquished a few months previously.  What I hadn’t realised until then was that Bert’s quarter century of voluntary service on behalf of the WCA had not even begun until AFTER Bert had retired from full-time work.  Now in his nineties, he still enjoys regular tussles with his chess computer, his pleasure in the game undiminished after more than seventy years.

Bookends.  It was the juxtaposition of these two events – both unalloyed pleasures from my point of view – which caused my mind to wander to the Simon and Garfunkel song.  Part of it was a reflection on ageing – my work with Age UK tends to lead me to think about this and, let’s face it, I can lean towards the melancholy – but most of all it was the combination of the young children and the nonagenarian, bookends united in their love of the same absorbing, inspiring, maddening game.

It’s tempting to focus on the development of younger players, and of course this is vitally important for the health of the game.  We should never forget, however, that one of the marvels of chess is that it both spans and unites the generations as few other activities can.  I want very much for the ECF to grow junior chess, but this has to be in parallel with work to promote opportunities for older players as well (everything in-between).

Bookends come in pairs.  If you let one go, the books fall off.

Last week witnessed the 61st Paignton Chess Congress, possibly my favourite event on the English congress circuit.

For each of its 61 years, the congress has taken place in the same venue, the grandiose Oldway Mansion.  This was formerly the home of Isaac Merritt Singer (1811-1875) of sewing machine fame and was sold to Paignton Council in 1946 after being requisitioned by the RAF for the duration of the Second World War.

The mansion is undeniably impressive, as shown by the seemingly endless procession of wedding parties choosing to use the building as the backdrop for their special day.  One of the incidental pleasures of playing at Paignton is to imagine the efforts that the wedding photographers must have to make to avoid cluttering the background of their shots with a gaggle of chessplayers.

I can remember once talking to someone at Paignton who told me that it was the first chess congress he had ever attended and how blown away he was by the surroundings.  I didn’t have the heart to tell him that he should not expect venues like this at the next event he tried.

Paignton inspires astonishing loyalty among its participants.  2011 was my fifth appearance, an unbroken sequence since returning to the game just under six years ago.  Five consecutive years doesn’t come close to being a record; there are people still coming to Paignton who first took part decades ago, and one of the delights of the event is the sense that each year is a reunion of old friends.

Apart from the setting and the enjoyment of seeing so many familiar faces, what makes Paignton such a pleasurable experience?

• Time to think – With the exception of the 5-round Boniface Morning tournament, the games are played at the leisurely pace of 40 moves in 2 hours, with another hour to reach move 60, only then followed by 30-minute “quickplay finish”.  By comparison, most congresses are frenetically fast.  Of course, outside the Premier, most of us are so used to moving at a faster pace that the games are generally all over within about four hours, but it’s nice to know that there is more time, just in case.  In five years, I’ve never lost a game at Paignton (although I’ve drawn far too many), allowing me to fool myself that the only reason I ever lose elsewhere is the lack of time for my immense chess genius properly to emerge.
• Time to relax – I do like to be beside the seaside, and the schedule at Paignton allows for a week-long holiday with just one game a day.  Most people choose to play in the afternoon event, starting at 2 p.m., which allows the entire morning for walking, excursions, shopping, and the like.  The combination of chess with large doses of fresh air and exercise always acts on me like a tonic, and I know I’m not the only one.  Those allergic to fresh air and exercise – or just desperate for as much chess as humanly possible – can opt to play in the morning tournament (9.30 – 13.00) as well as the afternoon event.
• No child geniuses - Paignton is always held in the first full week after the August Bank Holiday, which means that the schools are back.  As a result, the congress tends to consist only of those of us whose chess has, shall we say, settled on its mature level.  I have nothing against juniors, I hasten to add, but it is nice just once a year to have a week’s chess minus the humiliation of some bored-looking child rattling off a series of depressingly strong moves without apparently needing to think at all.  For seven days, the rest of us can kid ourselves that our future is somewhere other than twenty years behind us.
• Friendly organisers – Alan Crickmore and the excellent team of arbiters play their part in establishing Paignton’s welcoming atmosphere.  I remember how Alan came up to shake my hand in the Oldway cafe on my first visit to the congress, for no other reason than that he liked to make a point of saying hello to every new participant.  It’s touches like that which bring punters back year after year.

Last year was the event’s 60th anniversary, and each participant was rewarded with a copy of a fascinating book, 60 Years in the Same Room – A History of the Paignton Chess Congress, by Bob Jones (still available for purchase from Keverel Chess Books).  Alongside the records showing the quite ridiculous number of times that Keith Arkell has won the Premier (15 up to 2009 – the period covered by the book – and he’s added a couple more to the tally since then), chess minnows like myself can see our names recorded in the roll of honour (3rd= in the Intermediate 2009, not to forget a share of the U116 Grading Prize in 2007, I’ll have you know).  One of the joys of Paignton is that it makes you feel a part of chess history.

If you have never played at Paignton, I warmly recommend it.  Don’t wait too long – the Council has sold the site to private developers, and its future is none too clear.  For now, the organisers have indicated that 2012 and 2013 are confirmed – good news indeed! – but beyond that, no one knows.

I know – it’s been a long, long time since my last blog entry.

Sad to say, I can’t claim that this was because I’ve been away sunning myself on a tropical island or trekking in Nepal.  The truth is much more prosaic (and kind of depressing when I think of it), namely that I’ve been busy all summer working on ECF business and the blog took a back seat.

If it helps, I have been feeling guilty about not posting, and the gentle reminders from friends desperate for my latest ramblings made sure that the guilt was never allowed to fade for too long.  Thanks, chaps!

Previously on “ChEx”…

When I last posted, I was encouraging feedback on the funding proposals and anything else about the ECF that people wanted to discuss.  Since then, my consultation paper was published and I received dozens of responses (probably over a hundred in all), as well as the usual lively exchanges on the English Chess Forum.  I’m grateful to everyone who took the trouble to comment.  All of the responses were helpful, even if, inevitably, it wasn’t possible to incorporate every suggestion into the final proposals (published a few weeks ago).

My previous post included a list of the chess congresses in which I’d be playing, in case anyone wanted to collar me for a chat.  The last in the list was the Cheltenham congress on the Whitsun Bank Holiday.  Amazingly (for me), this was to be my last event for over three months, a drought broken only by the wonderful Paignton congress on 4-10 September.

Coming attractions

Now that I’m playing again, I’m due to play in several congresses over the next couple of months, so if you’re going to be at any of the following and want to make contact, please do so:

Fareham, 24-25 September - a new event from Norman Went’s Spectrum Chess

Dudley, 1-2 October – another new event in the calendar, this time from Tony Corfe’s Castle Chess

Scarborough, 21-23 October – one of the biggest and best congresses in England, set in a terrific venue with views onto the North Sea

Bury St Edmunds, 29-30 October – a well-established congress but a new one for me.  I’ve been invited to present the prizes at the end, a clear sign that the organisers have already heard my reputation and twigged that I won’t be one of the recipients.

Hampshire, 4-6 November – the Hampshire Championship, held in a school in Eastleigh and open to all

Torquay, 18-20 November – another trip to the English Riviera.  Here’s hoping for an Indian summer…

If this seems like a lot of chess, it is!  The way I see it, I’ll have a relative lull in my ECF work once the papers have been published for the AGM, and it will take a little time after that for everything to accelerate to its usual madness.  Who knows how much chess I’ll have time for in 2012, so why not seize the day?

The recent debates about funding, charitable status, cheating and other topics may have left you itching to have your say on what the ECF is up to at the moment.

It genuinely does help me to hear the views of the chessplayers the ECF serves, so if you have any comments or questions, please do get in touch.  My e-mail address is chief.executive@englishchess.org.uk.

As an alternative, I’m pleased to report that I’m being allowed out in public again to see if I can still remember how to move the pieces.  You’ll be able to find me at the following events:

• Exmouth (22-25 April)
• 4NCL (30 April or 1 May) – not playing, but I’ll be visiting on one of the days
• Worcestershire Megafinal, UK Land Chess Challenge (8 May)
• Rhyl (13-15 May)
• Cheltenham (28-30 May)

Feedback is always welcome, or just come and say hello.  It can be a lonely journey down towards bottom board, so I’m always happy to chat!

While I’m working on the detailed Minutes of last Saturday’s Finance Council meeting, I thought that a summary of the decisions made might be worthwhile.

International Chess budget

More than 90% of this budget relates to a single item – the cost of sending a team to the European Team Championships.  Of the £18,500 allocated to this, a large proportion relates to expenses (event fees, accommodation and travel costs).  The budget did allow for payment of fees to the players, although the amount budgeted would not have allowed for the strongest possible team.  The Director of International Chess had intended to seek external support to make up the difference and allow the strongest team to go, otherwise the best team affordable within the budget would have been sent.

Council voted to make the full European Team Championships budget conditional upon additional financial support being found which would enable the strongest available team to be sent.  If the additional funding could not be found, the ECF’s spending should be restricted to the amount required to cover expenses only.  In this case, a “development” team would be sent, which would not require players’ fees.

2011-12 Funding from Game Fee and Membership

The Board’s proposal to Council was to leave Game Fee and Membership subscriptions unchanged for the coming year, with substantial increases the following year in accordance with the Funding Paper.  The budget deficit in 2011-12 would have been funded by a transfer of £15,000 from the Permanent Investment Fund (PIF).  Council’s preference was to fund part of the deficit from increased player/member contributions as follows:

• Game Fee is to rise from 54p to 58p for Standard Play League and Congress results (with proportionate increases in the other event categories);
• Basic and Basic Junior memberships will increase by £1 to £13 and £8.50 respectively;
• All other Direct membership subscriptions (Full, Standard, Junior, etc.) will increase by £2;
• The membership fee for organisations (leagues, etc.) will increase from £54 to £58.

The effect of these changes will be to reduce the budget deficit for 2011-12.  As a result, Council voted to limit the amount to be requested from the PIF to “up to £10,000″.

Future Funding

As expected, there was a lengthy discussion of the options set out in my paper on the future funding of the ECF.  The resulting card vote was as follows:

• Option 1 (Membership scheme) – 91 votes
• Option 2 (Membership/Game Fee combination) – 71 votes
• Neither of the above – 7 votes

Following this vote, one of my principal tasks over the coming weeks and months will be to draw up detailed implementation proposals for Option 1, along with the necessary amendments to the ECF’s Articles.  The latter will need to be voted on at the AGM in October, with a 75% majority required in order to be passed. 

Clearly, in view of the closeness of the vote on Saturday, a 75% majority cannot be assumed, and part of my brief is clearly to design the detailed proposals in such a way as to address as many of the concerns and objections of those who preferred Option 2 as possible.  The debate at Council was very helpful in setting out a number of these.

It would be fair to describe the decision on Saturday as the start of a journey rather than its end.  There is still lots to do!

Charitable Status

During the debate on future funding, I briefed Council on proposals to pursue the establishment of a charitable body to undertake the bulk of the ECF’s current activities.  Not everything that the ECF does fits within the definition of “charitable aims” (basically, anything to do with professional chess is out), so a non-charitable organisation would also be required.  Nevertheless, if a charity can be established for most of the ECF’s work, this should open the possibility of membership subscriptions and other donations being eligible for Gift Aid.  The effect of this would be to reduce the amount that members would have to pay in order to achieve the same total level of funding for the charity.

Again, there is plenty of work to do on this before we’ll know what is possible and whether the Charity Commission will accept the new charitable organisation (which the ECF Council will need to approve, of course), but I am optimistic.

Multiple directorships held by one individual

Lawrence Cooper’s proposal to allow a single individual to stand for and hold two directorships on the ECF Board (currently the maximum is one) was overwhelmingly defeated.

Amendments to rules for the County Championship draw

A couple of minor amendments were passed allowing a little more flexibility in the draw for this event.  Currently, it has to be done by the end of January, which can cause practical problems if the weather is uncooperative and may require a journey specifically for this purpose.  Giving room for the draw to happen as late as February may mean a cost saving, because those concerned may be meeting anyway at other events during that period.

The Finance Council meeting is just six days away as I write, and it feels like the right moment to draw breath and take stock.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the ECF is concentrating exclusively on its future funding options right now, but – believe it or not – there are other things going on!  Here are a few of the items from my “To Do” list:

Disciplinary Code / Code of Ethics - The recent case of a junior player at a weekend congress caught using computer assistance, along with the well-publicised events surrounding some members of the French team at the 2010 Olympiad, has highlighted the need for clarity over the ECF’s powers and the sanctions applicable for cheating and other offences.  The plan is to draft a Code of Ethics for presentation to the AGM in October.

Charitable Status - I’ve mentioned this in a previous post, but it’s going to be a major task, affecting the organisation of the ECF and, inevitably, the way that it’s funded.  The intention is to identify all of the ECF’s activities which would fit the definition of “charitable” and create an organisation which would be devoted to these.  The remainder – at first glance, likely to be International Chess and the British Championships – will be undertaken by a non-charitable organisation, such as the ECF is now.  Both organisations will need adequate governance and funding arrangements.

VAT review - Independently of the charitable status issue, it has been suggested that the ECF would benefit from an expert review of its VAT situation.  There is a potential candidate to undertake such a review, and I hope to be kicking this off shortly.

IT systems review - Now that we have a new Manager of ICT in place, the time is right for a review of our somewhat basic and dated systems with a view to introducing greater automation if we can, particularly in the area of membership administration.

Game Fee administration - The procedures now in place for calculating the amount of game fee due from congresses are looking promising.  My next target is to look more closely at the procedures in respect of leagues.  Currently, I’m not satisfied that the checks within the ECF of the amounts due and the amounts paid are robust enough.

Proposals for long-term development of English chess - This is an item from the 2011-12 Business Plan.  It’s all too easy to become lost in the challenges of the moment, such as funding, and forget the goal of the ECF to develop chess in this country.  I haven’t given this enough attention to date, and I want this to change.  Obvious places to start: Women’s chess and Junior Chess & Coaching.

Improving the “shop window” – The website and, to a lesser extent, the Chess Moves newsletter, are vital demonstrations of what the ECF can offer by way of valuable and interesting information.  I have a number of ideas for enhancing these, which I hope to implement in the coming months.

New funding arrangements - There’s no denying that implementing whatever Council agrees in April is not going to be a trivial task.  It will require work on a number of fronts if the changes are to be introduced smoothly and successfully.  Even Option 2 is not simply routine: people will need to be persuaded of the benefit of continuing to support the ECF at the new, higher price.  Splits in the Federation cannot be afforded.

*

There are moments when I wonder just how much time all of this is going to take and shudder…  This is probably true of all jobs, although self-motivation can be trickier when the job in question is voluntary, I suspect.  For my part, I tend to keep myself going by indulging in a non-critical, but “fun” activity, like my articles for Chess Moves.  I have plans for a special ChEx Bookshelf article on one of my chess heroes, Viktor Korchnoi, in the May/June issue, and writing that will be sheer pleasure.

Nevertheless, there is a huge amount to do.  This leads me to a simple plea:

HELP WANTED!

I’m six months into my stint as Chief Executive and I am no closer to finding an Alternate or a Strategic Planning Officer.  In both cases (or they might be the same person), I would want to work with the individual to deliver the programme of tasks set out above.  I’d like to think that this would be an attractive and interesting challenge for the right person or persons; it would certainly make the likelihood of delivering everything and doing it well greater if I could fill the positions.

If there is someone out there who has read this post and is intrigued and/or excited (as opposed to bored and/or horrified!) and would be interested in helping, please do get in touch.

Since my last post on this subject, the debates on the English Chess Forum have continued to expand.  I see it as a healthy sign of engagement in the issues that so many contributors to the forum have taken the time to ask questions or pass comment.

With just under a week to go until the Finance Council meeting, I thought that I’d try to pull together a summary of the main questions posed.

Q.  Under the Membership Scheme (option 1), who would be responsible for collecting the subscriptions?

A.  This is not set in stone.  One option would be for the approach applied in the existing Membership Organisations (MOs) to be rolled out nationally.  Here, the membership fees are collected through the MO (e.g. the County Association), which in turn collects them from its constituent clubs.  This might seem a little convoluted (and potentially complicated if a player represents more than one club), but in practice the MOs indicate that it works satisfactorily.

The other major option is for the ECF to collect the subscriptions from individuals direct.  To make this work, an online solution would seem almost essential, and we have been looking at a couple of promising options on this front.  I’m confident that something suitable could be implemented in time for the 2012-13 financial year.

If Council wishes to specify a particular approach to collection under Option 1, it could do so by proposing and passing a suitable amendment on the day.

The fact that new members are currently required to sign a form of guarantee is a barrier to a comprehensive online solution (it wouldn’t affect renewals).   This takes me to the next question…

Q.  Why do members have to sign a guarantee form?  Couldn’t this be abolished to allow for online enrolment as a new member?

A.  The ECF is a Company Limited by Guarantee.  Its Articles state that all “members” must provide a guarantee in the amount of £1 in order to be accepted as a member.  The guarantee form requires a physical signature.

This is not immutable.  It would be possible, for example, to redefine the term “member” to make it much more restrictive.  In other words, those currently classified as individual members could be redefined as something else (e.g. “subscribers” or “supporters”), and the term “member” could be restricted to a smaller number of organisations or Board members, who would be the only ones who had to provide the £1 guarantee.

This is something that is on my radar already, but if Council wanted to give a clear directive on this point, e.g. if it supported a membership scheme only on the proviso that the need for all individuals to sign a guarantee, then it would be free to pass an appropriate amendment to this effect.

Q.  Why can’t the ECF benefit from Gift Aid? 

A.  It would help tremendously if the ECF could take advantage of the Gift Aid scheme to obtain a contribution from HM Revenue & Customs for every membership paid (provided the members agreed).  This would mean that membership fees could be reduced without adversely affecting the ECF’s financial position.

To benefit from this, the ECF would need to be officially designated a charity or a CASC (Community Amateur Sports Club).  Currently, it is neither. 

The Charity Commission has recently launched a consultation paper called The advancement of amateur sport, which offers encouraging signs that the ECF might be able to obtain charitable status for some of its activities.  For once, chess is clearly accepted as a “mind sport”, which promotes health through “mental skill or exertion”.  This is not the issue.  The potential barrier is the requirement that the organisation should be devoted to furthering the cause of amateur sport, not the professional game.  There is some “grey” in the definitions here, but it seems clear that not everything the ECF does could be classified as “charitable”, and the rules are that if an organisation’s goals and activities are not entirely charitable, said organisation cannot be defined as a “charity”.

The Board and I, together with its legal adviser and other interested parties, are therefore looking into this matter with a view to: (a) responding to the consultation paper; and (b) proposing a potential reorganisation which would see the ECF split into two separate bodies, one charitable and one not.

This will not be straightforward (or guaranteed to meet the Charity Commissioner’s approval).  Moreover, it cannot be rushed.  The Charity Commission plans to publish guidance following the consultation in Autumn 2011, after which the ECF will be able to finalise and present its proposals.  This is not ideal for the timing of the AGM in October, nor does it offer the prospect of a definite solution to ease the ECF’s funding gap in time for the 2012-13 financial year.  Realistically, the ECF might have to tolerate a year on whatever basis Finance Council agrees on 16th April before any potential benefits from Gift Aid could be accessed. 

At this stage, I cannot be certain, but my best guess is that only membership subscriptions and donations would be eligible for Gift Aid.  Game Fee would, I suspect, be excluded.

Q.  If option 1 is implemented, what will happen to Direct Members whose memberships run past the start date for the new scheme? 

A.  This would be one of the details sorted out in the year allowed before implementation.  My intention is certainly that no Direct Member should be required to purchase memberships for overlapping periods.  Possibly, a rolling programme of part-year subscriptions (concluding in October 2012) would be the simplest solution.

If anything is unclear in my paper on future ECF funding, I am happy to answer questions.  E-mail me on chief.executive@englishchess.org.uk and I’ll respond directly.  In addition, I’ve been responding to posts on the English Chess Forum and shall continue to do so.

To help inform the debate as best I can, I’ll use this particular blog entry to summarise questions posed and their answers.  I’ll update it from time to time.

*

Q.  How does the ECF spend its income at the moment?

A.   As you can imagine, this is quite complicated.  Without going into the very fine detail, this will give a reasonable idea:

International – Net budgeted spend £20,500 for next year. £18,500 of this relates to the cost of sending a team to the European Championship, i.e. things like flights, accommodation, and players’ fees.

Junior – Net spend £7,000 for next year. This covers a portion of the costs of sending players to World and European Junior Championships and running over junior events and coaching sessions. This is just a contribution towards a much larger total, which is paid by the parents of the players and funders such as the John Robinson Trust.

Women’s Chess - Net spend £1,500 next year. This is clearly not a large amount, so its impact is very modest, but the ECF uses the budget to contribute towards women’s events and to support the participation of players in, say, the Women’s World Championship. (Last year, we dipped into the contingency fund as well for this purpose.)

Marketing – £400 to fund the various ECF awards.

Grading – Net spend £7,950 next year.

VAT – Just under £19,000 in the last financial year, but this will rise significantly in future due to the increase in the VAT rate from 17.5% to 20% as well as the switch from Government grant funding (VAT-exempt) to membership subscriptions and game fee (VAT payable).

General Expenditure - £31,000.  This includes items such as depreciation, printing, postage, phones, website, expenses (e.g. for the President’s work), office rent, rates and insurance, audit fees and bank charges.

Salaried staff - £54,000 (3 x full-time).  The obvious follow-up question is how do the staff spend their time, i.e. how should these costs be allocated? Based on the Management Services review in April-June 2010, it breaks down broadly as follows:

(1) “Information & Support” = 1 FTE (full-time equivalent, i.e. person). This breaks down into work on the website (40%), support for the directors, i.e. all of the major categories above, plus the CEO, Home Chess and Marketing (30%), general enquiries (20%) and sundry tasks not elsewhere classified, e.g. database maintenance (10%).

(2) “General Administration” = 0.7 FTE. This breaks down into financial accounting (50%), support for Council and Board meetings (20%) and sundry admin tasks, e.g. CRB checks, office management, liaison with Trusts, etc. (30%).

(3) “Funding Support” = 1.25 FTE. This breaks down into Game Fee administration (50%), membership administration and queries (30%), membership benefits, i.e. Yearbook, Chess Moves, diary (20%). The Certificate of Merit also falls under this, but volumes are immaterial at present.

NB. Home Chess is self-funding, i.e. entry fees for the County Championships, etc. cover the cost of these events.

The previous post was a moment’s self-indulgence.  It’s time to get down to business.

My paper, The Funding of the English Chess Federation, can be found on the ECF Council page at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897.  It sets out two options for funding the ECF following the ending of the Government grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).  The two options are: a simplified version of the existing combination of Direct Membership and Game Fee, and a universal Membership scheme.  These were the choices which the ECF Council asked me to prepare at the AGM in October.   In addition to the description of the two options themselves,  the paper includes background information which I hoped would help Council to reach an informed decision.

Why is all this necessary?

Simply put, compared to a year ago, the ECF is facing the prospect of continuing business as usual with £60,000 less income.  In fact. it’s worse than that, because the £60,000 Government grant was VAT-free income, whereas any sources used to replace it would be liable for VAT (at the new 20% rate) and would therefore need to be greater than the amount they were replacing.  On top of this, inflation continues to put pressure on costs.

The actions of the Board in finding cost-cutting measures have gone a long way towards plugging this gap, but we haven’t been able to close it in full.  As a result, there is a shortfall of income compared with expenditure of nearly £17,000.  Currently, the sources available to cover this amount are players’ contributions in the form of Game Fee, Membership subscriptions or both.  This means that the amount needed from players is higher.  This is true of both of the options set out in the paper.

Reactions

The responses to the paper thus far make it all too clear that the increases involved – whichever option is chosen – are profoundly unwelcome in the eyes of many.  These are tough economic times, and the last thing any of us needs is another increase in the cost of playing chess.  I also understand completely the fears expressed by some that such price increases could drive people away from the game or, at best, away from the graded form of it. 

I hope it goes without saying that this is not the Board’s intention.  Speaking personally, I certainly don’t want my one contribution to English chess to be to send us down a road which leads to an accelerated decline in the game in this country.   My goal in offering to serve on the Board was to try to help English chess, not wreck it.

The choice facing Council

Numbers can be cruel.  The starting-point for the paper is the fact that, as things stand and taking into account all of the cost-savings identified by the Board, the ECF’s current activities cost £160,000, whereas the amount raised from members,  Game Fee and other minor sources of income is about £17,000 less than this.  There are only two possible solutions:

1. Increase income; or
2. Reduce spending.

More bluntly, the choice is:

1. Chess players pay more to fund the ECF; or
2. The ECF stops doing some of what it does now.

The Funding of the English Chess Federation offers two proposed solutions based on the first of these paths.  They need to be considered very seriously, because the risks are both real and substantial.  For example, the Membership Scheme option is calculated on the basis that at least 85% of graded players will pay to be ECF members at a cost of £18.  If this is felt to be an impossibly high target, this should be a key factor in Council’s decision.  This is only part of the choice, however.

Even before this, the first decision required is between doing the same (and therefore having to pay more for it) and doing less (and keeping what we pay the same, or increasing it by less).  If it’s the latter, Council needs to decide what it wants the Board to stop doing.

If Council opts to fund the ECF’s activities in full, then the question is “How?”  The funding paper describes two options (with some sub-variations).  It is deliberately vague on some of the details of implementation, to allow room for different approaches.  Council could choose to select an option only on condition that a certain approach to, say, collecting membership subscriptions was adopted.  Alternatively, it could leave the Board a free hand to explore options and come up with the best system it can.

The budget for the coming year has been prepared on the basis that the new funding arrangements will not start until 2012/13.  This buys us a year’s grace to do this right.  Nevertheless, the decision cannot be postponed.  Coming away from the Council meeting with the issue still in limbo would in some ways be the worst of all possible outcomes.

What is the Board’s view?

I did not see it as part of my brief in the funding paper to express a preference, and the Board has discussed the options and has so far chosen not to try to sway the debate one way or the other by offering a recommendation.  This is so fundamental to the future evolution of the ECF and, by extension, English chess, that I believe it’s only right to give Council the room to make its own considered choice.  There are no right and wrong answers here, only reasoned decisions based on what we as chess-players believe we should be paying for and how the burden of that payment should be distributed.

Council has a difficult choice before it.  Everyone with a stake in English chess needs to play their part in thinking about the issues here and passing their views to their Council representatives.

This is a turning-point.  For years, the existence of the Government grant has allowed us the luxury of relying on someone else to help fund the national federation.  Those days are gone.  What we decide now will have an impact for years to come.