Midland
Counties Chess
Union

2012 Annual Meeting

Page published 19 June 2012

Agenda

MCCU AGM, 23 June 2012 2.00pm At the Syston Conservative Club, High Street, Syston , Leics.

1) Apologies

2) Minutes of the MCCU AGM 2011

2.1) Accuracy
2.2) Matters Arising

3) Reports:

3.1) President
3.2) Chairman
3.3) Chief Executive
3.4) Secretary (vacant)
3.5) Finance Director
3.6) Director for Junior Chess
3.7) Grading Director
3.8) Events Director
3.9) Public Relations Director,
3.10) County Teams
3.11) Correspondence Chess:
3.11.1) Individual Event
3.11.2) Team Event (vacant)
3.12) MCCU Webmaster
3.13) ECF - new membership scheme
3.14) Non-executives

4) Elections:

4.1) President
4.2) Chairman
4.3) Chief Executive
4.4) Secretary
4.5) Finance Director
4.6) Director for Junior Chess
4.7) Director for Grading
4.8) Director for Events
4.9) Director for Public Relations
4.10) Webmaster
4.11) ECF Delegate
4.12) Non-executives (max.2)

5) Appointment of the Auditor.

6) Levy for 2011/12, Finance Director.

7) MCCU County Championship

Separate documents are circulated concerning advice for captains - proposals from Worcestershire, some alternative proposals from the Events Director were held over from the 2011 AGM. Rule changes proposed by the Events Director and/or County Team Controller are as follows – text in red refers to additions, text in green to deletions
Rule 14 If two teams in the same zone tie on points for an ECF qualification place, the winner of the tie shall be the winner of the match played between the two teams involved. In the event of that match having been a tie, the tie shall be resolved by firstly board count and then by the elimination of the lowest board until a result is reached. If all boards are drawn, the match shall be awarded to the team which had black on the odd numbered boards. the result shall be resolved in favour of the team with the best percentage of aggregate score against the other teams in the same zone ignoring all the scores of a county which has defaulted over half its matches. In the event of this calculation not resolving the tie then the result of the tied match between the two teams shall be broken by use of the board count rule, and if still equal the elimination rule shall apply until the scores are unequal.

Rule 15 In the event of a tie on points between three or more teams for first an ECF qualifying place, places shall be decided by reference to the aggregate scores between the teams concerned. First place will be awarded to the team with the best percentage of aggregate score against the other counties concerned in the tie, second place to the next best score and so on. In the event of this procedure not producing a clear winner, then the tie shall be resolved by reference to board count in the matches between the tied teams and then by the elimination of the lowest board in each match until a result is reached. in favour of the county with the best percentage aggregate score of all other counties in the zone. If the application of the above rule still fails to break the triple (or greater) tie, a jamboree play-off shall be held. Where this rule provides a clear winner, but leaves a tie for other places rule 15 will continue to be applied until or unless only 2 teams are tied, when rule 14 will apply.

The increased incidence of conceded matches is of some concern under the existing rules. The changes are designed to completely remove the effect of such matches from the outcome, leaving it squarely related to the matches between the tied teams. As a result teams will be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by the inclusion or exclusion of conceded matches.

Rule 21 Grading limits apply at the start of each season and will be taken from the grading list (excluding the rapidplay list) current at September 1st. Subsequent grading lists will be used to assist in placing players in board order but not to determine eligibility. latest national grading list (excluding the rapid play list).

Some feel the existing rule to be a little ambigous. The revised wording removes any hint of this.

Note for information -
To aviod the matter being raised, I would point out that the ECF county rule changes proposed at ECF council in April were not adopted. The 2012/13 event will operate on the existing rules. Rules changes are not normally discussed at the ECF AGM as this post-dates the start of the event, which is considered to commence when the Union stages get underway. Changing event rules after it has started is generally considered to be unacceptable.
See also items 8 & 9

8) Constitution

The amendments proposed and included in separate documents are directly connected with the County Championship proposals and will therefore depend on the decisions made under item 7.

9)ECF Membership Scheme

9.1) MCCU involvement with membership

The motion below is intended to faciltitate discussion –
The MCCU encourages players to become members of the new ECF membership scheme, and encourages affliated counties to consider becoming MO’s. However, the Union does not intend to seek MO status for itself.
Some delegates will be aware that the MCCU sought MO status when the previous scheme was introduced, this was initially agreed, but following the ECF AGM, the new ECF Board overturned this decision. At that time there was no facility for players to become “basic” members except through an MO. The MCCU sought to provide an opportunity for them to do by seeking MO status.
The position with the new scheme is rather different, in that all players can apply for membership at what will be the nearest equivalent of the old “basic” membership, without the need to go through an MO.
Given that there is no need for an MCCU MO to provide an avenue for membership that would not otherwise exist for players, it has been suggested that an MCCU MO is not required. It has also been suggested that we do not have the mechanisms in place, & there is some doubt that there would be willing volunteers to carry out the administration required. In additon, it is likely that a number of MOs will exist within the MCCU, & having 2 different MOs covering those areas could cause confusion.

9.2) ECF Membership requirements for the MCCU county team events

Again the motion below is intended to facilitate discussion –
The following be added to the end of the first paragraph of rule 2 relating to eligibility –
In addition all players must be ECF members.
If the above is not passed then the following be inserted -
ECF membership is not mandatory for players, but in entering a team or teams a county agrees to pay the game fee incurred for any non-members games.
A number of counties include juniors in their teams who do not play in graded leagues. In addition captains find themselves asking for clearance for players who are quite new to chess or are returning after a break. These players may well not be ECF members at that point, and some may not wish to become members.
Captains already have a diffcult task in raising teams, the need to establish who is an ECF member & who is not, would add another hurdle to raising a full team. Do we wish to make the job more difficult perhaps risk losing captains and teams? Given the increasing incidence of conceded matches and boards, do we wish to risk a further increase due to players who are otherwise eligble being unable to play?