Counties Chess
Union
Unconfirmed minutes of
|
Page published 26 July 2012
MCCU AGM
Held 23 June 2012, 2.00pm at the Syston Conservative Club, High Street, Syston , Leics.
Agenda
1) Apologies
David Levens & Simon Gilmore
Attending
Julie Johnson (JJ) & Cyril Johnson (CJ) (Leics), Mick Norris (MN) (Manchester), Peter Sherlock (PS) & John Grasham (JG) (Lincs), Drag Sudar (DS) & Robert Richmond (RR) (Notts), John Pakenham (JP) (Warks), David Anderton (DA), Andrew Leadbetter (AL), Andrew Davies (AD) & Matthew Carr (MC) (Staffs), Ray Collett (RC), Andrew Farthing (AF), Paul Sharratt (PSt) & Alex Holowczak (AH) (Worcs), & Alan Leary (Hereford), P C Gibbs (President)
The chairman reported that regretfully 2 players had passed away in recent weeks. The meeting stood in memory of David Rowe & Norman Young.
2) Minutes of the MCCU AGM 2011
2.1) Accuracy
The minutes were agreed without amendment.
2.2) Matters Arising
PS asked about affiliation of clubs to counties, a problem that had been highlighted as party of the report concerning the levy. JJ explained that this had not been pursued as the meeting had voted to drop the levy revision. She pointed out that it was not a simple matter of asking counties, as in some cases clubs were not directly affiliated to them, but via leagues.
The meeting was delighted to see the President attending, having been unable to do so through illness last year.
3) Reports
3.1) President
PG gave a verbal report reiterating that he saw his role as that of an advisor to the main officers of the Union.
Report accepted
3.2) Chairman
CJ had provided a written report.
JJ added that following his query on the need to printed documents to be provided to delegates, she had received no requests for these. As a result she had only found it necessary to print the late arriving reports that delegates might not have seen. She thanked delegates for saving her time.
3.3) Chief Executive
JJ had provided a written report.
In response to requests for feedback. The meeting did not feel that county approval was needed before an individual approached the Union with a request for funds or assistance. However, it was felt that consultation should be part of any process following such approaches, in particular to ensure that any proposed new event would not conflict with an existing event.
There was some discussion about the reinstatement of an MCCU congress. A variety of views were expressed. JJ reminded the meeting that the concept of a 3rd party running a Midland Congress was also discussed a couple of years ago but delegates were not in favour at that time.
Ultimately the meeting tasked the MCCU board with exploring the possibility of an MCCU County or 3rd party running such an event to include the provision of underwriting any loss in the first year to a certain limit. This could include an existing congress being extended to operate as the MCCU congress or a 3rd party starting a new event, with e2e4 to be approached as a possible 3rd party.
Report accepted
3.4) Secretary (vacant)
3.5) Finance Director
AL had circulated a copy of the accounts to delegates. The signed audited copy was given to the CEO.
There was some disappointment that the junior fund remained intact. There had been some expectation that the Junior Director would call on this for items such as travel expenses to visit counties, however MN reported that his county had been asked to cover these expenses for such a visit. JJ informed that meeting that the only approach she had received was in connection with a proposed East Midlands Schools League which had not actually come to fruition yet.
Report accepted.
3.6) Director for Junior Chess
DL had submitted a report to JJ late on Friday evening, which she had seen on the morning of the meeting & circulated to delegates, several of whom had nevertheless seen the contents prior to the meeting.
The report provoked a good deal of comment. Delegates were disappointed with the tone of the report and felt that whilst it may be appropriate for a report to include criticism, care should be taken in the way this is done. Delegates from several counties pointed out that details of junior successes in their area had been overlooked, and as a result a false impression of the junior situation in their counties and thus the MCCU overall had been given.
The meeting recognised that the report contained positive comment, but the content of the first 2 paragraphs of the report led the meeting to reject it.
3.7) Grading Director
A written report from PS had been circulated and was accepted without further comment.
3.8) Events Director
A written report from CJ had been circulated, he verbally highlighted the work done by RC on the website in connection with events.
There was initial discussion about the proposal for an email only correspondence event. AF reported that the possibility of one of the correspondence chess bodies running events on behalf of the ECF was being explored – this might be a possibility for the MCCU. It was decided to discuss the matter further as part of AOB.
Report accepted.
3.9) Public Relations Director
A written report from RC had been circulated. He was thanked for his excellent work in keeping the site up to date.
RC explained that the GP presented some difficulties in terms of identifying those eligible for prizes. JJ referred to her earlier comment about club affiliations. RC was also concerned that potentially someone with loose ties to the MCCU could win a prize, however the general feeling was that MCCU counties were benefiting from the entry fees from such players and did not see this as an issue.
It was decided to accept the report and follow this with feedback on the items raised by RC.
JJ asked about the possibility of creating an on line county results facility for captains to use, this would avoid double keying of data. RC will explore this. Those who access the MCCU site via mobile devices did not feel there was any need for specially formatted pages as they had experienced no problems with the site as it is.
It was agreed that a game viewer may be useful. JJ floated the idea of a “best game” prize to encourage submission. The meeting left it to the Board to formulate rules and decide on the prize. It is possible that a change of ISP might be required. The meeting agreed that although this might require additional costs the potential benefits would be worth it.
3.10) County Teams
JJ reminded the meeting that the report circulated was subject to addition due to the matter of the revised ECF county rules being up in the air. She confirmed that revised rules were not yet available. Her view was that the Union should run with its’ existing rules (subject to changes already on the agenda), she did not feel that the potential changes were so great as to cause significant imbalance between the 2 sets of rules.
AF asked whether written approval for changes outside a GM could be made, JJ explained that currently rules could only be changed at a GM. The meeting agreed to consider introducing a constitutional change at next years AGM on this matter.
Report accepted
3.11) Correspondence Chess:
3.11.1) Individual Event
3.11.2) Team Event (vacant)
CJ had been led to believe that no correspondence event had taken place 2011/12, but other suggested it had with Keith McLaughlin the winner – this was later confirmed to be the case.
There has been no interest in a team event for several years.
3.12) MCCU Webmaster
This had been covered as part of a joint report from RC.
3.13) ECF
AL had provided a written report on the morning of the meeting; as a result it had not been seen by a number of delegates. The report provoked some discussion, with AF providing assurances that some of the fears expressed by AL were unfounded. In particular, the prospect of one member one vote would only come about if those who are part of the existing structure vote to do so – that prospect seemed unlikely. Whilst the proposed change of financial year end may result in one year with only 1 meeting, a reduction to 1 meeting in subsequent years is not currently proposed. AH indicated that there were no plans to change the current structure of Union qualification for the county teams event.
RC was concerned that in theory the current main MCCU event, the county team tournament, could be run from the centre, which would leave the Union with little activity. He suggested that the MCCU could become more involved with chess development projects, he cited the arbiter training as a positive example of the sort of area where the MCCU could assist counties.
AF also commented that although 3rd party is to handle the membership scheme, this will save the ECF money as it will reduce office costs by more than the sums to be paid for 3rd party services. He also indicated that a good take up of MO’s appears likely, including some organisations that were previously opposed to the concept. In addition there was no undue concern amongst congresses about the membership scheme. MN added that an addition to entry fees for non-members for a Manchester event had not had an adverse impact, in fact entries had increased.
AF also drew attention to a number of consultation papers that were not discussed at ECF Council due to lack of time. These are available on the ECF website.
JJ asked about the governance issues highlighted by the Finance Committee. AF stated that the Board had been provided with additional information and documentation and were satisfied that the expenditure could be properly accounted for.
Report accepted.
3.14) Non-executives
JJ had circulated an email from AF indicating that he had nothing drawn to his attention and thus had no comment. This was verbally echoed by JP.
Reports accepted
4) Elections
4.1) President – Peter Gibbs re-elected unopposed
4.2) Chairman – Cyril Johnson re-elected unopposed
4.3) Chief Executive – Julie Johnson re-elected unopposed
4.4) Secretary – John Grasham elected unopposed
4.5) Finance Director – Andrew Leadbetter – re-elected unopposed
4.6) Director for Junior Chess – David Levens – elected unopposed
4.7) Director for Grading – Peter Sherlock – re-elected unopposed
4.8) Director for Events – Cyril Johnson – re-elected unopposed
4.9) Director for Public Relations – Ray Collett – re-elected unopposed
4.10) Webmaster – Ray Collett – re-elected unopposed
4.11) ECF Delegate – Andrew Farthing – elected unopposed
4.12) Non-executives (max.2) – John Pakenham & Andrew Farthing re-elected unopposed
5) Appointment of the Auditor
R A Butters was re-appointed.
6) Levy for 2011/12, Finance Director
The meeting revised the budget to provide reserve fund of £1000 to support an MCCU congress, also to provide additional prizes for the GPs with a £50 prize for the best junior in the Open GP, & both a £100 prize for the winner & £100 bursary for the British qualifying place. There was some discussion about the need for MCCU GP, a motion to discontinue the RGP was lost. The prize fund for the RGP was increased to £100. There was some discussion about the grading levels for these, it was agreed that the Board would look at the grading sections for events in last years GPs and decide on grading limits and split of prizes. The junior budget was reinstated as part of the budget rather than removed. It was also agreed to support the costs of arbiter training sessions by up to £100.
There was discussion about the desired level of reserves for the Union, and it was agreed that the proposed level of expenditure would leave acceptable reserves.
Following a variety of proposals the levy was fixed at £7 a point.
7) MCCU County Championship
Separate documents were circulated concerning advice for captains - proposals from Worcestershire, & some alternative proposals from the Events Director were held over from the 2011 AGM. Following discussion the final decisions on these were delegated to the Board.
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.
Both amendments were agreed.
The revised rules are therefore as follows:-
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.
Rule 15 In the event of a tie on points between three or more teams for 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. 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 two teams are tied, when rule 14 will apply.
It was further agreed that where teams tie on points for first place they will be declared joint champions.
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.
Amendment agreed giving a revise rule as follows:-
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
DA also asked that if there are only 2 teams in the Open next season they could play a double round rather than a single game. CJ proposed that “in any section where there are two teams only, they may agree to play a double round”
This was agreed.
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.
Not discussed as item 7 was remitted to the Board.
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.
Motion agreed.
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?
The first proposal was rejected, with the second adopted.
10) Any other business
The email correspondence rules referred to earlier were discussed. CJ clarified that the intention was to offer both an email only event and the existing option which covers both email & postal transmission of moves. CJ reiterated that the existing option was generally unpopular, with suggestion that players had stopped entering because they did not wish to play any games by post.
The proposed rules were agreed.
JJ explained that following last year's AGM, when the position of Northants had been queried, she had made contact with the secretary. However, this had not resulted in details of their treasurer being provided, nor in any further response to approaches. AL had recently confirmed that he had not submitted an invoice for levy to Northants.
Quite recently a player from Northants had been in touch with RC, who had directed him to JJ. Their AGM was due to be held very recently & she was informed that the secretary would not be seeking re-election. The contact had agreed to let her know who had been elected & she was awaiting that information.
JJ remains of the view that a county that has not been invoiced for levy cannot be considered to be in default. Northants had not expressed a wish to disassociate itself from the MCCU, therefore they were still members. She proposed that the county be invoiced this year, with no request for any past fees that were not invoiced. This was agreed.
RC noted that Oxfordshire are listed as past champions in MCCU county events and that they were not affiliated to any Union. He asked that the CEO approach them with a view to rejoining the MCCU. This was agreed.
MN reported that approaches had been made with a view to Manchester joining the NCCU. JJ pointed out that there had been other cases of bodies being members of 2 Unions at the same time.
AH reported that as ECF County Controller he has been approached about reverting to the previous grading bands, he asked that the MCCU make such a proposal. JJ felt that as this had not been a specific agenda item delegates may feel unable to do so without consulting their counties. Leaving matters until the next AGM would be too late for a proposal to the April Council meeting, It was agreed that delegates be asked to consult and report back to the CEO with views.
11) Date/place of next meeting
22nd June – West Midlands possibly same venue in Lichfield as 2011.