PDA

View Full Version : Desperately seeking equity, fairness & common sense from the ACF.



Libby2
25-08-2008, 09:42 PM
Note that this is a post from an individual who has not been a member of the ACTJCL committee for more than 18 months.

The ACT Junior Chess League is currently in dispute with the ACF over payment of levies on our interschool competitions. The ACTJCL last paid this levy in 2003.

Some of you are on the Council, some of you will have read my rants of the past, some of you may have read something of this on Shaun Press' blog. I'll try to keep it simple.

A motion was put up in January 2001 to introduce a levy on interschool chess. At that time each participating state had a long standing interschool competition that ran under a format that worked most effectively for that state and the organising body.


That the proposal to introduce a fee to be paid to the ACF in respect of each team participating in state schools teams competitions, as set out in the section of the president's e-mail dated 16/9/00 under the heading STATE SCHOOLS TEAMS COMPETITION LEVIES be approved.

This proposal that originated with Graeme Gardiner was:


The sum of $3 per team for all teams in state schools teams competitions will be submitted to the ACF for the development of chess in Australia. This amount represents ten per cent of a notional entry fee of $30 per team which the ACF considers to be an appropriate fee to be charged by the states. The actual fees to be charged by the states are, however, a matter for them to decide independently. States with independent junior chess leagues will liaise with those bodies to ensure their involvement.

The motion was opposed by NSW and was defeated on a tied vote 9 - 9. NSW (and current ACF President, Gary Wastell) voted against.

The important point with respect to the failure of this motion is that every school team in every state competition would attract the levy and that this was opposed and not passed.

Because it was not passed, then there was a year of negotiation about changing how the levy was charged. In January 2002 the motion that was passed was:


That commencing 1 Jan 2002 the ACF charge a schools' team levy of $3 per team per annum for every team competing in Australian Schools' Team Championships or any state teams' competition which could lead to qualification to play in the Australian Schools' Teams Championships.

That motion was carried 16 - 4.

So what is the effective difference between the two motions? For a state with a divisional format, where only 1st Division teams can qualify for the ASTC, this allows them to calculate liability based on the 10% or 25% or 50% of teams eligible for that division - and no levy on other teams. NSW, SA and WA for example, have this divisional format.

The ACT however, long before the introduction of the levy, has had a zonal format. This is historically and organisationally preferred in our region, particularly as ACTJCL has had it running in line with the zonal format of ACT interschool sport. Teams start in their zone, qualify for the final, go on to a playoff and then the ASTC. Every team in a zonal structure potentially has the chance to go to the ASTC. Even the teams that don't really know how to move the "horsie."

Therefore, for the ACTJCL, the levy applied in the same way irrespective of the change to the motion.

The levy voted against by other states, that would have required them to pay for every team in their own event, was effectively the levy applied to the ACTJCL.

The ACTJCL only became aware of the difference in the application of the levy when comparing ACTJCL's financial contribution with that coming from other states. It was clearly not in proportion with the overall number of children participating in each state.

Consequently, as the ACTJCL Interschool Coordinator at the time, I wrote a letter in April 2006 seeking to have this addressed. The ACTJCL proposed that we pay a levy for every school to reach our "Final." We considered that an equitable arrangement that would put us on a equal footing with other states paying only for their 1st Division teams. With both Open & Girls' competitions, in both Primary and Secondary school, our proposed liability for the levy was approximately 1/3 of the previous total. That is still substantial against the contribution of other states whose 1st Division may only represent 1/10 or 1/4 of their total.

Although the ACF changed the calculation of the levy in January 2007 (to a format - and please correct me - that has no relationship to the number of participants) they made no response or reply to the ACTJCL's letter of April 2006. The letter sought both a change to the application of the levy and to recalculate ACTJCL's existing liabilities in a way that was equivalent and equitable to the arrangements for other states.

The ACF did not in fact respond to the ACTJCL letter of April 2006 until July/August 2008.

The response from the ACF, more than 2 years after the letter was written - and that is available on Shaun's blog - was a demand for payment by 31 August or a raft of sanctions would apply. Not sanctions against the ACTJCL as an organisation, but sanctions against the children themselves who were to be barred from participation, selection, and the awarding of titles.

The ACTJCL has no case apparently.

No case perhaps in the letter of the law as passed in that second motion.

But is there any "case" or "natural justice" when other states find unacceptable, and vote against, a motion placing them on the same footing as the ACTJCL? And these same people insist that it is right and fair that ACTJCL pay for every child when they were not prepared for that to apply in their own state?

Is it reasonable, after two years of non-communication, to demand payment from an association within a month, or children will be made to wear the consrquences of an adult dispute?

I feel very sad about the state of the game. But not as sad as I am for four girls who qualified in Term 1 to go to the ASTC in Adelaide, booked & paid for their flights, arranged their accommodation, and are now told that they probably won't be going.

Clearly ACTJCL failed in 2002 to recognise the need to restructure an existing competition in order to minimise our liability and be on the same footing as other states. But would that have been the "right" thing to do - change our event so that we would be levied the same way as others?

What is a fair outcome here?

Denis_Jessop
25-08-2008, 10:21 PM
Libby

Be aware that your position on this matter is well known to the ACF and it has no known support within that body. There is one ACF Councillor (perhaps more, I don't know) who would have been prepared to consider some kind of compromise of the dispute. Your appallingly bad judgement in putting this matter into an open forum when it is at such a delicate stage, as I know you know, has entirely removed that possibility.

DJ

eclectic
25-08-2008, 10:25 PM
judgement made worse sadly by its already being trolled unsolicited in another forum

Libby2
25-08-2008, 10:37 PM
Libby

Be aware that your position on this matter is well known to the ACF and it has no known support within that body. There is one ACF Councillor (perhaps more, I don't know) who would have been prepared to consider some kind of compromise of the dispute. Your appallingly bad judgement in putting this matter into an open forum when it is at such a delicate stage, as I know you know, has entirely removed that possibility.

DJ

Then I will apologise if this is the case. It has been my intention to make this post in a non-confrontational way. I started this ball rolling and feel a level of responsibility having left it in the lap of the ACTJCL. I have only ever sought something equitable in the way of a solution.

I am not on the ACTJCL. I manage a school team that is very upset and has a group of parents very confused by what is happening.

Libby2
25-08-2008, 10:56 PM
The matter has now been sorted. :)

Garvinator
25-08-2008, 11:06 PM
The matter has now been sorted. :)
And the resolution is? If you are going to put up a missive about perceived issues on this issue, then you need to put up whatever resolution has been agreed to when it occurs. Otherwise it just looks like another festering issue.

Axiom
25-08-2008, 11:28 PM
And the resolution is? If you are going to put up a missive about perceived issues on this issue, then you need to put up whatever resolution has been agreed to when it occurs. Otherwise it just looks like another festering issue.
an undeniably fair point .

MichaelBaron
25-08-2008, 11:49 PM
Libby

Your appallingly bad judgement in putting this matter into an open forum when it is at such a delicate stage, as I know you know, has entirely removed that possibility.

DJ

Lets make something clear here: Is ACF supposed to represent chess players? If yes - what is wrong with discussing this matter in an open chess forum. Is it some kind of "secret affair"?

Axiom
26-08-2008, 12:08 AM
Lets make something clear here: Is ACF supposed to represent chess players? If yes - what is wrong with discussing this matter in an open chess forum. Is it some kind of "secret affair"?
fair point , but if something like this is raised , then surely it is right also to air the resolution .

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2008, 12:16 AM
judgement made worse sadly by its already being trolled unsolicited in another forum

Yes, by that hopelessly clueless troll David Beaumont (firegoat7) who in his few original comments about the matter has (a) falsely described the fee as a ratings fee (which it never was) and (b) falsely accused the ACF of back accounting (especially rich as what is going on here is the ACTJCL failing to pay back accounts it was advised of years ago).

Phil Bourke
26-08-2008, 12:32 AM
If possible, I would like to ask a few questions.

1) Is the position as outlined in Post 1 accurate regarding the application of the levy.
Observation - It strikes me as unfair that the ACT would be asked to pay a levy for every team within their schools competitions whilst other states were allowed to reduce this to some of their teams.

2) Was there any answer to the ACTJCL's first letter prior to the stated reply in 2008?

MichaelBaron
26-08-2008, 02:45 AM
If possible, I would like to ask a few questions.

1) Is the position as outlined in Post 1 accurate regarding the application of the levy.
Observation - It strikes me as unfair that the ACT would be asked to pay a levy for every team within their schools competitions whilst other states were allowed to reduce this to some of their teams.

I may be wrong..but it appears that different rules were applying to different states:hmm:

Libby2
26-08-2008, 06:25 AM
an undeniably fair point .

I have personally paid the money in dispute. Now resolved. I won't be made responsible (Denis) for the ACF's unwillingness to negotiate and to deal respectfully with the organisation involved.

What I chose to air here is a dispute that is no longer mine to fight as I am no longer a member of the committee involved in that decision.

Why I chose to air it is a product of extreme frustration with the way the ACF has dealt with this from beginning to end. Having settled the matter of the money I can now ask the questions -

Is it appropriate that a national body take more than 2 years to repond to an official piece of communication from an affiliate?

Having given themselves more than 2 years to respond, is it appropriate to apply a deadline of less than one month to that affiliate?

Is threatening sanctions against children (rather than late payment penalties, interest, or other penalties to an organisation) the way to resolve a dispute? It has a whiff of emotional blackmail about it that I comfortably fell into.

Clearly some states and their voting representatives never saw it as appropriate that they be levied for every child to play in their interschool events, and voted this down. Why then is the ACTJCL so wrong in disputing the financial impact it has had on them?

And how legitimate is the position of decision-makers on this whole issue when the entire dispute may have no impact on their state (they had no interschool events themselves over the disputed period so paid no levy at all) or have an interest in maintaining the application of the 2002 motion that has minimised the amount they have had to pay.

All of this may well come down to an unintended consequence of the levy due to a lack of understanding of the myriad of formats under which interschool chess was already running when it came into effect. ACTJCL did not seek to avoid paying the levy, only to have it calculated on a similar basis to the way it applied to others.

Charles
26-08-2008, 08:21 AM
You know, some mornings I just wake up as president of the ACTJCL and wonder what opportunities the world will offer me today :D .

The ACTJCL committee has made a commitment at this stage not to discuss the details of this issue publicly as we continue to try to work towards a resolution with the ACF. This commitment is not binding on the ACF and hence I cannot comment on whether ACF committe member posts here reflect their personal views or the view of the committee. The ACTJCL will continue to work with official correspondance from the ACF.

A couple of points of fact only.

1. With regards to communications to date. The ACTJCL queried the equity of the application of the levies to individual states in a letter of April 2006. The ACTJCL received an email on the 7th of April 2008 from the ACF informing us that the levy calculation method had been changed and that the matter of our letter was "in limbo". There has been reciprocal correspondance since then with the ACF regarding this position but we have yet to reach a solution.

2. I am unaware of who david beaumont is (Kevin Bonham reference) but I can confirm he is not on the ACTJCL committee (he may not even live in the ACT as I dont recognise the name). In our communication with the ACF the ACTJCL has never communicated that the fee was (1) a rating fee or (2) back accounting.

3. Libby is not on the ACTJCL committee, and has not been for over 18 months. She is passionate about her kids that she puts so much time into and I know that the proposed sanctions hurt her personally. Her views are personal and the views of the ACTJCL committee wil continue to be communicated formally to the ACF.

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2008, 03:04 PM
2. I am unaware of who david beaumont is (Kevin Bonham reference) but I can confirm he is not on the ACTJCL committee (he may not even live in the ACT as I dont recognise the name).

Indeed. David is a Victorian who has nothing to do with the ACTJCL but who has made a long series of frothy attacks on all and sundry on this board and has a number of long-running grudges with the ACF. He is currently banned from this site.


I may be wrong..but it appears that different rules were applying to different states:hmm:

You certainly are wrong. Exactly the same rule was applied to every state, but because different states had different structures, it impacted upon different states to a different extent. These different structures were in place when the levy was created. States that felt they were unfairly impacted by the levy as a result of their structure had the option of altering their structure (for instance so that those schools that didn't know how to move the "horsie" were in a lower division and hence didn't have to pay), but so far as I am aware no state altered its structure to reduce its levy as a result of the levy coming into place in its current form.


This commitment is not binding on the ACF and hence I cannot comment on whether ACF committe member posts here reflect their personal views or the view of the committee.

There is a site rule here that all posts made here represent the poster's personal views only unless the poster explicitly indicates otherwise by signing their post with their name, organisation and position. Furthermore, posts that contradict this policy (eg by implying someone is speaking on behalf of an organisation when they haven't indicated they are) can be moderated.

Libby2
26-08-2008, 03:48 PM
You certainly are wrong. Exactly the same rule was applied to every state, but because different states had different structures, it impacted upon different states to a different extent. These different structures were in place when the levy was created. States that felt they were unfairly impacted by the levy as a result of their structure had the option of altering their structure (for instance so that those schools that didn't know how to move the "horsie" were in a lower division and hence didn't have to pay), but so far as I am aware no state altered its structure to reduce its levy as a result of the levy coming into place in its current form.

Sorry in advance Kevin - it wasn't my intention to continue to debate this once money was paid - but are you actually serious.

Are you suggesting that the ACTJCL should have restructured our event to minimise our liability? Let's leave aside the arguments about how that impacts on the structures and volunteers and long-developed relationships with schools that are functioning perfectly well.

Let's say we accept the premise that every school to play in ACTJCL's events fields a Division 1 team under the new format we should have introduced. In 2005 for example, we would have had 61 schools in Division 1 events as 61 schools competed. But we know that's rubbish anyway because not every school has a team remotely close to Division 1 (this is equally true of other states). However, rubbish aside, let's take it as given that we have 61 Div 1 teams and therefore need to pay the ACF $183 that year.

This makes sense to you in a way that the ACTJCL offer to pay for our Finals teams (111 in 2005 or $333) does not?

What about this makes sense? What about this other than bloody-mindedness about the wording of the motion makes sense?

I am obviously even more of an idiot than I thought. It was my assumption that the ACF would take a dim view of people amending their competition format from the one that had existed for many years for the sole reason of minimising the money the ACF could collect.

MichaelBaron
26-08-2008, 03:54 PM
Looks like ACF is simply trying to make money out of school kids. Do they want kids to go hungry while their lunch money is spent on paying interschool chess fees?

I do not see it as fair!

Spiny Norman
26-08-2008, 03:56 PM
It was my assumption that the ACF would take a dim view of people amending their competition format from the one that had existed for many years for the sole reason of minimising the money the ACF could collect.
Doing that would brought you to their attention as a suitable candidate to join the ACF Executive team! :owned:

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2008, 04:07 PM
Sorry in advance Kevin - it wasn't my intention to continue to debate this once money was paid - but are you actually serious.

I generally am. I was correcting Michael on his false claim of fact.


Are you suggesting that the ACTJCL should have restructured our event to minimise our liability?

No, you are assuming I might have said something that I didn't actually say. I am simply stating the facts of what occurred and didn't occur.

If I was suggesting what you outline above, I would used the word "should" explicitly. Not knowing the precise constraints on the ACTJCL's setup, I refrained from making such a suggestion. I guess I should have expected that someone would tentatively read it in and set up the necessary multi-paragraph ten-foot fences and blaring sirens to ward off such an interpretation.


I am obviously even more of an idiot than I thought. It was my assumption that the ACF would take a dim view of people amending their competition format from the one that had existed for many years for the sole reason of minimising the money the ACF could collect.

The ACF is not taking any view on this thread at present. My posts represent my own opinions only as previously emphasised in reply to Charles.

Actually it was my own dim view of the potential for such manipulations to occur that led to me supporting the abolition of the levy in the form in which it previously existed. (Not that I am claiming any particular credit for that happening.)

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2008, 04:13 PM
Looks like ACF is simply trying to make money out of school kids. Do they want kids to go hungry while their lunch money is spent on paying interschool chess fees?

I do not see it as fair!

Well, nice to see it in your own words for a change instead of David Beaumont's. :D

Having said this, this is not about a current levy, but it is about a levy that applied for several years, and has now been replaced - a levy that amounted to a mere seventy-five cents per player (seriously, how many parents or schools cannot afford to pay that for a school activity?)

Libby2
26-08-2008, 04:26 PM
No, you are assuming I might have said something that I didn't actually say. I am simply stating the facts of what occurred and didn't occur.



Oh silly blonde me! So your point was that there was an option we could have exercised, to restructure our event, not that we should have done so, as a dim view may have been taken? So our actual option was essentially no option - just to suck it up :doh:

Libby2
26-08-2008, 04:31 PM
... a levy that amounted to a mere seventy-five cents per player (seriously, how many parents or schools cannot afford to pay that for a school activity?)

That was not the issue raised by the ACTJCL. The issue raised was one of equity. The levy on our "pretend" Division 1 figure of 61 teams was $183. The levy actually charged to the ACTJCL that year was $936. At an organisation level we are talking about $753.

If 75c is so little, why couldn't the original motion pass and require it of every child in every team in every state in the way it applied to the ACTJCL?

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2008, 05:28 PM
Oh silly blonde me!

Thankyou for advising me of your hair colour of which I was previously unaware. Mine as it happens was a rather uninteresting shade of moderately pale brown when last glimpsed in its natural form fourteen years ago. What has been allowed to emerge from underneath the regular coatings of black#1 since does not yet appear to have gone grey, although this is not something I scrutinise with great care. ;)


So your point was that there was an option we could have exercised, to restructure our event, not that we should have done so, as a dim view may have been taken?

I would not have taken a dim view had the ACTJCL specifically chosen to adopt a different structure (which isn't saying that they should or should not have done so.) What I was more concerned about was that it was very possible for states to find ways to manipulate their levy contributions to effectively zero, although no-one had actually done so.


If 75c is so little, why couldn't the original motion pass and require it of every child in every team in every state in the way it applied to the ACTJCL?

I believe part of it is that some delegates thought that those states that had whole divisions where nobody knew how to move the horsie should not be levied for those divisions. I also recall that there were difficulties in defining the range of competitions that would be covered by the motion and establishing how a state association (or JCL) was supposed to know how many unofficial (or quasi-official) interschool events might be occurring in its boundaries. Beyond that I can't really comment as that goes way back to the 2001 National Conference, which I wasn't at. (I was there at the 2002 one where the revised motion was passed.)

Libby2
26-08-2008, 06:06 PM
I would not have taken a dim view had the ACTJCL specifically chosen to adopt a different structure (which isn't saying that they should or should not have done so.) What I was more concerned about was that it was very possible for states to find ways to manipulate their levy contributions to effectively zero, although no-one had actually done so.

Perhaps we should have approached you back then. You perhaps could have drawn the line for us to indicate what figure - greater than zero obviously - would have given you no concern when we went about restructuring a long standing event for the sole purpose of paying the ACF less money (eg 61 teams, 111 teams - something along the lines of what we proposed paying anyway) :rolleyes:


I believe part of it is that some delegates thought that those states that had whole divisions where nobody knew how to move the horsie should not be levied for those divisions.

OK. Well can I retrospectively withdraw some zones from consideration 'cos some are full of teams who would never make anything remotely equivalent to a top division? One year I ran Tuggeranong Zone which was won with perfect scores. The winning team barely finished halfway in the draw at the Finals so the whole Zone is generally a bit underwhelming in moving their horsies.


Beyond that I can't really comment as that goes way back to the 2001 National Conference, which I wasn't at. (I was there at the 2002 one where the revised motion was passed.) And it was such a big issue for Tasmania to cope with too :hand:

eclectic
26-08-2008, 06:20 PM
if she chose to have her account unsuspended you could discuss all this with libby too :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2008, 08:21 PM
Perhaps we should have approached you back then. You perhaps could have drawn the line for us to indicate what figure - greater than zero obviously - would have given you no concern when we went about restructuring a long standing event for the sole purpose of paying the ACF less money (eg 61 teams, 111 teams - something along the lines of what we proposed paying anyway) :rolleyes:

Hardly necessary. If someone had come up with a system that so dramatically reduced their exposure that it became an obvious rort then I would not have supported any action against that body; after all, they would have been playing within the rules as the rules existed at the time. Rather, it would have simply accelerated the case for scrapping the levy in that form.

Concerning the whole question of concerns about equity, I don't recall any correspondence from the ACTJCL raising complaints around the time the levy was passed. The issue seems to have emerged in 2006 when someone noticed that some states were paying proportionally less than might have been expected - even though the potential for that had been clearly inherent in the wording of the 2002 motion and its differences with the failed 2001 equivalent.

Concerning the matter of communications, informing people who are affected by decisions but aren't in the loop is from time to time an ACF weak spot in my view. But in this case the ACTJCL had no reason not to be in the loop. They were an Associated Body (I've been told they are now unfinancial as such) and as such had the right to attend Council meetings or be placed on the Council email lists and keep themselves fully informed of what was going on.


OK. Well can I retrospectively withdraw some zones from consideration 'cos some are full of teams who would never make anything remotely equivalent to a top division?

As far as the levy is concerned you can't (unless the ACF agrees otherwise) retrospectively withdraw anything. Once you ran an event in a structure where every team could in theory qualify then every team was eligible for the levy and the levy should have been collected from every team and forwarded to the ACF. If you don't like the rules, you can try getting them changed, which you did, and which was a contributing factor (in my mind) to them eventually being altered. But that doesn't mean you suddenly become not liable for years of levies before the change to the rules was made.


And it was such a big issue for Tasmania to cope with too :hand:

Interesting that you mention it. In 2001-2 Tasmania's junior interschool junior chess competition was temporarily moribund, but that is most certainly not the case now. Our junior competition consists of a series of regional qualifiers leading to a final and, just like in the ACTJCL case, all players are eligible. Furthermore, the design of our competition is a mass-participation model.

At present if the old system existed, Tasmania would be facing a bill of around $900 annually. It was this problem with the old levy that made the TCA completely unable to sanction a competition in 2006 (given that the only credible comp in the state is run by a private operator who eventually decided he did not wish to collect the levy under the current conditions) and it is only since the levy has been replaced with one based on population rather than activity that the TCA has been able to sanction an interschool event at all.

Spiny Norman
27-08-2008, 09:13 AM
Suggestion for the ACF (and reps of any other chess body who may be reading this):

When considering new levies and setting their levels, it would be helpful if those deliberating and making the decision were absolutely clear about:

1. the objective of the levy;
2. what they consider would be a "reasonable amount" for it to raise from among those targeted by the levy; and perhaps even
3. set a "cap" based on something like number of participating players, or population of the state, or whatever

Having established those principles ahead of time, it would perhaps have been easier for the governing body to accommodate situations such that Libby has raised, because the amount due by ACTJCL would have been clearly disproportionate to the expectations of the ACF itself.

Garvinator
27-08-2008, 10:52 AM
After the ACTJCL letter was sent to the ACF regarding the levy amount, why did it take BOTH sides two years to have the next communication?

Isn't there responsibility of both sides in this particular manner? Did ACTJCL pursue this matter further of no communication at the first possible opportunity? Why did the ACF take two years to reply?

*Usual disclaimer* My understanding of the situation to date could be wrong and if so, please correct. Then I will edit my post as required.

george
27-08-2008, 11:26 AM
Hi All / Libby,

I am very glad the financial dispute/issue has been resolved - I am unhappy though the money has come from your pocket Libby but i do understand about love of chess and personal sacrifices folks make both financial/time.

Another point was raised about what exactly does the ACF do with the money raised through this Schools Levy. There is an ACF Junior Development fund of over $4,000 which can only be used in junior chess development - at the last Conference in an attempt to maintain the real value of this fund ACf passed a motion that 5% of all Schools Levies raised be added to this fund.

This 5% can be increased by subsequent Conferences etc. The discretion of where / how to use these funds is at the discretion of ACF BUT it MUST be used only for junior development.

The ACF gives $500 towards the trophies awarded at Australian Schools Finals and reflects in some way that there is no entry fee to the Schools Finals. This "donation" helps to offset the costs whether or not the Organisers of the Australian Schools Finals have Sponsorship.

I assume the rest of Schools Levies collected have gone into general revenue for ACF.

Regards to ALL

Garvinator
27-08-2008, 07:53 PM
If possible, I would like to ask a few questions.

1) Is the position as outlined in Post 1 accurate regarding the application of the levy.
Observation - It strikes me as unfair that the ACT would be asked to pay a levy for every team within their schools competitions whilst other states were allowed to reduce this to some of their teams.

2) Was there any answer to the ACTJCL's first letter prior to the stated reply in 2008?
Hello Phil,

I notice no answer to your questions, have you been satisfied with the answers provided on this forum?

Phil Bourke
27-08-2008, 11:03 PM
Hello Phil,

I notice no answer to your questions, have you been satisfied with the answers provided on this forum?
I derived from Charles' post that there had been exchanges between the two parties in the interim, whether any of them qualified as official is still up for contention.
The first part is still a little confusing, I think, and I may be absolutely wrong, that the ACF did indeed approve the levy aware that the ACTJCL was being severely disadvantaged by it. That the feeling of the governing body was that it was up to any body so effected to alter their competitions.
My first instinct is that this isn't right, but am reserving judgement until more or better information comes to hand.
I would offer one word of caution, the kids that are having their games messed around by this whole shebang are not going to forget who did what and considering their location and the likelihood of who they get to listen to, I am sure that there will only be one party wearing the blame for the mess, the ACF.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2008, 12:05 AM
The first part is still a little confusing, I think, and I may be absolutely wrong, that the ACF did indeed approve the levy aware that the ACTJCL was being severely disadvantaged by it. That the feeling of the governing body was that it was up to any body so effected to alter their competitions.

I have made some comments to the effect that that option existed, but to say that it was the "feeling of the governing body" isn't something for which any substance has been provided on this thread.

Also, the ACTJCL itself should not have been financially disadvantaged by the levy, since they should have just passed the levy onto the schools, at which point 75c/player is hardly crippling and should not deter any remotely serious school from competing unless the fees being charged are already rather high.

Indeed, whether the levy severely disadvantaged anyone apart from Tasmania (see my post above for how Tas was disadvantaged by it*) is an open point in my view. The disadvantage was purely comparative (or a case of some states, given their existing structures, not being advantaged while others were) - why else did it take over four years for the complaint about the levy to be made?

May be worth noting in passing that this was a decision made by the National Conference and not by the ACF Council. For those not familiar with the structure, the National Conference is an annual meeting to which state associations send a number of delegates in rough proportion to their population. Some of these delegates are also ACF Councillors in any given year, but many are often not.


I would offer one word of caution, the kids that are having their games messed around by this whole shebang are not going to forget who did what and considering their location and the likelihood of who they get to listen to, I am sure that there will only be one party wearing the blame for the mess, the ACF.

Occupational hazard if so. They can find out that there are two sides to such stories later on in life ... but from what I gather of the divided nature of ACT chess politics I would be surprised if nobody argues the contrary view anyway.

[* Disclaimer: I sometimes run tournaments as a casual contractor for the private operator mentioned in said post.]

Phil Bourke
28-08-2008, 01:25 AM
I am in no position to argue with you or against you and in all likelihood will never be in possession of enough information to do so.
On a different tangent, why does the National Conference and even the ACF Council have voting based on population of each state/territory, wouldn't it be much fairer to have anything other than 1 vote per state association based on active players playing chess?
Just my opinion, but one I wanted to ask.

Garvinator
28-08-2008, 01:34 AM
On a different tangent, why does the National Conference and even the ACF Council have voting based on population of each state/territory, wouldn't it be much fairer to have anything other than 1 vote per state association based on active players playing chess?
Just my opinion, but one I wanted to ask.
Proportional voting per number of chess members seems logical, but how would it be counted?

Each state/territory has a different structure. NSWCA has individual membership only, CV has club only membership. CAQ has a combination of individual and club membership.

It could also lead to rorting on a large scale to get more votes. All a state would have to do is make their memberships free and claim all chess players as members.

The legal reason why it is population based is that the ACF is incorporated in ACT under their incorporations act.

Phil Bourke
28-08-2008, 02:26 AM
Thanks for that.
Once again, different states doing their things their own way :)
Perhaps the ACF needs to make this an item for their agenda, a uniform way of doing things so that equality is unavoidable!

Libby2
28-08-2008, 07:16 AM
Also, the ACTJCL itself should not have been financially disadvantaged by the levy, since they should have just passed the levy onto the schools, at which point 75c/player is hardly crippling and should not deter any remotely serious school from competing unless the fees being charged are already rather high.

Outside of NSW who were (I understand) fully sponsored and not charging entry at the time, I believe ACTJCL's fully volunteer-run events were running with the lowest entry fees.


Indeed, whether the levy severely disadvantaged anyone apart from Tasmania (see my post above for how Tas was disadvantaged by it*) is an open point in my view.

It was fortunate then that you were able to be involved in ensuring your state would not have to pay a similar amount to that levied on the ACTJCL.

The ACTJCL returns money to players in subsidised programs and development activities. ACTJCL provides financial support to players at the ASTC and representing overseas. The ACTJCL has heavily subsidised coaching for players at the Australian Juniors. ACTJCL funds are channeled into chess development. Less funds are therefore available for this purpose than may otherwise be, or are "proportionally" available to other states.

How's the ACF going with the stated "chess development" that this money was to assist it with?


The disadvantage was purely comparative (or a case of some states, given their existing structures, not being advantaged while others were) - why else did it take over four years for the complaint about the levy to be made?

Given I again raised this issue in an official capacity at the ASTC meeting in Canberra in 2006, and given the QLD representatives at the meeting also did not realise it applied in this way. Given Gary Wastell knew nothing at that meeting of the dispute and did not understand it applied this way. Given the WA & SA people at the meeting were suprised it applied this way elsewhere - I'm actually not sure who knew what about anything and when they knew it.

It took a long time for the ACT to realise it applied differently because it was only when we saw some ACF accounts that we saw that other states were paying less, or proportionally less, when running larger competitions than our own.

Critically, once we realised it did impact differently elsewhere, we wrote a letter to have that reviewed. We were a little slow. Perhaps we caught that from the ACF.


but from what I gather of the divided nature of ACT chess politics I would be surprised if nobody argues the contrary view anyway.

Can I clarify that the ACTJCL is not part of the "chess politics" you are talking about? You are throwing in - just for good measure - a dispute applicable to the ACTCA. Furthermore, a lot of effort has been put into the resolution of the ACTCA "issue." Of course if you had the misfortune to subscribe to the ACTCA or ACT chess mailing list you' d know more about it ...

Denis_Jessop
28-08-2008, 04:32 PM
I derived from Charles' post that there had been exchanges between the two parties in the interim, whether any of them qualified as official is still up for contention.
The first part is still a little confusing, I think, and I may be absolutely wrong, that the ACF did indeed approve the levy aware that the ACTJCL was being severely disadvantaged by it. That the feeling of the governing body was that it was up to any body so effected to alter their competitions.
My first instinct is that this isn't right, but am reserving judgement until more or better information comes to hand.
I would offer one word of caution, the kids that are having their games messed around by this whole shebang are not going to forget who did what and considering their location and the likelihood of who they get to listen to, I am sure that there will only be one party wearing the blame for the mess, the ACF.

Phil

I have quite deliberately refrained from posting in this thread apart from post #2 as I believe that a matter that is currently the subject of unresolved negotiations between the ACF and another party is not a matter approporiate for discussion on this BB or in any other public forum. Much of what has been said in posts in those places is uninformed, speculative twaddle.

Your perception that


the ACF did indeed approve the levy aware that the ACTJCL was being severely disadvantaged by it

is quite mistaken. I was the ACT delegate at both National Conferences at which the matter was considered in 2001 and 2002. I voted in favour of the fee at each Conference after consultation with the ACTJCL. No allegation of disadvantage to the ACTJCL was raised with the ACF before 2006.

It should also be noted that the ACTJCL is the only body to have raised the "disadvantage" argument at any time. At no time, including that at which the ACF introduced a new levy, has the ACF accepted the "disadvantage" argument. The new levy was introduced for an entirely different reason, namely certain objections raised by David Cordover about paying for teams at all.

In a later post you ask


On a different tangent, why does the National Conference and even the ACF Council have voting based on population of each state/territory, wouldn't it be much fairer to have anything other than 1 vote per state association based on active players playing chess?

The actual situation is that the ACF Council comprises 6 elected office bearers and 7 State and Territory delegates; one from each affiliate.

A National Conference comprises delegates from affiliated States and Territories in numbers calculated according to population. The elected office bearers, as such, have no vote. That formula also applies to apportionment among the States and Territories of liability for levy moneys.

Other methods have been tried in the past but one relying on the number of chess players per State is unacceptable as there is no means of verifying the accuracy of the figures and it is thus open to abuse. Membership of State Associations is not an available test as Chess Victoria does not have individual membership.

Ironically, it may be noted that, because of the formula, the ACT now pays a disproportionately low amount in respect of schools teams but nobody has complained about that either.

It may also be noted that it follows from what I have said above that, when "the ACF" makes a decision in National Conference, that decision is being made by the States' representatives alone.

DJ

Libby2
28-08-2008, 05:18 PM
Ironically, it may be noted that, because of the formula, the ACT now pays a disproportionately low amount in respect of schools teams but nobody has complained about that either.
DJ

I'm not familiar with the new method for calculating the school levy. As I've said before, I'm not part of the ACTJCL.

However someone had mentioned it was population based? If so - is it even the same thing? If it bears no relationship to your numbers or entry fees or teams or schools or divisions or anything - is it a "school levy?" Hasn't it become simply a fixed amount charged to each state based on their population, unaffected by the nature of any competitions?

I probably know nothing about anything as usual - and I'm not trying to make mischief on this. I'm just wondering what the point of the new system is then? Is it more like an entry fee to the ASTC that is calculated based on the population of your state?

Something that would seem really easy to run & administer would be to call it just that - an entry fee to the ASTC. Each state is levied a fixed fee (nothing to do with divisions, populations etc) for each team it enters up to a maximum of 4 teams per state.

That fee can be set based on the revenue the ACF seeks to raise this way. I wouldn't know what that is because I'm not privy to what is raised under the new system. But let's say the ACF wants to raise $6000 each year ($500 to the ASTC hosts for trophies, $5500 to ACF revenue), you could easily set a fee to meet that. Probably in the vicinity of $250/team or $1000 per state fielding in all divisions.

Again, ACTJCL didn't want to avoid paying money, only to calculate it's liability on a similar basis to others.

A fixed fee is easy for everyone to deal with. It's easily budgeted for and handled at both ends - a fixed expense for the state body, and a fixed and reliable revenue stream for the ACF.

antichrist
28-08-2008, 07:11 PM
I think it is terrific that LIbby has brought this up. When a dedicated working mum brings up a solid complaint that is when everyone should listen and jump accordingly. I reakon Mike Baron should enlist Zohan to help out.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2008, 08:43 PM
On a different tangent, why does the National Conference and even the ACF Council have voting based on population of each state/territory, wouldn't it be much fairer to have anything other than 1 vote per state association based on active players playing chess?

In the case of the National Conference that was the way it is set up. To change that requires a 3/4 majority at a National Conference.

There's an extremely strong argument that voting weighted by population is actually much fairer than 1 vote per state (why should states with ten times the population and several times the number of chessplayers get no more say than much smaller states)?

As for weighting voting by numbers of active chessplayers, the problem is that this is very difficult to define. If you define it in terms of rated players that encourages state associations to increase their power by rating events that should not properly be rated and that will distort the rating system.

In the case of ACF Council, voting on Council is not based on population. The Council consists of an Executive of six members, who can each be from any state and who are elected by the National Conference, and the representatives (currently seven) of each affiliated State and Territory Association.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2008, 08:56 PM
Outside of NSW who were (I understand) fully sponsored and not charging entry at the time, I believe ACTJCL's fully volunteer-run events were running with the lowest entry fees.

All the more reason why 75c/player extra wouldn't do the slightest damage.


It was fortunate then that you were able to be involved in ensuring your state would not have to pay a similar amount to that levied on the ACTJCL.

Actually I'm pretty sure I personally abstained on the motions affecting the TCA's levy contribution at both TCA and ACF level, given my obvious conflict of interest. That didn't mean I had to keep silent on the matter! Indeed as I recall a number of cracks in the old levy system all became apparent at around the same time. We had:

* an equity complaint from the ACTJCL
* a Tasmanian situation where the state body couldn't sanction the only effective show in town because of the levy
* difficulty working out what was or wasn't going on (or might go on in future) in Victoria at any given time because of confusion created by events being run by a range of operators


The ACTJCL returns money to players in subsidised programs and development activities. ACTJCL provides financial support to players at the ASTC and representing overseas. The ACTJCL has heavily subsidised coaching for players at the Australian Juniors. ACTJCL funds are channeled into chess development. Less funds are therefore available for this purpose than may otherwise be, or are "proportionally" available to other states.

But you say that you had the lowest entry fees apart from possibly the NSWJCL even though you were doing all of these things with them. Again, there should not have been a problem with charging slightly extra to the schools to be passed on to the ACF to cover the levy.


How's the ACF going with the stated "chess development" that this money was to assist it with?

People can judge that for themselves, over time.


Critically, once we realised it did impact differently elsewhere, we wrote a letter to have that reviewed. We were a little slow. Perhaps we caught that from the ACF.

Or perhaps, in this case, we caught it from you? ;)


Can I clarify that the ACTJCL is not part of the "chess politics" you are talking about?

Sure, but that is not actually relevant to my point, which was not at all gratuitous. My point is that the ACT chess scene clearly supports a range of chess-political views, so it is unlikely that all those involved will only have access to a monolithic viewpoint. Even if the ACTJCL is united on all the relevant issues (which it may well be) it is clearly not the only voice in town. I only made this point in reply to Phil's suggestion that the ACF was cruising for a bad rap in the nation's capital, and for no other reason.


Furthermore, a lot of effort has been put into the resolution of the ACTCA "issue." Of course if you had the misfortune to subscribe to the ACTCA or ACT chess mailing list you' d know more about it ...

:lol:

Phil Bourke
28-08-2008, 11:11 PM
Thanks DJ, the National Conference and ACF situation is as clear as mud now :)
Not something I'm sure I want to get into, but your explanation is good and as I become more conversant with all the machinations that are going on, I will understand them. At the moment, I maintain a simplistic view, each chess player should gain equal representation no matter where they live and that all chess administrations should be focused on getting more people playing the game we all love. Granted there will be issues that sidetrack things at times, but if you keep returning to the one singular aim, you must be making progress.

Brian_Jones
29-08-2008, 10:40 AM
At the moment, I maintain a simplistic view, each chess player should gain equal representation no matter where they live and that all chess administrations should be focused on getting more people playing the game we all love. Granted there will be issues that sidetrack things at times, but if you keep returning to the one singular aim, you must be making progress.

Good post Phil. If only everyone else had the same view!

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2008, 08:43 PM
Phil, what do you mean by "equal representation"? Do you mean that in theory each player would have the same level of input into outcomes no matter where they lived? If so that seems to point towards representation on a state or other regional basis that is proportional to the number of players (as opposed to it being by population or being by a one state one vote kind of model.)

Phil Bourke
29-08-2008, 10:12 PM
Let me start by prefacing all of this with a disclaimer, in no way do I consider that I have a perfect answer at the ready, anything I suggest is just for discussion and I openly reserve the right to adjust any model of administration that may be inferred from what follows if any discussion suggests a better alternative.

I think that a good solution would be to have the ACF take the mantle of being the controlling body, all players would register as individuals with them, thereby creating a singular point for record keeping and statistical analysis, etc.

To begin with, the current system of State Associations would continue with players living in that State electing their own State Council. That Council would then elect one of their members to be the representative at the ACF level, same as done now. The only immediate change would be each State carries one vote per representative, this would apply to any form of ACF or National Council that is conducted.

In a relatively short time, there should be enough information regarding which States are representing what Number of players. So that in future years, their may be a breakup of a particular state, eg one State/Territory may end up with a Metropolitan and a Country representative, because it becomes evident that that area's number of players is double that of any other state. The likely scenario is that several states may have 2 or 3 representatives, whilst others would only have one. Under this scenario, there would be less chance of one state aligning itself with sufficient support from a few others and dominating any vote by weight of numbers which can occur now at Council level. (please forgive if I have got the current national bodies wrong, as said before, I am not completely familiar with the current structure.)

State Associations will remain, but with a clear indication that they are operating under a national system. My limited understanding of the current system is that single states are able to control decisions at a the national level therefore opening the door for some matters to be decided on a "what's best for our state" basis rather than what is best for Australian Chess.

More food for thought, borrowing from a few areas, registration would be done at a local level, with a set fee for every player in every state/territory, if that fee was for example $30 then the local association keeps $10, State Association gets $10, National Association gets $10, or whatever allocation is decided as fair. In other arenas, the whole fee goes to the National Association who reimburse the other bodies once a year. This ensures that local clubs keep an accurate record of who pays membership each year.

Disciplinary matters are dealt with at the local level, with the player having rights to appeal to State level and National level. Any decisions made by a local association are applied at the National Level. If you mess up in Blayney and get suspended for a year, you are suspended Australia wide for a year.

I think that the fees collected should be done with a view to allowing each body to run tournaments and cover expenses on the basis that the ACF looks after National titles, with perhaps the current system of state rotation for venue applying, (if this doesn't exist, it should be implemented) State Associations run State Titles, Local Associations run Local Tournaments.

I hope you understand what it is I am suggesting, my fingers are getting tired :)

Again, this is just a starting point, as I have no concrete model to apply.

Perhaps this may be needed to a new thread if significant discussion follows, hijacking the thread.

Denis_Jessop
29-08-2008, 10:22 PM
Thanks DJ, the National Conference and ACF situation is as clear as mud now :)
Not something I'm sure I want to get into, but your explanation is good and as I become more conversant with all the machinations that are going on, I will understand them. At the moment, I maintain a simplistic view, each chess player should gain equal representation no matter where they live and that all chess administrations should be focused on getting more people playing the game we all love. Granted there will be issues that sidetrack things at times, but if you keep returning to the one singular aim, you must be making progress.

Phil

In fact the situation is really quite simple.

The ACF is an umbrella body that deals with national in international chess matters. Responsibility for day-to-day chess matters, in particular the organisation of chess at club level and recruitment of players and the like, rests with the State and Territory Associations which are much closer to "the action". So if you (and I don't necessarily mean you personally) want to have stronger chess at the club level, where most people play, the answer is to take a closer interest in, and support, your State Association.

ACF bashing is primarily for those who haven't yet grasped that simple message. There are some who would like to see the State Associations disappear and chess administered entirely by the ACF but, for the foreseeable future and beyond, that is a pipe dream (or perhaps, a pipe nightmare, if such exists). In any case, were chess to be centrally administered (and let's forget about the fight that would occur to determine where that should be) the geographical structure of Australia is such that State branches would still be necessary.

There is one matter that I should have mentioned in my earlier note.

When Graeme Gardiner became ACF President in 1999 he proposed changes to the ACF's physical and financial structure. Before then each State and Territory Association contributed to the ACF's finances by an annual levy determined and apportioned on the population formula. Graeme was successful in having that arrangement replaced by the current Administration fee (colloquially, but inaccurately, called a rating fee) calculated according to an amount per rated game per player. That means that State contributions now are not on the population formula but according to the number of active players (in effect).

Graeme also sought to tap a new income stream - the teams playing in schools teams competitions. His first attempt was to charges a fee of $3 per team for every team playing. That was narrowly defeated at the 2001 National Conference but the 2002 Conference adopted instead a fee of $3 per any team that could qualify for the Australian Schools Team Championships finals. That fee caused problems (irrelevant to this note) and was replaced by a levy according to the population formula. In my view there is a good argument that this was a backward step but it was taken and at least has not so far been objected to.

Thus now the population formula is used only regarding the ASTC fees and representation at National Conferences.

Interestingly, I understand that, were representation at National Conferences to be on the basis of the number of active players rather the population formula, the big winner would be NSW whose representation would increase substantially - from about 25 % to about 33%.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2008, 12:35 AM
In a relatively short time, there should be enough information regarding which States are representing what Number of players. So that in future years, their may be a breakup of a particular state, eg one State/Territory may end up with a Metropolitan and a Country representative, because it becomes evident that that area's number of players is double that of any other state. The likely scenario is that several states may have 2 or 3 representatives, whilst others would only have one.

Actually there is ample information on this sort of thing already and what would happen is that some states would have several times more representatives than others, leading to a body that had too many members to be useful for anything more regular than a National Conference.

In this old post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=6659&postcount=51) Bill showed that at that time NSW had about 15 times as many active players as Tas. I suspect the disparity is not quite that great now.


Under this scenario, there would be less chance of one state aligning itself with sufficient support from a few others and dominating any vote by weight of numbers which can occur now at Council level.

This actually cannot happen at Council level as each state has just one vote out of 13. A given state might have Exec officebearers as well but they are not bound to vote as their state suggests (nor are the delegates, in fact!).

At Conference level large states can sometimes band together and NSW acting alone can block a constitutional amendment if all its delegates vote that way.


My limited understanding of the current system is that single states are able to control decisions at a the national level therefore opening the door for some matters to be decided on a "what's best for our state" basis rather than what is best for Australian Chess.

This view is widespread but has far less basis in reality than its adherents believe.

Phil Bourke
30-08-2008, 09:08 AM
With trepidation, I venture into the lion's den, not knowing if will return or not. :)


Interestingly, I understand that, were representation at National Conferences to be on the basis of the number of active players rather the population formula, the big winner would be NSW whose representation would increase substantially - from about 25 % to about 33%.

Would the corresponding figures for other states be readily available?


This actually cannot happen at Council level as each state has just one vote out of 13. A given state might have Exec officebearers as well but they are not bound to vote as their state suggests (nor are the delegates, in fact!).


I know that this scenario is possible, but in reality, it would be a rare situation where a delegate would vote contrary to what their state suggests, as that would not be the wisest career choice if one were trying to get involved at State level :)


At Conference level large states can sometimes band together and NSW acting alone can block a constitutional amendment if all its delegates vote that way.

Based on Denis' information that NSW currently has 25% representation, this situation that NSW can veto any amendment with their vote alone is one reason that the system needs to be modified. One State should not have this power, it creates a situation where that power can be used in self interest.

Brian_Jones
30-08-2008, 11:03 AM
Based on Denis' information that NSW currently has 25% representation, this situation that NSW can veto any amendment with their vote alone is one reason that the system needs to be modified. One State should not have this power, it creates a situation where that power can be used in self interest.

So why has this not been changed already?

NSWCA must be criticised for not actively relinquishing their power!

eclectic
30-08-2008, 02:11 PM
So why has this not been changed already?

NSWCA must be criticised for not actively relinquishing their power!

relinquish their power?

you would need to convene an extraordinary national conference at runnymede (http://www.fallingrain.com/world/AS/6/Runnymede.html) and force the power from them via their signing of the magna caissa!

:rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2008, 02:51 PM
I know that this scenario is possible, but in reality, it would be a rare situation where a delegate would vote contrary to what their state suggests, as that would not be the wisest career choice if one were trying to get involved at State level :)

There are a few counters to the above.

Firstly a state delegate is almost never a person who is just "trying to get involved". By necessity they are typically a person who is already very involved at state level and knows what is going on. Often (but not always) they are state association presidents, secretaries or other established office-bearers in secure positions.

Secondly any state that didn't allow its delegate a degree of latitude to vote as they considered best in the circumstance would be extremely foolish. People who are willing to consult with their state, sit through a whole ACF Council meeting (which generally goes for about three hours) and report back don't grow on trees.

Thirdly, delegates have a legal obligation as members of ACF Council to vote according to their perceptions of which action best fulfills the ACF's objectives as stated in the ACF Constitution. Of course, the delegates may well vote against measures that harm their state on the grounds that the national interest is not served by any state being harmed, but still, the delegates are not just there to be unthinking lackeys of their states.

Denis_Jessop
30-08-2008, 04:39 PM
With trepidation, I venture into the lion's den, not knowing if will return or not. :)



Would the corresponding figures for other states be readily available?



<snip>

Based on Denis' information that NSW currently has 25% representation, this situation that NSW can veto any amendment with their vote alone is one reason that the system needs to be modified. One State should not have this power, it creates a situation where that power can be used in self interest.

Phil

In reply to your question, the figures I quoted were my rough statement of some calculations by Bill Gletsos and I don't know the others. Perhaps if you were to PM Bill he may be able to help.

Regarding the veto question, this matter has been the subject of a lot of earlier debate on this BB. It is true that NSW has enough votes to veto any Constitutional amendment if all of its delegates vote the same way. But that is far from the end of the story. Victoria needs the support of only one or two delegates to achieve the same result.

Most imprortantly, and this is a fact that I have not previously seen stated publicly, the voting power of NSW is now no different from what it was when the ACF Constitution was adopted for the purposes of incorporation in 1987. Thus the adoption of the population formula and the knowledge that it gave NSW certain veto rights was known to and accepted by all the States that accepted the Constitution in 1986. Whatever one's views of the situation are, it's a bit late now for anyone to shed tears over it as it's done and been there for a long time.

DJ

Garvinator
30-08-2008, 04:53 PM
Most imprortantly, and this is a fact that I have not previously seen stated publicly, the voting power of NSW is now no different from what it was when the ACF Constitution was adopted for the purposes of incorporation in 1987. Thus the adoption of the population formula and the knowledge that it gave NSW certain veto rights was known to and accepted by all the States that accepted the Constitution in 1986. Whatever one's views of the situation are, it's a bit late now for anyone to shed tears over it as it's done and been there for a long time.
My understanding is that the percentage to change the constitution moved from 66% of the total votes, to 75% of the total votes. Under the 66%, NSW needed help from another state/territory to block a constitutional change. With it now being 75%, NSW can block on their own.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2008, 05:45 PM
It's certainly been 75% all the time that I have been involved.

Denis_Jessop
30-08-2008, 08:31 PM
My understanding is that the percentage to change the constitution moved from 66% of the total votes, to 75% of the total votes. Under the 66%, NSW needed help from another state/territory to block a constitutional change. With it now being 75%, NSW can block on their own.

I have had a look at his matter and was intending to post a correction.

The situation is that, when the ACF was incorporated in 1987, the then ACT Ordinance apparently allowed a special resolution to be carried by a two-thirds majority. The ACF Constitution adopted upon incorporation had that provision regarding a number of matters including constitutional amendments. I have not seen the ACT ordinance of the time but my assumption is almost certainly correct.

The 1953 ACT Ordinance was replaced by the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 that came into force on 1 January 1992. It required and still requires a three-quarters majority for a special resolution that includes a resolution to amend the constitution. At some time shortly afterwards, the ACF constitution was amended to come into line with the new Act though, had it not been amended, the old provision would have been invalid as inconsistent with the Act. In fact the old "two-thirds" provision was quite complicated as it was not a simple two-thirds but " two-thirds or more of those who vote on it including one or more representatives from each of three or more State Associations and more than half of those present and eligible to vote" (no prizes for guessing who thought that one up :) ). It seems to have been drafted to ensure maximum difficulty in amending the constitution.

The present "population formula" for conference representation has been in the constitution all along and apparently was not questioned when the 1991 Act changed the basis for constitutional amendment.

Accordingly, although there were some errors of detail in my previous post, the observation that I made about conference representation still holds good plus the fact that the current situation was accepted and has subsisted since 1 January 1992 in any event.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
02-10-2008, 05:44 PM
I have personally paid the money in dispute. Now resolved. I won't be made responsible (Denis) for the ACF's unwillingness to negotiate and to deal respectfully with the organisation involved.

What I chose to air here is a dispute that is no longer mine to fight as I am no longer a member of the committee involved in that decision.

Why I chose to air it is a product of extreme frustration with the way the ACF has dealt with this from beginning to end. Having settled the matter of the money I can now ask the questions -

Is it appropriate that a national body take more than 2 years to repond to an official piece of communication from an affiliate?

Having given themselves more than 2 years to respond, is it appropriate to apply a deadline of less than one month to that affiliate?

Is threatening sanctions against children (rather than late payment penalties, interest, or other penalties to an organisation) the way to resolve a dispute? It has a whiff of emotional blackmail about it that I comfortably fell into.

Clearly some states and their voting representatives never saw it as appropriate that they be levied for every child to play in their interschool events, and voted this down. Why then is the ACTJCL so wrong in disputing the financial impact it has had on them?

And how legitimate is the position of decision-makers on this whole issue when the entire dispute may have no impact on their state (they had no interschool events themselves over the disputed period so paid no levy at all) or have an interest in maintaining the application of the 2002 motion that has minimised the amount they have had to pay.

All of this may well come down to an unintended consequence of the levy due to a lack of understanding of the myriad of formats under which interschool chess was already running when it came into effect. ACTJCL did not seek to avoid paying the levy, only to have it calculated on a similar basis to the way it applied to others.

Reverting to the original gist of this thread - see the post above - I can now say that the amount claimed by the ACF from the ACTJCL has been paid in full by the ACTJCL to the ACF. Consequently, the ACF has refunded the amount paid by Libby to her.

DJ

Charles
03-10-2008, 08:56 AM
Reverting to the original gist of this thread - see the post above - I can now say that the amount claimed by the ACF from the ACTJCL has been paid in full by the ACTJCL to the ACF. Consequently, the ACF has refunded the amount paid by Libby to her.

DJ

Denis's comments are correct. The ACTJCL committee discussed the issue and based on the sanctions imposed by the ACF were not willing to use our children as negotiating tools. Additionally the actions by Ms Smith were considered by the committee to be an inappropriate way to resolve the situation so we rejected her donation. We wrote to the ACF advising them to refund her money and stating that we would pay the full amount to lift the sanctions. Our belief remains that the outstanding amounts paid are inappropriately high in comparison to the amounts paid by much larger states but we felt we had little option but to take action to resolve the issue. We now consider the matter closed.

Charles Bishop
President ACTJCL

Phil Bourke
03-10-2008, 01:56 PM
In this old post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=6659&postcount=51) Bill showed that at that time NSW had about 15 times as many active players as Tas. I suspect the disparity is not quite that great now.

In http://www.nswca.org.au/members.shtml it shows that there are about 450 active members that play in tournaments, I guess we have to add the number of NSWJCL players. Based on tournement figures in recent years, I would think this is around the same number. That makes a total of approximately 900 players.
Perhaps some kind people would be willing to submit other State's figures for comparison? (Please be clear, mine is an estimate only)

On the main matter up for discussion, I applaud Charles and the ACTJCL for taking the only appropriate course of action that was available to them. I am a disappointed that the ACF felt it necessary to take such a heavy handed approach. In my opinion, it is obvious that the ACF applied a levy scheme that wasn't fair to all involved and more effort should have been made by that body to ensure that a fair levy was in place from the get go.

Ian Rout
03-10-2008, 02:53 PM
In http://www.nswca.org.au/members.shtml it shows that there are about 450 active members that play in tournaments, I guess we have to add the number of NSWJCL players. Based on tournement figures in recent years, I would think this is around the same number. That makes a total of approximately 900 players.
Perhaps some kind people would be willing to submit other State's figures for comparison? (Please be clear, mine is an estimate only)
From the ratings file, these are the numbers (excluding players listed as OS) that have played a rated game in 2008 up to the September list:


State Normal Rapid Both Total
======= ======= ======= ======= =======
NSW 640 262 182 720
VIC 405 288 127 566
QLD 367 48 39 376
ACT 148 341 115 374
SA 127 98 57 168
WA 122 3 3 122
TAS 65 21 20 66
NT 1 0 0 1
======= ======= ======= ======= =======
Total 1875 1061 543 2393
This doesn't inlcude players who play only in non-ACF rated junior tournaments.

Phil Bourke
03-10-2008, 04:01 PM
Thanks for that nice piece Ian. One question, are the players in the three divisions, unique individuals?
A question to anyone with knowledge of how the NSWCA rules work, how do 640 players play normal ratings, when there are only 448 on the Members list eligible to play in tournaments? If it is as I think, that there 152 players who only play in club events, why are these people given the privilege of a rating if they aren't financial members?

Bill Gletsos
03-10-2008, 04:15 PM
Thanks for that nice piece Ian. One question, are the players in the three divisions, unique individuals?Obviosuly not, otherwise it would not be showing a total for NSW of 720 when the individual categories clearly add up to more that that.

A question to anyone with knowledge of how the NSWCA rules work, how do 640 players play normal ratings, when there are only 448 on the Members list eligible to play in tournaments?Your maths appears to be flawed.
There is currently 452 members listed and another 97 listed as "Non-Members Registered Players. It explicitly notes on the webpage that the this category "Allows rating of NSW based non NSWCA events".

The 640 figure and indeed the 720 Ian mentioned obviously includes includes juniors.

If it is as I think, that there 152 players who only play in club events, why are these people given the privilege of a rating if they aren't financial members?They pay the "Non-Members Registered Players" fee. You should be fully aware of this as you were in attendance at the AGM when it was introduced.

Ian Rout
03-10-2008, 04:24 PM
Obviosuly not, otherwise it would not be showing a total for NSW of 720 when the individual categories clearly add up to more that that.Yes, the "Both" is those who are on both of the Normal and Rapid lists, so Total = Normal + Rapid - Both.

Phil Bourke
03-10-2008, 04:58 PM
Obviosuly not, otherwise it would not be showing a total for NSW of 720 when the individual categories clearly add up to more that that.
Your maths appears to be flawed.
There is currently 452 members listed and another 97 listed as "Non-Members Registered Players. It explicitly notes on the webpage that the this category "Allows rating of NSW based non NSWCA events".

The 640 figure and indeed the 720 Ian mentioned obviously includes includes juniors.
They pay the "Non-Members Registered Players" fee. You should be fully aware of this as you were in attendance at the AGM when it was introduced.
Lower the disdain there :) Just because I was present when it was introduced doesn't preempt any full awareness of it. I admit that I am very new to all these intricacies of chess administration. In time I may become more conversant with them :)
Like a lot of things, figures get bandied around and in trying to keep track of it all, one gets confused. At least, I do :)
But moving along, or to be more precise, returning to the original question. Given yours and Ian's assurance (btw, thanks for that), I now have two figures that aren't in agreement, according to the NSWCA Memberslist, there are 549 registered and active players (? Just in case my maths is flawed again). Yet according to the rating list, there are 720 active players, i.e. Players who have played a rated game. So my original question stands unanswered.

Bill Gletsos
03-10-2008, 05:08 PM
Lower the disdain there :) Just because I was present when it was introduced doesn't preempt any full awareness of it. I admit that I am very new to all these intricacies of chess administration. In time I may become more conversant with them :)
Like a lot of things, figures get bandied around and in trying to keep track of it all, one gets confused. At least, I do :)
But moving along, or to be more precise, returning to the original question. Given yours and Ian's assurance (btw, thanks for that), I now have two figures that aren't in agreement, according to the NSWCA Memberslist, there are 549 registered and active players (? Just in case my maths is flawed again). Yet according to the rating list, there are 720 active players, i.e. Players who have played a rated game. So my original question stands unanswered.There are some adults not on the list whose club has agreed to pay the necessary fees. (20 to 30).

The others are juniors or adult players (these adults are less than a dozen in total form an event run last year but rated this year). In either case membership is not a requirement.