ECF Reject complaint by Chris Fegan

[Mick Norris]

ECF website

A complaint was raised by Chris Fegan in relation to matters arising while he was Director of Women’s Chess which was rejected. CF appealed against the decision and in October 2021 Michael Farthing and Nick Faulks were asked to review the appeal, raised on the grounds that the original complaint was heard by Julian Clissold (then Chair of the Board) and Stephen Woodhouse (then an NED and now Chair of the Board) and that neither JC nor SW were unbiased due to allegations raised by CF that they had been attempting to remove CF from the Board.

The appeal panel completed their review on 31st August 2023 and dismissed the appeal due to a lack of supporting evidence.

[Matt Mackenzie]

So, maybe a summary of what the complaint was actually about?

[LawrenceCooper]

So, maybe a summary of what the complaint was actually about?

The judgement links to this summary: https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... cision.pdf

[Roger de Coverly]

So, maybe a summary of what the complaint was actually about?

This link is from the ECF website
https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... cision.pdf
It seems the original issue was a complaint by Fegan against Truran which was rejected. The second issue was a complaint by Fegan against those making the rejection decision.

[Paul Cooksey]

The original complaint was in relation to this comment in an email exchange:

Women's chess has a larger budget, there is more activity in women's chess, they have a social media account and his election promise to replace himself with a woman is being fulfilled.

Let’s just say that [name of other director] and I have very different views on Chris’ contribution to women’s chess on behalf of the ECF while in office.

The follow up complaint was on the handling of that complaint.

I've said before that I felt Mike's comment was wrong. But on the other hand, this is so obviously just a political dispute, using the complaints procedure seems a waste of everyone time. Twice.

Chris was asking for an official apology on the website and his £50 admin fee back because of the delay in dealing with his second complaint, notwithstanding it seeming to have failed because he chose not to submit evidence supporting it.

I'm slightly annoyed at the phrasing of the apology. I didn't feel it needed caveating. But anyway, I am am hoping it is sufficient to avoid a third go round.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'm slightly annoyed at the phrasing of the apology. I didn't feel it needed caveating. But anyway, I am am hoping it is sufficient to avoid a third go round.

Do you mean the use of the word "wishes" in the bit that hasn't been quoted above?

It is noted that the report took almost two years to complete. It is recognised that this is much longer than should have been the case and the ECF wishes to apologise to the various parties affected by the delay.

Are you saying that better would be the more direct phrasing: "the ECF apologises to the various parties affected by the delay."? If so, I would agree with that. Phrases like "I would like to apologise..." and "Please let me apologise..." and "I wish to apologise" are too passive in their phrasing and soften the effect of the apology. The focus is drawn to the "wishing" rather than the act of apologising.

[Paul Cooksey]

It was the phrase "the ECF wishes to apologise to the various parties affected by the delay" I disliked. I suspect there was only one party who needed a formal apology, which was Chris Fegan. But if others are asking for an apology in private, fine, add "all other parties" if you want. But not saying "the ECF apologises to Chris Fegan" is at best wishy washy and at worst petty.

[Roger Lancaster]

But on the other hand, this is so obviously just a political dispute, using the complaints procedure seems a waste of everyone time. Twice.

Well, yes, I think some might consider using the complaints procedure for political purposes is an abuse of that procedure.