Ethics proposal

[Roger de Coverly]

From
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... onduct.doc

3.2 ECF publications (including the ECF website and the ChessMoves newsletter) enjoy a very wide readership, including juniors and potential sponsors. The importance of these publications to the ECF cannot be overstated: to a very large extent they are the public face of the ECF. Thus, publication of material which gratuitously injures the ECF directly or indirectly (including its reputation) in these media may be subject to disciplinary action.

Just as well the forum escaped from ECF scrutiny. Actually it was expelled.

I doubt the continued importance of ChessMoves, it could be abolished without anyone really noticing.

The Scots equivalent is curious. Despite having scary clauses that could have you banned for writing material on their in-house forum, the committee has never actually met.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

What disciplinary action is it possible to impose on volunteers, or does being elected mean you open yourself up to, well, being disciplined? Presumably the only sanctions available would be finger-wagging, restriction of duties, suspension, and removal. But surely this would (if contested) be something done by committee vote?

[Carl Hibbard]

Just as well the forum escaped from ECF scrutiny. Actually it was expelled.

The problem is we now probably vastly exceed the ECF publications in readers if you want to actually see what is going on

[Alex McFarlane]

Consider the following hypothetical situation.

The Code of Conduct is in place. Mike Truran produces a similar report to the one published today. A member decides that he or she wants to complain about the whole Board as a result.

For a start there is no-one to complain to but ignoring that. The complaint about the Board is investigated by ... the Board. An appeal is made. The Chairman of this Appeal Committee is appointed by the Board. Does anyone else see a problem here?

Any complaint about a member of the Board must be investigated at some point by a totally independent body appointed in advance.

In its favour the proposed code seems to admit that the behavior of Messrs De Mooi and Short during the course of the current season were not satisfactory.

[Roger de Coverly]

What disciplinary action is it possible to impose on volunteers, or does being elected mean you open yourself up to, well, being disciplined? Presumably the only sanctions available would be finger-wagging, restriction of duties, suspension, and removal. But surely this would (if contested) be something done by committee vote?

The document is in two parts, at one level it deals with directors, officials and others like arbiters and coaches who are sanctioned by the ECF. Suspension of the right to coach as ECF accredited would be a sanction if applied to a professional, elsewhere you just get back the time given to chess or the ECF.

In the second part which I quoted, it considers whether the ECF should be given the right to arbitrarily prevent players playing in events or to remove them from rating or ranking lists.

For example

4.4 Sanctions that the Board may apply include, but are not restricted to, the following:
4.4.1 Any player acting in contravention of this Code can be excluded from games or events to which it applies for an appropriate period;
4.4.2 A player’s grade may be withheld;
4.4.3 A player may be de-registered with FIDE;
4.4.4 A player may be refused permission to represent an English Team;
4.4.5 Any arbiter or other official acting in contravention of this Code can be excluded from performing the functions of arbiter or official in, or in relation to, any event to which this Code applies for an appropriate period.

[Carl Hibbard]

The Chairman of this Appeal Committee is appointed by the Board. Does anyone else see a problem here?

Has to be independent and perhaps someone like Mike who is not happy to sit on the fence in such matters

[Lara Barnes]

As a serving member of the Chess Scotland Standards Committee I offered to look at, and was given access to, the draft of this code before publication. I strongly suggested that any complaints against the board or a board member should be handled independently by such as an elected committee (as is the case in Scotland).

A current issue in Chess Scotland is failing to be resolved due to Directors abstaining from sitting on a panel to look at a complaint due to 'conflict of interests' etc. Which goes to show that it is not always 'we don't trust the board to bring justice to the board' but the honorable members of the board not wishing to be involved with a dispute that is by, between or against colleagues or friends.

Of course, it is sometimes the case that people just don't trust the board.

[E Michael White]

Appendix C section 5.4 suggests an International arbiter could be on the panel but does not suggest any players other than former ECF officials who are not representative. An arbiter should be available to give advice on rules but in a nonvoting capacity. Instead an established player experienced in all types of play, League, County, Congress, FIDE, international should be added. How you pick one, I don’t know. Maybe a players list of 2 or 3 from each of SCCU,WECU etc., who meet the criteria needs to be prepared beforehand, so one can be selected as needed. I cant think of more than 3 from the WECU who would be suitable.

The rational behind this is that Chess exists for players to play Chess, not for arbiters to arbit or ECF officials to act on ECF boards, which as pointed out before by Dave Robertson is a structure borrowed from Corporate Governance Models to impose a quasi financial operandi without actually being a company in the true sense of the word.

How would complaints against others apart from those mentioned in AFs document be dealt with, for example a game inputter who is not part of the control team at a congress ?