Nominations for the elections at the ECF AGM

[Neville Belinfante]

One topic of discussion here was my nomination of Angus French as NED in my role of Buckingshire CCA representative. Both Jonathan Melsom and myself are in agreement that internal Buckinghamshire disagreements should not be aired in the forum. As both Jonathan and Angus French have given more details of the circumstances of my nomination, the only extra piece of information I can add is that at the time I was unaware that Julian Clissold was standing.

I have know Julian Clissold for years through EPSCA, and introduced him to Phil Ehr at Hinckley Island in February last year, where there was both an ECF Junior event and a 4NCL junior event going on at the same time. It was through that introduction that Julian took on the role of Manager of Primary Schools (North) which had been vacant ever since Phil created it.

[Angus French]

A consolidated voting register with proxies is available here.

I make it that the top five vote holders are:
- Sean Hewitt with 26 votes (including 6 proxies);
- Ben Edgell 17 (5);
- David Sedgwick 16 (11); * Corrected *
- William Metcalfe 15 (10);
- Mike Truran 14 (0).

The number of available votes is 311 which I think is quite a few more than for recent meetings.

Both Lawrence Cooper and Nigel Short have appointed a proxy so I assume they won't attend (I know Nigel is playing in a tournament in Indonesia).

[LawrenceCooper]

A consolidated voting register with proxies is available here.

I make it that the top five vote holders are:
- Sean Hewitt with 26 votes (including 6 proxies);
- Ben Edgell 17 (5);
- William Metcalfe 15 (10);
- David Sedgwick 15 (10);
- Mike Truran 14 (0).

The number of available votes is 311 which I think is quite a few more than for recent meetings.

Both Lawrence Cooper and Nigel Short have appointed a proxy so I assume they won't attend (I know Nigel is playing in a tournament in Indonesia).

That is correct. I had hoped to have an apology sent to everyone in Council but I was advised this was not possible. As I don't have contact details for everyone I'm posting it here:

Dear Council,

I would like to apologise in advance for my absence from the election meeting this weekend. I would like to assure you that this will not be a regular occurence and I am very excited about the possibility of being elected to the role of Junior Director. It is the one ECF job that I've always wanted to do and after a break of twelve months from the board I am refreshed and if elected I can't wait to start working with our juniors, both domestically and internationally and continuing the good work of my predecessor and his team. It would be an honour to take the job and I hope you will give me the opportunity.

Yours faithfully,
Lawrence Cooper

[David Sedgwick]

A consolidated voting register with proxies is available here.

I make it that the top five vote holders are:
- Sean Hewitt with 26 votes (including 6 proxies);
- Ben Edgell 17 (5);
- William Metcalfe 15 (10);
- David Sedgwick 15 (10);
- Mike Truran 14 (0).

The number of available votes is 311 which I think is quite a few more than for recent meetings.

Both Lawrence Cooper and Nigel Short have appointed a proxy so I assume they won't attend (I know Nigel is playing in a tournament in Indonesia).

I think I actually have 11 proxies and therefore 16 votes in total. So far as the elections are concerned, all 16 votes are directed.

[Angus French]

I think I actually have 11 proxies and therefore 16 votes in total. So far as the elections are concerned, all 16 votes are directed.

Yes. I miscounted.

[Andrew Paulson]

For better or for worse, the EC Forum is currently the only forum for understanding the moods and concerns of an important part of the chess community. I have been reading it assiduously in the past weeks and there is an issue that seems to me to be exercising the commentators that I’d like to address now leading up to the Elections on Saturday: my views on the next FIDE Presidential Election. I want directly to address the concerns of the many contributors to the Forum who will not be at the AGM. And, as I only will have five minutes for a presentation and questions during the election phase of tomorrow’s AGM, posting it here will free time for more pertinent questions.

FIDE vs. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

I have said that it is important to separate our position vis-a-vis the current President of FIDE and FIDE the institution/organization itself. I would recommend that as a member of FIDE the ECF engage and attempt to influence FIDE on issues that the ECF feels are important either ‘interestedly’ as they relate to English chess or ‘disinterestedly’ as they relate to matters of principle and reputation on a larger worldwide stage. Of course, the ECF could decide against this path as on any other issue.

Paulson (possible President of ECF) vs. Paulson (Owner of AGON) vs. Paulson (Private Individual)

As to the current President of FIDE, my position vis-a-vis him may be divided into three angles of view: my position were I to be elected as President of the ECF, my position as the owner of a business with FIDE as the principal counter-party, and my position as a private individual. As the President of the organization with only a symbolic voice I would reflect the views of that organization, whatever they might be, in a frank and unambiguous manner. Similarly, the FIDE Delegate with a material vote would always vote to represent his best understanding of the views of the ECF.

As a businessman via AGON, my relationship is with FIDE the permanent institution and not with its transient leader. (This is why my fear of Kasparov reviewing the contract were he to be elected President is a red herring and also why to date I have tried to be agnostic vis-a-vis FIDE politics.) The AGON contract was negotiated with FIDE with no intervention from the President. The FIDE side of the ‘interface’ which is designed to make day-to-day decisions regarding the relationship is made up of Nigel Freeman and Georgios Makropoulos.

As a private individual, I have repeatedly stated my views on the matter. I feel that it is time for Kirsan to go for many reasons. The most clear and unequivocal is that he and his apparat have been around too long and it is always good to introduce new blood into an organization. The stories of the assassination of a journalist, meetings with murderous tyrants, meetings with chess-playing aliens, have all cast disrepute onto chess and FIDE and made him easy to demonise. Fortunately, Kirsan can also lay claim to many ambassadorial achievements in spreading competitive chess and chess in schools around the world and organizational achievements in creating within FIDE an efficient bureaucratic system for dealing with complex issues affecting chess the game and chess the sport. But, I state unambiguously, its time for a change.

The only step I cannot make is a whole-hearted endorsement of Garry Kasparov at this time. There are several reasons: (a) I don’t believe he is a leader of men but rather oppositional, confrontational and ultimately a bully; (b) although his political wrath against the current FIDE administration is genuine and heartfelt, I suspect that he may be his own first priority; (c) he will stand for election using many of the same unsavory tactics as his opponent even though even by his own account, he’ll likely lose (Wouldn’t it be better to run a clean campaign with a clean ticket and lose? That’s a ticket I’d join shoulder by shoulder with Garry!); (d) by spending many millions in an attempt to win the election he will be taking money away from the pool of benevolent funding available for chess and spending it on a quixotic adventure (much as he forced $millions which otherwise would have gone to chess to be spent in the two failed lawsuits against FIDE).

Therefore, I have repeatedly stated that although my natural position would be to support abstention on principle, I will recuse myself from all discussions and voting in the Board, if I am elected, on the subject of voting in the FIDE election. (Nigel Short, the Candidate for FIDE Delegate, has made the point that in an election you vote for the best, not necessarily the good. It is a valid point, though not unarguable.) Further, I will recuse myself on any other subject that the NEDs feel presents a conflict of interest between the duties of an ECF President and an individual engaged in business around chess.

[David Pardoe]

Mr Paulson,
Two weeks or so ago you said you were looking forward to actively engaging with people on this forum, and since that point you have fallen silent, just to reappear again at the last minute?
You also mentioned that you would organise meetings in some Pubs in London for open discussions/ Q & A sessions, etc..., with a visit to northern England promised. Did any of this happen? If so, can you tell us about these.
You keep talking about FIDE matters here, which account for about 1% of chess players interests and concerns here, but is clearly your pet subject?
Lots of talk about business acumen that you might bring.?? If you`re going to be excluded from discussions of business related matters, due to potential conflicts of interest/ vested interests, etc, what is the point of you being onboard?
With all your current business and other commitments, how are you going to fit in the obligations and expectations to attend various board meetings and fulfill any meaningful role, if elected?
Assuming you really can offer commercial expertese to the ECF, do you not think this might be better served by being at arms length from the ECF organisation, and simply offering your help in a voluntary/consultancy capacity.
The potential for conflicts of interest look positively mind boggling, some might think.

[Neil Graham]

Without wishing to wade through 35 pages on here and dozens more on related topics, may I ask a question. It's possibly been asked before and if so I apologise as I clearly missed it.

The ECF propose to have a new Commercial Director. Mr Paulson's talents clearly lie in this direction rather than dealing with the minutiae of the everyday story of chess-playing folk. Has the ECF or indeed Mr.Paulson himself considered this role rather than that of President?

[Mike Gunn]

>Has the ECF or indeed Mr.Paulson himself considered this role rather than that of President?<

Yes.

[Neil Graham]

>Has the ECF or indeed Mr.Paulson himself considered this role rather than that of President?<

Yes.

Does that mean the ECF has considered Mr Paulson in this role or that Mr Paulson has considered this role or that Mr Paulson has considered this role and rejected it or the ECF has rejected Mr Paulson in this role or .........

"Yes" didn't quite answer the question - could you expand the answer a little (please don't answer "No!")?

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF propose to have a new Commercial Director.

That's still down to the AGM to approve. There was some constitutional reason why it couldn't be done that way, but had the post had been created before the AGM, there could have been an election for it. It had previously been indicated there would be a shadow election. In other words a proposed candidate or candidate would be named and the meeting asked to indicate preferences. If there is such a candidate, it's been kept quiet as to his or her identity.

Commercial Director
This post only exists if the amendments to the Articles under item 10 are approved. An election under the normal cycle cannot be carried out, so the appointment will revert to the Board, but Council can express its views on any candidates who have expressed an interest before the meeting.

[Mike Gunn]

I suggested this to AP but he wants to become President.

[Neil Graham]

The ECF propose to have a new Commercial Director.

That's still down to the AGM to approve. There was some constitutional reason why it couldn't be done that way, but had the post had been created before the AGM, there could have been an election for it. It had previously been indicated there would be a shadow election. In other words a proposed candidate or candidate would be named and the meeting asked to indicate preferences. If there is such a candidate, it's been kept quiet as to his or her identity.

Commercial Director
This post only exists if the amendments to the Articles under item 10 are approved. An election under the normal cycle cannot be carried out, so the appointment will revert to the Board, but Council can express its views on any candidates who have expressed an interest before the meeting.

I am assuming (big ask there) that this will go through without too many objections. The Federation has had a multitude of directors in this role in the past who have either been unsuitable or unsuccessful or indeed both.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I suggested this to AP but he wants to become President.

bien sur! But isn't this what everyone expected? AP's interests are in FIDE/India/Africa - he has no history in the ECF at all. And just being a commercial director of the ECF isn't going to give him any extra clout or prestige over there, is it?

[Mike Gunn]

Further to the posts above the claimed (but fictitious) walkout at th August Board meeting, Alan Burke has contacted me and pointed out a discrepancy between my post and Sean's.

I am happy to put the record straight:

1. Initially I didn't remember that Sean had left the meeting and had returned.

2. When others mentioned the bank book, I did recall the episode but I have no idea when during the meeting this took place.

3. Sean asked me to edit the post which referred to him as "a certain director" and used his name. When I did this I also added the time when he told me he had left the meeting but I obviously misread the time he told me.

This explains the discrepancy, but the important point is that there was no walkout.