ECF Reporting of Board meetings

[JustinHorton]

You can post on newspaper forums, but the comment is always monitored first.

No it's not, although it might be removed later if considered inappropriate.

Well that's illuminating!

Err.. Is that it?

Essentially. I did not as the result of the exchange become party to any information that I can't pass on.

Of course anybody who wants to email themselves is perfectly at liberty to do so.

[Carl Hibbard]

Interesting
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/moderators-wanted/

All comments approved in advance means it won't last very long.

[Stewart Reuben]

Possibly it applies only to newspaper forums on which I might consider posting.

Justin is amazing. He is even less informative than the ECF Minutes.

[John Upham]

Some will remember FIDE used to have a forum, but discontinued the site, presumably for the usual reasons.

I assume that the "usual reasons" would be that FIDE are very much aware that their activities, decisions and policies did and would continue to be scrutinised and dissected and they would not welcome this.

They would not wish to support informed debate about these things.

Any organisation that does not wish its activities to be discussed will be for the "usual reasons".

Of course the ECF should support a forum about Chess in England. Promotion and marketing of English Chess must be an activity to be encouraged.

I suspect that GCHQ and SIS would not see a public forum as beneficial.

[Roger de Coverly]

2 weeks later. No sign of any minutes, the minutes secretary not even being listed under vacancies, no acknowledgement of it being an issue. Good going ECF.

Things have moved on a little.

There were Board meetings on April 12th, May 11th, May 18th and May 28th with undisclosed content. Additionally the meeting of June 12th has been elevated to snapshot status. The decision on the ECU election had already been privately announced and the Minutes problem is acknowledged.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... 2-June.pdf

The Board acknowledged that production of Minutes continued to be a problem.

[Stewart Reuben]

John Upham >They would not wish to support informed debate about these things.<

John, I have to bow to your superior experience of how thing work in FIDE. Try attending your first-ever commission meeting.

The usual problem with forums is not informed debate. It is uninformed debate, which so often descends into spiteful innuendo and persona attacks. There is nothing uninformed about stating that 'ECF meetings are not well-documented. The conclusions about why this may be so, may or may not, be uninformed.

[Mick Norris]

There were Board meetings on April 12th, May 11th, May 18th and May 28th with undisclosed content.

Now published

[Stewart Reuben]

Draft minutes of various ECF Board Meetings have now appeared. Very few of these have been signed off on as accurate records. This includes a snapshot of a meeting held well into June.
This is indeed a considerable improvement on more recent history of information about the Board Meetings.
It is surprising so many Board Meetings are held.
It was also surprising that Sean Hewitt had called for an EGM to fill the vacant post of NED. He seemed to want back in, having resigned. Instead the Board made the decision to appoint a new face as NED. The matter now rests, presumably until October.

[Roger de Coverly]

Draft minutes of various ECF Board Meetings have now appeared. Very few of these have been signed off on as accurate records. This includes a snapshot of a meeting held well into June.

Nothing directly in the minutes about the ECF's new forum. At least we know, probably, what the silence was about. It was the attempt by Sean Hewitt to both resign and be a Board member in the same season.

[Michael Farthing]

What is depressing about the situation is that a single individual can simply collect organisation votes into his back pocket to further his own personal objectives in this way. The time and effort of other people that is implied in this hasty resignation and then demand to be reappointed!!

[Roger de Coverly]

What is depressing about the situation is that a single individual can simply collect organisation votes into his back pocket to further his own personal objectives in this way.

Company law prevents it being ruled out completely, but it really isn't right that a single individual or pair of individuals can amass sufficient voting power to inflict an additional meeting on the remaining voting membership. There is a way out, but it won't be popular to say, and that is where there's a local AGM that in theory can fire the Representative Delegate that club members or club officers should go to these meetings and do exactly that, if the Delegate's conduct is not satisfactory.

[Michael Farthing]

I had rather assumed that this tendency (not by any means limited to Sean Hewitt) to have multiple votes was probably a consequence of the cost of expenses. I assume, for example, that the East Coker Chess Congress and Little Gidding Chess Association would have to pay the travelling expenses of their own delegate and therefore if they can get Burnt Norton's delegate to represent them this is a big saving. Is this an accurate interpretation?

In fairness, this need not necessarily be a bad approach and I remember reading an account of the last Council Meeting by one delegate (I regret I can't remember who it was who for he deserves to be named) who gave a very full report of the meeting that included a breakdown of how he had voted at each stage. This frequently involved him splitting his votes according to the different mandates he had been given. Model behaviour.

On Roger's point about firing the delegate I point out that you do have to know not only what your delegate is doing but also that he is doing it. Can anyone explain how a large collection of diverse organisations managed to get together, agree to request an EGM, instruct their (common) delegate and manage all this without the slightest hint of it getting into the public domain?

[Matthew Turner]

Michael Farthing wrote,
"In fairness, this need not necessarily be a bad approach and I remember reading an account of the last Council Meeting by one delegate (I regret I can't remember who it was who for he deserves to be named) who gave a very full report of the meeting that included a breakdown of how he had voted at each stage. This frequently involved him splitting his votes according to the different mandates he had been given. Model behaviour."

I believe the person you are thinking of is Ben Edgell. He has been an excellent delegate for a number of organisations.

[Mick Norris]

I had rather assumed that this tendency (not by any means limited to Sean Hewitt) to have multiple votes was probably a consequence of the cost of expenses. I assume, for example, that the East Coker Chess Congress and Little Gidding Chess Association would have to pay the travelling expenses of their own delegate and therefore if they can get Burnt Norton's delegate to represent them this is a big saving. Is this an accurate interpretation?

Yes, and I think the further you are from London/Birmingham the more obvious this is

Bury always instruct the MCF delegate/rep, and Bolton tend to do the same

The MCF voted Julian Clissold as our ECF rep wef Saturday, thus reducing our costs as he'll be there anyway as NED

[Michael Farthing]

Michael Farthing wrote,
"In fairness, this need not necessarily be a bad approach and I remember reading an account of the last Council Meeting by one delegate (I regret I can't remember who it was who for he deserves to be named) who gave a very full report of the meeting that included a breakdown of how he had voted at each stage. This frequently involved him splitting his votes according to the different mandates he had been given. Model behaviour."

I believe the person you are thinking of is Ben Edgell. He has been an excellent delegate for a number of organisations.

I have searched his posts and indeed it was!