Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[John McKenna]

What Paul Sanders wrote immediately above makes sense to me - as do all the posts I recall of his.

Thanks to Mick & David for their explanations, further above.

Regarding Julian - I'd like to point out that what Mick Norris wrote is not quite true - Sean has found time to post here about this particular matter, among other matters. Other directors have also posted on the forum but not much, if at all, about the "Emergency Board Meeting", it is true.
David Pardoe wrote above that "Julian made his stance perfectly clear. He suggested that a much greater effort at reconciliation and compromise is required..." (The ellipsis is mine - JM.) Yes, but that was before the act - of the "Emergency Board Meeting" - during the election hustings. He probably acted himself in the 'emergency' in the spirit of reconciliation and compromise he advocated. But, has he nothing to add here, after the act? Is he just like many admirable politicians who speak unto the people at election time and then hold their tongues until the next election?

I also note that Chris Rice questioned the need for a President of the ECF - maybe so, but the problem seems to be (others have mentioned before me) that the role is ill-defined. If the President is deemed to be for ceremonial window dressing only then that's easy to make clear. On the other hands, if the role includes opening the purse and dispensing favours royally, or rolling up the sleeves and being Chairman of the Board, as Andrew Paulson did in an attempt to impose(?) his vision (whatever it really was, and well never see it now - unless of course he planned all this to happen exactly as it has) on a group of disparate individualists then let that be made crystal clear.

Is all that clear?

[David Robertson]

A normal commercial enterprise has a Chairman of a board of directors who more or less represent the owners, which in this case is either the individual members or the organisations depending on your preference. The executive management simply (!) executes the purpose and strategy of the organisation as well as they can.

It seems to me, as mostly an outsider, that the ECF won't be able to resolve the question of who its owners are until one side or the other concedes gracefully or is outmanoeuvred.

Commercial organisations also are usually mercifully free of what I consider the burden of gratitude to volunteers, as wonderfully selfless, capable, and generous as they might be. Volunteers will rarely be an effective way to execute a strategy with speed and discipline.

If chess players want a commercial organisation, or a body modelled after the image of one, they need to resolve the ownership and purpose questions, and then fund it at a level where volunteers are an extension of the ECF rather than the executive.

Cut-and-paste this to your frontal lobes, guys. This is correct.

Alas, efforts by Martin Regan & co to resolved the question of 'purpose' were blocked by the Walsh-Welch clique. And the question of 'ownership' was botched by Andrew Farthing who, correctly, gave members all the equity, but incorrectly, left voting rights with the previous 'owners'. We inherit the consequences.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Regarding Julian - I'd like to point out that what Mick Norris wrote is not quite true - Sean has found time to post here about this particular matter, among other matters. Other directors have also posted on the forum but not much, if at all, about the "Emergency Board Meeting", it is true.
David Pardoe wrote above that "Julian made his stance perfectly clear. He suggested that a much greater effort at reconciliation and compromise is required..." (The ellipsis is mine - JM.) Yes, but that was before the act - of the "Emergency Board Meeting" - during the election hustings. He probably acted himself in the 'emergency' in the spirit of reconciliation and compromise he advocated. But, has he nothing to add here, after the act? Is he just like many admirable politicians who speak unto the people at election time and then hold their tongues until the next election?

It's worth noting that this is an unofficial forum and while several members of the board do come on here to answer questions and respond to criticism, none of them are any obligation to do so. All ECF board members and officers have email addresses in the public domain and I'm sure will respond to polite enquiries.

[Angus French]

Regarding Julian - I'd like to point out that what Mick Norris wrote is not quite true - Sean has found time to post here about this particular matter, among other matters. Other directors have also posted on the forum but not much, if at all, about the "Emergency Board Meeting", it is true.
David Pardoe wrote above that "Julian made his stance perfectly clear. He suggested that a much greater effort at reconciliation and compromise is required..." (The ellipsis is mine - JM.) Yes, but that was before the act - of the "Emergency Board Meeting" - during the election hustings. He probably acted himself in the 'emergency' in the spirit of reconciliation and compromise he advocated. But, has he nothing to add here, after the act? Is he just like many admirable politicians who speak unto the people at election time and then hold their tongues until the next election?

John, I'm going to disagree with you here. I think Julian's position is clear from the draft minutes of the Emergency Board Meeting. I think what he is attributed as saying is pretty much spot on and doesn't require further explanation.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think Julian's position is clear from the draft minutes of the Emergency Board Meeting. I think what he is attributed as saying is pretty much spot on and doesn't require further explanation.

From those minutes

This episode shows a disunited Board in which members are not at ease with each other. As a Board we have to take steps to ensure we do not have this situation recurring.

That's fairly typical organisation speak. When they say "we have to take steps", do they mean not to have a disunited Board or not to show it?

The obvious fault line causing the "not at ease" was AP's refusal (and any Board members supporting him) to accept the ECF's long standing line on the FIDE Presidency and by extension the ECU Presidency. Those who aren't newcomers to International chess issues will be aware that Nigel has been campaigning for a change of FIDE President for over eight years and it is unlikely that he would accept many constraints on this.

[John McKenna]

Angus French>John, I'm going to disagree with you here. I think Julian's position is clear from the draft minutes of the Emergency Board Meeting. I think what he is attributed as saying is pretty much spot on and doesn't require further explanation.<

Angus,
You may think that I can only comment - that if someone comes on to get help get elected they could, at least, come back in times of crisis or other such momentous occasions. I am not saying that Julian has done anything dishonourable, let alone wrong. If there are a few monks in the ECF castle keep to keep the lords in check I will suffer their silence.

I am just interested in others forumites' views on the relationship between this place (forum) and the other place (ECF). I regard those who do come on here from there as the Tribunes and Senators - depends, to me, on their speech and actions as to which class they are in - of English chess.

For example, in addition to seeing Julian as a father, I see Sean, and yourself - potentially - as uncles or Tribunes, Stewart Reuben as a grandfather or senior Senator. The Presidents of the ECF seem, in recent times, to be a succession of Imperators - to whom I have trouble relating - of various descriptions, with the possible exception of Roger Edwards. Perhaps there was once a Republic under the BCF and Stewart? If there ever was, those days are gone.
Live long and prosper,
John

[Angus French]

John, I agree with your point that if a candidate comes to the Forum at election time then it would be a good thing, if elected, for them to come here at other times... Particularly now.

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps there was once a Republic under the BCF and Stewart? If there ever was, those days are gone.

I would be more inclined to see Stewart as an Augustus, changing the constitution and ushering in a new era of life time monarchs. In the days of the BCF, post 1945 anyway, the job of President was like that of a consul, a strictly limited term of office awarded to those of high standing. But then the development and growth of chess in England at club and Congress level in the 1970s and 1980s hadn't owed very much to the BCF. The best you can say is that it mostly kept out of the way. The attempt of the BCF to put on "something big" in 1986 with the first half of the World Championship match almost bankrupted itself as it agreed to a financial deal where it was liable for any overspend, but couldn't retain the profits if it underspent.

[Angus French]

The obvious fault line causing the "not at ease" was AP's refusal (and any Board members supporting him) to accept the ECF's long standing line on the FIDE Presidency and by extension the ECU Presidency. Those who aren't newcomers to International chess issues will be aware that Nigel has been campaigning for a change of FIDE President for over eight years and it is unlikely that he would accept many constraints on this.

Is there a "long standing line on the FIDE Presidency"?

I know Nigel Short has a position (though he didn't offer an election address last time). Andrew Paulson also had a position. Both Nigel and Andrew were elected but their positions were not the same. I don't see any policy statement on the ECF website. I have seen an ECF announcement which suggests it doesn't have a set opinion: "The Board has now issued formal invitations to each of the FIDE and ECU presidential candidates to visit London (potentially with members of their tickets) to discuss their respective candidacies in order to better inform the ECF’s vote".

[Roger de Coverly]

Is there a "long standing line on the FIDE Presidency"?

The ECF opposed the continuation of Kirsan's Presidency in 2006. It, or rather its President and FIDE Delegate actively campaigned for the same outcome in 2010. There was little or no objection to this by Directors or Council. In 2012 following the CAS debacle, the election of the FIDE Delegate took the form of a referendum of the ECF's attitude to FIDE, with Nigel being opposed by someone generally regarded as a FIDE insider supporting the current incumbents.

So yes, I would say there is a long standing line which at least two of the those elected in October 2013 were challenging. It was an issue that perhaps should have been put to the October meeting to get Council to re-affirm the ECF's position and remind any dissenting directors that they were in a minority.

But perhaps, it will be put to the April meeting and we'll see how many Kirsan supporters there are.

For that matter, this forum along with most of the UK printed and online media has long been unsympathetic to Kirsan and his cronies.

If a third party candidate came along, it might be worth fighting Nigel to get the ECF to support the ticket. But not for Kirsan.

[Mick Norris]

Or perhaps dispense with the need for a President altogether. Why not run it like a normal commercial enterprise and just have a CEO which hopefully would be clearer and lead to a lot less disputes. I'd agree that OMOV is clearly needed as well and quite why it will take two years for someone to come up with some sensible suggestions to establish it is perhaps indicative of the malaise that has befallen the fine men and no women on the ECF Board (or is it Council I get confused).

Chess organisations aren't normal, or commercial enterprises, which is why you need different skills to encourage volunteers to work together

The ECF might well be better with a purely ceremonial President, and allowing the CEO and Board to run it, but Council continues to be the main problem

OMOV would help, but finding a way to get Council to buy into it may well take a while

[Chris Rice]

I agree Mick and my main point was to reduce the problems perhaps by reducing unnecessary personnel. No one really followed up with what an ECF President should be doing so I'm guessing there really isn't a role here. Or at least not one the CEO couldn't add to his job description.

The ECF set up is interestingly virtually the same as how a German health insurance mutual is structured under the Insurance Supervision Act in Germany. Mutuals (or co-ops) don't have shareholders and they are effectively owned by their customers (equivalent to us poor sods who pay our ECF fees as good as gold each year but don't get a look-in). There is a management committee which would be the same as the ECF Board and a Supervision Committee (same as ECF Council) elected by policyholders/customers who then appoint the management committee. The differences are that there is no President and that the policyholders/customers get a much bigger say in what goes on. Seeing as this has been a successful model for over 300 years and they get various charity & tax breaks until they reach a certain turnover I imagined its something that the ECF could usefully look at with regard to the UK legislation.
I'm not familiar with the CIO route Roger talked about but from his description it looks like a hybrid between a charity & a commercial enterprise so I was quite pleased to see that this is the likely direction for the ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

I was quite pleased to see that this is the likely direction for the ECF.

It isn't though. The idea is to set up a new body in parallel to the existing ECF. One role would be for it to hold the legacy funds now in the BCF PIF. Other than the Board note indicating a desire to press forward, the background as to what functions it takes on and how it dovetails with the rest of the ECF's activity remains unstated.

It appears the problems of combining a charity which cannot be seen to support "professional" sport or activities with a national chess body, one of whose functions, if aspiring to be world top 20, is to develop it, have proved impossible to reconcile.

[Mick Norris]

I agree Mick and my main point was to reduce the problems perhaps by reducing unnecessary personnel. No one really followed up with what an ECF President should be doing so I'm guessing there really isn't a role here. Or at least not one the CEO couldn't add to his job description.

On the contrary, I think there is a role for the ECF President - meeting chess players (especially those not in the south east) and talking to them about what the ECF should do, liaising with the Unions and Counties/Leagues - plus a ceremonial role of presenting prizes (dressed appropriately) at events like the British, County Champs and particularly junior events like the Glorney (when in England) etc

Dealing with (potential) sponsors might be another role

I'm conscious as MCF President I haven't done much of the being visible role, although much of what I have done is much more the CEO role and to be honest much more important

[Chris Rice]

On the contrary, I think there is a role for the ECF President - meeting chess players (especially those not in the south east) and talking to them about what the ECF should do, liaising with the Unions and Counties/Leagues - plus a ceremonial role of presenting prizes (dressed appropriately) at events like the British, County Champs and particularly junior events like the Glorney (when in England) etc

Dealing with (potential) sponsors might be another role

I'm conscious as MCF President I haven't done much of the being visible role, although much of what I have done is much more the CEO role and to be honest much more important

I'm getting the distinct impression that there doesn't seem to be much traction in getting rid of the ECF President role but it seems there is agreement that the role is poorly defined. I think it's really useful benchmarking your experiences as MCF President against the ECF President role.

In the ECF documents the ECF President's role and responsibility are defined as follows:

"Acts as a focal point for the concerns of members and chess players generally; acts as an ambassador for the ECF. Liaises with member organisations and sponsors. "

The ECF President also sits on some sub-Committees but the description above is pretty much all there is to define the role. It seems to me that AP tried to do all three of these things but then got into difficulties with other ECF Board members for stepping on their toes or making it difficult to fulfil their roles or talking to the wrong people without consulting the Board first (Azmai and Charlie Storey were mentioned for example). The minutes of the February meeting were as you point out very revealing.

The issues arose (which have come up more than once with past ECF Presidents as well) essentially because there is nothing to define:

a. what are the limits to what the ECF President can do;
b. What is the role of the ECF President in relation to the ECF Board; and
c. How should the ECF President interact with the other Board members?

If we agree that these are the issues I guess they could be reasonably easily be dealt with if say the ECF Council issued guidance on the role (or maybe a policy statement of how they see the role) so that the next person taking on the role would be a lot clearer on what they can and in particular cannot do?

It would appear that the way that you would define the role, which I note has been echoed by others, is similar to a sort of Prince Andrew (Duke of York) style role where he talks to British businesses and represents British business interests abroad and drums up trade but is not part of the government. Is that fair comment?