Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[John Upham]

Have you ever approached your delegate and asked him/her to raise something, or vote in a particular way?

Yes, several times without success. I finally resorted to persuading the League President (who had zero votes) to accompany the delegate to a General Meeting (probably the Annual one) to act as a "minder" to ensure that he voted in the way he assured the committee that he would.

I believe that this strategy was successful but wasteful of time and resources.

[Martin Crichton]

Guys, this was a compromise by the Board (at my expense) to get rid of Andrew Paulson as President immediately. He has now gone - and good riddance too. On the downside, he now has 7 votes in his favour, out of c.300 at the Council meeting. Hopefully the ECF members will have the good sense not to support him in the ECU. Doing so would be a vote for the entirely unsuitable Candidate, Zurab Azmaiparashvili. It would also very seriously compromise my position as Delegate in favour of a guy who has, in the space of a few short months, lost the confidence of the Board and precipitated his own downfall.

Indeed Nigel..

It would appear to my untrained eyes that your fellow directors are giving you a not very subtle hint?

Totally baffling to me.


and....

It would also very seriously compromise my position as Delegate in favour of a guy who has, in the space of a few short months, lost the confidence of the Board and precipitated his own downfall.

seems they haven't lost total confidence in him or why would they be strongly supporting him for this new role? Guess you two guys will have to do some bridge building soon?

[Angus French]

The idea that 'block votes' somehow make Council a formality is a nonsense, usually perpetrated by folk who've never set foot inside a Council meeting.

At the last Council meeting - the 2013 AGM - there was a hand vote on the motion "That the Board’s decision 17.3.2013 requiring ECF Membership of all players in events organised and graded by the ECF be RESCINDED in respect of school team competitions". Many - perhaps 30 - voted for the motion and 6 voted against (in my notes, I recorded 4 but I see the Minutes say 6). At this point Alex Holowczak got very excited: "Shall we have a card vote? Shall we have a card vote?". And there was a card vote with the result 143 votes "for" and 97 "against" (the Minutes have 97; my notes and the SCCU report have 96).

[Sean Hewitt]

The idea that 'block votes' somehow make Council a formality is a nonsense, usually perpetrated by folk who've never set foot inside a Council meeting.

At the last Council meeting - the 2013 AGM - there was a hand vote on the motion "That the Board’s decision 17.3.2013 requiring ECF Membership of all players in events organised and graded by the ECF be RESCINDED in respect of school team competitions". Many - perhaps 30 - voted for the motion and 6 voted against (in my notes, I recorded 4 but I see the Minutes say 6). At this point Alex Holowczak got very excited: "Shall we have a card vote? Shall we have a card vote?". And there was a card vote with the result 143 votes "for" and 97 "against" (the Minutes have 97; my notes and the SCCU report have 96).

Thank you for proving my point.

[Roger de Coverly]

Thank you for proving my point.

Presumably your point being that 6 people had 97 votes as against 143 for the rest of the meeting. That was more than enough to get the "Let's stop Roger Edwards doing anything" motion on the Agenda with some prospect of getting support from the remaining 60% of the voters.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Thank you for proving my point.

Presumably your point being that 6 people had 97 votes as against 143 for the rest of the meeting. That was more than enough to get the "Let's stop Roger Edwards doing anything" motion on the Agenda with some prospect of getting support from the remaining 60% of the voters.

Six people had 97 votes largely because there were people present at the meeting who were the delegates of more than one organization (either directly or via proxy). A similar situation is likely to arise if OMOV comes in.

[Roger de Coverly]

Six people had 97 votes largely because there were people present at the meeting who were the delegates of more than one organization (either directly or via proxy).

Legally nothing can be done, but the ECF Council voting would have a better reputation if attendees voluntarily restricted the number of organisations they represented and thus the number of votes at their disposal for motions and propositions where no specific prior instructions had been given.

I had always presumed the most rational OMOV approach would be some form of direct election as a "postal" ballot for some or all of the Board, perhaps coupled with an occasional referendum on a particular issue. Still the last Council meeting managed to put the proposal out to grass. Reporting back in two year's time is tantamount to never unless someone kicks up a fuss at every meeting asking about progress.

[David Pardoe]

The more I follow this debate the less I understand what miracle OMOV is supposed to deliver.

Difficult to say, but if some or all of the Directors had been elected wholly or partly by OMOV, would AP ever have been elected in the first place? Going back in time, I would suspect the attempted Presidency for life by Gerry Walsh would have been terminated rather earlier. CJ, I think, would have been elected in 2009 and 2010 but perhaps with reservations in 2011 and not at all in 2012, had he stood.

If you go back to the last ECF elections, you`ll note that clear warnings were posted about the potential risks of electing AP as ECF President. I was one of those who spelt out those concerns.
However, a certain faction saw AP as the new inspired leader, who would bring new vision and energy to the ECF.
Many saw power and prestege, a big boost to the ECFs image perhaps, but above all, they saw ££££ signs.
Lulled by this, it is easy to see how some were only too ready to jetison `the steady path` for the razamataz...??
They were all clearly forwarned...including the big block voters.
How ironic that the directors at the ECF should be the ones to feel the power of the new leader, as he strove to assert his supreme authority over the rest of the herd.
But the herd turned, throw a tantrum, couldnt hack it. ?
Mr Clissold urged calm, but was outnumbered by the louder rebel element, who wanted heads to role.
So we have it. No President. The board were unable or unwilling to find some middle ground.
This latter point is rather disappointing, even though I dont support APs views. I`m not convinced that the board really tried hard enough to find a constructive path forward.
To my mind it would be better to firstly try to take things forward in terms of what could be usefully and constructively addressed, those matters that were essential to progress, then those that could be parked or deferred for future consideration. With the onus on trying to keep the ship moving forward, and playing to the strengths of the directors. In particular, how to maximise AP as an ECF resource to boost and develop UK chess. Could he press some buttons and influence matters favourably for UK chess.
Then, in October, the ECF AGM could take stock and elect the next set of officers.

Look at the alternatives. Do we really try to find a new President for the remaining 5 months? What can they possibly achieve, apart from just keeping things ticking over.
My gut feeling when I read the Nov 2013 ECF board Minutes was that they were scheduling a huge amount of work, and maybe overlooking other initiatives that might have been achievable, in more byte sized chunks.
Everything seemed to get snarled up in FIDE politics, which from a practical stand point, isnt really a top priority for our everyday UK chess. Yes, its good to have a voice at the world table. But the ECF represents a tiny minority of the vote, so we are a small cog in that wheel. My thoughts are that as long as world events are functioning satisafactorily, and the governing body are producing guidance that is reasonable, we can leave that pot to simmer, and focus more on domestic matters.

Looking at the practicalities of our electoral system.
For OMOV to work (in conjunction with Delegate voting), requires greater participation of the membership, in a meaningful and informed manner. This means that (as a minimum), relevent information should be circulated to enable members to form a judgement on key matters, and to debate these on forums like this.
Many of our organisations show little or no interest because they are unable to grasp the jist of what is going on, or simply want to focus on there particular group interests, which is understandable. Its not specifically down to apathy, as some will claim.

[Mick Norris]

Legally nothing can be done, but the ECF Council voting would have a better reputation if attendees voluntarily restricted the number of organisations they represented and thus the number of votes at their disposal for motions and propositions where no specific prior instructions had been given.

I see, so that is more of us having to give up a day of our valuable time to go to London/Birmingham to cast our votes

The MCF pays the travel cost of our attendee - this time, Amin can't attend, so as we have a MCF Council member there anyway, we are asking Julian to cast our votes (plus he will be asked to cast the Bury and I assume Bolton votes too)

If you move the meetings to Manchester, or better still Bolton, then maybe we can have more attendees, but would the southerners attend in numbers? No

Better idea, why not have the meetings online?

[John McKenna]

Mick Norris>... The MCF pays the travel cost of our attendee - this time, Amin can't attend, so as we have a MCF Council member there anyway, we are asking Julian to cast our votes (plus he will be asked to cast the Bury and I assume Bolton votes too)...<

Mick, is 'Julian' the non-exec director who narrowly won that post in the last election?

Is he the one here with username 'Julian Clissold' or 'JulianClissold'? (Probably he is both.)

The one (or two) in the line above who since the election has posted nothing? (Apart from the few posts about junior chess he did in the years before and his election canvassing posts there seems to be nothing else.)

The 'JC' in the said draft minutes who voted WITH Andrew Paulson on the confidence motion in Andrew?

Why does he not at least come on and explain his part in the "Emergency Board Meeting", which should have led to an EGM (or an Enhanced Finance Meeting in April) but has resulted in an unclear fudge that seems to be designed to get everyone off the hook - Julian himself included?

Is he performing the role that he - like Andrew Paulson - was elected to do or what?

[Mick Norris]

John

Julian Clissold, yes

Same comment as the rest of the ECF Board really, they have spent time working things out rather than posting on here

[David Pardoe]

Or, as the outgoing CEO at the CO-OP said today "this organisation has become ungovernable".

So, its not just the ECF that has these problems.
Julian made his stance perfectly clear.
He suggested that a much greater effort at reconciliation and compromise is required, to explore all the possible options for taking things forward on a positive footing.
Surely he is right, that these things should be tried and all avenues explored. Meanwhile, an emergancy agenda could be drawn up to ensure that core issues and outstanding business matters were addressed.

Should the ECF/Council convene a special meeting and appoint a Chairman for the remainder of the year, to oversee matters. Maybe someone like Roger Edwards (if he was willing), or ANother. Perhaps Andrew Farthing.....
A board meeting might then be called, face to face (or Skype), to talk matters over, and see what can be resolved.
There is no doubt that AP and others have much to contribute to UK chess, so we should surely use our best efforts to try to ensure that these leaders can make significant contributions, in the interests of UK chess..

[Chris Rice]

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).

[John McKenna]

Postponed...

[Paul Sanders]

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.

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.