Board Meeting of 19 January 2014 - Draft Minutes

[Phil Ehr]

DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD

These Draft Minutes are subject to change and approval by the ECF Board. They are posted in the usual place:http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about-2/minutes/

Phil Ehr
ECF Chief Executive

Draft Minutes of the 80th Board Meeting of the English Chess Federation
11.00 – 17.30 – Sunday, 19 January 2014
Ibis Hotel, Ladywell Walk, Birmingham, B5 4ST

Present
Andrew Paulson (AP): President
Phil Ehr (PE): Chief Executive
David Eustace (DE): Director of Finance
David Openshaw (DO): Director of International Chess
Lawrence Cooper (LC): Director of Junior Chess and Education
David Thomas (DT): Director of Membership
Sean Hewitt (SH): Non Executive Director
Julian Clissold (JC): Non Executive Director

In attendance
Chris Majer (CM): Chairman, Governance Committee
Piotr Bogucki (PB): Minutes Secretary

Apologies
Alex Holowczak (AH): Director of Home Chess
Nigel Short (NS): FIDE Delegate
Mike Truran (MT): Chairman, Finance Committee

Housekeeping

The Present Meeting

1. At 11.00 or shortly thereafter, with all assembled except PE and JC, AP proceeded to convene and chair the meeting as he had in previous meetings. A vote of 3 to 3 was called in which AP was not elected to chair the present meeting. PE, who had delayed his arrival for the purpose of permitting the Board to be chaired by the President in accordance with the Articles, entered at 11.10. SH noted that as the Articles require the Chief Executive to chair board meetings, and AP was involved in several issues on the agenda in any case, that it would be more appropriate for the Chief Executive to chair the meeting on this occasion. AP agreed. PE asked the Board if they were content for him to chair the meeting. The Board agreed unanimously. JC arrived shortly thereafter. The Board approved the agenda noting initial considerations of sections to be omitted in case of time overrun.

2. The Board approved Piotr Bogucki as Minutes Secretary for the present meeting.

3. Minutes of the previous two Board meetings were not approved due to late circulation. PE apologised and suggested publishing time of minutes to be within seven days. SH moved to amend the published minutes of the 77th Board meeting to publicly record his vote on payment for a Minutes Secretary. He repeated that it was an ‘un-required cost’.

4a. JC led a discussion from his paper, ‘Corporate Approach to the Conduct of the Board’.

o JC recapitulated several issues from his report: (a) Board meetings are too long, (b) not productive enough, (c) the need for a corporate culture, (d) pay attention to the ECF’s public image and (e) improve Board discipline in general. He suggested establishing protocols for public comments outside the Board, working to build greater trust in one another, enhancing gravitas and earning each other’s respect would be first steps. He reiterated that discipline must be enhanced in Board meetings.

o DE suggested more team building. CM proposed a formal written document on the matter. CM, DT, DE reiterated the need for a one-page mission statement or strategic plan. PE commented that such a document is in the works.

o AP cited the work of several Directors coming together to develop terms for co-operation with Michael Basman’s UKSCC as an example of the Board working together on a common project, coordinated by the Chief Executive.

o AP noted that, based on conversations with CM, the Governance Committee should recommend amendments to the ECF bye-laws to better differentiate and define the roles of President, Chief Executive and FIDE Delegate. AP noted that his remit includes setting the strategic direction of the Board. SH agreed. DO said the bye-laws were fine and that the Chief Executive should lead meetings. CM offered that if a change to bye-laws was needed, the Board should come to a decision; the Governance Committee would then draft the appropriate resolution for the April Council meeting. DE suggested that bye-law changes should be done in a longer term.

o SH stated that the ECF should prioritise its work. The Board should highlight their different views on priorities. PE stated that the Board should strive to a project a unified position on the budget and individual reports. AP stated that although there are occasionally conflicting points of view presented by different Board members, he is very happy with the Board, impressed by its talent and diversity, and were an election to be called tomorrow he would propose the current board as a ‘Ticket’.

o DO compared the current Board with the last Board; seeking change. DO was ‘disappointed with ourselves so far’. Criticised PE for the lack of a short strategy document (SSD). He stated the Board cannot get behind a common goal without a one-page SSD. Without an SSD, the ECF is ‘all over the place ... doing far too many things’. AP stated that he was not as critical of the lack of a strategy document at this stage because Board members were still getting to know each other and establish priorities and that the set of strategic papers assigned at the first Board meeting (November) already formed the basis of a strategic plan. AP then proposed a deadline be set for the Chief Executive to present a Strategy Document at the next Board meeting. He proposed that this focus on the near future (this Board’s term), paying somewhat less attention to medium-term goals for the next three years (as had been agreed in previous Board meetings), and a finally a one-sentence mission statement covering the ECF’s long-term goals. He asked each Board member to submit their top two strategic priorities to PE for inclusion in the paper. SH and JC interjected with contrasting views whether the non-executive directors should contribute with their top two priorities. SH maintained setting strategic direction was not the role of the NED; JC maintained it was a necessary NED role. DE wanted a strategic plan to focus on the current timeframe (now to October 2014) and leave PE to focus on the SSD for a longer period. CM commented that 70-80% of Board operations are common year on year (i.e., same tournaments, etc.). He recommended the focus more on the variables, ‘what’s changing’ as well as the long-term goal.

o AP Moved: That PE deliver a short strategic document by the next Board meeting, supported by each director submitting two priorities. The Board approved nem con.

o JC: Moved: “That the Board resolves to proceed on principles in his paper, ‘Corporate Approach to Conduct of the Board’ and directs the Governance Committee Chairman to include the paper’s principles into the Board Operating Procedures project.” The Board approved nem con.

4b. Register of Interests. PE withdrew the motion on the agenda on this issue citing Board members’ strong objections in email exchanges, particularly from AH who was not present. That motion was: ‘That a register of overlapping interests be implemented for Directors, the FIDE Delegate and elected Committee Chairmen no later than 10 March 2014 by restoring written profiles to the ‘Board and Officers’ page of the ECF website. Subject individuals are requested to submit short biographies with the final paragraph declaring and describing potential conflicts of interest. The content of that paragraph will be submitted by individuals, edited by the Chief Executive and subject to amendment by the Board.’ A discussion ensued. SH questioned the meaning of ‘overlapping interests’ and noted the motion seeks to change the bye-laws and thereby retroactively change election requirements for directors. DT agreed. DO stated that bye-laws were fine; but that there is no website page showing these potential conflicts of interest of the Board members, for example that DT runs tournaments, SH runs e2e4 tournaments. DO and LC want better definition of Board member interests. PE stated that he would refine the motion for the next Board meeting.

5. Next Board Meetings. DE suggested setting a time for Skype meetings every second Sunday of the month, subject to change. He reviewed the cost of BT conference call of roughly £50 based on eight connections. PE stated that face-to-face meetings have value. JC stated that Skype is not always appropriate, depending on points on the agenda. AP confirmed that the Board should try two or three online meetings by the end of the year, but not neglect face-to-face meetings; he suggested a pace of around every six weeks. DE stated that the British Championships in Aberystwyth were a consideration for the meeting in July. AP mentioned that he had a meeting on 20 February to build bridges with Kevin Staveley and his colleagues in Wales. PE reviewed the Board’s previous decision for the next meetings to be Friday, 7 March and Saturday, 12 April prior to the Finance Council. The Board agreed. London-based members were happy to meet at the same venue for the next meeting (Ibis Hotel Birmingham). SH offered to find a different location from his hotel contacts. PE agreed.

News & Routine Reports

6. News: DO commended David Howell for a good job on a BBC Radio 2 interview. DO suggested a section on the website to summarise current Chess News.

7a. President’s report.

o ECF Office: Potential solutions for the office review include (a) keeping the office at Battle, (b) asking the current staff and new hire to work from home and (c) relocating the physical office to a more accessible location, e.g., London. The office requirement should include archival storage and potentially provide public access for the Chess Library as there are several collections of great value in need of a home, as recently discussed with Malcolm Pein (MP), David Anderton (DA) and others. AP noted discussions have progressed on two fronts to digitize books in the library, thus providing online access to rare and historic books and periodicals.

o Pushkin House: AP met with the Director of Pushkin House in London who is seeking assistance creating a Russian chess study centre and developing ex-pat teams in England, and a potential league or tournament with ex-pat Russian teams around the world. They want our help structuring the centre and finding Russian speaking chess coaches for whom they would provide significant employment. DO offered that Meri Gregorian would be a good person to introduce.

o Charity Status: After a meeting with DE and PE, followed by a meeting with members of the Charity and Recognition Committee, a course of action has been chosen which DE will present for a vote later today.

o Commercial Director: Discussions with a potential Commercial Director, are underway. PE is involved. Board members expressed general satisfaction. SH reviewed that appointment was possible as a voting Board member or a non-Board member (meaning employee) responsible to a Director. SH opined that financial reward and the title, ‘Commercial Director’ were both important for this role; and therefore his preferred solution was to seek a candidate as ‘Commercial Director’ who would attend Board meetings but not be formally designated as company director. DE suggested the Commercial Director should earn a percentage whatever is brought in. SH agreed. CM cautioned to avoid situations where lack of accountability and transparency resulted in a loss of VAT benefits. DO stated that there must be a Commercial Director. His initial thought was for a Commercial Director as a Board member, but the priority was to get somebody. Whether joining on a volunteer basis or commission, his first thought was to find someone. Then after talking to them determine their requirements and Board status. DO was happy with either arrangement and asked the Board to consider their known contacts for a suitable candidate. DE stated that he hoped somebody would come ‘free’, but chances are the Board would need to be prepared to pay somebody on a commission basis. JC stated that he preferred someone on the Board with a set of skills that would earn monthly pay, who does not necessarily come with a chess background. DO stated that he considers someone of the desired level will be much higher and prefers someone from a chess background, and the ability to engage with high profile sponsors. CM and DE suggested allocating a Commercial Director’s budget for next year (September). PE noted a goal to have a Commercial Director proposal for Council.

o Representation at Council: AP shared progress on Council’s request for guidance on future representation at Council, sometimes known as or referred to as ‘one member one vote’ (OMOV). He reported good conversations with SH, PE, MP and others, discussed the options of (a) limiting proxies to five per physical attendee, (b) reallocating votes based on ECF membership rather than games graded, (c) allocating votes on a non-linear basis, or (d) a combination of some or all of the above. AP noted that SH would develop these ideas with suggested timing for implementation and present at Council.

o Meetings: AP reported his upcoming official trips to Scotland, the Midlands and the North of England, 2-7 February before going to Gibraltar.

o ECU Elections: AP reported that ECU presidential candidate, Zurab Azmaiparashvili will visit London 7-8 February and requests to meet with Board members. Arrangements TBC. Timing on 8 Feb may work well for AP and LC who will be returning from Gibraltar.

o FIDE Elections: DO stated that all candidates should be asked their views on a term limits, suggesting two terms was a good maximum. AP replied Garry Kasparov had brought up a two-term limit during his meeting with Board members in December, but had made no commitment.

o FIDE Elections: AP noted that NS plans to leave his position as FIDE Delegate if Kasparov is not elected.

o Membership: AP stated that during his visit to the ECF office with PE, a number of technical issues having to do with the website were discussed with Andrew Walker (AW) that could significantly improve the efficiency of his work. At the moment, 90% of his time is spent answering phone calls from members who are having trouble paying. AP suggested a review of the structure/interface of the website. DT agreed. AP also reported that he wished AW to be involved with developing a social media communications strategy involving Twitter and Facebook, as well as ongoing site improvements. PE agreed. AP asked DT and DE what the financial terms were with the company that provides technical support for Membership (what % commission we pay them). DT offered to investigate. AP suggested that a budget be allocated for Membership Acquisition and Site Upgrading leading up to the renewal period in August, that this should be considered an investment as it should result in increased membership and user satisfaction. AP and DT agreed to elaborate a plan with AW.

[Minute Secretary note: Time was 13:26]

o Requirements for a replacing for Tina Turner (TT), office manager were discussed. AP noted that the job description should include a facility at taking minutes and the ability to better support ECF needs out of the office, including supporting a Commercial Director, managing ECF assets’ relationship with sponsors, etc. AP suggested that providing such professional support would be worth the higher salary. SH discussed venue considerations, including the additional cost of relocating away from Battle. AP observed that the current building was ‘full and cramped’ so that our departure may be welcome by the other tenant. CM asked about archives. SH identified other considerations of a distributed office, including virtual private network, virtual telephony, transfer calls, digitising hard copy material, postal service; as well as the need to resolve some of these issues before the membership renewal dates. DE flagged the need to investigate requirements for home employment—equipment, health and safety protocols. AP noted that AW is not paid daily commuting costs for bus and train. His commute takes 1.5 hours each way, and he spends the day at an empty office. SH reminded that the office cannot not close without a thorough plan. AP noted for information that the top floor of the Hastings Chess Club may be available. DO preferred a relatively lower cost option, when weighing the tradeoffs of renting office space and hiring people with more skills. DO also stated the need to ensure appropriate management and supervision, particularly in financial accounting if that function is to be from an employee’s residence.

7b. Chief Executive’s report

o PE reported his involvement with many items above.

o Non-disclosure agreement was signed with PB, today’s Minutes Secretary.

o PE reported that David Sedgwick was coordinating a BICC meeting for 3 May at a 4NCL weekend in Hinkley Island or Daventry. Potential agenda items include: updating qualifications for the British Championship, external relations and junior chess issues.

o Stated intention to grant permission for an author to use a BCF copyrighted extracts in a research publication. SH recommended limiting the permission to excerpts less than one page. The Board was content for PE to decide after seeking legal advice.

7c. Finance Director’s report

o DE reported draft accounts will be finished and sent to the auditors on time. Internal auditing shows that we underpaid VAT. SH recommended to check whether VAT rebate was applied for purchase of four televisions.

[Lunch break in which AP provided sandwiches.]

New Business

Upon returning from lunch, PE announced that per Item 1 above, he intended to skip the remaining Directors’ reports and proceed to New Business, in rough priority order. PE mentioned AH’s report to him that planning for the British Championships in Aberystwyth was proceeding well, and that measures were being negotiated to accommodate secure storage of players’ mobile phones.

8. Junior Selection Policy. LC moved to approve the Junior Selection Policy for 2014. PE noted pre-meeting email exchanges where his recommendation to retain junior selection norms were not supported. PE asked LC his rationale for retaining Jovanka Houska as a selector even though she resigned from her ECF post. LC felt she had an important role to play and that selectors shouldn’t have to hold a post in the ECF to be on the panel. PE asked LC if he saw a possibility of her taking an ECF position in the future. LC replied that wasn’t part of his reasoning for retaining her. PE asked LC whether he was comfortable with the new cap of four players per section in the World Schools and European Schools. LC answered, ‘Yes’. The Board approved the motion nem con.

9. Arbiter Regulations. Per AH’s request before the meeting, the Board approved the new Arbiter Regulations nem con.

10. Senior Selector. DO moved to appoint Paul Littlewood as a Senior Selector. The Board approved the motion nem con.

11. Committee Membership. DE moved to reappoint Gerry Walsh on the Charity and Recognition Committee. The Board approved the motion nem con.

12. Office Pay Review. DE moved to set office staff salaries to new levels. The Board approved the motion nem con.

13. Surplus Cash Balance. In order to earn some interest on surplus cash balances, DE moved that the Board authorise the Finance Director to make appropriate interest earning deposit arrangements for cash balances surplus to immediate requirements. The Board approved the motion nem con. DE suggested he may meet with the bank manager the following week attached to a visit to the office.

14. Charity Status. DE moved that the Board authorise the Chairman of the Charity and Recognition Committee (CRC) to establish a charitable trust under the Charity Commissioner’s Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) arrangements as detailed the attached proposed constitution. This is to be presented to Council in April 2014. The development will continue to be under the guidance of the CRC. DE reviewed the progress to date, thanking particular Committee members, William Watson, David Anderton, John Higgs and Richard Fries. The reasons for moving away from the previous approach of converting the ECF itself into a charity and establishing a new company for non-charitable purposes was to ensure that ECF funds could still be used to fund professional players and to retain flexibility in accepting commercial and media sponsorship. PE stated that he was persuaded by NS’s strong opposition to the previous approach, AP’s recommendation for simplicity and DE’s observation that the new approach did not preclude further evolution at a later date. The Board discussed two names for the charity, ‘The Chess Trust’ and ‘The English Chess Trust’. The Board preferred the former, as it allows and encourages donations for UK chess. DE and the Finance team were asked to produce a report with options for contributing all or part of Permanent Invested Fund (PIF) to the charity. DE was also asked to consider folding the John Robinson Trust into the charity. The proposed CIO structure followed the Charity Commission’s advice. Twelve trustee posts were considered; five of which would be ex-officio Board members and the rest a combination of the present PIF trustees and the others TBD. PE noted the necessity to discuss funding with the PIF trustees. SH recommended Chris Mattos get involved to apply his specialist tax expertise. DE agreed. AP suggested that the Board authorise the immediate formation and registration of the necessary structures so that everything would be in place for the Council meeting at which they could direct amendments. This would incur little expense, but would ensure that the structures would be functioning for the summer membership drive. The motion to establish the CIO passed unanimously.

15. Budget Planning Guidance. DE outlined the process to proceed with the 2014/15 budget. The need for a strategic plan was reiterated as the basis for directors’ budget submissions. A surplus in the Administration account was noted due to reduction of one staff member; however, the budget savings were to be regarded as temporary (therefore not sustainable) because JP was performing much of the work on a voluntary basis and that the other office staff were stretched. DE committed to sending budget spreadsheets to all Board members soon after JP returned from holiday and the financial planning information were in a good state.

16. Postal Membership Reminders. DT proposed two motions:

o ‘That reminders to renew are posted to those individuals who were members at 31 Aug 2013 who have not yet renewed and who are not contactable by e-mail.’

o ‘That in 2014 and ongoing, reminders to renew are posted to those individuals who were members at 31 Aug and have not renewed by 1 Nov and who are not contactable by email.’

SH suggested DT should not send postal reminders reasoning that if these members are still playing they would have to join anyway, and if they aren't playing there is no point writing to them. AP stated this was an example of an Executive Director not needing to be micromanaged by the Board; and that DT had the confidence of the Board and therefore should use his judgement. No vote was taken. On a related point, AP reported that as he received preliminary proposals from British Chess Magazine (BCM) and CHESS Magazine to be offered to renewing ECF members. Further negotiations would bring their respective proposals to the same terms and determine other parameters, such as pages for ECF news and sponsorship information.

17. Funding the Olympiad 2014. DO proposed three motions:

o ‘That the ECF Board allocate £5500 as set out in the documents agreed by the Board during the budget process for the year 2013/14.’

o ‘That depending on the level of funds available the Board agrees that our top priority is that we should enter teams in both the Opens and Women’s section for the Olympiad. Second priority that we should enter a Women’s team and fully fund the Opens team. Third priority we should enter fully funded teams for both the Opens Section and the Women’s section.’

o ‘That Board Members actively engage in the fund raising through Council Members of £3000 as set out in documents agreed by the Board during the budget process for the year 2013/14.’

DO stated that he was disappointed that more sponsorship money had not been available since AP took office as the ECF president. DO stated that allocating an additional £5500 from the surplus Administrative budget and £3000 from additional donations would certainly fund the second priority above and almost certainly fund the third. He highlighted the need to decide as soon as possible so that players could start training with confidence that sufficient funds would be available. DO reviewed his activity with recurring donors and his intention to raise additional funds through a ‘100 Club’ where members would each donate £100. A discussion of other spending priorities were identified, principally guidance from Council to replenish the reserves and the donations-and-spending balance for the Open and Women’s teams. DE noted that the Administrative budget could bear the cost of two teams, but that Council had not authorised spending the additional £5500 requested. The Board set aside the motion to allocate and additional £5500 referring to Council for a decision. The Board accepted the motion stating priorities. The Board did not approve the third motion; however, DO was satisfied as AP committed to personally contribute £3000 by sponsorship or donations.

18. Tendering for ECF Titles and Tournaments. PE withdrew the following motions from the agenda due to time constraints:

o ‘When awarding organisations the right to run ECF tournaments or tournaments where ECF titles are awarded, Directors shall follow Bids Regulations, regardless of how many organisers express interest.’

o Specifications for outsourcing ECF tournaments or tournaments where ECF titles are awarded shall include use of the ECF logo displayed on a manner satisfactory to the responsible Director. The responsible Director will formally report to the Board at its meeting immediately after such tournament regarding the Director’s satisfaction with aspects of the tournament including registration fees, playing conditions, prizes, publicity and any other notable aspects.’

19. UKSCC/UKCA Proposal. Citing time constraints, PE withdrew a motion that ‘The Board offer the Terms of Reference, as may be further amended at this meeting. The Board will sell the Terms to UKSCC and UKCA, and use it as a template to bring other national junior organisations into closer association with the ECF.’ LC asked if there was any further update. AP answered, ‘Not yet.’

20. Safeguarding Policy. Citing time constraints, JC agreed to withdraw the following motions:

o ‘The Board approves the papers titled, ‘Child Safeguarding’ and ‘Every Child Matters’, and directs the Company Secretary, in coordination with the Governance Committee, to prepare changes to Bye Laws and Regulations for approval, as appropriate.’

o ‘Establish the post of Child Protection Officer reporting to the Director of Junior Chess and Education. Direct the Junior Director to nominate a Child Protection Officer at the next meeting.’

21. Chess in Schools. Citing time constraints, JC agreed to withdraw a motion to ‘approve the ‘Chess in Schools’ paper and directs the principles to be reflected in the ECF Strategy and the Junior Directorate’s philosophy.’

22. FIDE Commissions. Two opposing motions were presented.

o DO moved ‘That the Board agrees that no appointment relating to FIDE commissions be made until at least August 2014.’

o AP moved to ‘Establish the post Manager of the Anglophone Chess Community reporting the International Director and appoint Rupert Jones’ (RJ).

DO stated that his motion was intended to keep the Board’s focus on English chess; that initiatives for an Anglophone Community ignored existing cooperation with the Group of 15 and others in which NS was engaged; and that NS had defeated RJ in the ECF’s 2012 election. AP referred to his paper on the topic and countered that as part of the ECF’s move to have a stronger influence on FIDE policy without getting involved in FIDE Presidential politics, he proposed cultivating candidates for FIDE Commissions from England and Anglophone countries. In the future the Commonwealth Chess Association may be able to handle this, but for the moment this initiative requires ECF leadership. AP noted that, as a beginning, MP has indicated an interest in participating on the Chess in Schools Commission; SH has indicated an interest in participating on the Arbiters Commission; AH has indicated an interest in participating on the Organisers’ commission; and AP has indicated an interest in participating on the World Championship Commission. DO noted that this might offend NS. DO stated that he was unhappy with the External Manager appointment but agreed with AP to speak with RJ. JC suggested that this was the appropriate domain of the President and that AP should pursue this activity himself. Neither motion was voted; instead, AP asked and received the Board’s approval to travel to Lausanne (24-27 January) to meet with the there-assembled chairmen of all of the FIDE commissions to discuss their substantive issues and priorities for the coming year and openings that would appear on their committees at the General Assembly in August 2014; and meet with the FIDE Executive Director to discuss these opportunities and procedures for achieving these goals. AP agreed to report on these discussions at the next Board Meeting. The ECF would bear no cost for this trip.

23. ECU Presidential Election. DO proposed two motions; AP proposed one:

o DO moved ‘That any Board member of the ECF should obtain the agreement of the Board if he wishes to support the ticket of a presidential candidate in the ECU election and/or stand in the election himself. Furthermore, any Board member should refrain from such support and/or from standing himself unless the Board of the ECF is prepared to officially nominate him for a post.’

o DO moved ‘That the ECF Board postpones any decision on whether to nominate Andrew Paulson to run on the ECU ticket of Mr. Zurab Azmaiparashvili until such time as the ECF President provides a satisfactory explanation, in writing, as to why he should wish to serve on such a ticket given the personal background of Mr. Azmaiparashvili and why this would not be damaging to the ECF.’

o AP moved ‘Based on the attached report, Andrew Paulson’s stated desire to support civil and ethical behaviour in chess, the Board endorses his ticket to lead the European Chess Union in its 2014 elections and instructs the FIDE Delegate to thus cast his vote.’

DO referred the 22 November meeting in which AP said he would consult and seek the Board’s permission before accepting a nomination to stand in the ECU election. AP confirmed that he had been invited to participate in the ECU elections on a ticket as Deputy President with Zurab Azmaiparashvili as President and three others (General Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President) yet to be named. (The ultimate ECU Board will include approximately three other members elected by the General Assembly.) DO noted that he is unsure for what the ticket stands. AP assured the Board that he would soon circulate the platform of the ticket and invite the Board to a meeting on February 8th with Mr. Azmaiparashvili. JC stated that AP does not formally need the Board’s support, but the President should respect the Board by engaging with it in his decision. SH agreed and stated that the Board should have a chance to meet the other candidates for both the ECU and FIDE elections. SH reflected the consensus that AP should invite all the ECU and FIDE candidates to meet with the Board, including Garry Kasparov (again). Further, to show ECF leadership among neighbouring Federations, AP proposed that he invite the presidents, FIDE delegates and interested board members of the other federations of the zone (England, Scotland, Wales, Jersey, Guernsey, Ireland) to meet with the candidates, separately from the ECF’s meeting.

None of the three motions above was passed. The Board, however, acknowledged AP’s right to stand for the ECU post if nominated in accordance with ECU regulations, but that the ECF was under no obligation to support his ticket. JC offered the following motion: ‘The Board welcomes the decision of the President to seek a greater role in the European Chess Union. The Board further looks forward to presentation on the issues involved in the ECU election.’ The Board agreed.

JC, DO & DE reflected on the destructive conflict that had emerged between NS and AP. AP offered that the conflict had only to do with issues relating to the FIDE Presidential elections and the ECU ticket. He asserted that NS was acting as Garry Kasparov’s campaign manager in England and agitating against Zurab Azmaiparashvili who was seen as allied with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. AP has declared himself dissatisfied with both FIDE candidates, but has not and will not lobby for his position to the eight other Board members who will be joining in this decision. The Board reached a consensus that AP and NS were both at fault for their dispute and both sides must mend bridges. Recent unfortunate happenings such as The Sunday Times article, damaged the Board and all involved in the promotion of English chess. The Board as asked AP, as the more senior official, to reach out and de-escalate the dispute. DO agreed to assist.

[SH and LC departed the meeting to meet their train.]

24. FIDE Presidential Election. PE moved that ‘The Board thanks FIDE presidential candidate Garry Kasparov for meeting with Board members in December. The Board invites the other candidate of members of his ticket to a similar meeting at their earliest convenience.’ The Board approved nem con.

Matters Arising

25. Per a request from AH, Mark Foster was nominated as an ECF arbiter. DT commented that the seven-day rule should be applied, so the appointment was deferred.

26. Before closing, those remaining expressed their consensus that the meeting was more focused than previous, but more discipline was still required. AP stated that he preferred PE to chair Board meetings going forward.

The meeting drew to a close at 17:30.

P Ehr ........Not Signed..
Date ..........TBD...........

[JustinHorton]

Just some things that puzzled me:

a. Who is Piotr Bogucki?
b. What's the nature of the problem involving a register of interests?
c. The members who are having problems paying - does that mean technical problems, or that they can't find the readies?

[Jonathan Rogers]

According to the above ...

17. Funding the Olympiad 2014. DO proposed three motions:

o ‘That the ECF Board allocate £5500 as set out in the documents agreed by the Board during the budget process for the year 2013/14.’

o ‘That depending on the level of funds available the Board agrees that our top priority is that we should enter teams in both the Opens and Women’s section for the Olympiad. Second priority that we should enter a Women’s team and fully fund the Opens team. Third priority we should enter fully funded teams for both the Opens Section and the Women’s section.’

.... A discussion of other spending priorities were identified, principally guidance from Council to replenish the reserves and the donations-and-spending balance for the Open and Women’s teams. DE noted that the Administrative budget could bear the cost of two teams, but that Council had not authorised spending the additional £5500 requested. The Board set aside the motion to allocate and additional £5500 referring to Council for a decision. The Board accepted the motion stating priorities.

This is disappointing for the reasons set out previously, and at length - at least, if the second priority, as highlighted above, involves spending everything on the open team and effectively nothing on the womens' team, if nothing is left over. As always no reasons are given and presumably there is still the unarticulated assumption, contrary to every international experience to date, that a fully supported Open team might actually do very well (in fact every international event this century, except Dresden 2008, has been a mild disappointment - or worse. I include Turin 2006 where we fnished roughly around our seeding position but did not play any team which finished in the top 20. Seriously!). Council really ought to have a go at this priority, in my view.