Should Andrew Paulson resign as ECF President?

[Martin Crichton]

Should Andrew Paulson resign as ECF President?

yes (you feel strongly enough or on balance that he should resign)

no (you feel strongly enough or on balance that he should not resign)

abstain

[Charlie Storey]

No.

Get behind your man and support him for his term as president.

Chess players are too good at finding faults in others rather than dealing with their own failings.

The ECF needs a little bit of support and trying to bring down its president is not very productive for Chess.

That's my humble opinion

My Personal website www.CharlieChess.com if you would like more of my insight in to Chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF needs a little bit of support and trying to bring down its president is not very productive for Chess.

The problem is that the President trying to bring down the ECF's Delegate to FIDE and five of the Directors isn't productive either.

[Angus French]

The problem is that the President trying to bring down the ECF's Delegate to FIDE and five of the Directors isn't productive either.

It's not the case that the Delegate to FIDE and five Directors have tried to bring down the President?

[John McKenna]

Angus, maybe it's all down to a big difference in approaches to and from management.
Under the laid-back leadership of a Farthing/Edwards Friendly Society people are given their heads.
Under a Regan/Paulson Commercial Company those people cannot adjust to that new and unfamiliar regime so heads are lost.
To me it is a great shame that a personality conflict (Paulson-Short) and a clash of management cultures (Paulson v. a majority of the board) have - somewhat inevitably - become conflated in an orgy of head-hunting.
Keeping one's head - like Mr. Cool, Phil Ehr - while all around are losing theirs is by no means easy.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's not the case that the Delegate to FIDE and five Directors have tried to bring down the President?

It's plain enough that the relationship between the President and the Delegate to FIDE has completely broken down and arguably one or both have to go. The Board have been unable to resolve this amongst themselves so it goes to the ECF Voting membership for resolution. The five Directors thought it had to be the President and are now threatened with replacement by the President's nominees.

The constitutional question remains though. An EGM has power to dismiss directors. Does it also have the power to elect or appoint replacements?

[PeterFarr]

It's not the case that the Delegate to FIDE and five Directors have tried to bring down the President?

It's plain enough that the relationship between the President and the Delegate to FIDE has completely broken down and arguably one or both have to go. The Board have been unable to resolve this amongst themselves so it goes to the ECF Voting membership for resolution. The five Directors thought it had to be the President and are now threatened with replacement by the President's nominees.

The constitutional question remains though. An EGM has power to dismiss directors. Does it also have the power to elect or appoint replacements?

Though as John McKenna just pointed out, there is a separate issue from the NS/AP one, in that at least 3 of the 5 directors focused on concerns more related to their own relationship with AP; specifically, AP appearing to ignore them / override their authority over their directorates.

I find it hard to believe that 5 credible possible replacements will emerge to support a 'counter-coup'.

[Angus French]

... at least 3 of the 5 directors focused on concerns more related to their own relationship with AP; specifically, AP appearing to ignore them / override their authority over their directorates.

Indeed they did. How were they able to do that when the discussion item on the agenda, which they themselves had agreed to or helped set, was worded:
"A discussion about the issues raised in the recent print and web articles, various claims involving the recent activities of Andrew Paulson and Nigel Short concerning the imminent ECU and FIDE elections, and various threats to refer ECF members to the FIDE Ethics Committee."?

[Roger de Coverly]

How were they able to do that

If I understood the meeting structure as disclosed by the draft Minutes, each of the Directors was invited in turn to state whether they had confidence in AP (and NS). You may recall that the Director of Membership didn't have any direct complaints, other than that the Board as a whole had become dysfunctional. The Minutes also indicate that by the time they had taken each statement, the more general discussion had to be curtailed.

[Angus French]

My point is that the agenda wasn't adhered to and the people who did most not to adhere were among those who called the meeting and set the agenda.

[Roger de Coverly]

My point is that the agenda wasn't adhered to and the people who did most not to adhere were among those who called the meeting and set the agenda.

The formalised meeting structure was proposed by the chair and agreed by the participants. Has the original agenda been published anywhere?

PE noted that the agenda contained three items: a rather broad discussion point followed by two votes. PE announced that the structure of the meeting should be: opening statements from each Director with AP speaking last, discussion if time permitted and finally the votes. The Board agreed

.

[Angus French]

The agenda for the Emergency Board Meeting of 8 February is twice stated in the appendices of the draft minutes:

Therefore, this letter is to request that you convene an urgent, additional Board meeting at 6.00pm on Saturday 8th February 2014 at The Exmouth Arms, 1 Starcross St, London NW1 2HR to deal solely with the following:
1. A discussion about the issues raised in the recent print and web articles, various claims involving the recent activities of Andrew Paulson and Nigel Short concerning the imminent ECU and FIDE elections, and various threats to refer ECF members to the FIDE Ethics Committee.
2. Motion: A vote of confidence in Andrew Paulson as President of the English Chess Federation
3. Motion: A vote of confidence in Nigel Short as the FIDE Delegate of the English Chess Federation

[Sean Hewitt]

My point is that the agenda wasn't adhered to and the people who did most not to adhere were among those who called the meeting and set the agenda.

Barking up the wrong tree here Angus. Phil Ehr chaired the meeting and at the outset suggested that instead of item 1, each Director articulate their issues / views in turn. The meeting agreed this suggestion (unanimously as I recall; certainly nem com) and thus that is what happened.

[Angus French]

Phil Ehr chaired the meeting and at the outset suggested that instead of item 1, each Director articulate their issues / views in turn. The meeting agreed this suggestion (unanimously as I recall; certainly nem com) and thus that is what happened.

Sean, can you point to where in the draft minutes this is stated? I can't see it. All I can see is:

PE noted that the agenda contained three items: a rather broad discussion point followed by two votes. PE announced that the structure of the meeting should be: opening statements from each Director with AP speaking last, discussion if time permitted and finally the votes. The Board agreed.

and

Each Director was asked to present the charges against AP and NS which were the cause for this meeting to be convened

[Paul McKeown]

ECF Board Meetings will in future have the requirement that all proceedings are captured in real time video and audio, with a minimum requirement of one video feed per board member.