ECF Governance Review?

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Post Reply
ben.graff
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:53 pm

ECF Governance Review?

Post by ben.graff » Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:06 pm

I couldn't help but reflect that the ECF finds itself in a situation that just wouldn't be possible in "normal," Corporate Organisations.

In most Organisations if the Chairman (President) or another senior figure fails a confidence vote, they stand down. (The semantics of exactly what form of vote this was are some-what by the by, given the intent was pretty clear.) Frankly few Presidents would want to go on in such circumstances, albeit in the private sector they do of course get better compensated for stepping aside. I would suggest that the ECF look at the following...

1. The conditions somebody is agreed to have signed up to when they stand for a Board seat. (i.e. the circumstances in which they can be removed and the proper processes for so doing.)

2. What are the roles and responsibilities that go with doing the roles?? (e.g. perhaps we need a more formal whistle blower process and a clearer understanding as to the degree of discretion members have in terms of doing things without full Board approval.) It could be a lot of what's happened is down to these mechanisms not being in place/ not being clear enough. I've noticed the comments in previous threads on the way in which meetings were Chaired etc - fixing stuff like this isn't usually rocket science.

1 and 2 are really about defining the "Contracts" and associated processes that go with these seats more clearly than is the case today.

Governance reviews of course cost money, but it looks like there is something here that needs to be at least reviewed, if not fixed - what do others think? If, however, members think this is all fine, how have we ended up in the current position?

(By the by - Corporate Governance policies should seek to protect whistle-blowers, so personally I see Nigel's position as very different to Andrew's and have a lot more sympathy for him.) That said - this post is really aimed at discussing the Governance issues, rather than the people involved, many of whom I know and have a high regard for.

What do members think?
Ben Graff
Author of 'Checkmate! Great Champions And Epic Matches From A Timeless Game' 'The Greenbecker Gambit' and 'Find Another Place'

Mick Norris
Posts: 10329
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: ECF Governance Review?

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:12 pm

I would say that the ECF has a Governance Committee and any suggestions should be taken up with them:

From the ECF website:
Governance Committee
Chris Majer (Chairman), Mike Gunn, Richard Haddrell, Andrew Leadbetter, David Sedgwick and ex officio, the President
Any postings on here represent my personal views

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: ECF Governance Review?

Post by David Sedgwick » Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:40 pm

As mentioned, I am a member of the Governance Committee, but I'm not posting in that capacity.

If we're talking about sporting bodies, then I feel Ben Graff's suggestion that the current ECF situation couldn't happen in a "normal" organisation is misplaced. Until recently I was also the ECF Representative to the Sport and Recreation Alliance and I attended a number of seminars and workshops on governance issues. One thing I learned from that is that many fellow members have experienced similar problems to those now affecting the ECF. Indeed, participants identified one of the benefits of the seminars as enabling the realisation that they were not alone.

Whatever the outcome of the current ECF situation, it could well prove to be an interesting case study.

ben.graff
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:53 pm

Re: ECF Governance Review?

Post by ben.graff » Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:58 pm

Dave, I did say "corporate," meaning a FTSE or something of that nature. That semantic point aside, I think it's really interesting to hear your experience that other sporting bodies face similar challenges, so I take the substance of your point.
Perhaps this could be another strand to draw on in looking at this issue? (I.e the experiences of other sporting bodies and what the learning is in terms of what resembles " Governance best practice.") Most Organisations looking at an issue like this would probably find some areas for improvement. (Just the way it is when you look at stuff like this.) Suspect ECF would be no exception...
Ben Graff
Author of 'Checkmate! Great Champions And Epic Matches From A Timeless Game' 'The Greenbecker Gambit' and 'Find Another Place'

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: ECF Governance Review?

Post by David Pardoe » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:52 pm

I think you need to take account of a number of factors.
Firstly, we are essentially an amateur body run largely by volunteers.
We are not a corporate body in the regular sense, we are an umbrella body that fronts up for a number of independantly run chess groups. The main role of the ECF should be to focus the national interests and obtain concensus support for matters that are in the national interest, in my view.
The recent post/thread calling for Nigel Short to be ejected from Office is quite ridiculous.
I don't necessarily agree that all Nigel has done or stands for, is `best`, but he stands as a known entity, of long standing, who has served UK chess well, and was elected fairly to serve.
What is also important is that our senior officers and directors concentrate on directing, and not `dictating`.
What is equally important is that directors and senior officers focus on the things that are in the best interests of UK chess, and not the furtherance of there own private interests and agendas. We need a body that at least takes on board the opinion of our Union and County bodies.
And finally, I`d like to see much better communications with the 2nd and 3rd tiers of chess by our senior officers and directors, so that the thrust of UK chess opinions is taken on board, and so that issues that are important to the future of the ECF and British Chess are fully consulted about and carefully analysed and approved, before proceeding.
Thorough and proper consultation and due diligence, backed up by well presented consultation papers should lead us to a more durable approach. This may not be exciting, but should promote inclusivety and hopefully take us along a steady course forward.
Big question is...how to do this effectively, and in a timely manner....with a sense of continuity and balance. Our process needs to be brought into the 21st century, maybe by greater use of web communications, rather than waiting for next years round of AGMs to progress things. Consultations on most matters should be possible on a sufficiently broad front in a matter of weeks on most issues.
Yes, I accept that our top gun professionals would like to see some action as regards creating tournament events that generate good prize funds and rewards for many of our expert master players.
Our PR and promotional act needs to be upped a couple of gears. AP might be able to push this particular button, but needs to go forward on a consensus basis.

CJ unfortunately lost out in a heated clash of personalities, and maybe some ill judged actions, but he must be credited with producing one of the best ever British Championships at Sheffield, two years ago. It was a real cracker....and, of course, the other officials who helped organise and run that event deserve great credit for there efforts..
Maybe the way forward is for AP to be given a chance to address all the concerns raised by other directors, stop running the ECF from the comfort of his own flat, however excellent that might be. Schedule the next meeting on Skype, perhaps, in early/mid March. And lets see if we can make some sensible progress.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Post Reply