Independent Commission

[Carl Hibbard]

From the SCCU here at:

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/sccu.htm

Go on then give me a clue?????

0) ECF CEO
The CEO, Phil Ehr, had asked to address the Executive "to assist SCCU preparation for the ECF Finance Council. I would particularly like to highlight the Independent Constitutional and Governance Review Commission."
For amnesiacs among our readership, the raison d'être for constitutional review was the introduction of the Membership Scheme. The current voting and governance structure was designed for Game Fee and might no longer be appropriate. The Commissioner, if that's the word, is Gareth Pearce who is a man of some importance in financial circles. This is the first stirring of action. An oral report from the Commission is on the agenda of the April Council meeting, but no advance details have been given and the meeting will take no decisions. The SCCU, hopeful perhaps of a sneak preview, asked the CEO to put something in writing before our meeting. He wrote:
"Gareth Pearce will speak to the Finance Council about the Independent Commission's intention. Gareth and I are in close contact, but he is entirely independent. He and his working group are calling their own shots. Here's what I can say:
"Commission members have interviewed a handful of people, mainly current and past ECF directors, with open-ended questions just to get their bearings for the main consultative effort. They intend:
• structured interviews with a wider group to include constituent unit presidents
• a survey sent to all Members who have email addresses on file with the ECF office
• to invite additional input from anyone by email
I am in the process of helping to arrange assistance from a law firm specialising in governance for other national governing bodies in the sport and recreation sector. That assistance will be free of charge to the ECF and complement David Anderton's normal pro bono assistance.
"The Independent Commission hopes to wrap up its work by end of July. Organisations, Council delegates and the membership should have plenty of time to consider their recommendations for potential action at the AGM."
Our meeting began. It emerged that Phil had already addressed the WECU on the subject for two whole hours (far too long, as he said himself). Some were unsure where he fitted into the consultation process in the first place, given his description of it above. Someone actually asked, "Does Gareth Pearce know you're talking to us?", and he wasn't sure.
Not much was said in the way of specifics. The balance between Board and Council (but not, we think, the continued existence of either) was mentioned but hardly discussed. Votes did not always follow cash flow. Someone suggested that congresses should lose their votes in Council, and the CEO rightly had no opinion. But he said the current setup had led to "some dysfunction" on the Board, and thought some executive Directors were too inclined to act independently when they should be consulting. He also felt that the position of Chief Executive should carry more weight.
"Does the time scale really permit decisions at the 2015 AGM?" Probably not, if they're final.

[Roger de Coverly]

Go on then give me a clue?????

One member One Vote, or at least potential reform of the voting structure is what's behind it. Rightly or wrongly, the ECF Board decided to hire a dog to bark on its behalf, rather than develop their own proposals.

The head of the review, Gareth Pearce, was present at the recent Council meeting. None of the reports have yet mentioned whether he was given time to say anything.

[Carl Hibbard]

So was it mentioned at the meeting?

[Michael Flatt]

Gareth Pearce did give a verbal report to the Finance Committee as indicated on the Agenda and I thought that he expressed himself rather well.

"Independant Commission" might be too grand a title for what I gather is essentially is a consultation exercise. If I recall correctly, the Terms of Reference were set two years ago and it is only recently that a panel of 4 has been assembled and to date have met twice.

I understand that a number of former Directors and Officers have already been interviewed and there are plans to generate and circulate a questionaire to individual members.

It is intended that the the Commission will report at the AGM. It does seem to be rather a lot of work to fit into the limited time available.

[Angus French]

Like Michael, I thought Gareth Pearce spoke well and fluently. I liked that he wanted to refer to the “Independent Constitutional and Governance Review Commission” as a “Working Party” which he said was less pompous (or words to that effect).

Members of the WP are Lara Barnes (well-known Arbiter and previously Manager of the British Championships), Roger Emerson (of Guildford CC and previously very senior at Glaxo Smithkline) and Suzanne Wood (a former chess player who is now a senior consultant in executive recruitment). Gareth Pearce was chairman and CEO of Smith and Williamson which used to sponsor the British Championships. He's conducted other governance reviews including, I think he said, a recent one for the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

My notes say the WP is intending to conduct a dozen or so interviews in the next two or three months. They will also be contacting direct members so everyone will have a chance to have their say.

Stewart Reuben asked if a member of the WP would be attending the British Championships. It's possible Roger Emerson will.

I believe the terms of reference were actually set at the ECF Board meeting on 9 September 2014.

[Roger de Coverly]

They will also be contacting direct members so everyone will have a chance to have their say.

The potentially serious problem is that Counties, Leagues and Congresses aren't specifically consulted. They are the ones who have the current voting power to accept or reject whatever is proposed.

Is there not some other committee or working party looking at governance in a more general manner? The CCPR has rebranded itself as the Sport and Recreation Alliance, was there not a more general ECF committee or working party seeking assistance from the renamed organisation?

[LawrenceCooper]

But he said the current setup had led to "some dysfunction" on the Board, and thought some executive Directors were too inclined to act independently when they should be consulting. He also felt that the position of Chief Executive should carry more weight.

I think this is a key point. During my time as Junior Director I wanted the freedom to run my directorship on a daily basis (as I had under Andrew Farthing as International Director), updating the board when appropriate. The Chief Executive (a former JD) saw himself and Andrew Paulson as the big bosses that would take the lead in all major issues eg negotiating with UKCC, starting up a FIDE academy and setting my budget. He also believed he had the right to veto candidates standing for election. In one phone call from our former president I was told that I was fine working in the background but shouldn't be involved in negotiations with important clients and to stay out of them. This was despite the board endorsing me as the appropriate board member to perform these tasks.

[Alex McFarlane]

Hi Loz,

I can understand your frustration but finance is one area which I think has to be done collectively. (The other is strategy.) You should certainly have been involved but each Director trying to find their own funding is a recipe for disaster. Potential sponsors do not react favourably to multiple approaches from the same organisation. Also consider the following hypothetical situation. A sponsor is willing to put a significant amount into chess. They have the choice of putting £10000 towards the British Championships or £1000 to wards a junior event. In terms of the publicity generated there will not be a huge difference. The sponsor will go for the cheaper event. However if they had been sold only on the British £1500 of their money could be used for admin (companies expect that sort of figure) and as there is volunteers at the British the money otherwise saved for admin can be used for the junior event.

I appreciate the reality is rarely that simple but sponsorship and general finance must go hand in hand across all Directorships.

Finding sponsorship does require either a great deal of luck or a very good Marketing Director. It is extremely disappointing that the recently approved budget has a reduced amount from sponsorship/donations for the International budget.

[LawrenceCooper]

Hi Loz,

I can understand your frustration but finance is one area which I think has to be done collectively. (The other is strategy.) You should certainly have been involved but each Director trying to find their own funding is a recipe for disaster. Potential sponsors do not react favourably to multiple approaches from the same organisation. Also consider the following hypothetical situation. A sponsor is willing to put a significant amount into chess. They have the choice of putting £10000 towards the British Championships or £1000 to wards a junior event. In terms of the publicity generated there will not be a huge difference. The sponsor will go for the cheaper event. However if they had been sold only on the British £1500 of their money could be used for admin (companies expect that sort of figure) and as there is volunteers at the British the money otherwise saved for admin can be used for the junior event.

I appreciate the reality is rarely that simple but sponsorship and general finance must go hand in hand across all Directorships.

Finding sponsorship does require either a great deal of luck or a very good Marketing Director. It is extremely disappointing that the recently approved budget has a reduced amount from sponsorship/donations for the International budget.

I agree with your comments on finance and strategy and in fact the scenario you mention frequently occurred when the director didn't know what the President and Chief Executive were up to

[Alex McFarlane]

The appropriate Director should be kept in the loop. The direct involvement of the Director could depend on the situation.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I agree with your comments on finance and strategy and in fact the scenario you mention frequently occurred when the director didn't know what the President and Chief Executive were up to

This is a risk of the current ECF board election system, where Director posts are voted individually. Other organizations elect their administrators as a pool, for example FIDE or the British Government; this might have other drawbacks but ensures people appointed should work well together or at least agree roles/plans beforehand. Your example makes me think of what would happen if Parliament elected Milliband as prime minister and Osborne as chancellor.

[Paul Buswell]

Members of the WP are..... Suzanne Wood (a former chess player who is now a senior consultant in executive recruitment).

Pedant's corner: she spells her forename irregularly: Suzzane, not Suzanne. (I was her team captain occasionally at uni' back in the early 70s)

PB

[Angus French]

Members of the WP are..... Suzanne Wood (a former chess player who is now a senior consultant in executive recruitment).

Pedant's corner: she spells her forename irregularly: Suzzane, not Suzanne. (I was her team captain occasionally at uni' back in the early 70s)

PB

Happy to be corrected.

A notice announcing the Commission can be found here. Its Terms of Reference are available here.

[Michael Flatt]

Angus,

Thanks for providing the relevant Links and also your earlier notes on this topic from the Finance meeting. It certaintly aids any discussion by being able to view the Terms of Reference.

I don't recall the announcement on the ECF website. It would have been helpful for it to have been available on a news archive listed chronologically. Unfortunately the website doesn't appear to include such a facility.

Too many important item of news get lost and forgotten when replaced by other posts.