The CEO Report for the AGM 2015

[John McKenna]

I would just say to John McKenna that, yes, my earlier post was a criticism of the chief executive's management style but it was also a criticism of his overly personal attacks on colleagues and - and this is my personal experience - on a consistent pattern of obfuscation and misleading responses when faced with disagreeable facts.

And of whose making are those "disagreeble facts" primarily? The CEO did not engineer them all and he certainly is not alone in being responsible for them.

Take the simple one mentioned by Roger Lancaster -

"First, as a cursory check would have shown, the “Hertfordshire County Court” does not exist. A small detail, perhaps, but one that suggests that Phil Ehr is not assiduous over checking facts."

The Hertford County Court certainly exists so the CEO's sin was the addition of the redundant suffix '-shire'. Hardly a fact worthy of 'assiduous' checking by a CEO. Did it merit even a 'cursory check'?

To me that first point of Roger L's is a false start on a trail of tears that lead from what should have been a minor incident in a minors British Championship event all the way to the Olympian heights of FIDE!

This affair smacks of a lack of proportion on someone's part and I don't believe it is the CEO's.

As for Roger L's 2nd & 3rd points above - I do not believe all of the pertinent facts regarding them have been made available on this forum so full and proper conclusions cannot be drawn here. (Perhaps Roger L could add some facts by clearly relating exactly how and when Watford CC became involved?)

As for his 'final' 4th point and "collective feature" conclusions - they relate his impressions, opinions and beliefs about the words and deeds of the CEO (that are in the public domain) based on his own indirect knowledge of a limited number of facts and a fair bit of grumbling from those unhappy with the CEO's man-management style.

Of course, that means he is not alone in that regard, quite a few of Roger L's acquaintance, and not, tend to agree with him, it seems.

About that I'd just say this - if this situation involved paid positions in a non-voluntary organisation the grumbling would be confined to whispers in the washroom or pratling down the pub. All for fear of losing lucrative posts. If anyone really doesn't want to be in this bake-off they can do the right thing and follow Lawrence Cooper's excellent example of how to gracefully withdraw.

But, trying to make Aberystwyth the crux, rather than one small nail, in a character assasination is out of all proportion in the grand scheme of ECF things.

We'll see the verdict of the remaining (hopefully) silent majority of voters at AGM on Sat.

[John McKenna]

I'd like to echo what follows -

Roger

One could easily read your comments and see them as a towering structure of supposition and innuendo which actually has no solid foundations - but that would be to derail the thread.

Instead I shall address the consensus that seems to be emerging across social media that the CEO's report was a "rant" showing both poor judgement and bad management.

Whilst I agree that it was 23 pages too long and contained a little too many US-style blue-sky phrases, I think the overall thrust was admirably direct and to the point. The CEO says the board is not working as well as it ought, and that is to the determent of English Chess. No one would disagree.
He explains his view as to why the board is not working as well as it ought and invites the voters to remedy this. Council has the choice to support this view or not. However, the suggestion that it is not a wholly coherent view, given the circumstances we are aware of, is unfair.

[Roger Lancaster]

John, first point, if you are convinced there was a case brought at the Hertford (as opposed to Hertfordshire) County Court then perhaps you would like to add a little more background - who brought the case and, crucially, when - to disprove my strong contention that no Aberystwyth-related case was ever brought.

Second point, I've already made clear I'm expressing my own opinion and not that of Watford Chess Club or anyone else. But Watford made its involvement perfectly clear months ago and, if John had taken the trouble to refer to the club's website at http://watfordchessclub.org/index.php/c ... cle?id=118, he could have read the history for himself.

Third point, John considers the original Aberystwyth incident unimportant. Fair enough but some take the view that injustice, even a small injustice, is wrong and should be remedied. Further, exception has been taken not simply to the original incident but to the subsequent cover-up.

[Roger Lancaster]

Martin, I agree with you up to a point. It’s clear from Phil Ehr’s report, overlong though it is, that he has a vision for English chess which he expressed clearly in that report. After reading it, I found there was “a good deal with which I agreed”, a point I readily acknowledged earlier.

The first difficulty I have with Phil Ehr has little to do with his management style and more to do with his integrity. Based on one well-advertised incident with which I and others have had protracted dealings with Phil Ehr, I have little faith in anything he says.

I hinted at the second difficulty when I referred to people “… with good intentions who tackled the wrong problems in the wrong way …”. Phil Ehr seems to have decided that his main problems are certain of his boardroom colleagues and the solution is to trash reputations (and, naturally, I have doubts about the accuracy of some of his allegations) with a view to replacing those colleagues with others more amenable to his ideas.

If I thought those colleagues were thoroughly unreasonable people then I should probably have some sympathy for Phil Ehr. The problem is, I don’t believe them wholly unreasonable and so cannot agree with Phil Ehr’s modus operandi for resolving the difficulty.

[John McKenna]

Roger, thanks for your prompt reply.

(I note that you have also replied to Martin, above)

First, in reply to your most recent first point, which was actually your original second point (see how easy it is to start to loose the thread). I never said I was convinced that there was a case. I simply answered your point about the actual existence of said court.

So, I am sorry but you'll have to let me off that one. You maintain there was no case I cannot agree or disagree without knowing the facts.

Second, of course I did consider checking the Watford CC site prior to my posts but did not get round to it. Now you have supplied a direct link in this thread I will endeavour to ascertain the facts presented there and let you know what I think, in due course.

Third, a small personal injustice may well have been done to one, or even both, of the young players involved - the mental equivalent of a couple of pushes and/or trips in the playground. The trouble is that these days adults get involved and it becomes a dispute with the relevant authorities leading to procedures of various kinds with at least the prospect of litigation.

Do you think this incident has the makings of a modern variation of The Winslow Boy scenario?

[Roger Lancaster]

John, I'll look out for any further comments once you have read the background. Meantime I'm happy to let you off the first (or possibly, as you say, the second) point although you might care to reflect that - if legal action had been initiated or even threatened over Aberystwyth - there is no mention in the Watford background. Also, if any such legal action had occurred then surely John Philpott as ECF Company Secretary (and I apologise to John for dragging his name into this) would be aware of it and could flatly contradict me by producing the evidence. It won't happen.

Although a small injustice, I'd suggest it's not quite the equivalent of a couple of trips in the playground. The decision could easily have had, and almost did have, a decisive effect on the outcome of the relevant bit of the English Youth Grand Prix. The EYGP winner (or his/her parent) gets £100 cash upfront plus, as I understand it, £700-800 off the cost involved in representing England - so that small injustice could have amounted to almost £1,000.

[Michael Farthing]

Hmmm. It's conceivably possible that this £1000 (or so) would be money well-spent forwarding the future of English chess. Conceivably, but unlikely.
Is it well-spent furthering the rounded development of an 8 year old? Very Doubtful.
Will it further the rounded development of his parents? Absolutely not.
My personal view is that its child abuse: not as bad as child abuse can be - not by a very long stretch - but still child abuse.

[Roger Lancaster]

Michael, with due respect, that's off topic. However, if you're convinced it's child abuse, you'll just have to follow safeguarding procedures!

[Michael Farthing]

I take your admonition on the chin, Roger - but oh if you yourself ever dare go off-topic, beware! . As for the safeguarding procedures they clearly need review!

[Roger Lancaster]

But, Michael, I was about to answer John's question about "the makings of a modern variation of The Winslow Boy scenario" (and answer no, definitely not, because if I recall correctly that hinged around a young man's innocence or otherwise which is not the case here) but now I suppose I'd risk going off-topic with draconian consequences!

[Michael Farthing]

I'm temporarily not listening to this topic..

[John McKenna]

I hope to reply to Roger Lancaster by PM about this "in due course" to try to mend some fences. All I want to say here is that I met and spoke at some length with Phil Ehr (in a semi-formal setting) only once and found it a valuable and very pleasant experience. FWIW.