A letter to Governance

[Roger de Coverly]

The "official" forum now has a response.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... =461#p3520

[Martin Regan]

MF:

Case proven. And I still don't understand why this non-chess player has an interest

You are a bar room bore.

[Martin Regan]

From the other place. One of our most independent voices.

You rose to your prompt with the most disgusting, unprincipled, and thoroughly dishonourable attack on a fellow volunteer that I have ever heard. You compounded it with mendacity. You abused your position of trust. You betrayed your fellow committee members with a display of egotistic self-regard that violated every principle of decency and common purpose. You violated every principle of Good Governance. You are in every inch a thorough-going disgrace. You are forever and henceforth stained, contaminated and condemned.

I agree with every word.

[Mike Truran]

Unwillingness to listen? The man had passed on the biggest review of the ECF in a generation to an independent group.

Well, I guess I don't know how this listening thing is supposed to work. I have spent several hours in face to face meetings with the liberal/progressive nexus (if I may call them that) over the last year or so and, looking back, I can honestly say that I can't recall a single instance of when any suggestion I had to make was met with anything other than (at best) a polite push-back to the effect that that my suggestions would be considered ( ) or (at worst) blank incomprehension that I could hold such views.

I may be an unreconstructed Luddite in the eyes of the liberal/progressive nexus, but I would humbly suggest that not everything I have to say is worthy of such treatment. At one stage I thought they were genuinely interested in my views. Now I realise it was just electioneering.

PS Looks like the Governance Committee has a fun year ahead of it.

[Roger de Coverly]

PS Looks like the Governance Committee has a fun year ahead of it.

Better really that the vicious cat fights take place in the mostly irrelevant domain of the Governance Committee than amongst the main Board. Perhaps despite not playing a single game for six years, Martin Regan should be invited back for added nastiness.

[Martin Regan]

Perhaps despite not playing a single game for six years, Martin Regan should be invited back for added nastiness.

The difference between us Roger is that in my time (whilst running businesses) I have organised congresses, played lots chess and tried to help the federation at county and national level. You - powered by Google - have posted on forums. You are not serious. No one regards you as serious. Desist.

[Roger de Coverly]

played lots chess

How many serious games have you played in the last twenty five, twenty, fifteen or ten years?

We know the count is zero for the last five.

[Martin Regan]

How many serious games have you played in the last twenty five, twenty, fifteen or ten years?

What do you mean by serious? Two old gents playing in a pub regard the game as serious.

How many congresses have you organised Roger? As I say, you are just not serious. A keyboard warrior, powerless without Google.

[Mike Truran]

From an esteemed friend and colleague who would prefer to remain anonymous:

In amidst all this guff about traditionalists vs. progressives and the arbiter nexus, it strikes me that Council did something rather simple. They were prepared to forgive occasional bad behaviour and incompetence, but gave short shrift to premeditated harassment and bullying either by individuals or their associates. If that is the case, Council has gone up in my estimation.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

From the other place. One of our most independent voices.

You rose to your prompt with the most disgusting, unprincipled, and thoroughly dishonourable attack on a fellow volunteer that I have ever heard. You compounded it with mendacity. You abused your position of trust. You betrayed your fellow committee members with a display of egotistic self-regard that violated every principle of decency and common purpose. You violated every principle of Good Governance. You are in every inch a thorough-going disgrace. You are forever and henceforth stained, contaminated and condemned.

I agree with every word.

Hang on a minute. The quote is from here:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... =461#p3526

David Robertson (if I may name him as the person you are quoting - not sure why the name is being omitted?) said that Chris Majer rose to his prompt. The preceding sentence (which you didn't quote) makes clear that David thinks this was a prompt from Stewart Reuben ("when helped along by Stewart Reuben"). I was sitting in front of Stewart and not far away from David.

My recollection is that Stewart proposed to the Chair (Julian Clissold) that before the series of election addresses, the meeting should discuss the board as a whole to try and address the matter of board dysfunction. The Chair asked Council for a show of hands as to whether this would be an appropriate way to proceed. Council assented by a show of hands. There was a brief discussion which was guillotined (cut short by the Chair) as it was focusing too much on Phil Ehr's conduct/performance and not the rest of the board (I may not have this bit precisely correct). This was followed by the election addresses (which were done as a whole before voting took place). Chris Majer's interjection (calling for the CEO not to be re-elected and that he would resign if Phil Ehr were re-elected) came at the point in the proceedings where he was giving his election address, IIRC. Do I have that right?

The Chair did call on the other members of the Governance Committee to say whether they agreed with their chair and/or if they would also resign or not if that eventuality came to pass (Andrew Leadbetter, Mike Gunn, David Robertson, and Richard Haddrell). I hope those responses were recorded in the minutes (I don't recall precisely what each member said).

[Martin Regan]

Christopher.

You do not think that this was all planned and discussed beforehand?

[Roger de Coverly]

What do you mean by serious? .

Games included in either or both of the English and International rating systems.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

You do not think that this was all planned and discussed beforehand?

I am not so naive as to think that these things are not discussed beforehand. But if it was planned and discussed beforehand to the extent you seem to be implying, the result would be obvious without the need for theatrics on the day.

I only had one vote. Normally that would count for very little, but the result of the vote between Malcolm Pein and David Openshaw showed that in fact sometimes it can be that close. What I did do was observe during the meeting (sometimes you do have to actually be there to judge things like that) and make my judgement based on that (I had been given latitude to make my own judgement if there were unexpected developments). There were a number of things that occurred during the meeting that could have changed my vote. What Chris Majer said was one of them, but there were other moments as well. I felt sorry for those who held numerous proxy votes from different organisations and had to decide what to do with their votes in light of the developments at the meeting. Ben Edgell spoke up and said as much.

[Nick Grey]

Chris I will like to see postings, & talk to those that were there than those not. Views over the year ought to have gone into all the individual reports. But then again ECF airing this is public means that Government or Sporting Organisations & Legal are not going to take us seriously.

As for the minutes they will come after they count the dead & bayonet the wounded.
Some go on & bayonet the wounded years later.

Personally I'd rather Governance/Finance Committee gave us our invoices as associations & leagues particularly last years non-members, then we can ask those members why. It is a bit late but is not making it easy for volunteers. Not blaming anyone but they are late.

[David Robertson]

Do I have that right?

You have the next bit wrong.

The Chair did call on the other members of the Governance Committee to say whether they agreed with their chair and/or if they would also resign or not if that eventuality came to pass (Andrew Leadbetter, Mike Gunn, David Robertson, and Richard Haddrell). I hope those responses were recorded in the minutes (I don't recall precisely what each member said).

The question whether other members of the GC would follow the Chair in resigning came, not from the chair of the meeting, but from John Reyes (I believe). The chair of the meeting invited a response, not least because I was urgently seeking to give one. I'll be honest: I was in some shock at the turn of events. And I said so: "alarmed and disappointed"..."new information (threat to resign) not previously shared with GC"..."I'd supported re-election of PE but not resignation of CM"....moreover "the GC chair's report was not the Committee's report; it was the chair's alone"..."had it been the Committee's, I reasonably believed it would have been more restrained". I ended there, still in shock. Andrew Martin whispered: "you didn't see that coming?" "No", I replied, "why, did you?" Andrew just laughed: "God, no, of course not". None did - except those that knew. Of other members of the GC, I don't recall any comments. But, by then, I wasn't listening. I'd lost the will to live.