ECF AGM aftermath

[Michael Flatt]

It did seem to me rather disrespectful to the chairman and particularly the officers who had take the trouble write reports and deliver them to Council that anyone would vote consistently against them without having identified what particular content was considered unsatisfactory.

Whether it was strictly necessary for Officers reports to be voted upon is questionable but it seems to have become part of the established procedure for the ECF AGM. Perhaps, this is something that could be asked of the governance committee?

Presumably, had a procedural motion been put to the chairman we could have discussed the matter and voted upon it.

I thought Ben Edgell's notes on the meeting to be very comprehensive and useful.

[Carl Hibbard]

A good report so thanks to Ben, be interested to see the SCCU one at some point too.

[Mick Norris]

A good report so thanks to Ben, be interested to see the SCCU one at some point too.

Agreed, as always thanks very much to Ben

[David Pardoe]

Thanks Ben for your very interesting report on the recent ECF AGM meeting...
Some observations...

Firstly, you make a very good contribution to the proceedings... it would be good if the board could find some additional room for `common sense` people such as yourself, AZ, and others, along with the experience that people like Jack Rudd and David Openshaw could bring, perhaps playing a mentoring role to some directors, and helping to ensure good orderly debates.
They might also get involved in helping some other directors with there work loads, which, in many cases seems too burdensome..
Why people don`t contribute (to the ECF, Pearce Report, etc..)....
Some think that no-one is listening, so its a waste of time.. but why have an Ecforum, with large numbers of comments on a whole range of issues, including OMOV, if no-one is going to look at this resource of information..
#Then you have the `ludite nexus` ( a group of self professed `experts` who know it all...??), and who delight in showboating, trying to impress there `mates`, out shouting all opposition, and rubbishing others contributions... is it any wonder that many are discouraged from participating in debates and discussions.... and making a contribution..
Yes, most Members just want to play chess and are not interested in the politics, nor in actively participating in the ECFs operational side... but boy, does this body need a good stream of volunteers to keep the wheels turning..

Directors...the other problem... the huge gulf of experience between various directors is going to inevitably cause issues, tensions, and yes, some bullying will take place...
And the clash between `amateur and professional` means you`re always going to have this culture gap, which is bound to create frictions...and will also lead to a lack of good volunteers coming forward.

Maybe the biggest problem is the junior divide... Without a healthy input of `youth` our sporting bodies are almost doomed.. As a side issue, one does worry slightly about drugs, cheating etc, which has crept into the sporting world... and where `winning at all costs` appears to be the growing norm... along with a rise in gamesmanship, etc..
Those are just some preliminary thoughts...

The Pearce report should be revisited by the Board, and given further consideration..
One of the fundamental flaws in the way the ECF operates is that it never seems to allow adequate time to consider things properly.
How can you reach good, well researched/considered decisions, if you continually rush these key matters and give them insufficient consideration.

As to the Pearce Report itself... one observation is that its consideration of OMOV has been poorly handled, it would appear.
They claim they had very little feedback on this from those favouring such a scheme...?
Did they consider trawling the ECForum (Carls version), to pick up the various discussions on this...?
If they had, they would have found a number of suggested schemes. Yes, there may not have been any definitive agreement on any particular scheme.
That`s not a surprise because no-one so far has collated a summery of these and attempted a Poll on `which ones the membership preferred`, I don`t believe.

The Pearce report could have made some attempt to summarise these, and ask the Membership/Council which they preferred....a vote.!!!
Yes, there will inevitably be many who don`t take part...but that`s not a reason to exclude everyone...
One interim measure that might help, if allowable, would be to allocate, say 10 block votes to each of the Membership group Officers...

It might be, because of the red tape in place, that some schemes could not be attempted, even though they may have attractions.
In those cases, maybe the Pearce Report could look at possible ways that things could be changed, to allow those to be feasible.
After all, if we can`t run ourselves satisfactorily under the current framework, maybe we should look to change that framework..

As to the elections.... I`m a stakeholder in various companies... OMOV is a common practice that works reasonably well, I think...
On the voting forms, one of the things they definately don`t have is `Non of these candidates`..
This is a complete copout, and should be deleted from the system, forthwith...
Bob Kane suffered this, apparently because he clashed with the Home Director.... for Godds sake ECF, get a grip...

People do disagree very strongly in the board rooms of most `normal` companies, on quite major issues.... and quite frequently.

As one company once said, `if you ain`t cheating, you aren`t trying hard enough.. ? This says a lot about the sad, greed driven world we live in, where the banker bonuses rule, and the less privileged can go hang...it would appear...
George Osborne and co ...I`m part hoping those Piers stage a revolt.... That Chinese led Northern Powerhouse looks like another Osborne led, pipe dream...? And Chinese Nuclear Power... at great expense, doesn`t look clever, nor the collapse of our steel industry... Problems in other quarters...

Returning....
If they (the Directors), really don`t like what is going on then,,, step one, ......try to change things by existing rules..
If existing rules are flawed, change them..
If all else fails, and compromises can`t be found, then, by all means, as a last resort resign, or get the issue otherwise resolved, which might include, getting changes in personnel..
Should some Directors be sent on a basic communications skills course...or urged to consider such...maybe.

In Bob Kane`s case, I` d suggest he is asked to consider if he might agree to re-join the board...
As has been said, Bob does appear to have done some very useful work..

Mention was made about the ECF structure, and how it maybe doesn`t work.. I can see a point to this, and many organisations ask these questions from time to time..
In ECFs case, one area where it might struggle is regarding Commercial Director.
The ECF is essentially an amateur (non profit making) body, run mainly by unpaid volunteers, giving of there free time, and in many cases, very generously given.
There is an obvious clash here, ie, why does an amateur body need a commercial function....and are we in danger of trying to mix two quite different cultures....hence creating potential conflicts and clashes.
Yes, they do need a commercial element, because they need funds to do the work they set themselves. And yes, this figure does need to be in a senior post.

Next question....can such a body ever hope to formulate a real meaningful strategy, with long term goals..?
If so, then surely all potential, prospective, and current directors should sign up, and this should surely lead to a significant level of harmony within the board..??
Does the lack of said strategy indicate the conflicts of views that do exist, which makes the production of such a strategy nigh on impossible.?
And, if possible, it is going to be a frequently moving beast, as circumstances change, which might in turn lead to ever continuing board room conflict, and so the dream of harmony is but a mirage.... and they should recognise these realities, and get on with business, and stop the petty bickering..
Using the ECF AGM as a platform to get rid of directors with whom you disagree is really not a sensible way to do business, in my view..

I`d be tempted to suggest that some discussions be held with a similar view regarding Mr Ehr....?
Has he really gone from being a well regarded board member for junior chess, capable of working with other parties, apparently with some success, to being a complete zombie..
Or has he now become a round peg in square hole.....

And that fiasco with Chris Majer.... he took action to try to bring harmony to the board...and immediately causes chaos in the Governance committee... with David `the quitter` Robertson, throwing in the towel. All the fuses had blown, and the `highly regarded` Governance Committee was reduced to a three legged donkey, stumbling along the cliff tops? David, can you make friends with these people... a working Governance Committee is very important...better to fight on the inside track...or at least give it a shot. High principles in our world are very commendable, but lets not pretend we are the Vatican State....

The Pearce report suggesting 3 year directorships is not good... the ECF hardly seems to function from one week to the next, it might appear..
Does the ECF structure work.. or should we restore the BCF and resurrect the Empire (some chance....).

This `crowd` have turned some recent ECF elections into a form of beauty contest, plumping for the one with biggest/most `assets`, and completely overlooking other `suitability criteria`...so the ship inevitably hits the ice burgs from time to time.... ironically, due to various flavours of `unsuitability` emerging.... The CJ culture shock was but one example...
Lets see what news is forthcoming from our new board.....

[Michael Flatt]

Some interesting thoughts from David Pardoe that are worth exploring.

All candidates, unless they are standing for reelection are required to be nominated by members of Council which should be a necessary and sufficient test of their suitability. If the nomination procedure is thought too lax shouldn't it be revised?

If a candidates is willing to stand for a position wouldn't it be better for them to be given a chance of proving themselves rather than suffer the humiliation of losing to the 'none of the above'?

Should a CEO or other Board member overstep their authority or otherwise prove too troublesome there are established procedures to be rid of them. The most satisfactory way would be to face a contested election against a strong candidate.

[John Swain]

Some interesting thoughts from David Pardoe that are worth exploring.

All candidates, unless they are standing for reelection are required to be nominated by members of Council which should be a necessary and sufficient test of their suitability. If the nomination procedure is thought too lax shouldn't it be revised?

If a candidates is willing to stand for a position wouldn't it be better for them to be given a chance of proving themselves rather than suffer the humiliation of losing to the 'none of the above'?

Should a CEO or other Board member overstep their authority or otherwise prove too troublesome there are established procedures to be rid of them. The most satisfactory way would be to face a contested election against a strong candidate.

It is rather ironic that Phil Ehr's Chief Executive report contained the following (presumably not thinking about himself):
"The Board should take a more skills-based approach to volunteer appointments bearing in mind that it is better to leave posts vacant and lower expectations than to perpetuate dissatisfaction."

One might say that he has been hoist on his own petard.

[Michael Farthing]

Some interesting thoughts from David Pardoe that are worth exploring.

If a candidates is willing to stand for a position wouldn't it be better for them to be given a chance of proving themselves rather than suffer the humiliation of losing to the 'none of the above'?

Has it ever happened that a candidate has lost to 'none of the above' without having had a chance of proving him/herself?

To my mind, where the difficulty of getting candidates to stand is so acute, 'None of the Above' is an important safeguard against an attempt to hijack the organisation. It is a facility used sometimes to signal petty dislikes, but less often, and I would suggest that for most people with misgiving, in a serious effort to leave a post unfilled. However, recent events have shown how necessary the precaution is. The size of the wins for 'None of the Above' indicate all too clearly that a large part of the ECF had no trust in two of its senior officers and for them to have continued in office would have promised a complete disaster.

[Roger de Coverly]

All candidates, unless they are standing for reelection are required to be nominated by members of Council which should be a necessary and sufficient test of their suitability. If the nomination procedure is thought too lax shouldn't it be revised?

Directors whose terms expire at the AGM are nevertheless members of Council, in other words voting members of the ECF.

The rules on nomination are in
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... r-2015.pdf
which say

12.6
Each candidate for a Post must be either:
(a) A retiring Director, the FIDE Delegate or a Chairman of a Standing Committee
seeking re-election to the same Post; or
(b)
a nominee of the Board for a Post; or
(c)
a person proposed with the level of support of the Requisitionists in Article 1.1

From
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... l-2014.pdf

Article 1.1 on Requisitionists describes them as

the Requisitionists” means those Full Members who are entitled to require resolutions to be placed on the agendas for the Annual General Meeting pursuant to Article 17 and for the Finance Council pursuant to Article 18 subject to the qualification in Article 18 (8) and shall so qualify if they comprise any of the following:
(a) any Director; or
(b) the FIDE Delegate; or
(c) the Chairman of a Standing Committee; or
(d) any two Trustees; or
(e) any Representative Member of a Constituent Unit;or
(f) any two Representative Members of Counties; or
(g) any two Direct Members’ Representatives; or
(h) any two of a Trustee, a Representative Member of a County and a Direct Members’ Representative; or
(i) any five Full Individual or Representative Members, as defined above in this Article

John Foley didn't put self nomination for a different post to the test, approaching county organisations under (f) for their support. On the face of it (a),(b) and (c) enables Directors, FIDE Delegate, and Chairmen of Standing Committees to self nominate, even for another post. This would appear to make the 12.6 permission redundant. There were a number of detail points where the Pearce Review thought the ECF's Articles and Bye-Laws could do with tidying up, even if no change to the intent was desire.

[Roger de Coverly]

Has it ever happened that a candidate has lost to 'none of the above' without having had a chance of proving him/herself?

Malcolm Pein stood for non-Exec director. Whilst there were some irregularities in the advice given to the meeting about voting rights, there had been disquiet about his confession that he wouldn't be a fully functioning Board member with substitute(s) attending meetings and correspondence filtered. That combined with an opinion that his journalism was not always ECF supportive lead to a spontaneous move not to accept him. (I'm assuming spontaneous and not a Nexus plot.)

The chess boxing guy stood for Marketing Director. Although he got in, there was a lobby to reject his candidature which attracted a reasonable degree of support.

[JustinHorton]

Has it ever happened that a candidate has lost to 'none of the above' without having had a chance of proving him/herself?

I think the answer is "only in circumstances where they did not attend the meeting".

I believe it was a close call when Tim Woolgar stood, though. However I may be mistaken and it may be that Not This Candidate actually won, since during the following year there was no evidence that anybody was doing the job.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The chess boxing guy was Tim Woolgar. It would be nice if the ECF had a list of past officers somewhere so this could be looked up. Along with past election results, so you can see who stood previously. It would also list people who were returned to office and then resigned.

It is probably a little known fact that Phil Ehr and Andrew Paulson still appear on this page under 'Officers who are members of Council':

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/ecf-officials/

Phil Ehr as "Past Chief Executive Serving on Council" and Andrew Paulson as "Past President serving on Council".

Are those posts meaningful in any way? (Maybe John Philpott or someone else versed in this might comment?)

[Mick Norris]

Has it ever happened that a candidate has lost to 'none of the above' without having had a chance of proving him/herself?

I think the answer is "only in circumstances where they did not attend the meeting".

I believe it was a close call when Tim Woolgar stood, though. However I may be mistaken and it may be that Not This Candidate actually won, since during the following year there was no evidence that anybody was doing the job.

Tim Woolgar was at the 2011 AGM - he got 95 votes, 89 against and 6 abstentions according to the minutes

Phil Ehr beat Sabrinna to Junior Director that day by 107 to 91 (with 4 neither candidate, 1 spoilt and 3 abstentions)

Chris K & I were both present

[John McKenna]

A good report so thanks to Ben, be interested to see the SCCU one at some point too.

The report by Peter Lawrence of the ECF AGM -

http://scca.co.uk/SCCA/docs/2015_ECF_AGM.doc

[Mike Gunn]

Adam Raoof was defeated by None of the Above when he stood as Director of Membership in 2012 (I think). He certainly had a track record (as Home Director). Candidates for the ECF Board could well consider changing their names to None of the Above to maximise their chances of being elected.

Wearing my member of the Governance Committee hat I can perhaps explaing why RH voted against the report of every officer - he was (I think) making a rather obscure point about meeting procedure. Generally speaking items on meeting agenda are for voting on (for or against proposals, elections etc). When it comes to reports from officers the general form is either "to approve the report", "to accept the report" or "to note the report". In practice there is very little difference between these forms because the voting leads to no direct consequences. Sometimes, however, a meeting uses this vote to register its disapproval of of a report or the reporter. For example, I think my first ever intervention at Council was to move the rejection of the CEO's report on the basis of what iit said about the "Chess Sets for Schools" project. (The CEO was Chris Majer, btw.) I was unsuccessful but I think I remember one of of Nigel's FIDE delegate's reports being rejected (in his absence). Although I haven't discussed this with Richard, I think his point may be that there is no point in voting on something when there are no direct consequences of the vote.

[Carl Hibbard]

Welcome back to Mr. Fegan over there