ECF AGM aftermath

[JustinHorton]

You can't keep him away from the action.

[LawrenceCooper]

Welcome back to Mr. Fegan over there

"the man clearly has no honour or sense of shame"

[John Philpott]

Christopher Kreuzer wrote

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?)

Under the Articles, the immediately previous President and Chief Executive are members of Council and are able to attend general meetings and cast one vote in that capacity. The same used to apply to the immediately previous Non-Executive Chairman in the days when the Board had a Non-Executive Chairman. Prior to the AGM, Andrew Farthing was the immediately previous Chief Executive.

I regard None of the Above as ineligible for these positions.

Incidentally, many congratulations on becoming the English Deaf Chess Association Premier Champion at the weekend.

[Martin Regan]

LC:

"the man clearly has no honour or sense of shame"

I suspect that If Mr Fegan were to write that the "Sun is hot," he would be ridiculed by some in this place.

What he writes, however, maybe true, we should hope it is not.

Mr Majer has behaved in a way that I believe undermines the entire ethos of ECF Governance - in short the head of the committee tasked with governance actively took to the dirty business of chess politics. His committee (with one exception) has proved supine. That is bad enough.

The preferred candidate, who I believe, sits on the board, waits to be anointed. If true, then clearly conversations took place before the vote. Was Mr Majer party to these conversations?

A governance chairman plotting with a board member against other members of the board - if true - is about as far from good governance as it is possible to get.

[LawrenceCooper]

LC:

"the man clearly has no honour or sense of shame"

I suspect that If Mr Fegan were to write that the "Sun is hot," he would be ridiculed by some in this place.

What he writes, however, maybe true, we should hope it is not.

Mr Majer has behaved in a way that I believe undermines the entire ethos of ECF Governance - in short the head of the committee tasked with governance actively took to the dirty business of chess politics. His committee (with one exception) has proved supine. That is bad enough.

The preferred candidate, who I believe, sits on the board, waits to be anointed. If true, then clearly conversations took place before the vote. Was Mr Majer party to these conversations?

A governance chairman plotting with a board member against other members of the board - if true - is about as far from good governance as it is possible to get.

My amazement was based on his comment during the election when justifying the attacks on Alex as electioneering, seemingly justifying whatever means necessary to get the desired result. I never traced any point where there was regret about the tactics employed.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Christopher Kreuzer wrote

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?)

Under the Articles, the immediately previous President and Chief Executive are members of Council and are able to attend general meetings and cast one vote in that capacity. The same used to apply to the immediately previous Non-Executive Chairman in the days when the Board had a Non-Executive Chairman. Prior to the AGM, Andrew Farthing was the immediately previous Chief Executive.

I regard None of the Above as ineligible for these positions.

Incidentally, many congratulations on becoming the English Deaf Chess Association Premier Champion at the weekend.

Thanks for the reply and thanks for the congratulations!

If the AGM hadn't been so rushed at the end (e.g. if the elections had been earlier on the agenda), would it have been possible for Council as a body to have responded in some way to the election result? Or would that have been difficult with so many proxy votes?

[Roger de Coverly]

There's a rather sobering piece by Richard James, written in advance of the AGM.

http://chessimprover.com/modernisation/

The last paragraph is worrying, but reflective of attitudes amongst some chess trainers and education specialists. I would have thought that a board game, several centuries old is only credible as a learning tool for young children in the absence of a more suitable and customised alternative. The Aberystwyth dispute suggests that "win by illegal move" is not the most desirable of features.

Otherwise, he outs the CSC Nexus in its attempts to infiltrate the ECF.

I would give a direct quote, but it's not a blog that appears to support Copy and Paste.

[Martin Regan]

Rdc:

Otherwise, he outs the CSC Nexus in its attempts to infiltrate the ECF.

He also outs the Arbiter Nexus in its attempts to find candidates.

But I think it is a very well-thought-out piece and I find myself in almost complete agreement.

[NickFaulks]

The Aberystwyth dispute suggests that "win by illegal move" is not the most desirable of features.

That is a red herring. The Aberystwyth dispute involved players who were way beyond using chess as a learning tool.

As an aside, nobody has ever explained to me why chess would be a worse game if taking kings were permitted. Yes, I know that the stalemate feature would need to be reworded.

[Bill Porter]

There's a rather sobering piece by Richard James, written in advance of the AGM.

http://chessimprover.com/modernisation/

The last paragraph is worrying, but reflective of attitudes amongst some chess trainers and education specialists. I would have thought that a board game, several centuries old is only credible as a learning tool for young children in the absence of a more suitable and customised alternative. The Aberystwyth dispute suggests that "win by illegal move" is not the most desirable of features.

Otherwise, he outs the CSC Nexus in its attempts to infiltrate the ECF.

I would give a direct quote, but it's not a blog that appears to support Copy and Paste.

Disable javascript, select all, then copy works, at least on Opera.

The ECF is essentially an amateur organisation, and, as in any amateur organisation, you’ll have a mixture of excellent people who work hard for the love of the game and those who like attending boring meetings, hearing the sound of their own voice and generally feeling important. Most of the current ECF people come in the former category, but this hasn’t always been the case in the past. What you can’t do without upsetting a lot of people is impose professional standards on an amateur organisation.

Although I have a lot of sympathy with their agenda, the modernisers have succeeded in alienating many of the most popular and influential people in English chess over the past couple of years. But without a radical overhaul I fear for the future of chess in this country. A recent poster on my Facebook wall suggested that chess has no future either as a professional game or as a recreational hobby, but only as a learning tool for young children. I hope he’s wrong but this is the way things seem to be going. I guess, though, that the current set-up will last another 15-20 years and see me out.

[Richard James]

But I think it is a very well-thought-out piece and I find myself in almost complete agreement.

Thank you! There may be more next week.

[Mick Norris]

Richard would be a good person to get involved in the ECF, although I fear he is too sensible for that

[Richard James]

Richard would be a good person to get involved in the ECF, although I fear he is too sensible for that

[Jonathan Bryant]

Richard would be a good person to get involved in the ECF, although I fear he is too sensible for that

Which bit of Mike’s post is the for?

[Richard James]

Richard would be a good person to get involved in the ECF, although I fear he is too sensible for that

Which bit of Mike’s post is the for?

Both parts!