Update from Shallow Throat

[Michael Flatt]

Really, I don't understand why anyone should claim to have knowledge of the sponsor's views unless they are acting as their official agent.

The leader board of the Tradewise Grand Prix has yet to be published and any discussions with the sponsor as to whether they wish to continue the competition next year should happen in private between those with authority to make decisions.

Presumably, there will a contract with a break clause should the competition not be conducted in accordance with the sponsor's wishes?

[JustinHorton]

Surely Council should elect the best person for the job? What are you saying exactly?

Is there something difficult to understand about the concept of election results standing whether you like them or not?

[David Pardoe]

Council has been shown to make all sorts of dubious decisions... intentional and otherwise
The important information, that was at `COUNCILS finger tips` was that Bob Kane demonstrated a good grip on his post, and was working effectively to promote ECFs commercial interests...in a very critical area.

He might have made some mistakes, because of the highly curious structures in place, which probably trip up the vast majority of Officers at one time or another, and certainly have bamboozled the vast majority of Council bodies. Thus, the meeting degenerated to a farce... and the elections in some cases were a complete nonsense...

It might help to include a OMOV (proportionally applied with council voting), to add some balance to proceedings. Or... maybe also give the Members representatives say, 12 votes each, so that the ordinary memberships views can be heard.. ..but that's another matter..

[Andrew Zigmond]

Are the Sensible Party opponents of the Organiser-Arbiter Nexus or are they a militant faction within it?

Yes to the first option.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU

It was my original intention not to comment on this thread. We've had a slightly more disputatious AGM than we'd have in a perfect world and the time has come to try to move on and do the best thing for English chess.

Certain members of the previous board were ousted for a reason. Not everybody might agree with that reason but that is the whole point of having elections. There was a vote and council made their choice.

I can see why a sponsor might be unhappy at their key contacts being ousted but surely this is relatively common in organisations such as the ECF. It is now the responsibility of the current board to seek to rebuild that relationship and they can do that more easily without sensitive information being splashed on a public forum. Incidentally I would like to think that sponsors haven't been deliberately left with the impression that the ECF is not safe under certain individuals.

And finally here we go again with this supposed nexus which John Foley originally coined in a reply to myself on the other forum and which is now the weapon of choice for anybody who disagrees with a board decision. Can I repeat here for all the hard of thinking that this supposed nexus includes some of the hardest working individuals in English chess and people who have built up their influence through industry, vision and above all ... graft. The suggestion that these people are somehow working in concert against the best interests of English chess is simply wrong. If you follow John Upham's quote through it implies that half of the board are opposed to most of the volunteers within the ECF and the key individuals within English chess - an implication that is surely ludicrous when spelled out.

[John Upham]

Surely Council should elect the best person for the job? What are you saying exactly?

Is there something difficult to understand about the concept of election results standing whether you like them or not?

I think we are all (sadly) aware of the results. It is making progress from this point that is the challenge. If damage can be repaired and humble pie eaten then so be it.

The board is split roughly 50:50 in their philosophy and outlook and working together may require more changes than you imagine.

[JustinHorton]

Surely Council should elect the best person for the job? What are you saying exactly?

Is there something difficult to understand about the concept of election results standing whether you like them or not?

I think we are all (sadly) aware of the results. It is making progress from this point that is the challenge. If damage can be repaired and humble pie eaten then so be it.

The board is split roughly 50:50 in their philosophy and outlook and working together may require more changes than you imagine.

And tell me, what does that mean in terms of practical proposals?

[Michael Farthing]

John,

I have asked this question of others who seem to be of your persuasion, but always without success. Can you set out for us what you think a programme of Progress would be, and in what way the non-progressives are opposed to it? There might then be some basis for discussing whether the 'sensible' members of the Board and more sensible than the senseless ones.

[Michael Flatt]

Thus, the meeting degenerated to a farce... and the elections in some cases were a complete nonsense...

You must have attended a different meeting than me which I thought was chaired most efficiently and effectively by non executive director, Julian Clissold. Unfortunately, the effect of a procedural motion in delaying the elections was to cause insufficient time to be available to accurately count the vote. The Company Secretary, however, was alert to the problem and organised a recount which promptly corrected the situation.

There was no disorder or indecorous behaviour. Council acted impeccably and the result of their voting should be accepted.

Those dissatisfied with the results of the last election have another year to plan their next campaign.

[Mick Norris]

we will need someone to push through the recommendations of the Pearce Commission

That's push through in the political sense as in overcoming opposition, is it?

No, that's push through as in making sure the ECF Board notes the Council vote at the AGM and ensures that the recommendations agreed are implemented successfully

[Michael Flatt]

No, that's push through as in making sure the ECF Board notes the Council vote at the AGM and ensures that the recommendations agreed are implemented successfully

No, that's not correct. The meeting was unable to agree any of the recommendations because there are 55 separate ones and there was no time given over to discussion of them individually.

It was agreed that the Pearce Commission had delivered its report and that they had satisfied its remit. The recommendations would be reviewed and proposals put to Council. It would not be correct to accept all recommendations without further discussion and allow others the opportunity to submit amendments or counter-proposals.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Thus, the meeting degenerated to a farce... and the elections in some cases were a complete nonsense...

You must have attended a different meeting than me which I thought was chaired most efficiently and effectively by non executive director, Julian Clissold. Unfortunately, the effect of a procedural motion in delaying the elections was to cause insufficient time to be available to accurately count the vote. The Company Secretary, however, was alert to the problem and organised a recount which promptly corrected the situation.

There was no disorder or indecorous behaviour. Council acted impeccably and the result of their voting should be accepted.

Those dissatisfied with the results of the last election have another year to plan their next campaign.

I'd be surprised if the author of the quoted post was at the meeting.

[Michael Flatt]

I'd be surprised if the author of the quoted post was at the meeting.

Your comment is rather ambiguous. Which of the authors wasn't there?
On what grounds should the vote be disallowed?

[NickFaulks]

No, that's push through as in making sure the ECF Board notes the Council vote at the AGM and ensures that the recommendations agreed are implemented successfully

By my recollection, that was what the CEO wanted Council to vote for, but they were willing only to vote that the recommendations, which had received no discussion, would be considered seriously.

[Michael Farthing]

Michael (Flatt), I think you have quite misread Andrew's meaning. There is no comma after 'surprised'.

[John Upham]

John,
I have asked this question of others who seem to be of your persuasion, but always without success.

Could you state for the record your view of what

"others who seem to be of your persuasion" means and provide examples of who these others might be?