April 2016 Council meeting

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:53 pm

David Robertson wrote: The Governance Committee should be purged and cleansed entirely, reconstituted with appropriately independent members under its new Chair. Its independence, thoroughly compromised by past behaviour, must be convincingly re-established. It should never again throw its hand in with a coup organised by a faction on the Board and their allies. Whether the current Board could tolerate such independent integrity will define whether the vested interests of its members can tolerate independent scrutiny.
I'm fully expecting a torrent of abuse for this (and the evidence was on the other forum) but during the election campaign you criticised one of the candidates for Director of Home Chess (`the buck stops where`) and posted in support of Phil Ehr. Independence works both ways.

On a general point it was clear that there were tensions within the previous board which developed into two factions and contested elections. That happens - life would be pretty dull if it didn't. But it's interesting how one side's `legitimate democratic process` is the other side's `coup`.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Martin Regan

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Martin Regan » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:30 pm

AZ:
during the election campaign you criticised one of the candidates for Director of Home Chess (`the buck stops where`) and posted in support of Phil Ehr. Independence works both ways.
You again miss the wood for the trees. DR in his post asked what concievable credibility has the GC and members of it, given that some of its members were party to, or at least looked the other way, while the chairman trashed the very idea of good governance? If the chairman felt he had done wrong and resigned, what are those members who agreed with his actions still doing there?

As for your other points: It is pefectly acceptable for a member of the GC to ask directors who takes the blame for specific foul ups, just as it is acceptable for a GC member to point out the hard work of any board member to the general membership. What is not acceptable is for those charged with looking after good governance, to watch their chairman seek to influence a ballot at the point of voting and to simply shrug and carry on.

With those members still in post the GC is unfit for purpose, and at a time when the board is slowly taking more powers from council - ie a three year budget - that is worrying.

Martin Regan

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Martin Regan » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:50 pm

JH:
There was, of course, no "coup". The members of the previous Board lost their posts because of the way they conducted themselves in office. The atmosphere they created has been a good deal more pleasant for their departure.
Ah Justin, I am always impressed with how you turn guesswork and opinion into certain knowledge.

Of course there was a coup, a pre-planned and calculated coup, but one might more accurately see it as a counter coup against an equally calculated and determined purge. One side underestimated the nature of council, both sides have left visible traces in email.

As for your "more pleasant atmosphere", the same would have been true had the original purge succeeded. And the present state of ceasefire, in my view, is fragile.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: April 2016 Council meeting

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:55 pm

Martin Regan wrote:AZ:
during the election campaign you criticised one of the candidates for Director of Home Chess (`the buck stops where`) and posted in support of Phil Ehr. Independence works both ways.
You again miss the wood for the trees. DR in his post asked what concievable credibility has the GC and members of it, given that some of its members were party to, or at least looked the other way, while the chairman trashed the very idea of good governance? If the chairman felt he had done wrong and resigned, what are those members who agreed with his actions still doing there?

As for your other points: It is pefectly acceptable for a member of the GC to ask directors who takes the blame for specific foul ups, just as it is acceptable for a GC member to point out the hard work of any board member to the general membership. What is not acceptable is for those charged with looking after good governance, to watch their chairman seek to influence a ballot at the point of voting and to simply shrug and carry on.

With those members still in post the GC is unfit for purpose, and at a time when the board is slowly taking more powers from council - ie a three year budget - that is worrying.
That's fair enough Martin, I have never disagreed with the view that Chris Majer's intervention was misguided and that his position was untenable afterwards. My point was more about how neutral members of the Governance Committee should be in an election. But I'm happy to beg to differ on this one.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own