Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

[Michael Farthing]

Michael

Per my earlier post(s), my own view is that these are not policy issues for Council, but rather operational issues for the Board. I fully accept that views on this may differ.

But that is not for you to decide.
The Board and the Chief Executive are answerable to Council and Council decides what is operational and what is not. The Board only acts with the sanction of Council. Of course, if you take action willfully against Council's wishes then in the end the Council, as you say, can dismiss the Board. Seems rather a drastic solution which can easily be avoided by suitable consultation by the Board. But I agree it can't be forced on the Board.

Mike, you talked earlier of the 'real' world of commercial companies. Setting aside the problems they have recently had (Sports Direct, BHS, BP..) you miss the point that the ECF is NOT a commercial company where the interests of the shareholders are (supposedly) limited to the bottom line. Do things that the chess world doesn't like and eventually the Board will fall or the ECF will dissolve. I think the former more probable.

Having said that, I'm not sure that the chess world would be against the proposal in question: but it certainly has the right and the power to comment, complain and if need be forbid - whether the matter is operational or not.

My own view is that it is a silly bit of red tape and there is no need for it, but I'd put up with it for peace and quiet on the basis that finding a token arbiter to settle disputes that hardly ever arise should not be too arduous, given that they can be located in Timbuktoo and deal with it all by phone.

[Mike Truran]

Council decides what is operational and what is not.

If that is true (and I'm not entirely sure it is as black and white as you suggest, but again views will no doubt differ), then I suggest Council cracks on and does just that. In the absence of such guidance, the Board can only operate according to its own best judgement.

[Andrew Zigmond]

But that is not for you to decide.
The Board and the Chief Executive are answerable to Council and Council decides what is operational and what is not. The Board only acts with the sanction of Council.

I'm sorry Michael but I can't agree with this. The board meet most months and (presumably) are in constant contact with each other via email. All the members of the current board have many other commitments within chess; they deal with chess administration (almost) every day. By contrast council meets twice a year and only one of those meetings is, constitutionally, a general meeting. It would be ludicrous for things to bottleneck until either April or October and that overlooks the fact that Council meetings rarely complete the full agenda of business anyway.

[Michael Flatt]

I'm not really sure why you're unimpressed, given that direct contact with leagues and congresses is surely going to provide much more useful input that the (at best) once removed views of many Council members.

It is rather unwarranted to cast slurs on the commitment and involvement of individual Council members particularly since I have been elected by my County Association to represent their interests at ECF Council.

Before making claims of my being 'one step removed' you really ought to have checked your facts:
1. As an individual, I give my time freely to a wide variety of chess related activities locally both at Junior and Adult levels.
2. I sit on the Rules committee at both County and Union level.
3. I have for many years been an active Arbiter in local events and continue to do so.
4. In this last year at national level I was one of the Arbiters at the ECF County Championships final and Colin Crouch Celebration Chess Congress.

Please, do not dismiss my part in chess administration so lightly. No doubt, other members of Council could demonstrate similar commitment and involvement.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I'm not really sure why you're unimpressed, given that direct contact with leagues and congresses is surely going to provide much more useful input that the (at best) once removed views of many Council members.

It is rather unwarranted to cast slurs on the commitment and involvement of individual Council members particularly since I have been elected by my County Association to represent their interests at ECF Council.

Before making claims of my being 'one step removed' you really ought to have checked your facts:
1. As an individual, I give my time freely to a wide variety of chess related activities locally both at Junior and Adult levels.
2. I sit on the Rules committees at both County and Union level.
3. I have for many years been an active Arbiter in local events and continue to do so.
4. In this last year at national level I was one of the Arbiters at the ECF County Championships final and Colin Crouch Celebration Chess Congress.

Please, do not dismiss my part in chess administration so lightly. No doubt, other members of Council could demonstrate similar commitment and involvement.

I'm sorry but once again I do not think that this is fair. Mike said `many Council members`. He did not say every council member and he certainly did not specify you personally; in fact I'd go as far to say that he'd consider you one of the exceptions.

At Council many leagues give their council vote to a proxy. The league vote may be directed but the proxy holder would only have limited authority to speak on that league's behalf. The ECF, via Mike and Alex will be seeking to communicate directly with league secretaries and answer questions raised in detail. I suspect that was Mike's point.

[Michael Flatt]

I'm sorry but once again I do not think that this is fair. Mike said `many Council members`. He did not say every council member and he certainly did not specify you personally; in fact I'd go as far to say that he'd consider you one of the exceptions.

At Council many leagues give their council vote to a proxy. The league vote may be directed but the proxy holder would only have limited authority to speak on that league's behalf. The ECF, via Mike and Alex will be seeking to communicate directly with league secretaries and answer questions raised in detail. I suspect that was Mike's point.

I do believe that other members of Council are no less committed volunteers than myself. I would not want to be considered an exception.

With regard to proxies, I was unable to attend the last ECF Finance Council meeting because of my involvement with a Junior event. I appointed a proxy and I am satisfied that he discharged his duties correctly.

[Roger de Coverly]

The board meet most months and (presumably) are in constant contact with each other via email.

As such, proposals with wide ranging effect, such as reducing the length of the British Championship Congress would be known to the Directors perhaps months in advance of a formal announcement. Why then, does the ECF Board, no matter who is on it, act so consistently to not tell April or October Council meetings about something that's going to be announced not so long after the meetings?

Reducing the British Championship to nine rounds would no doubt have sparked a debate at the April council meeting. So much better then to avoid such a debate by keeping quiet about their intentions, even though future financing of the Championships was on the agenda.

[Mike Truran]

Because that's an operational and not a strategic matter. Which isn't to say that consultation with, for example, the people who actually play in the BCC couldn't be improved.

Let's stir the pot further.

The role of Council:

1. Oversight of the ECF's funding plans (e.g. membership fees, guidance to trustees on use of trust funds).

2. Oversight of governance matters (e.g. constitution of Board and Standing Committee, voting structures).

3. Approval of strategic/business plan.

4. Er...... that's it.

If Council concentrated on the above strategic imperatives and judged the Board on those things rather than allowing Council meetings to get clogged up with all manner of operational minutiae it would become an altogether more productive and useful body.

[Roger de Coverly]

4. Er...... that's it.

In a legal sense, Council is the body holding the voting power over the ECF. Do not attendees with voting rights at such meetings have the power to raise any issue they want to and ask for directors to report?

[Andrew Zigmond]

I do believe that other members of Council are no less committed volunteers than myself. I would not want to be considered an exception.

By `members of Council` I assume you mean those people who regularly attend Council meetings and take a close interest in matters. Not every member organisation has such a committed representative, particularly in the North where, for various reasons, there is a lot more of a disconnect from the national body. I return to my point that the ECF are seeking to consult with leagues directly rather than a proxy vote holder at Council who may or may not have authority to speak on their behalf.

[Mike Truran]

Do not attendees with voting rights at such meetings have the power to raise any issue they want to and ask for directors to report?

They do indeed. Any Council member can raise the issue of the number of BCC rounds (or any other matter) if they feel that that is a matter of strategic importance (or just because they can), or indeed call for the dismissal of the Board if they feel they have acted ultra vires. I simply make the point that, given that Council meets only twice a year and therefore its time is limited, that time is presumably best spent on focussing on the most important stuff (the three imperatives I mentioned earlier). The greater the number of operational issues that are brought to Council meetings, the less time there is to do justice to those imperatives.

In between Council meetings, the Board should, in the interests of expediency and speed if nothing else, consult directly with interested parties such a leagues, congresses and BCC players on operational matters. We can, and will, seek to do better in the future in this regard.

[Michael Flatt]

The business that can be transacted at a General meeting is limited and it is obviously the wrong forum to debate detailed aspects of policy and operations. That should not deny Council the right of being fully informed and able to contribute via appropriate working committees.

The current range of standing committees is very limited and the very existence of the Chess Arbiters Association arose from the ECF's predecessor inability or abdication of responsibility in managing the more technical aspects of chess administration.

It seems that we now have a Home Director willing to grasp these thorny issues but the existing structure of the ECF does not provide him with the assistance he needs.

I seek to draw attention to the inadequacy of the ECF's organisation rather than the performance of individuals in their particular role.

We must thank Carl for the EC forum where, in the absence of a suitable ECF mechanism, we can debate issues of interest and importance.

[NickFaulks]

It would be ludicrous for things to bottleneck until either April or October

If there is a fundamental change in arbiting requirements for leagues coming this September - perhaps I'm being dim, but I still can't be sure whether there is - then I don't see why it was considered too urgent to wait for Council to meet. The London League has got by on the old basis since 1887, so how much difference can one more year make?

[NickFaulks]

perhaps I'm being dim

Perhaps I was, and I now understand that no such change is contemplated. Maybe nobody else was under that misapprehension anyway.

This doesn't alter my general feeling that Mike defines operational matters a bit more broadly than I would. That is common with CEOs.

[Michael Farthing]

perhaps I'm being dim

This doesn't alter my general feeling that Mike defines operational matters a bit more broadly than I would. That is common with CEOs.

I think this is the nub of my disagreement with Mike.
I was concerned that Mike gave the impression:

"This is an operational matter and therefore none of Council's business"

rather than:

"This is an operational matter and therefore we pressed on and didn't bother Council with it"

The second is reasonable: the first is not. At a point where it becomes apparent that individuals feel there are issues of principle involved then the matter to my mind ceases to be just an operational matter and it behoves the Board to tread more carefully allowing time for active consultation with leagues, congresses, arbiter associations, graders, Counties, Unions, Council and others as appropriate. These different groups are not alternatives to each other, though not all would need to be directly contacted in all instances.

For clarity, my point on Council deciding what was operational and what was not was not intended to suggest that everything had to go to Council. I was saying that in a situation where Council decides something is strategic not organisational then Council's authority overrides the Board's. Most most most of the time it shouldn't happen and Council can say, "Fine, thanks for the hard work, Board".