Poll: Is the ECF doing a good job?

[Roger de Coverly]

although the addition of Malcolm Pein to the board is also playing a big part.

A big part in what? Implementing his personal prejudices such as an nine round British and exclusion from rating prizes of players with ratings below an arbitrary threshold?

[Andrew Zigmond]

although the addition of Malcolm Pein to the board is also playing a big part.

A big part in what? Implementing his personal prejudices such as an nine round British and exclusion from rating prizes of players with ratings below an arbitrary threshold?

Bringing in the investment and sponsorship that English chess has desperately needed for a long time.

[Roger de Coverly]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that. Wasn't that odd?

The Pearce Report recommended that directors should have three year terms. Shouldn't "managers" and "officials" be offered the same? They might not accept as one year terms give volunteers an annual option to walk away.

[Michael Flatt]

The Pearce Report recommended that directors should have three year terms. Shouldn't "managers" and "officials" be offered the same? They might not accept as one year terms give volunteers an annual option to walk away.

The managers and other officials are appointed by the relevant director, so it might be expected that they continue in post until a new director takes over.

"Is the ECF doing a good job?"
Are we using the Ofsted assessment classifications of Outstanding, Good, Needs Improvement or Failing?

[Chris Fegan]

The Pearce Report recommended that directors should have three year terms. Shouldn't "managers" and "officials" be offered the same? They might not accept as one year terms give volunteers an annual option to walk away.

The managers and other officials are appointed by the relevant director, so it might be expected that they continue in post until a new director takes over.

"Is the ECF doing a good job?"
Are we using the Ofsted assessment classifications of Outstanding, Good, Needs Improvement or Failing?

Any independent review/assessment of the the ECF Council would result in it being put in special measures

[Roger de Coverly]

The managers and other officials are appointed by the relevant director, so it might be expected that they continue in post until a new director takes over.

That's marginally controversial as some official and manager posts are sufficiently important that they should be accountable to the ECF as a whole and not be an individual director's fiefdom or patronage award. The principle of annual appointments was established with the ECF, but as highlighted by the Pearce report, it's not so clear what the current policy is or should be.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Any independent review/assessment of the the ECF Council would result in it being put in special measures

Dare I ask on what grounds? The ECF council does exactly what it is constitutionally required to do; namely meet twice a year to elect directors, approve budgets and vote on resolutions. It might make decisions you disagree with (it makes decisions I disagree with and my opinion is no less valid) but it is not failing in its purpose.

I agree that some league and county associations could be challenged on how they consult their members and cast their votes but ultimately it is down to their members to demand that accountability. As for congress vote holders I'm still completely at a loss as to why they would choose to act in anything but the best interests of English chess. In any case, given that the vast majority of congress players appear to be appreciative of their efforts it does give them something of a mandate.

[Chris Fegan]

Any independent review/assessment of the the ECF Council would result in it being put in special measures

Dare I ask on what grounds? The ECF council does exactly what it is constitutionally required to do; namely meet twice a year to elect directors, approve budgets and vote on resolutions. It might make decisions you disagree with (it makes decisions I disagree with and my opinion is no less valid) but it is not failing in its purpose.

I agree that some league and county associations could be challenged on how they consult their members and cast their votes but ultimately it is down to their members to demand that accountability. As for congress vote holders I'm still completely at a loss as to why they would choose to act in anything but the best interests of English chess. In any case, given that the vast majority of congress players appear to be appreciative of their efforts it does give them something of a mandate.

Andrew

I think the shambles of the last Finance Council meeting is enough for anyone to conclude that the ECF Council is not doing its job(with the honourable exception on this occasion of Nick Faulks who seemed to be the only delegate not prepared to accept the legitimacy of an Annual Finance Council meeting that can't even be given Annual accounts).However I suspect you and i will never agree on practically anything to do with ECF management and to be fair to you, you have never witnessed the nonsense that supposedly passes for a national body "in session".

I still vividly recall the day that the Pearce Commission members came to give their report to the ECF Council AGM and the look of astonishment and bewilderment on their faces at the proceedings and farce they were witnessing and I won't repeat in public what at least one member of the Commission said to me privately about some of the delegates "professionalism" and how this was excruciatingly embarrassing to witness on their part.

Chris

[NickFaulks]

As for congress vote holders I'm still completely at a loss as to why they would choose to act in anything but the best interests of English chess.

That statement presumes that they hold the key to what is in the best interests of English chess.

[JustinHorton]

I still vividly recall the day that the Pearce Commission members came to give their report to the ECF Council AGM and the look of astonishment and bewilderment on their faces at the proceedings and farce they were witnessing and I won't repeat in public what at least one member of the Commission said to me privately about some of the delegates "professionalism" and how this was excruciatingly embarrassing to witness on their part

Well if you won't repeat it, maybe don't hint at it, as it provides readers with no way of evaluating it.

Did you have any reaction to the comments of the Pearce Commission where your own post was concerned?

[Kevin Thurlow]

""Is the ECF doing a good job?"
Are we using the Ofsted assessment classifications of Outstanding, Good, Needs Improvement or Failing?"

I hope not - surely a reputable measure would be better?

[Nick Grey]

I fail to see the logic of using Ofsted as sorry Education Funding Agency & accounts is my day job.

Main concern is inability to file accounts on time. But I have voted yes - we are doing a good job - some are better than others & there is very little constructiveness.

About time that ECF implement misconduct as well as in awfully bad & misrepresentative comments on those supposedly working for the best interests of English Chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

About time that ECF implement misconduct as well as in awfully bad & misrepresentative comments on those supposedly working for the best interests of English Chess.

That's a seriously bad idea. What happens is that the supposed code of conduct is used by bullies to silence opposition, or by those with scores to settle.

"the best interests of English Chess" is not a well defined concept.

[David Shepherd]

I do think the voting system needs looking at and either the number of votes increased such that it becomes 1 member 1 vote or reduced such that those present at the meetings only have a few votes each at most. I really don't like the system where individuals can cast large numbers of votes as they see fit. Alternatively the current structure could be maintained but with the rule that if the vote holders can't be present at the meetings they should be forced to cast their votes in advance in writing or lose them.

Apologies if I am misunderstanding what currently happens.

[Roger de Coverly]

Alternatively the current structure could be maintained but with the rule that if the vote holders can't be present at the meetings they should be forced to cast their votes in advance in writing or lose them.

Apologies if I am misunderstanding what currently happens.

Once the ECF was set up as a Company limited by guarantee (CLG) back in 2005, it hasn't been possible to remove votes from non-attendees. Considerable flexibility is available as to who has voting rights, but once these are awarded they cannot be removed for non-attendance at meetings.

As currently constituted, the ECF is a mostly a Federation of Chess organisations with voting rights proportionate to the amount of chess they organise. Overlaying this is the collection of per head per year fees from individuals to give them the right to participate in events organised by the ECF's member organisations. There's extremely limited voting rights given indirectly to such individuals, but it allows the ECF to claim that they have membership rights in exchange for the fees.

The brick wall that potential reformers will run into is that the member organisations or perhaps those exercising voting rights on their behalf are reluctant to give up their theoretical control of the ECF.