My Resignation

[Paul Buswell]

It's actually remarkably similar to what I wrote in this post: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 904#p81459

As you say at the end, it (abolition of Council) is unlikely to be adopted. The problem with abolishing Council is there would be even less control over the Board going off on a wild goose chase, than there is at the moment. Examples were chess sets for schools " and "Let's take legal action against FIDE".


I agree the chess public could influence matters by who it voted for, but that would then be making policy decisions by personalities. The ECF isn't a commercial company, nor given its special monopoly status as the national sporting/gaming/cultural English body for chess should it attempt to act as such.

The ECF doesn't have shareholders, so the normal concepts of shareholder votes at company AGMs don't apply. Many organisations of a similar "not for profit" nature and limited by guarantee have needed to have some sort of intermediate representative body so that you don't have to run AGM's with potentially 5,000 attendees.

It's not a problem with 'Council' per se, with on paper is remarkably democratic albeit with a strong element of timocracy, but with the chess public at large, the vast majority of whom have no interest whatsoever in who runs their affairs at whatever level, and show an interest only when things go wrong or become interestingly controversial - if they did have an interest Council's League and County delegates not be ridiculed, as they would be known to be expressing widely held views.
Rather like the situation with the population at large with its political masters of course. Reprersentative democracy? An informed, educated, interested electorate? Never in a million years, in the world or in chess!

PB

PB

[Paul Buswell]

[quote="Roger de Coverly

Although why the Times Correspondent should have any interest in who the ECF appoints to run its events is another question.[/quote]

The cynic might say that if there were to be a vacancy then a person bringing a big purse to an event would be in a strong position to influence the next appointment, which they might wish to do for a number of reasons.

PB

[Jonathan Bryant]

You could read the times_chess comments in two ways. I read it that G's account of the Darwin sponsorship was correct documenting the probable behind the scenes influence of RDK, but that CJ contributed as well. As you say, it can also be read that Sheffield didn't involve CJ but other events did.

You could be right, although since Ray has tweeted many times on the matter over the last day and a half you'd have thought he'd have made it explicit if Gidders' was wrong. At least I would have.

We could ask RDK what he meant exactly, I suppose, but it seems to me that it's much more important that the ECF explains what was going on.

The cynic might say that if there were to be a vacancy then a person bringing a big purse to an event would be in a strong position to influence the next appointment, which they might wish to do for a number of reasons.

Of course, that would only be true if the decision makers were unduly impressed by the big purse

[Alex Holowczak]

As shown by the ECF Council structure, it's possible to have almost any voting structure. The point remains, it isn't practical to hold an AGM with a theoretical 5000 attendees, so some representative body is needed.

I could live without OMOV. Council could be retained with its current structure, if all it did was elect the Board, approve accounts, and that was it. So the Board could still actually do something, without Council reigning it in all the time.

Where this breaks is that you are unlikely to get two candidates to personalise the issues

Candidate (a) advocates a policy that you send the strongest possible team regardless of the cost
Candidate (b) advocates a policy that you send the strongest team that you can afford.

Even if you did have two candidates, why do you want them to fight over the issue?

I don't see why this breaks it; that's exactly the point! You'll never get the two candidates. So when you have only one candidate prepared to do the work, why should Council dictate to that one candidate how he should do his work?

Whilst I'm aware, as with many essentially trivial issues, that it's contentious, it shouldn't be an issue that encourages selection of one candidate over another.

Agreed. So why do Council have the right to influence it?

--

The way BUCA works, is that our equivalent of ECF Council basically just elects the Officers, approves reports, and discusses any other matters of mutual interest. One of the Officers it elects is the person who organises the tournament. The advantage of this is that we don't get squabbles about tournament rules at our AGMs, because the elected organiser sets them. If the teams don't like it, they have two choices: (1) Don't enter (2) Stand for the position that organises the event. In reality, we get entries from just about any University body who is prepared to play in it, so it seems our arrangement works. As a result of this, our AGM takes about 45 minutes, and tends to be relatively harmonious. Compare this to a League/County AGM, which may take several hours, despite doing roughly the same as BUCA in terms of activity.

[Roger de Coverly]

Agreed. So why do Council have the right to influence it?

Something like the venue for the county championships finals is an issue that affects individual chess players rather more than it does a board member. Whilst you can always adopt the attitude that if they don't like it, then don't enter, some of us would consider the promotion of chess activity to be a core function of the ECF Board, so the views of the participants do in fact matter. Similarly with a county AGM. Whilst BUCA, or more generally a Congress, might be able to get away with an arrogant attitude, a county or league association only exists so that local players can play in organised competitions.

Equally the selection of the country's representative teams is a core function of the ECF and shouldn't be subject to change for the sake of it by individual international directors. Rather than the directors saying take it or leave it to the players, it should be the other way round. This is ECF policy, and directors are expected to follow it. We can reference the recent rows over Junior Selection policy. Hopefully the new Director has put in place a longer term policy which individual future incumbents will stick with.

[Alex Holowczak]

Agreed. So why do Council have the right to influence it?

Something like the venue for the county championships finals is an issue that affects individual chess players rather more than it does a board member. Whilst you can always adopt the attitude that if they don't like it, then don't enter, some of us would consider the promotion of chess activity to be a core function of the ECF Board, so the views of the participants do in fact matter. Similarly with a county AGM. Whilst BUCA, or more generally a Congress, might be able to get away with an arrogant attitude, a county or league association only exists so that local players can play in organised competitions.

Hard as you may find it to believe, the Director of Home Chess would not hold the Finals of the Counties Championship in Truro, or Barrow-in-Furness if he was given the power to do so. The volunteers who give up their free time to work on the Board are doing so in the best interests of chess. If they think a central venue is required, they'll find somewhere roughly in the middle, just as they do know.

I can think of many leagues where its constituent teams don't really have a vote on any rule changes. Two less high-profile examples include the London Rapidplay League and the Wolverhampton Summer League. The major example is the 4NCL. The 4NCL consult captains about rulechanges from time-to-time, but the organisers hold the discretion of whether to change it or not. This "arrogant" attitude has harmed the 4NCL so much that it is now the largest league in the country, and indeed continues to expand.

Equally the selection of the country's representative teams is a core function of the ECF and shouldn't be subject to change for the sake of it by individual international directors. Rather than the directors saying take it or leave it to the players, it should be the other way round. This is ECF policy, and directors are expected to follow it. We can reference the recent rows over Junior Selection policy. Hopefully the new Director has put in place a longer term policy which individual future incumbents will stick with.

I am of the opinion that the International Director should be able to pick:
(a) an amateur team or a professional team
(b) a team composing of any player he so wishes

Depending on the finances at the time. The official has the necessary competence to realise "Oh, hang on, the ECF hasn't got much money, we'd best not spend £30k on an Olympiad team this year". Council does not need to tell him this.

--

The other problem you run into, with Council, is that you tend to get snipes every so often. I had one recently complaining about the ECF introducing six-monthly grading lists. I had to remind the complainant that actually, his delegate voted for it at the AGM. Three days on, I await a reply to this message...

[Andrew Zigmond]

Just read the latest comments on Keene's twitter feed which beggars belief. Why is it that whenever we seem to be making small progress on this issue (and it needn't have been an issue at all lest we forget) something happens makes matters even worse than they were before. I'm sorry but the board cannot let Keene's latest intervention go unchallenged.

I've lost a lot of respect for Steve Giddins as well. He defends Lara so eloquently and then says nothing about Raymond Keene who is the one dumping the worst of the dirt.

[Roger de Coverly]

If they think a central venue is required, they'll find somewhere roughly in the middle, just as they do know.

That I think is the point. The Board individually or collectively get into a hobby-horse mindset over a relatively minor issue and won't give way. So it becomes a tug of war between players and the Board. The county final venue issue has been a running battle for many years. The same used to apply to the National Club, but with that competition all but dead, the central venues are now by region and the ECF gave way on that probably when it was still the BCF.

[LawrenceCooper]

Equally the selection of the country's representative teams is a core function of the ECF and shouldn't be subject to change for the sake of it by individual international directors. Rather than the directors saying take it or leave it to the players, it should be the other way round. This is ECF policy, and directors are expected to follow it. We can reference the recent rows over Junior Selection policy. Hopefully the new Director has put in place a longer term policy which individual future incumbents will stick with.

It has always been my intention to field the strongest available team and I achieved this in 2010 and 2011. Asking the players to name their price would not a prudent way to negotiate though. The players are aware that the ECF doesn't have an infinite amount of money and I think they all accept that I am offering them the best possible deal within my budget which inevitably has to be topped up by non-ECF funding.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I can think of many leagues where its constituent teams don't really have a vote on any rule changes. Two less high-profile examples include the London Rapidplay League and the Wolverhampton Summer League. The major example is the 4NCL. The 4NCL consult captains about rulechanges from time-to-time, but the organisers hold the discretion of whether to change it or not. This "arrogant" attitude has harmed the 4NCL so much that it is now the largest league in the country, and indeed continues to expand.

True, but it must hastily be added that Mike Truran is a good and prudent listener. That's why the 4NCL works. The model in itself is not the victor, and can easily prove disastrous elsewhere.

I am of the opinion that the International Director should be able to pick:
(a) an amateur team or a professional team
(b) a team composing of any player he so wishes

Depending on the finances at the time. The official has the necessary competence to realise "Oh, hang on, the ECF hasn't got much money, we'd best not spend £30k on an Olympiad team this year". Council does not need to tell him this.

Just to remind you - again! - that a selection committee picks the players. That said, the ID presumably sets the budget, and later negotiates with the selected players within that budget, so he will nonetheless have the most influence on account of that.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I am trying to avoid commenting on the latest CJ/RDK outrages. But I suggest that this should be Andrew Farthing's last chance to prove himself as more than a paperwork CEO, and to ask CJ exactly what he has been saying to RDK over the last few days - and several other outstanding matters of course.

If he still cannot exert any influence for the good, then frankly he might as well go now.

[John Upham]

Further "clarification" has appeared from SG: http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress. ... elis-rule/

[Carl Hibbard]

I am trying to avoid commenting on the latest CJ/RDK outrages. But I suggest that this should be Andrew Farthing's last chance to prove himself as more than a paperwork CEO, and to ask CJ exactly what he has been saying to RDK over the last few days - and several other outstanding matters of course.

If he still cannot exert any influence for the good, then frankly he might as well go now.

Given the number of people reading this forum and the use of search engines the latest nonsense from these pair spreads far and wide

[John McKenna]

In line with 'CEO succession plan' topic in this thread, suggest current CEO delegate this matter to a collective of the board and publicity officer (if still in existence) and carry out remainder of term doing what he is good at, while keeping an eye on what the collective does.

[Steve Rooney]

Maybe I'm missing something but I simply don't understand what people are getting so worked up about? Everything I've read is hedged, since no-one seems to be in possession of all the facts. The truth is generally much duller than conspiracy theory suggests.