ECF AGM aftermath

[John Foley]

The strategic advisor would have stepped down on the basis of the election result announced on the day. Of course now that we know the count was flawed and the incorrect result had been announced, he may reverse his decision. Actually I am surprised by the latest result because the block-voting mechanism seems to have been otherwise impressively well organised by the C-AN.

[JustinHorton]

The strategic advisor would have stepped down on the basis of the election result announced on the day. Of course now that we know the count was flawed and the incorrect result had been announced, he may reverse his decision.

Why, was the Strategic Advisor appointed by the incoming International Director?

[Roger de Coverly]

The retirement of the legal advisor was not unexpected and a new one is in place. That is not one of the headline items.

The normal operating practice is that the Board reviews and reappoints the Officers soon after the AGM. Without knowing who they were referring to, it seems apparent from the Board Minutes there was some controversy as to which appointments were in the domain of individual directors and which were the responsibility of the whole board. Presumably then appointees by the directors voted out of office might not be re-appointed.

John Philpott had been required to come up with some complex framework involving 4 levels of officer. A simpler approach could have been to follow an AGM format where each candidate had to be named and seconded (or even just names) and approved by the whole board either nem con or by them voting.

2.

Framework for appointments
JAP had circulated to the Board a proposed new framework for the approval of appointments.
Currently the appointment of Managers and certain other officers (such as the Chief Arbiter) were reserved to the Board
: all other appointments were made by the Director responsible, but had to be
ratified by the Chief Executive and reported to the Board. Ahead of any changes that might arise from the Governance review, the ECF Rules required the Board to concern itself with minutiae and involve itself with decisions that could reasonably be left to individual directors. Since the Directors and Officers Responsibilities Regulations were the property of the Board, progress could be made in this area. JAP proposed four levels of Officer.
(i)Level 1 to be appointed by Council as prescribed by the Articles.
(ii)Level 2 -to be appointed by the Board
(iii) Level 3 - to be appointed by a Director but with the endorsement of another Senior Officer
(iv) Level 4 – to be appointed exclusively by a Director.
The default position would be that an Officer would be regarded as level 4 unless there was a specific reason for classifying a position at a higher level. In particular, level 2 status would be determined by the significance and sensitivity of the functions being performed rather than the inclusion of the word “Manager” in the title.There was general support for the framework, and JAP was asked to prepare for a future meeting a redraft of the Responsibilities Regulations reflecting this for the Board to consider.
Action JAP
.
However, the proposed appointments under the next item on the agenda would be dealt with under the existing framework.

There followed a long list of appointees, strategic whotsit not being among them.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why, was the Strategic Advisor appointed by the incoming International Director?

The Pearce Review didn't think he'd been appointed by anyone, at least not in the 2014-15 year. In any event, the terms of all officers only run until the Board meeting following the AGM which reappoints them or otherwise.

Board meeting 91 has the long list of appointees with cryptic comments about more to follow. Board meeting 92, which was over three months later, has the Strategic Advisor apologising for his absence, even though he is not on the Appointees list at meeting 91.

He had however attended a strategic planning meeting, which had evidently failed to agree a plan.

Following the planning weekend in November 2014, two documents were authored and circulated by (1) JF, JC, CF, and PE; and (2) DO and DE, that reflect different aspects and outcomes of the weekend. A lengthy discussion was had on the origin, authority and purpose of the papers. The documents had caused confusion amongst members, especially concerning what was actually agreed at the weekend and what the next steps are to be.

[JustinHorton]

Why, was the Strategic Advisor appointed by the incoming International Director?

The Pearce Review didn't think he'd been appointed by anyone, at least not in the 2014-15 year. In any event, the terms of all officers only run until the Board meeting following the AGM which reappoints them or otherwise.

Which would mean that neither resigning nor withdrawing that resignation comes into it?

[Michael Flatt]

This is where the ECF Boards creates problems for themselves: Inventing rules for the wrong purpose.

All appointments should have the acceptance of the Board. I don't see what is difficult about a director presenting his list of Officers to the Board and having them ratified.

What happens in the event of a dispute where an individual claims to have been appointed to a post, and then subsequently finds he has been replaced or, in fact, never held that post?

[Carl Hibbard]

The strategic advisor would have stepped down on the basis of the election result announced on the day. Of course now that we know the count was flawed and the incorrect result had been announced, he may reverse his decision.

Why, was the Strategic Advisor appointed by the incoming International Director?

Mr Fegan may return is positive news

[Martin Regan]

If he was appointed to advise the board by the CEO then he remains in place until he resigns or the board unappoints him. The Pearce Review's understanding is irrelevant. In normal times one might look to the GC for their thoughts, but obviously...

[Roger de Coverly]

If he was appointed to advise the board by the CEO then he remains in place until he resigns or the board unappoints him.

My general understanding of the operation of the ECF since its inception, is that all officers are subject to annual reappointment rather than being lifetime appointments. Some appointments such as Grading Manager and British Championship Manager are sufficiently important, that if not Director level, they should automatically be rolled over from one year to the next. But they aren't. You may recall that in the aftermath of the Sheffield incidents and related fall out, the then Home Director declined to re-appoint one of the joint Congress managers, the other having already stood down.

I don't suppose there's anything to stop the CEO having a private advisor. But such an advisor should only have access to Board papers if the CEO showed them to him (breach of confidence?), or be allowed to attend Board meetings if given special permission, presumably by the rest of the Board.

[John Philpott]

Martin Regan wrote

If he [Chris Fegan] was appointed to advise the board by the CEO then he remains in place until he resigns or the board unappoints him.

Chris advised me of his resignation on Saturday evening.

[Martin Regan]

Chris advised me of his resignation on Saturday evening.

John,

I hope it was accompanied by a similar message from the other Chris.

Regards.

[John Reyes]

None of the Awards was giving out as someone forgot to do the trophys

Last year it was done and this year it was not!!

[Jonathan Rogers]

The strategic advisor would have stepped down on the basis of the election result announced on the day. Of course now that we know the count was flawed and the incorrect result had been announced, he may reverse his decision. Actually I am surprised by the latest result because the block-voting mechanism seems to have been otherwise impressively well organised by the C-AN.

(emphasis added)

Ah yes, that block-voting mechanism must be the only possible explanation for Alex winning between 85-90% of the vote against you, despite you and Chris F campaigning as vigorously as you could against him ...

That really is some "anti-Ehr and colleagues" nexus that you see out there. Why do you think MP actually prevailed, then?

[Roger de Coverly]

That really is some "anti-Ehr and colleagues" nexus that you see out there. Why do you think MP actually prevailed, then?

Presumably there was some lack of satisfaction in David Openshaw's performance, perhaps not enough to trigger a loss to "none of the above", but sufficient to give Malcolm enough votes to replace him, there not being any opposition to Malcolm continuing as FIDE Delegate. If it mattered, the joint attendance of the FIDE Delegate and Home Director at the recent FIDE Congress suggested they could work together.

[Brian Towers]

The strategic advisor would have stepped down on the basis of the election result announced on the day. Of course now that we know the count was flawed and the incorrect result had been announced, he may reverse his decision.

Nigel Farage was an ECF strategic advisor?