ECF Annual General Meeting 13 October 2012

[Matthew Turner]

I've read Bill Metcalfe's report and how you view it really depends on how you view its purpose. As far as I can see, its main purposes are to convey to NCCU members what happened at the meeting and what decisions Bill took on their behalf. It seems to me that it achieves these aims perfectly adequately. If NCCU members don't like what Bill did with his 11 votes then they can chuck him out.
What do the various 4NCL players feel about Mike Truran's report on the meeting. With his 30 votes did he reflect the views of his various constituencies.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Okay to clear something up. I have known William Metcalfe since he first appeared on the local chess scene around 8-9 years ago. He is one of the most enthusiastic chess individuals I have had the pleasure of coming across. He and I have had some cross words on forums from time to time but people with strong opinions often do. William is NCCU President because it was Clevelands turn to hold the position but none of the Cleveland executive wanted the position so William offered himself and was accepted by the members at the AGM.(He was at that time and remains the CCA NCCU rep)
William wont say it but I will. He is indeed dyslexic and for some years has been a regular visitor to hospital for a physical condition that causes him a lot of problems. I think William does very well given his health and lets not forget he offered to do the job when the more senior long serving members of Cleveland chess asociation did not want it.
He does shoot from the hip from time to time but equally can be very thoughtfull about what he says and if someone offers a counter argument to his and it has merit he is willing to change his mind.
William knows Alex and Lara very well and yes supports them however to say that is the only reason he voted as he did is really not to know him.

People who know me would tell you I tell it as it is so here it is.

I think William Metcalfe will do a good job as NCCU President and will do his very best for chess and if he has a bias towards the North he represents then thats life get over it hes not alone in looking after his own members is he. His report coveys an honest assesment of the AGM and how he voted; yes he could have used spell checker but hes not alone in not doing that is he so why not back off a bit folks.

[Alex McFarlane]

For clarification.

As far as I am aware there was no planned conspiracy to remove Adam Raoof from office. If there was, which I doubt, then I know nothing about it. I did not canvas for proxies nor speak to anyone in the lead up to the meeting seeking their support against him. The result of the vote came as a surprise to me.

I cannot deny that there is a rift between the two of us caused by the aftermath from Sheffield. That on its own might have been enough to vote against him. However, even without that, I had sufficient reason to go for NOTA. I do not believe this is the place to go into these reasons mainly because it would drag several other people into it and that would not be fair on them.

Obviously I know Bill Metcalfe from chess events where we have exchanged pleasantries. I would not describe him as a friend in the sense meant, though we are friendly but I could say that about dozens of people. To the best of my knowledge we have never had a pint together (I don’t even know if he drinks).

Having said that I should probably finish by saying that I don’t know Ms Baines either.

[JustinHorton]

Can we not follow the agenda of SG quite so often? Sometimes of course we need to refer to his blog because it contributes some facts which are material to our own discussions (eg the leaked expenses claim of CJ following Sheffield last year, or the claim that Keene was largely responsible for Darwin's sponsorship of the British). But when he is just using his blog to attack others on matters which are not under discussion here, such as the non-organisation of postal tournaments or the arbiting arrangements at LCC, let's just leave him to it.

Quite so.

In the first place, it allows somebody who openly wishes for an organisation's destruction to lead debate on how that organisation should be running itself. This is foolish and absurd.

In the second place, it's a question of trolling. What an internet troll seeks to do is, by making outrageous and provocative statements, to make themselves the centre of discussion. Allowing them to do this is not widely considered a good idea. Except by the troll, that is.

So if you are inclined to quote him, or discuss him, just think of this image instead



and everything will be all right.

[Mike Truran]

What do the various 4NCL players feel about Mike Truran's report on the meeting. With his 30 votes did he reflect the views of his various constituencies.

All the 4NCL captains were emailed before the AGM to ask for their opinions. Few replied; those that did reply were by a significant majority in agreement with the 4NCL Board's proposals.

[Ernie Lazenby]

I have not much time for Giddins because of the way someone with his education says things about people. He is an unpleasant individual however he does from time time bring to notice matters that otherwise would be kept back from this forum by people with that knowledge but who seeek to support their friends. We may depise the messenger but sometimes the messages are interesting and accurate.
Anyway perhaps we are off topic.

[JustinHorton]

On a few more worthy points.

a. ECF dysfunctionality. yes, of course it's dysfunctional in all sorts of respects and of course this is not a good thing. But most organisations of its kind are, and are always going to be, because they're run by volunteers, in their spare time, and for that matter volunteers who passionately disagree with each other on all sorts of things. Of course its performance and structure could and should be improved, but if you ask people exactly how - well, they're going to disagree about it, and passionately so.

So it ain't so easy.

b. Alex McFarlane. As Alex gets a frequent kicking on this forum, I'd like to say some things in his favour. Yes, of course he had a personal motive for his long campaign against CJ. However, to my mind there is a certain contrdiction between attacking Alex for running a longstanding personal campaign, and running a longstanding personal campaign against Alex. if you see what I mean.

Secondly, if it were not for Alex's campaign against CJ, it is to my mind a loss less likely that we would now be rid of that ludicrious individual. I actually think we owe Alex a debt of gratitude on this one.

c. Adam Raoof. I was very sorry not to see Adam elected. I am far from agreeing with everything Adam did in re: CJ, but other people have been a lot more out of order than Adam's ever been and not been quite so heavily rebuffed.

However, in all instances people who cast votes generally do so for good and honourable reasons of their own. Maybe accepting that might be our first step to a less dysfunctional organisation and less rancorous debates?

[Mick Norris]

I have had a drink with Bill and I can confirm he is one of the good guys

We don't agree on everything, but I find him less dogmatic in his views than most Northern chess officials

The NCCU proposed Rupert, who was Bill's predecessor as NCCU President, so voting for him was a given

It is easy for those who don't attend the AGM, or even those who do but don't have the massively long day that Bill had, to criticise

[Ernie Lazenby]

Getting back to the AGM. Alex has clarified his position and knowing him it will be 100% true. That said would it really be so wrong for someone so badly treated to have canvassed the removal of anyone involved in Sheffield and the aftermath. I mean come on in the real world folk badly wronged seek redress. Equally would it be so wrong if folk had voted in a way that suppoorted those so badly wronged. To think otherwise is expecting too much of human nature.
Had I been carrying the NCCU voted I too would have voted as William did. Adam Raoof has his friends and no doubt they will say he has many attributes however its silly to think that backgound events in the last 12 months have not impacted on the election. They have and thats life. Maybe he will learn from what took place.

[David Pardoe]

Maybe the simple thing is for someone to tidy up that report. Presentation does count regarding impressions created, and the NCCU I`m sure would like to be seen in a good light.
My grammar and spelling comes in for some stick at times, so I cant complain at Bill.... And yes, there will always be those who dont like your `style`....
That someone like Rupert Jones cannot find a post on the ECF board in some capacity is disappointing. Maybe Vice President might be a good start...
However, one thing I`m sure that will alarm members is the decision making process and management process at the ECF, and the voting at the AGM, which, frankly, comes across as bazzar. Decisions regarding Adam R are but one example of some strange goings on.... but questions as to why Adam didnt put out a `statement` are probably fairly valid, given the way things seem to operate.. Maybe his busy schedule.... maybe he just assumed people knew his position, ....and his forum comments (as I`ve quoted), certainly dont contain anything frightning that I can see. But that no alarm bells were rung on this forum regarding Adams candidacy does seem to suggest that folk were not too uncomfortable with him standing.
What is worrying is the way things seem to operate at the ECF. I`m left with the impression that Members are actually electing `Dictators` and not Directors.....people answerable to no-one, who can march on regardless with whatever plans they might have, with little or no reference to the board or to others views.
The board need to operate as a `team process`, showing clearly that it is listening, consulting, and communicating with the membership (and with each other) in an effective manner. I`d be in favour of having regional directors, who could act as a sounding board for directors, and a bridge to the various regions, hopefully allowing more `two-way` regional feedback and communication with the board. To have several such directors who form a monitoring and support committee might be quite useful, and might beef up the ECF executive, and give greater regional representation.

[Matthew Turner]

What do the various 4NCL players feel about Mike Truran's report on the meeting. With his 30 votes did he reflect the views of his various constituencies.

All the 4NCL captains were emailed before the AGM to ask for their opinions. Few replied; those that did reply were by a significant majority in agreement with the 4NCL Board's proposals.

Gosh. You explained that you intended to be part of (lead?) a campaign against one of the arbiters at the 4NCL (Roger Edwrards) and the Captains were not concerned that this might have a negative impact on the 4NCL.

[Ernie Lazenby]

David whats done is done the report has been published.
I perhaps should mention something alluded to by another poster.

William will remain in his position as NCCU President for two years. The position rotates between the NCCU constituent counties.
Currently its Clevelands turn to hold the position and our members agreed to William taking on the position. As far as I am aware the NCCU does not have any proceedure for removing officers and I think I can say with some degree of certainty William will have the support of the Cleveland members and the executive. Therefore any ridiculous talk of removing him because of his report is meaningless. Those who advocate that ought to try doing what he does. End of.

[Roger de Coverly]

The NCCU proposed Rupert, who was Bill's predecessor as NCCU President, so voting for him was a given

For the NCCU's own votes, but what of the various County and Congress votes at his disposal? If as the NCCU report suggests, the contest became a proxy for Kirsan against not Kirsan, is there more support for Kirsan than previously believed?

[David Pardoe]

Ernie,
I`m sure William will do a good job for the NCCU...he is a classic case of a chosen candidate who might wel not be `the chosen one` or `the ideal candidiate`, but can never-the-less probably do a useful job.
Pity that Adam wasnt shown the same consideration, so it would appear.
I guess the NCCU dont have the `non of these candidates` option, which does appear to be a slightly balmy option anyway.

Yes, reports can surely be easily amended, and typo`s/spellings, etc corrected....

[Mick Norris]

The NCCU proposed Rupert, who was Bill's predecessor as NCCU President, so voting for him was a given

For the NCCU's own votes, but what of the various County and Congress votes at his disposal? If as the NCCU report suggests, the contest became a proxy for Kirsan against not Kirsan, is there more support for Kirsan than previously believed?

That's up to them, if you appoint a proxy, then you either direct him/her, or leave it at his/her discretion

I don't think it is a pro or anti Kirsan thing as you suggest, it was a case of whether they thought Nigel or Rupert was best for the job