Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Indeed, and recent events illustrate this all too starkly. As if Putin is going to give a flying fart what Cameron and Hague say, FFS

I would suggest that what is said is fairly immaterial, except perhaps for what is said frankly and in private. What is done, though, rather than said, is quite different. If Polish military aircraft ended up stationed in Lviv, British tanks in Kiev, French warships were tied up alongside in Odessa, and Ukrainian sovereignty were placed under the protections of NATO's Article 5, then Russia would pay very close attention indeed. Possibly Putin would be deposed for such a visible and embarrassing miscalculation. Of course, this is rather unlikely to happen, as whilst the Polish cavalry would certainly have the balls for it, it seems unlikely that Cameron and Hague would.

It depends which side ends up miscalculating. Escalating in a ratchet fashion on both sides can end up in unexpected places. The big unanswered questions are how far some of the individuals, states and groupings (alliances?) are prepared to go. Someone loses face eventually, but is that enough to prevent or precipitate conflict? Anyway, I see some Ukrainian admiral has defected, so someone somewhere will be trying to calculate what that means.

PS. This post and a couple of the preceding ones should really be excised and moved to the appropriate thread. It wouldn't really do to mix up ECF politics with international politics!

[John McKenna]

I'd just like to throw in the PRETEXT - when one is required it will soon be found.

[David Sedgwick]

... it does not look good if people agree on the same course of actions for separate reasons. It works for elections, of course, but only because reasons are not expected to be given. But seeking to persuade a President to resign seems to be the sort of action which is sufficiently important that one would expect the movers to have a reasonably common set of complaints.

The common theme seems pretty clear to me.

The individual issues vary from Director to Director according to their specific responsibilities. But four of the five "Departmental" Executive Directors have all said that the attitude and approach of AP have made it impossible for them to carry out those responsibilities and for the Board to function. The fifth "Departmental" Director has not himself been affected in the same way, but agrees on the second point.

Jonathan, before the election you were one of the strongest advocates of the view that electing AP as President would be an extremely rash move. I'm surprised that you're so reluctant to accept that you've been proved right.

[JustinHorton]

Jonathan, before the election you were one of the strongest advocates of the view that electing AP as President would be an extremely rash move. I'm surprised that you're so reluctant to accept that you've been proved right.

I think I can reasonably claim to be another, and I think I can also reasonably claim to have set out a whole tranche of reasons why there's more to this than cheering on the removal of somebody against whose election I advised.

Well, I am sure there are plenty of big things ... but I actually think it would help if the big "domestic" issues were spelt out. Every discussion about this at the recent 4NCL weekend revolved around AP, MP, Short and AGON, and no one seemed to advert to any of the domestic issues.

Which is precisely why things should not be done in the way in which they have been done.

[Richard Bates]

It seems to me that the domestic issues are more a clash of philosophies than anything else. Andrew Paulson sees himself as a Prime Minister figure to whom all other officers should be subordinate. He takes his election and manifesto as being the Board manifesto and thinks that where his manifesto encroaches on other Directorates he has the authority/power to involve himself in and even potentially take over their areas of responsibility. What he has fundamentally failed to grasp is that under the ECF constitution each Director has a personal mandate to effectively do what they want, and no Directorate is subordinate to another. He is not 'first among equals' but just 'one among many'. The President has no real defined role under the ECF constitution, which is why there are constant debates about the extent to which the role is best filled in a ceremonial form.

Of course the whole system is ripe for the Board tending somewhat towards dysfunctionality, since there will always be potential areas of overlap between Directorates (eg. the issues of Juniors and Membership last year), but it simply can't work when a President demands involvement in everything as a matter of principle. Which is what seems to have happened.

All sides seem to realise this which is why it needs to be resolved. Paulson won't back down, but his solution is to create an entirely new Board who buy into his view of his role. Where he will find the candidates for this Board is anyone's guess. Obviously the dissenters on the current Board who don't buy into his view have a simpler solution. Which is for him to step down or be removed. To some extent I think questioning the specific reasons for getting rid of Paulson is missing the point. Either Paulson has to go, or the others do. There's no point in producing some sort of fudge to keep all in place.

[PeterFarr]

Peter, I'm sure the ECF would appreciate any constructive comments you have for improving the website. At the time the new membership scheme was being introduced we did consider some proposals from professional organisations but we finally decided we couldn't afford the cost.

Mike, I'm not talking so much about the IT / technical side as about managing the content; obviously the design, layout etc could be improved at a cost, but getting better messages across within the existing framework should be do-able. I'll think about it; your suggestion of being constructive is well-placed; of course it's easier to be purely critical!

[Jonathan Rogers]

Jonathan, before the election you were one of the strongest advocates of the view that electing AP as President would be an extremely rash move. I'm surprised that you're so reluctant to accept that you've been proved right.

Well, I never doubted I was right! But, as with Justin, I still wish to know exactly what is going on now.

[Roger de Coverly]

To some extent I think questioning the specific reasons for getting rid of Paulson is missing the point. Either Paulson has to go, or the others do. There's no point in producing some sort of fudge to keep all in place.

If it doesn't end quietly, there will be no doubt be salacious details and mudslinging. I'm reminded that the previous President bar one was threatening to tell all, were he to be voted out at the scheduled election. In the event he stood down without fuss. We never did find out, if we really cared, what job it was that he was taking that was incompatible with remaining as ECF President.

There would have been those who had experience of working with AP at the Simpsons Grand Prix and the London Candidates. None of these flagged an issue that he could be difficult to work with, as now discovered by the Executive Directors. Perhaps his role was more clearly defined as "Boss", but what was the overlap with Kirsan's Global Chess company?

[Jonathan Rogers]

It seems to me that the domestic issues are more a clash of philosophies than anything else. Andrew Paulson sees himself as a Prime Minister figure to whom all other officers should be subordinate. He takes his election and manifesto as being the Board manifesto and thinks that where his manifesto encroaches on other Directorates he has the authority/power to involve himself in and even potentially take over their areas of responsibility. What he has fundamentally failed to grasp is that under the ECF constitution each Director has a personal mandate to effectively do what they want, and no Directorate is subordinate to another. He is not 'first among equals' but just 'one among many'. The President has no real defined role under the ECF constitution, which is why there are constant debates about the extent to which the role is best filled in a ceremonial form.

Of course the whole system is ripe for the Board tending somewhat towards dysfunctionality, since there will always be potential areas of overlap between Directorates (eg. the issues of Juniors and Membership last year), but it simply can't work when a President demands involvement in everything as a matter of principle. Which is what seems to have happened.

All sides seem to realise this which is why it needs to be resolved. Paulson won't back down, but his solution is to create an entirely new Board who buy into his view of his role. Where he will find the candidates for this Board is anyone's guess. Obviously the dissenters on the current Board who don't buy into his view have a simpler solution. Which is for him to step down or be removed. To some extent I think questioning the specific reasons for getting rid of Paulson is missing the point. Either Paulson has to go, or the others do. There's no point in producing some sort of fudge to keep all in place.

This I fully agree with. Not many can be doubting that it will make more sense to lose AP. But I think that clarity is important, and if the Board mostly cannot work with AP because he undermines or over-rules them, then that should be clearly understood to be the reason for the split. It is not presently so understood because we hear so much about MP and NS and AP instead. I think that instead of coming to the EGM in April to explain his side of things regarding AGON and FIDE, MP should actually steer well away, and should if necessary be told to do so by the other Board members; otherwise the real points at issue will be completely lost in the proceedings.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think that instead of coming to the EGM in April to explain his side of things regarding AGON and FIDE, MP should actually steer well away, and should if necessary be told to do so by the other Board members; otherwise the real points at issue will be completely lost in the proceedings.

I dare say he could be signed in as a Representative for the London Chess Classic, but MP's rights to attend and speak at meetings of the ECF voting membership are the same as for every other individual; none, unless specially invited.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I think that instead of coming to the EGM in April to explain his side of things regarding AGON and FIDE, MP should actually steer well away, and should if necessary be told to do so by the other Board members; otherwise the real points at issue will be completely lost in the proceedings.

I dare say he could be signed in as a Representative for the London Chess Classic, but MP's rights to attend and speak at meetings of the ECF voting membership are the same as for every other individual; none, unless specially invited.

That's what I thought, but one might not think so if one were to to read MP's post on this forum. True, there are many who seem to think that his views are the most important of all in English chess (some such people have posted here to that effect) so no doubt someone will invite him. But that precisely is my point here. To do so would muddy the waters considerably (and incidentally, the complications might actually help AP, who will be able to wave his hand at the allegations and say "look, gentlemen, this is what my supposed fall-out with the board is really about - and here in my hand is the document which proves that I am the sole shareholder in AGON!").

[David Sedgwick]

I think that instead of coming to the EGM in April to explain his side of things regarding AGON and FIDE, MP should actually steer well away, and should if necessary be told to do so by the other Board members; otherwise the real points at issue will be completely lost in the proceedings.

I dare say he could be signed in as a Representative for the London Chess Classic, but MP's rights to attend and speak at meetings of the ECF voting membership are the same as for every other individual; none, unless specially invited.

I'd just like to clarify a few points.

1. Malcolm Pein is not a member of the ECF Board.
2. It is now Chess in Schools and Communities, not the London Chess Classic, which is the ECF member.
3. I am the ECF Representative Member for CSC. As such I take instructions from Malcolm on all important issues.
4. If Malcolm asks me to give him the proxy for CSC, I shall do so.
5. If he holds that or any other proxy, he has the right to attend the EGM, whatever the "other Board Members" or anyone else might wish.

[David Sedgwick]

That's what I thought, but one might not think so if one were to to read MP's post on this forum. True, there are many who seem to think that his views are the most important of all in English chess (some such people have posted here to that effect) so no doubt someone will invite him.

If Andrew Paulson had alleged that ECF Board members were in the pay of Jonathan Rogers and were seeking to oust him on your instructions, then your response would probably have been regarded as rather important.

That has little or nothing to do with the FIDE / AGON contract.

[Richard Bates]

It seems to me that the domestic issues are more a clash of philosophies than anything else. Andrew Paulson sees himself as a Prime Minister figure to whom all other officers should be subordinate. He takes his election and manifesto as being the Board manifesto and thinks that where his manifesto encroaches on other Directorates he has the authority/power to involve himself in and even potentially take over their areas of responsibility. What he has fundamentally failed to grasp is that under the ECF constitution each Director has a personal mandate to effectively do what they want, and no Directorate is subordinate to another. He is not 'first among equals' but just 'one among many'. The President has no real defined role under the ECF constitution, which is why there are constant debates about the extent to which the role is best filled in a ceremonial form.

Of course the whole system is ripe for the Board tending somewhat towards dysfunctionality, since there will always be potential areas of overlap between Directorates (eg. the issues of Juniors and Membership last year), but it simply can't work when a President demands involvement in everything as a matter of principle. Which is what seems to have happened.

All sides seem to realise this which is why it needs to be resolved. Paulson won't back down, but his solution is to create an entirely new Board who buy into his view of his role. Where he will find the candidates for this Board is anyone's guess. Obviously the dissenters on the current Board who don't buy into his view have a simpler solution. Which is for him to step down or be removed. To some extent I think questioning the specific reasons for getting rid of Paulson is missing the point. Either Paulson has to go, or the others do. There's no point in producing some sort of fudge to keep all in place.

This I fully agree with. Not many can be doubting that it will make more sense to lose AP. But I think that clarity is important, and if the Board mostly cannot work with AP because he undermines or over-rules them, then that should be clearly understood to be the reason for the split. It is not presently so understood because we hear so much about MP and NS and AP instead.

The irony, considering what i expect to be the likely and "more sensible" outcome, is that (leaving issues of personality aside) the presumed AP view of how the Board should work in an ideal world is probably a justified one. If one were to identify key failings in the ECF i imagine that high up on the list would be "lack of leadership", "lack of common purpose" and "lack of strategic vision (and means to implement it). None of which are particularly likely to be delivered under the current constitutional model. But the point is that as long as the current constitutional model exists, AP's view has to lose out for the Board to function. The failings of the ECF are often held to be a consequence of the 'outdated' structure of the ECF Council. What this situation arguably shows is that problems could also be blamed on the arrangements for constituting the Board, and any reform proposals should address this as much as anything else.

[Mike Gunn]

>>>>What this situation arguably shows is that problems could also be blamed on the arrangements for constituting the Board, and any reform proposals should address this as much as anything else.<<<<

The BCF/ECF has a democratic tradition. It has always (I believe) taken its decisions by giving a certain number of people (representatives/ elected directors) a vote. Currently there are 10 people with a vote (actually 9 in the absence of a Commercial Director), originally there were many more but the number has been progressively reduced over the years to lead to more efficient decision making. Some decisions of the board require endorsement (and may be changed) by Council.

If you really want clarity of vision then you could elect a single leader who would then appoint the equivalent of the functional directors and they could be dismissed by him (like a political President or Prime Minister does). This doesn't seem to fit either with the ECF's democratic tradition, nor its current structure as a company. (A CEO could be given considerably more powers, but he couldn't appoint his own board or get rid of directors he didn't like.)