5 Questions about the ECF Academy Tender that need answers
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:49 am
5 Questions about the ECF Academy Tender that need answers
1. Will the Tender Bids for the ECF Academy, and their respective point scores awarded under the Tender procedure, be published? At the latest Academy weekend 2 weeks ago, UK Chess Challenge did not appear to have a) a business plan; b) a syllabus; or c) nominated coaches, as required by the Tender Document.
2. Why are the ECF Academy coaches for 2019 being appointed by UK Chess Challenge, when the Tender Document clearly states that the Head of the Academy, IM and FIDE Senior Trainer Andrew Martin, would appoint coaches for the remaining training weekends this year?
3. Why has the Junior Director been so intimately involved in the awarding of the management contract to UK Chess Challenge, a company that he is closely associated with, rather than being recused from the whole process and having the appointment handled by a qualified, independent person chosen by the ECF Board? Also, no one on the Adjudication Panel (Alex Holowczak, Julie Denning & Tim Herring) had direct experience of the Academy's work, and the panel’s technical advisor, Malcolm Pein, had previously only attended one Academy weekend in three and a half years.
4. Why were the ECF Academy coaches not consulted at all about the way forward for the Academy? If the Board’s issue was with the previous financial management of the Academy, that issue surely ended with the change of Junior Director. A collegiate approach, bringing together highly experienced coaches and potential managers to run the Academy collaboratively, even now would be a better way to run the country's main chess school for juniors.
5. Why did the ECF Board not allow time for a competitive election for Junior Director to take place last year, when the incumbent resigned abruptly in early September 2018 (one day before nominations closed)? Surely that would have been the correct step to ensure good governance, and for the ECF Council to review possible candidates’ merits, instead of the appointment of someone with a potential conflict of interest being railroaded through.
1. Will the Tender Bids for the ECF Academy, and their respective point scores awarded under the Tender procedure, be published? At the latest Academy weekend 2 weeks ago, UK Chess Challenge did not appear to have a) a business plan; b) a syllabus; or c) nominated coaches, as required by the Tender Document.
2. Why are the ECF Academy coaches for 2019 being appointed by UK Chess Challenge, when the Tender Document clearly states that the Head of the Academy, IM and FIDE Senior Trainer Andrew Martin, would appoint coaches for the remaining training weekends this year?
3. Why has the Junior Director been so intimately involved in the awarding of the management contract to UK Chess Challenge, a company that he is closely associated with, rather than being recused from the whole process and having the appointment handled by a qualified, independent person chosen by the ECF Board? Also, no one on the Adjudication Panel (Alex Holowczak, Julie Denning & Tim Herring) had direct experience of the Academy's work, and the panel’s technical advisor, Malcolm Pein, had previously only attended one Academy weekend in three and a half years.
4. Why were the ECF Academy coaches not consulted at all about the way forward for the Academy? If the Board’s issue was with the previous financial management of the Academy, that issue surely ended with the change of Junior Director. A collegiate approach, bringing together highly experienced coaches and potential managers to run the Academy collaboratively, even now would be a better way to run the country's main chess school for juniors.
5. Why did the ECF Board not allow time for a competitive election for Junior Director to take place last year, when the incumbent resigned abruptly in early September 2018 (one day before nominations closed)? Surely that would have been the correct step to ensure good governance, and for the ECF Council to review possible candidates’ merits, instead of the appointment of someone with a potential conflict of interest being railroaded through.