The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Without commenting on the merits of the claim, I disagree. Complaints against the CEO are envisaged by the procedure. Complaints against the CEO and possibly others are complaints against the CEO. If by widening your complaint to include the others, you earn yourself the right of veto over the adjudication panel, you guarantee that any future complaint against the CEO will include at the bottom "and such other members of the Board as may or may not have been up to unspecified dodgy dealings". It's a free lunch. That can't have been the intention of the complaints procedure drafters.Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:25 amI think Tim has a point. The type of complaint - against the CEO and possibly other Board members - isn't one that's currently envisaged by the Complaints Procedure so arguably Tim, as the complainant, ought to have been consulted about the appointment of an outside adjudication panel.
The intent in 2015 may well have been to stop the Complaints Procedure being used for Directors to fight one another which increasingly had become a practice. I could, without direct evidence, suspect a Director's row in this case about the appointment of the Development Officer, or perhaps the terms of reference for the position. That could have lead to the delayed announcement of the appointment.Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:34 pmThat can't have been the intention of the complaints procedure drafters.
Chess is not that important, David. Go fix the climate or something.David Robertson wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:53 pmIs any of this that important? I mean, really - is it?
Yes, fair enough. Though there is still the issue of the decision to appoint an independent panel (which isn't in the procedure).Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:34 pmWithout commenting on the merits of the claim, I disagree. Complaints against the CEO are envisaged by the procedure. Complaints against the CEO and possibly others are complaints against the CEO. If by widening your complaint to include the others, you earn yourself the right of veto over the adjudication panel, you guarantee that any future complaint against the CEO will include at the bottom "and such other members of the Board as may or may not have been up to unspecified dodgy dealings". It's a free lunch. That can't have been the intention of the complaints procedure drafters.Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:25 amI think Tim has a point. The type of complaint - against the CEO and possibly other Board members - isn't one that's currently envisaged by the Complaints Procedure so arguably Tim, as the complainant, ought to have been consulted about the appointment of an outside adjudication panel.
Who's talking about approval?Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:46 pm... or b) the complainant being obliged to approve the members of this committee (in theory the complainant might never be satisfied - perhaps the procedure should allow one rejection of any committee with the second selection being binding)...
Well, yes. It might also explain the decision to create a Women's Recruitment Officer position.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:41 pmI could, without direct evidence, suspect a Director's row in this case about the appointment of the Development Officer, or perhaps the terms of reference for the position. That could have lead to the delayed announcement of the appointment...
I'm hearing a lot here about what the ECF should not have done, but very little about what they should have. If the complaints procedure as it stands had followed who would be hearing the complaint?Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:00 pm[Yes, fair enough. Though there is still the issue of the decision to appoint an independent panel (which isn't in the procedure).
That's why there needs to be a presumption against... I forget the legal term, but an "explosion of questions".Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:14 pmI appreciate he has stopped short of saying he doesn't wish this particular panel to hear the dispute but there already seems to be an element of a defensive fallback in case the panel does not uphold the complaint.Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:00 pm[Yes, fair enough. Though there is still the issue of the decision to appoint an independent panel (which isn't in the procedure).
Chris, anyone who has worked at a reasonably senior level in either the public or private sector will recognise the process to which you refer in your second and third paragraphs. You have to be able to say that we have investigated as far as possible, this is our decision and this is where it stops. In the public sector, this doesn't work very well and it can go on and on. Incidentally, David Robertson is, of course, right and equally it's boring as hell (but not to Tim, of course), but I did rather like your response to David.Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:27 pmThat's why there needs to be a presumption against... I forget the legal term, but an "explosion of questions".Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:14 pmI appreciate he has stopped short of saying he doesn't wish this particular panel to hear the dispute but there already seems to be an element of a defensive fallback in case the panel does not uphold the complaint.Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:00 pm[Yes, fair enough. Though there is still the issue of the decision to appoint an independent panel (which isn't in the procedure).
A decision gets made; you don't like the decision. But you don't feel like giving up, so you not only appeal against a) the decision, you also appeal against b) the wording of the document announcing the decision, c) the competence of the decision-makers to make the decision, d) the competence of the people who appointed those people, e) the validity of the election of the people who appointed those people, f) the timing of the decision, g) the venue, and h) the size of the postcard on which you had to write your statement rebutting the encyclopedia that the opposing side wrote.
And then of course, if any of those appeals doesn't go in your favour, you apply the same process to them in an endless recursion. So any time a question gets resolved, it makes the pile of outstanding questions larger, not smaller.
On the other hand, if he's not happy either with the panel or with the manner of its appointment (I have no opinion on the matter either way, for the record) what is he supposed to do, if not say so?Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:14 pmWhile Tim Wall's main complaint appears to be that he was not advised of the panel being appointed beforehand he has asked why this particular committee and who made the decision. I appreciate he has stopped short of saying he doesn't wish this particular panel to hear the dispute but there already seems to be an element of a defensive fallback in case the panel does not uphold the complaint.
Blog about it for everyone else's entertainment, obviouslyJustinHorton wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:41 pmOn the other hand, if he's not happy either with the panel or with the manner of its appointment (I have no opinion on the matter either way, for the record) what is he supposed to do, if not say so?
