English Chess Forum

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:06 pm

.

Perhaps we should judge Mr Portman on his actions

Perfectly reasonable idea, but for the while, I'm going to go with what I've got.

Given Tim has said he is going to appeal, I can well understand why Carl will want to respect the ongoing process, by not commenting at this time. However, I did want to highlight that seeing as the Complaints Panel has just concluded that there were no issues with the appointment process, that should surely also count for something, in terms of shaping how we view this matter. It certainly seems to me to be a massive leap from that finding to anyone casting aspersions on Carl, simply based on the fact that he is not engaging in individual correspondence, or posting here at this time. There are always proper ways of doing things... Knowing Carl, I am sure he will have his say at the right time, through official ECF channels. I think we would all probably also agree that it would be extremely helpful if the ECF were to expedite publishing their findings... That would be a great way to bring clarity and hopefully ultimately closure. I have no doubt that would help Carl as much as anyone.

I also wanted to echo Nick’s comments about the time and energy Carl devotes to British Chess. Carl is a man of the highest integrity who does a huge amount for the game and we are lucky to have him. His energy, enthusiasm and passion for helping all players at all levels, in all circumstances enjoy and engage with chess has made a big difference to many lives. I don’t often post here, and this will be my only one on this subject, but I sometimes wonder why anyone would stick their head above the parapet to volunteer for any chess role. It doesn’t look like much fun in terms of the reception that can await. We need people like Carl and Tim and should treasure both of their contributions. (While I don’t know Tim, I do respect his work and all he does for chess and have absolutely no axe to grind with him.)

My point is simply that Carl deserves a lot better and I am proud to call him a friend.

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:06 pm

This is not someone we are electing to spend our taxes, but a chess VOLUNTEER.

To a paid position though - "The post will be part-time and be remunerated, with an additional bonus opportunity based on the delivery of performance-related targets including in particular membership fee revenue growth." (https://www.englishchess.org.uk/develop ... r-vacancy/)

I'm not casting aspersions on anyone, and I don't personally know either of the gentlemen involved, but prima facie [without reading those 37 pages] it seems we've arrived at an impossible situation. Tim presumably won't stop contesting the issue until there's a satisfactory explanation of Carl's letter, most notably as regards the date, while Carl presumably won't offer to provide this explanation until after Tim stops contesting the issue.

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:27 pm

How long is this saga going to go on for?

Well, someone mentioned Jim Tennant-Smith upthread......

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:48 pm

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:06 pm

.

Perhaps we should judge Mr Portman on his actions

Perfectly reasonable idea, but for the while, I'm going to go with what I've got.

Which is evidence of years of service to the chess community versus a few paragraphs of (heavily interpreted) comments on a chess forum.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:08 pm

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:27 pm

How long is this saga going to go on for?

Well, someone mentioned Jim Tennant-Smith upthread......

Someone? I'm not merely 'someone!

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:32 pm

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:48 pm

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:06 pm

.

Perhaps we should judge Mr Portman on his actions

Perfectly reasonable idea, but for the while, I'm going to go with what I've got.

Which is evidence of years of service to the chess community versus a few paragraphs of (heavily interpreted) comments on a chess forum.

Or, what I've gleaned from personal contact and observation, versus....

"Someone? I'm not merely 'someone!"

Outrageous - strike them with lightning!

My concern with all of this rancour is that chess administrators may be put off by the sheer amount of hassle it creates and just give up. Also, as the ECF has a complaints process i fail to see the need to air the issues in such detail until that process has at least finished. That would allow the rest of us to get on with the challenging business of developing chess both at our clubs and in the country!

TimWall wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:25 pm

Today I received a fundamentally flawed ruling by the Complaints Panel, and I intend to appeal.
This matter is not over by a long chalk.

There is not enough facepalm in the world.

Tim, your involvement with chess has been a draw for Forest Hall*, a draw for the North East**, and at this rate will be a crushing defeat for England. You need to drop this non-case against the ECF just to get back up to zero. No-one cares how well you can move the pieces.

*the A team won lots of matches it was expected to win; all the organisers quit except you and Mike
**the Masters is a real live tournament; the NE League is Northumbria Division 1 but on Sundays and you didn't tell the players they needed to be Gold members

I'm not sure the ECF handles complaints well, although of course being underfunded and thus they would argue understaffed doesn't help

Then again, I'm not sure anyone in chess handles complaints well (which is a bit surprising, given how quick chess players are to complain, or maybe that's the reason why)

The panel's response has now been published on the ECF website.

Links for convenience to both the earlier item and the more recent one:

Outcome of a complaint regarding the CEO of the English Chess Federation (15/11/2019)

Complaint regarding the CEO of the English Chess Federation – report of the Complaint Panel (28/11/2019)

The recommendations document (dated 21/11/2019) is a page long.

The full report (undated) is 37 pages, which is 14 pages of the main report and 23 pages of appendices.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:40 pm

The full report (undated) is 37 pages, which is 14 pages of the main report and 23 pages of appendices.

On the face of it, the whole row was created by a failure to update the "Credo" document to its date of publication from the date of the interview, or possibly to have two versions, the earlier being prefaced by "If I am appointed, this is what I shall say." and perhaps the other starting "Following the announcement of my appointment ... "

(edit) Perhaps coupled with the rather curious reference in the CEO/whole board report for the year, which when first published some weeks before the AGM implied that a Development Officer had already been appointed. (/edit)