Chief Executive 2021

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.

Chief Executive 2021

Mike Truran
51
62%
Malcolm Pein
25
30%
None of the above
6
7%
 
Total votes: 82

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:23 pm

J T Melsom wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:53 pm
I gave my proxy to the Chair not to another representative. The chair can only vote as directed on specific items, and I can't direct on additions to the agenda. That is why substantive amendments are not supposed to be admitted. Closing date for advising of attendance and proxy arrangements was yesterday.
I may be wrong, but I think that you can still attend in person, including over Zoom. My understanding is that a proxy lapses if the proxy granter turns up and votes.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:27 am

After reading through Malcolm's "compromise" note, I'm struck by his apparent insistence on the Development Officer [DO] role. Perhaps I could offer a couple of thoughts here. In theory, there's something to be said for a manual on "How to run a successful chess club" including comprehensive coverage of how to organise events, how to obtain sponsorship, and all the other entirely sensible and useful ideas listed in the DO proposal.

However, it seems to me that, using the same logic, the ECF might usefully commission a sufficiently competent person to put together a manual on "How to become a grandmaster" containing all the sensible and useful ideas needed to achieve that. What seems to me the compelling argument against the latter idea is that production of such a manual probably wouldn't significantly affect the numbers achieving GM status - in the main, those with the desire and ability would succeed anyway while the manual wouldn't help those who haven't.

While I'm not suggesting it's a perfect analogy, I suspect that much the same applies to detailed "How to run a successful chess club" advice. There's a minority of organisers who will probably know most of this already. There's also a much larger number of clubs whose activities consist of little more than meeting weekly where there's no real prospect of their undertaking any of the more ambitious ideas which a DO might outline. To take just one example, some chess clubs are run on what used to be described as "the back of a fag packet" while sponsors typically require a coherent organisation - including paperwork such as a constitution, privacy policy, safeguarding policy, financial accounts, etc.

In much the same way as the GM analogy, it simply isn't clear to me that a DO's recommendations, however objectively sensible they may be, will transform the way most clubs are run or have much practical impact. If that's the case, the ECF would be spending money on a white elephant.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Michael Farthing » Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:28 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:23 pm
J T Melsom wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:53 pm
I gave my proxy to the Chair not to another representative. The chair can only vote as directed on specific items, and I can't direct on additions to the agenda. That is why substantive amendments are not supposed to be admitted. Closing date for advising of attendance and proxy arrangements was yesterday.
I may be wrong, but I think that you can still attend in person, including over Zoom. My understanding is that a proxy lapses if the proxy granter turns up and votes.
This is correct.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Alex McFarlane » Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:54 am

Roger, if the club has a bank account then it almost certainly has had to produce a constitution but otherwise I agree with the points you are making and have said so locally (Northumberland). Surprisingly there has been one strongly dissenting voice in the area :D

The focus of these discussions seems to be on clubs. But are the majority of clubs likely (willing) to change? In my experience many clubs are unwilling to change and, perhaps worse, unwilling to accept that they could improve. As an example, a Paisley club used to meet in the cellar of a bar. It was a dreadful venue always cold and if you leaned on a wall you were covered in whitewash. The Glasgow League declared the venue unfit. The other Paisley club suggested a 'merger' with competitive chess at its venue and social chess in the pub. This offer was rejected. Within a year that club had folded and many of its players stopped playing. This is the sort of mindset that a development officer will face - people preferring that the club dies to it changing.
I accept that is an extreme case but define the average club. Impossible. There are just so many variations that an 'average' club probably doesn't actually exist. Are there two clubs in your area that work in exactly the same way?
Imagine you were setting up a club and some of the questions you would need to answer?
Best day to meet? Best time to meet? What type of venue? What size of venue? Suitable furniture? Maximum cost of hire? Maximum membership fee? Etc. There is no standard answer to these questions.
So what is the best way forward?
There will be some clubs willing to work with a development officer but I think these will be in the minority. There is certainly a case for collating and disseminating best practice in existing clubs but the demand for the end product is probably limited so would it be worth the effort.

In my opinion development is best done above club level, so the local league or association. What could such an organisation do?
Set up a drop in chess club in a local hotel where busy people could play social chess in a relaxed atmosphere and have a meal and a drink (and potentially local sponsors could be found).
Work with the schools to develop players who are then directed to friendly chess clubs that won't frighten them away. (Difficulty for a player who belongs to one club to direct promising juniors to another!)
Work with libraries to attract older players who may never play for a club.

Do I support the idea of a development officer? Probably but I would need to see the remit for the job. Do I support the idea of two development officers? Probably not, better one person working longer hours. Do I see a development officer travelling around the country giving advice? No, I do not see this as being cost effective or even very productive. In the age of Zoom meetings this could be a way forward by gathering together people throughout the country who want to see innovate ways to promote chess, to collate examples of best practice, etc. More importantly to identify local people with the time, inclination and enthusiasm to build chess in their area. Of course these people will also need thick skins to ignore the negative comments some will throw at their efforts, especially if clubs start losing members to clubs which are actively promoting chess in a more friendly way.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Paul Cooksey » Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:21 am

Alex makes lots of interesting points, some of which I will probably respond to in the Economics of Chess Clubs thread.

I'm pretty sceptical of the value of Development Officers. Difficult to see who the Development Officer actually helps, I don't think anyone has yet said "I wished there had been a development officer to advise me in this situation". But it is good to be proven wrong about such things. So I'd support a trial, but I'd expect it to be as small and short term as it could reasonably be until we have some evidence it has value.

J T Melsom
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by J T Melsom » Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:11 am

i am grateful to Michael and David for confirming the process allows me to cancel my proxy and turn up in person. I could still turn up in person or virtually but would be required to cancel other arrangements made in the light of the previously fixed agenda to the frustration of the other people involved. Its not an option for everybody opting to use proxies.

Its also been suggested that I've misunderstood the impact of these additions to the agenda so I am to some extent reassured about that. I remain unconvinced that they should be added to the business of the meeting after the closure of the proxy arrangements for the same meeting. But the decision on what are 'minor matters' that can be added is not mine to make. Proposals at the eleventh hour will arouse suspicion amidst the irritation however competent the Chair may be.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7162
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by John Upham » Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:39 am

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:21 am
I'm pretty sceptical of the value of Development Officers. Difficult to see who the Development Officer actually helps,
Table Tennis England has had Development Officers for some years and mostly has one per county. I've met some of them and they have been very helpful in getting initiatives off the ground and facilitating improvement.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Mick Norris
Posts: 10310
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Mick Norris » Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:06 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:09 pm
NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:50 pm
link explaining the compromise reached
In the link, there's an admission of power blocs.
5. We will work together with Stephen Woodhouse to recruit a Non-Executive Director unaligned with either CSC or the 4NCL when Julian Clissold’s current term as Non-Executive Chairman expires in 2022.
The arbiter nexus as an unaligned third power perhaps? They do however work with both at an individual level.
The NEDs are important to the Members, in that they are our best chance of holding the Board to account (between Council meetings at least)

The NEDs need to be independent of CSC certainly; ideally, we'd find someone from outside chess; there's no way anyone on the Board should be involved in trying to "recruit" a NED, especially anyone who has attacked the retiring NED
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Alex McFarlane » Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:39 am

Ned means something quite different in the Glasgow area.

noun DEROGATORY•INFORMAL
a hooligan or petty criminal.
a stupid or loutish boy or man.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

With that in mind I would suggest that a retiring member of the Board could submit his CF, sorry CV, and apply!

More seriously, I'm now starting the Mick Norris for NED campaign.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10310
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Mick Norris » Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:49 am

:lol: I don't think replacing one Bolton resident with another makes good policy

Anyway, you'd have to get Malcolm to resign all his ECF roles first
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Mike Gunn
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Mike Gunn » Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:16 pm

J T Melsom wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:54 pm
There seem to be additions to the agenda arising from this compromise that those who have given directed proxies (closing date yesterday) cannot have a say on, including amending Malcolm's role. Other proposals are to be confirmed at the next council meeting, I'm struggling to see why that cannot apply to all. Has the Chair of the meeting accepted the tabling of these proposals? The changes may be good or bad, but they seem to bypass much of Council.
There is a point of procedure here: there can be no extra agenda items, although the agreement reached could affect the interpretation of the existing motions. You can amend an existing motion as long as it doesn't negate the original. (This is all so representatives have time to consult those thet represent once the agenda is issued.)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:27 pm

J T Melsom wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:54 pm
including amending Malcolm's role.
The ECF Board has a track record in inventing new positions and roles between Council meetings, a most recent example being the creation and appointment of an Events Director. I don't suppose it's controversial , but even if it was, the only sanction would be a "not this candidate" vote.

J T Melsom
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by J T Melsom » Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:50 pm

Mike Gunn

Thank you, that is essentially how I understand things are supposed to work. It is Malcolm Pein's representation of events which sparked my concern. I now understand from multiple sources that the spin and the substance are different and my concerns have been met. Thanks to everybody who has posted.

Roger. I'm not actually sure Malcolm's post acknowledges blocs in the sense you suggest, and not necessarily as a bad thing. Instead he suggests NEDs should be independent of those interest groups something which ought to be self evident. I'm not at all sure that a CSC or 4NCL bias can readily be identified in the recent appointments of Julie Denning, Julian Clissold, Stephen Woodhouse or Natasha Regan. It is another case of spin over substance, and like Mick Norris I don't think Malcolm's description of the process of choosing NEDs going forward is really correct or desirable.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:32 pm

I'm much obliged to Alex for his thoughts on Development Officers. I probably disagree with his suggestion that such matters are better dealt with at local league/association, rather than club, level but I concur with Paul who suggests that such discussion belongs to a separate thread.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Nick Grey » Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:10 pm

Post number 1795 same as my rating. I am happy with Mike and Malcolm. Work together. Please spend lots of personal money in shops, cafes, bars and restaurants in the area as the local economy needs business. I will leave it to those with voting rights to make their points. I wonder why not recorded and publish on youtube.

Locked