A Remarkable Read

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:29 am

Michael Farthing wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:30 pm

Regulation 5 Paragraph 3.5:
The outcome of the complaint will be published on the ECF website
'The rules' aside, it seems to me fairly obvious that publishing the outcome of complaints and the process that lead to this outcome is clearly preferable to the alternative. We are seeing right now in the nominations thread what happens when information is not withheld.


Personally, I read the report with a certain weariness but at least thinking that the ECF were on the right track with regard to engagement with members and the public for once.


On the other hand, this from page 4 of the report:-
"The Board agreed with one vote against (not RW) that the content of RW’s dissatisfaction should be recorded but not published and therefore that the minute of the discussion would be redacted."
[my emphasis]

Strikes me as potentially problematic. At the very least it's clear that it became a problem.

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Chris Goodall » Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:10 am

Michael Farthing wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:48 pm
Ah! Chris
I meant it to be a personal record - I wasn't claiming there has never been another forum member who has agreed with every word of a whole thread! My bad phraseology.
Don't worry Michael, I read it in the sense you intended it! My "challenge" was to write something you were able to disagree with. I was confessing to being a Contrary Mary.
J T Melsom wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:05 am
But there is no similar scrutiny applied ro Rob's friends. Integrity seems in short supply. I'd like to see candidates put forward positive proposals and distance themselves from the lying attack dogs that have been deployed in advance. Those who share the Wall/Fegan approach are not fit for office in an organisation which requires a broad base consensus to be maintained for anything to be done.
I would immediately question Tim's fitness for office for any number of reasons, if it turned out he was standing for any office. I don't yet see that he is...
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.

Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:31 am

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:29 am

'The rules' aside, it seems to me fairly obvious that publishing the outcome of complaints and the process that lead to this outcome is clearly preferable to the alternative. We are seeing right now in the nominations thread what happens when information is not withheld.

All organisations will have occasions when there are disputes between individuals, either due to inappropriate behaviour or simply the wrong thing having been said/ done, which necessitates a third party hearing both sides to decide on guilt or mediating a solution, depending on the circumstances. I've been involved in several such incidents at work over the years (including earlier this year) and I suspect the majority of us can say the same. While sometimes it might be in the wider interest for the outcome to be published or there is such sound and fury around the incident that everybody knows about it, however it should not be the case that the notes of the dispute must be published as a matter of course - the fact that the ECF have such a policy concerns me greatly.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:01 pm

It seems to me quite right to suggest that complaints arising out of a quarrel between individuals should maybe remain private. There's a couple of problems though, one of which is the usual one that people who are in on the gossip will find out and spread the news anyway, so it can be better that fact are properly published nevertheless. This of course can happen at work too, but there's a difference because sanctions are available against people who talk of confidential matters, which doesn't really apply to us beyond Board members. (I'm not saying we should draw the conclusion that the matter should necessarily be published, I'm just observing that there's a difference which we should think about.)

Another is that the only reason I personally know about this matter is that Chris Fegan chose, quite inappropriately, to raise it here.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Nick Ivell » Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:07 pm

Same here. I knew nothing about the complaint, until it was inappropriately raised in this place.

I'm glad the outcome was published though, as it was all exposed as a farrago of nonsense.

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

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:17 pm

Nick Ivell wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:07 pm
I'm glad the outcome was published though, as it was all exposed as a farrago of nonsense.
The start of the row seems to have been about the veracity or otherwise of this statement.
The English Junior Coaches and Organiser's association with the assistance of the World Chess Federation will be running an online Fide Trainers Seminar over the weekend of Fr Sept 3rd to Sun Sep 5th.
That is the opening post in the thread
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11867

It was dated 3rd July at around the time of the row between the EJCOA and the ECF or ECF Junior Director about academies. Seemingly that row was resolved.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:21 pm

Nick Ivell wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:07 pm
I'm glad the outcome was published though, as it was all exposed as a farrago of nonsense.
Well that's one of the reasons why you publish such things isn't it? To give people the opportunity of being informed and drawing their own conclusions.

I would tend to agree that private disagreements would be better of left private ... but if it gets to the point of a formal complaint it's not really private.

If you're going to publish the outcome of formal complaints - and on balance I think it is (again with an eye on the point you raise) - then you have to publish them all. You can't pick and choose which ones are worth it and which not.

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

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:19 pm

All rather reminiscent of the days when Ray Keene, in seeking high office, employed an army of acolytes.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Paul McKeown » Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:24 pm

A most remarkable thread here, demonstrating one of the lesser known laws of physics, that nodding dogs seldom differ.

Mike Truran called Rob Willmoth a liar, when Willmoth stated that he had been the motivator of the recent (and fantastically well conceived and run) FIDE Trainers' course. However, five minutes of fact checking before gobbing off would have shown the ECF's CEO that his fellow board member had indeed spoken in truth concerning his notable achievement.

That the ECF Board and subsequent enquiry should leave sleeping dogs lying (if that is not too dangerous a word in the context) says something remarkable, if not good.

That MT should call RW a liar, was needless and reckless, but then to deny it or attempt to ameliorate it with some mock philosophical contemplation concerning the nature of defamation and a sentence framed in interrogative form, was certainly no genuine attempt to pour oil on troubled waters.

I don't know MT well personally, and I am aware that he has done much good work for English chess over the years.

He writes, however, in his election address, "I’ve been subject to some highly unpleasant and hurtful public and personal attacks during my tenure, in particular during the last couple of months, unlike anything I’ve experienced before in my decades-long business and volunteer career."

Surely those words of his, glasshouses and all that, should be a moment for his self-reflection?

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:52 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Hok Yin Stephen Chiu » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:19 pm

I wish the ECF provided short Execurive Summaries for these documents..
G. Secretary, https://WarwickChessAlumni.blogspot.com/
Delegate - Leamington
FIDE Arbiter

Alan Kennedy
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:33 am

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Alan Kennedy » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:40 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:24 pm
I don't know MT well personally, and I am aware that he has done much good work for English chess over the years.
You might like to have a look at the video i published at the start of the pandemic. it shows what is like to be in the same chess club as Mike Truran. https://bit.ly/2xU0QsN starting around 2.20.

Given the amount of good he has done for English chess over the years, as has Malcolm Pein, perhaps you could offer him your thanks as clearly criticism is taking its toll, as it did for Phil Ehr and Andrew Farthing before him. The other point worth making is that the formal complaints were both rejected by the complaints committee. Maybe there was some other motivation in making the complaints.
Last edited by Alan Kennedy on Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Chris Goodall » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:43 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:24 pm
Mike Truran called Rob Willmoth a liar
*Googles*

So Paul, it says here you've worked for CSC for 12 years, what do you think you would bring to the role of Development Officer (South)?
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.

Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Paul McKeown » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:12 pm

Another that could do some fact checking! ROFL.

I left CSC in 2015, after a total of 5 years 2 months. I thank Malcolm Pein for the opportunity. I also played for many years in the 4NCL and thank Mike Truran for the opportunity.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:36 pm

Chris Goodall wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:43 pm
*Googles*

So ..., it says here you've worked for CSC ....
You’re going to get a lot of hits if you start looking for chess players who work or have worked for CSC. It’s a national charity after all. And what is more, people who work(ed) for CSC are also disproportionately likely to be involved in other areas of chess life - the ECF included.

You’ll also find a whole range of levels of CSC-connectness. From the CEO Malcolm Pein, to full-time employees to people who work one hour a week in term time.

In short: you might want to be more careful with the conclusions you jump to

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4815
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford
Contact:

Re: A Remarkable Read

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:43 pm

In particular, with reference to these elections, the set of people who have been arbiters at both CSC events and 4NCL events is pretty large.

Post Reply