ECF AGM 2022

[J T Melsom]

Happy to confirm that Ask the Directors remains operational during the election period and would encourage other delegates to write and find out a little more about what candidates for office may do once elected.

[Andrew Wainwright]

In my capacity as President of the YCA I will attend this years AGM in person in Birmingham.

If like minded Chess enthusiasts would care to meet for an introductory chat before the meeting then I can be in Birmingham for either 1-2-1 or group discussions from 11:00am onwards. Please contact me directly on this forum (or alternatively at [email protected]) if you would like to set up a chat.

Yorkshire are keen to forge friendships and pro-active relationships with the wider Chess community. However, I'm not one for "waffle", and want to make the most out of my time on the day, so I am keen to talk about "doing" and not "politics".

Kind Regards

Andy Wainwright
President - YCA (www.yorkshirechess.com)
Co-Founder - The Chess Centre (www.chesscentre.online)
Proxy Rep - BDCA (www.bradfordchess.co.uk)

[J T Melsom]

Andrew - I hope you find people to help in furtherance of 'doing' rather than 'politics'. Its a long day out and far from a grand one if one only gets to see the inside of a Council meeting. But it is a gross caricature to imply attendees at the AGM are talkers not doers. Most are active administrators but for one or two days in the year come together to discuss matters of varying degrees of significance to their local chess communities. Whether they are satisfactorily heard by those in charge or not, this accountability is important. And those who stand for office without telling us what they will do are letting down those they seek to represent. Not too far-fetched to conclude that representing the membership is actually a bit of a burden and those concerned have other priorities.

Edit: 'those running Council' changed to 'those in charge'.

[Andrew Wainwright]

No implication was made, simply a preference to speak with like minded individuals.

[J T Melsom]

Fair enough, my comment was prompted by your post, but it wasn't really a response to your post alone. I have though seen too many people praised as doers who leave loose ends for more process minded chess organisers to tidy up. A balance needs to be struck. The really dangerous wafflers tend to do nothing when not at meetings, and I've not seen too many of those at council.

[John Reyes]

I know Andrew Wainwright for a while and happy to support and have a chat with him

[J T Melsom]

Bucks AGM tonight so in the absence of any election address from Malcolm Pein I have advised the meeting that our votes should not be cast in support of this candidate, whilst we await his views. I've left the meeting to decide whether the further step of voting against the candidate is desirable. I don't expect many constituent organisations to react this way but consider the debate worth having.

[John Reyes]

Bucks AGM tonight so in the absence of any election address from Malcolm Pein I have advised the meeting that our votes should not be cast in support of this candidate, whilst we await his views. I've left the meeting to decide whether the further step of voting against the candidate is desirable. I don't expect many constituent organisations to react this way but consider the debate worth having.

Has anyone reached out to Malcolm to asked the question?

[J T Melsom]

I wrote to Malcolm on Friday. He is within time for replying without breach of Ask the Directors protocol, but late for the purposes of the AGM.

[J T Melsom]

No news from Malcolm. And the ECF process hasn't triggered a holding reply. I have my own views about Malcom Pein but I really don't like the absence of any communication at all. Unless I've been marked as vexatious (and as a former civil servant I understand that concept when applied to correspondents) or Malcom is holiday, then this is unfair on the organisation I represent and others. There is nothing to debate, to reject or endorse. When people argue about the lack of accountability between the ECF and the membership, they might pause and reflect on this. Council could take a stand, but not heard of any planning to do so. Not sure I want to waste money going to Birmingham to say how unacceptable this is, the impact on Zoom would be far less and plagued by technological issues. I'm a minnow but the issues are bigger.

[Michael Farthing]

J.T. - you have a strong but personal view that there is a duty on candidates to present an election address and seem to be trying to turn this almost into an existential issue. It is not. It is a minimal issue. A candidate might well think it would aid zeer chances with the electorate and therefore choose to present one but it is entirely optional, and indeed this is made clear in the ECF bye-laws. Malcolm is an unopposed candidate who has been in place for a considerable time. Frankly, if you cannot judge him on his record I can only think you have not been paying much attention. In any case there is the opportunity to ask questions of him within the meeting, though time might be much better spent exploring the candidates for contested posts.

Elsewhere you seem to be criticising the ECF as a body (and apparently Malcolm Pein personally) because some of its direct members have accepted posts within an organisation of which you personally disapprove and in which the ECF has unsuccessfully taken a particular stance in an election. The ECF has not disaffiliated from FIDE and has never, and hopefully never will, try to dictate to its direct members what they may or may not do. If Nigel Short, or anyone else, chooses to accept a chess post that is a matter for them and them alone and has nothing to do with the ECF. Do you really want it to sanction people for their choices? Would you prefer a Soviet style iron discipline? Perhaps people who criticise it on this forum should be thrown out of membership for not toeing the party line?

[J T Melsom]

Michael

My view is that candidates should submit an electoral address unless there are strong reasons not to do so. It may not be mandatory but it would be better for the dialogue with the electorate. Our relations with FIDE might conceivably need to be re-considered in the light of events. That would be expected of any organisation dealing with change. If the ECF position is 'no change' then why can't that be said explicitly?

There really are a lot of assumptions about my position in your second paragraph. I've not suggested that Individuals can't make their own minds up whether to serve FIDE or not. I've simply raised the question as to what ECF policy is. It is surely an option not to serve and for that to be a policy applied at the very least to ECF board members. That might be what the Ukrainian chess community want (to be clear I simply don't know).

What is the point of a facility to ask questions of Directors if they choose not to respond?

This may seem trivial or existential or anything in between to others, but an answer to a relatively simple question would end any residual debate. Instead I and presumably others new to Council are advised to judge Malcolm on his historic track record.

But I accept there is probably little more than can be achieved here.

[JustinHorton]

? Would you prefer a Soviet style iron discipline? Perhaps people who criticise it on this forum should be thrown out of membership for not toeing the party line?

Did you ever consider Michael that coming out with this kind of nonsense might discredit your view rather than bolster it

[Michael Farthing]

I think the nonsense was quite deliberately intended to bring out the ridiculousness of the suggestion that because some English players have accepted positions in FIDE the ECF should be seen as culpable for this, as had been implied. If you are unable to detect that what I was saying was tongue in cheek and understand the connection I was making - well bad luck.

[Roger de Coverly]

What is the point of a facility to ask questions of Directors if they choose not to respond?

Other than as an excuse not to engage with critics on this and other forums, was there ever a point to "Ask the Directors"? Even if they've ever responded, the responses are not made public.