Theres a link on the front page of the ECF website!!Ernie Lazenby wrote:I may be wrong but I cannot find a job description for the President and CEO.
http://www.bcf.org.uk/organisation/gene ... lities.htm
Theres a link on the front page of the ECF website!!Ernie Lazenby wrote:I may be wrong but I cannot find a job description for the President and CEO.
Ernie, you are of course correct. There is only one problem with OM(member)OV - and that is cost. You have to send every member formal notice of meetings, and voting papers. The ECF already has 3000 members. This is alot of postage. If more of the 12,000 players with grades joined, the problems get worse.Ernie Lazenby wrote:
One man one vote removes the canvased block votes. Its much harder, verging on impossible , to canvas thousands of members to get votes in the bag.
ErnieErnie Lazenby wrote:Thanks your post speaks volumes as to why we are where we are!.
Seems to me essential we restructure and at the least get rid of this block vote system
One man one vote removes the canvased block votes. Its much harder, verging on impossible , to canvas thousands of members to get votes in the bag.
Does anyone know if Steve Davis spoke the words attributed to him. I find it hard to believe that with all his playing committments and organising duties in snooker he would be able to find the time to do a hands on jobin chess. Who addressed council and spoke on his behalf?
See, typical chess player, knows its wrong and defends the structure to the hilt.Roger de Coverly wrote:I heavly disagree with the boards structure as a whole. My feeling is that we should have a structure that falls more into line with many other organisations. In most organisations with interest such as ours the board make up is usually, C.E.O., Finance Director, Director of Chess, Marketing Director, Sales Director, International Liaison Director (As we can not spread beyond our boarders), Development or Strategic Director with the added two non exec Directors. This gives us our 7 Directors
I don't see that the current board structure is much different from what you suggest. Indeed 5 of your 7 positions match up:-
CEO - Chief Executive
Finance Director - Director of Finance
Director of Chess - Director of Home Chess
Marketing Director - Director of Marketing
International Liason Director - Director of International Chess
The extra 2 are the President and Director of Junior Chess and Education.
I think a board needs a Chairman/President because corporate governance principles require it. Junior Chess and Education has always been regarded as important which is I suppose why there's a board post.
As to the extra roles -
Sales Director - what exactly does the ECF sell? You could say memberships but that's just a fund raising thing - If the ECF had an extra £100,000 a year from sponsorship, legacies or grants it could give away membership and maintain current activities.
Development or Strategic Director - A core of the ECF's activities are mandated by its role as a national chess federation and therefore only open to limited development or strategic change. That's probably why 3 of the 7 board positions have "chess" in the title. Were you thinking perhaps of a takeover of ,or merger with Scrabble, Bridge or other mind sports organisations? Or perhaps the ECF becoming a genuine business by merging with Chess Direct, BCM, Chess and Bridge or some other books, magazine and equipment supplier?
to make sure the Marketing Director is doing the marketing for the British Champs
That would be a novelty ! There's next to no marketing for the British Champs - an obvious measure of this is how many visitors from Europe make the tourist trip for the British. The Major Open had I think just one non-resident, non UK or Irish player in 2006 and none in 2007.
Good PEOPLE are what we need, I don not think that these people should disappear, just change rolls. There are a lot of good people doing the wrong job. Me I'd kill off the President roll and/or make it a figure head roll.Ernie Lazenby wrote:I think Charles that everything said the only thing that could happen in the immediate is for good men to stand up and say to the current President, 'sorry old chap but its time for change, thank you and goodnight' It happened in Cleveland. I bear Gerry Walsh no ill will ,never have and never will but for the good of the ECF I earnestly beg those closest to him to offer words of advice before the ongoing debates become more vitriolic as we move nearer to October.
BTW Charles regarding associations you may want to take a look at our Constitution and Agenda for our forthcoming AGM on the Cleveland Chess Association webb site.
Some time ago myself and a small number of others in the area realised that the days of the small group of chaps getting together to arrange chess without worrying too much about legal matters are long past. In 2006 we started a process of change starting with having a lawyer draw up a new constitution and the remainder of the process is almost at an end. Its been a long and difficult process but in the end good sense prevailed. One can only hope that a process of change,if it happens, within the ECF will have an equally good ending.
I agree, using resourses at hand is a good way to go, I bet it more than a few backs up, but logic wins through in the end. I do the same thing, but if I don't have a friend to help I find one (or one through a juniors parent or something). having a non chess player view would help too, but I bet you have that covered as well.Ernie Lazenby wrote:Thanks Charles. We are very fortunate that we have the free legal services (well free up to a point) of a solicitor who is a friend of mine and who happens to be a strong player.He is able to advice on all aspects- the legal/administration and playing issues.
I have good arguements but I need your opinions, what would you do. Each of the people out there have something to give. Come forward and say it. You are the ECF, every single one of you. I may argue but you have the points. say them loud. We need to hear them.Charles W. Wood wrote:The case is becoming strong, you are right though some people madly believe no change is needed. Just in case it gets worse I think the reasoning is. The drive must be to put forward, team players not people who are looking out for self or organisational interests. That mentality is very hard to come across. We will have to see what happens next. I have a feeling something is about to happen, but its just a feeling (Its bad when I get these, I'm normally right) .
I presume that we would copy or be close to a system that is used by someone like the MCC, or the FA.Gary Cook wrote:One thing that still puzzles me is how would OMOV actually work, I know the Devil is in the detail, but I presume a vote only come with membership?
Gary