English Chess Forum

Ernie Lazenby wrote:I may be wrong but I cannot find a job description for the President and CEO.

Theres a link on the front page of the ECF website!!

http://www.bcf.org.uk/organisation/gene ... lities.htm

Do you know what year the position of chair was abolished and Steve Davis stood down as president.

There's a history of the presidents (of the BCF until 2005) on page 2 on the ECF yearbook.

From this, the office of Chairman was created in 1996 when Steve Davis became president and abolished in 2001 when Steve Davis stood down.

The second and third presidents were in office from 1905 to 1938 and the fifth president from 1942 to 1950. After that there seems to have been a rule or convention that the period of office was 3 years until the current president who has been in office either as Chairman or President for 9 years.

It may be that limitations to the term of office were removed to enable Steve Davis to be President for as long as he wished. However as we have now reverted to a "working" president, shouldn't there be some limit to the term of office as has applied in practice since 1950?

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 and many jobs would be push down the list to Managers who run unelected teams under and reporting to specific elected Directors.

I feel this would give more direction to the board as Chess is looked after in one place and can be used as an over all strategy rather than as different chunks as it is today, and problably the biggest complaint I hear is that there is no continuity between Junior, Adult, and International Chess. Finance does what Finance Does. Marketing Director is a post that governs the whole marketing and image of the ECF, from the year book, to the mini mags, through to press releases and advertising of the ECF competitions and products. Sales Director, this is one after my own heart, a job which includes working to push the core offerings (as laid down by council and board) through the ECF's partners (the associations) and highlighting the benefits of being part of the ECF as a whole. Strategic Director would be a post were the understanding of the Marketing, Sales, Finance, Chess and International Liaison Directors posts and acheivements can be used to formulate a strategy going forward which can be reported to Council so council can understand in a clear way which direction the organisation is taking. Then that gives the last but not least post of C.E.O. which is to engage the directors team and to ensure they are working as one unit, E.G.: to make sure the Marketing Director is doing the marketing for the British Champs and not the Director of Chess or a member of the Chess team, as well as the other C.E.O rolls.

This is just how I think the whole thing will move forward easier, put that with a referendum on the ECF's future and we may get closer to the mark than we are at the moment. N.B.: the ECF is NOT an "Unincorporated Association" like most of our leagues, its a company and has to move as one, or we have a half way body, half Association and half Company. Which is why the board, managers, and members are all a little confused about what the goal is. We can not have "Camps" in the ECF. The board, once elected, have to become a professional team. If thats not possible, the non team player should be fired.

Forgive my ignorance but this must have all been approved proceedure would that be Council and do the minutes of meetings contain the relevant information?

The SCCU website has an archive which goes back nearly 10 years. During that time Richard Hadrell and others have reported on BCF and ECF meetings. For example there's this material from 2001.

BCF MANAGEMENT BOARD
23rd June 2001
Roy Heppinstall reports.


(4) Organisational Structure of the BCF. The WECU presented a far-reaching paper. A long discussion ensued, culminating in the acceptance of numerous motions for the Council meeting on 29th September. Amongst these were:
(a) That the role of the President become a practical hands-on job, including chairing meetings and a more direct responsibility for the promotion of chess nationally. It is proposed to nominate Gerry Walsh for this position. Steve Davis, the current President, is understood to have said himself that he was not entirely satisfied with his figurehead role and wished he had been able to become more involved.
(b) The abolition of the post of Chairman.
(c) The creation of a new post of Chief Executive. The Chief Executive's job would be, essentially, to ensure that everyone else is doing what they are supposed to be doing. It would be possible to combine this job with that of an existing Director. It is proposed to nominate Chris Majer for this post.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not saying the ECF shouldn't go this route. Just that one has to consider and address the financial implications of such a move first.

Ernie 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?

Ernie

We agree! (on somepoints at least). Block votes and Proxy votes must go. As for OMOV being "impossible" that is not true, we just need to find the right system, hard yes, but impossible no. Many sporting and gaming bodies successfully transfered over to OMOV in the 1920's to 1960's before the super use of computers. And the postal system is still a good avenue to use. Counting them might be interesting.

I do believe that all this starts with a mandate from every chess player (member and non member) to help with total inclusion. If its what EVERYONE wants (from a democratic point of view) we have a road map to move forward with. And I do think a restructuring of the board to be a team is vital, see previous post.

I can't answer the Steve Davis bit. Sorry.

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.

See, typical chess player, knows its wrong and defends the structure to the hilt.

Corporate Governace does NOT point out identifiable structure of the board, it shows correct reporting systems. There is no need of a President roll, most well run organisations have figure heads as Presidents. As for Home Chess and Chess being the same thing, thats not what I'm pointing at. Chess Director would have three Managers below, Junior & Education, Home, and International. Easy, see one line of reporting and one overall strategy from one person. This would link all the parts of chess with one over all over view.

Sales, Hmmmm I knew a chess player would come up with this (it is a chess forum after all) but a Sales Directors job is to sell the parts of the ECF that need or give support in a product format: membership, certification programmes, grading, master system, public liability insurance, CRB's (possibly), junior selection etc, there are many parts to the ECF that need to be sold to assocaitions, schools, unions etc. When your an association its called fund raising, when your a company its called selling. THE ECF IS A COMPANY. And it does not know what its product is. So that is the product list spelled out. Ask any non ECF member what the ECF does and they'll say grading, then stop, why is this because no one is in charge of telling them the rest that comes with the ECF.

We run a company with the same legal structure as the ECF but at our first directors meeting we selected our product, and made sure it was at the top of the aganda (or very high up) at every meeting. We now have more money in the bank than the ECF. You don't need sales? Really. thats why the whole country are members, every tournament is fully booked, grading is done for everyone, every school kid is on the Certification programme and master system, sponsorship is just rolling in, NOT! You need sales or companies die. Oh and we are doing really well at the moment even before this week. (sorry sarcasm)

The idea of a strategy Director is to make sure the implamention of council wishes are carried out. And to seek and learn of other approaches that can make sure the ECF keeps up (or ahead) of its market, you, all of you. BUT I will say that this roll could be something else but its the best suggestion I have without splitting up the chess roll (the biggest problem with the split up chess roll is no top to tail strategy, kids stop playing even though there are thousands of them, and adult league are growing smaller by the year, putting the chess rolls together is a business no brainer).

The problem we have is, we slam our fist into the table and scream "we must make things better!" then in our next breath state "as long as nothing changes". choice time, change or keep things as they are. Whats your choice (or suggestion) Roger?

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.

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.

As for your association, Well Done! Seriously. I have talked to many associations going down many roads. Some becoming companies, some tightening the whole structure up. All is good, getting ready for change is the hardest thing to happen and acheive. There are two very big junctions ahead, splitting and killing off of the ECF as we know it or a drive to unify the whole country and to help the ECF deliver what we players need. I would like the latter, but each road has a million roads attached, so we need to be ready. Cleveland sounds like its making the right steps, and I will support that. Ernie you must have a good team around you and I bet a million agruements and debates. This makes for better chess in the end, especially when it all points in one direction at the end.

Change is good when it betters us.

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 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.

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.

It's not obvious that the playing public are interested one way or the other. But if there's a group that feels strongly about it then aren't these the steps needed?

At local league, county and union AGMs, mandate the ECF rep or proxy to support OMOV - replace them if they don't want to support it. Obviously you need a majority of votes at the local meetings.

Lobby the tournament directors and opinion formers of other unelected bodies to support your cause.

The USCF experience is not encouraging though. What seems to happen there is that you get two or more opposing slates of candidates. No one slate is strong enough to get a clean sweep so it's the best known and best liked candidates that get elected. The net result is a divided board.

Whilst publicly owned companies have AGM votes, it's usually only to rubber stamp board proposals. If you think the ECF should be a business, then it's probably got to operate as a dictatorship with the board accepting collective responsibility for policy decisions.

I'm sure there's an "old guard" of the British chess establishment - the same people seem to have been around for many years. They don't always agree on individual issues but they do seem to get on well enough to at least paper over the cracks. Arguably they saw off Regan as an outsider. Claire and Peter as insiders will probably be back in some role in the not too distant future. After all Robert Richmond was back in no time after his resignation.

As currently constituted the ECF is a bottom up organisation - that is it derives its legitimacy from the players, clubs and associations beneath it. I've given up trying to understand the management speak of the resignation statements but I can certainly see the conflict with the chess establishment if the agenda was to try to set up a top down organisation - that is where the ECF gives permissions to clubs and associations to exist and for players to play.

I don't know what would reverse the decline of British chess. It may be at least in part down to changes in society which are factors that an ECF is unlikely to be able to influence. It's my opinion that proposals such as compulsory membership would be likely to accelerate rather than reverse the decline.

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) .

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 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.

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

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

I presume that we would copy or be close to a system that is used by someone like the MCC, or the FA.