With the benefit of hindsight this whole episode may not represent the ECF board's finest hour, but from the point of view of process the minor mistakes made by CJ and the lawyers had no overall negative effect. (If the board had voted no then no action would have taken place and so really the facts that CJ signed the power of attorney earlier than he should and the lawyers were a bit trigger happy are of no real consequence). The board took the decision to proceed in a measured way with full discussion and we took legal advice on the validity of the financial guarantee we had received.
If you think we were completely wrong-headed in taking the original decision or that our failure to inform Council merits it, then you should vote us out, but to blame the whole episode on CJ is not fair - we all did this!
Let me see if I understand Mike Gunnâ€™s (and I suppose that of other Board members too) logic.
Everything is OK. CJ started action too early but we were going to do it anyway so everything is fine and we donâ€™t need to reprimand anyone.
Since Andrew Farthing likes analogies here is one.
A child runs across a busy (Swindon) road and makes it safely to the other side. The parents do not reprimand the child or attempt to educate him for the future. This is reported to Social Services. The parentsâ€™ defence â€œIt was OK. He didnâ€™t get knocked down and we were going to cross anyway.â€ That child would be taken into care.
Now let me put a question to each and every Board member. The President broke the ECF Articles by starting legal action before getting Board approval AND financial guarantees in place. This legal action was taken against FIDE because it did not follow its own statutes. The Presidentâ€™s actions were OK because the Board later approved them anyway. Is that really what is being said?
Now, Iâ€™m really puzzled. If Iâ€™m reading this right it is OK to break ECF rules if others subsequently agree with it but we must take FIDE to court if its President does the same thing. Iâ€™m afraid this is total hypocrisy.
Remember it is not the first time the ECF has been embarrassed by precipitous action by Mr De Mooi. One would have hoped, once bitten twice shy. But the current Board seems to be saying â€œDo what you like, when you like, and we will support you regardlessâ€.
Andrew Farthing has informed me â€œThe Board has conducted its investigation and made a statement. No further action is proposed.â€
I for one find that a totally unacceptable (and incredible) stance to take.