ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[Andrew Zigmond]

In the YCA interview CJ de Mooi appears to state that the ECF preferred a `figurehead` President rather than an executive one, but he wanted a more hands on role.

I agree that a lot of Roger Edwards' manifesto might be more suited to the CEO role (and I believe no candidate has yet come forward for that). It's not clear to what degree he's standing as an anti CJ candidate or not. My own view is that we see CJ at his best as an ambassador for the game (although he hasn't always got that right of course) and his touch with regard to chess politics has been less sure. That said, this is not to say that his views on topics such as FIDE should not be listened to and respected.

Still, having read Roger Edwards' manifesto I must declare some bias as the current secretary of Harrogate Chess Club. His own name isn't familiar to me but I've heard of Raymond Edwards. I'll be asking if some of our longer standing members (Jack Duckworth, Margaret Rowley, Ernie Little) remember Roger Edwards - perhaps Mr Edwards knew the late Aubrey Spalton among others.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Roger's election address can be found here:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897

...by downloading a document in .DOC format.

I really do not know why the ECF website does that. It would be much easier to access it if it were a page on the website.

[David Gilbert]

Oh dear, oh dear! I've just read Roger Edward's election 'manifesto'. While I wish him well in personal terms, he reinforces my long-held opinion that the Board should draft, and Council agree, a 'Person Specification' for the post of President. (If one exists, I've not found it)

As things stand, the post is whatever the incumbent wishes it to be. In a fluid 'start-up' organisation, that may not be such a bad thing. Variety can be tried and tested until an optimum is found to suit the organisation as it matures. But the ECF is a mature, indeed a rather 'set in its ways', organisation. You'd imagine by now it would know what qualities it sought in its President. Yet the past three Presidents have been a snooker player, a bus conductor, and a minor quizshow celebrity. Each has brought to the role pretty much what you'd predict from these backgrounds.

No blame can be attached to the individuals for doing what they know best. The fault, I believe, lies in the absence of any consensus on what we seek from the role. Do we wish a showboater to draw attention to the ECF? Or a safe pair of hands to guide us though awkward times? Someone well-connected in Whitehall, or in business? Or someone well-connected with showbiz, sport, or the media? And so on...

To the specific election this year, putting matters in the most charitable light possible, CJ de Mooi sees the role as Chief Drumbeater-cum-Marketing Director-cum-Fundraiser; whereas Roger Edwards sees the role as some sort of Executive President-cum-CEO. Frankly this won't do. We need a sober debate on what we really need from the role of ECF President, if only to prevent us lurching from one unsatisfactory position to another.

I agree with this. However the ECF does indeed define the role of President

"Assists the Chairman in the preparation of the agenda for meetings of the Council. Acts as a focal point for the concerns of members and chess players generally; acts as an ambassador for the ECF. Monitors compliance with all agreements between the ECF and Government, sponsors and other external bodies. Liaises with member organisations. Establishes objectives and standards of performance for the Manager of Finance and Management Services, the senior staff appointment. Identifies any staff training, development and welfare requirements. Brings forward recommendations to the Board on organisation, facilities, or staff changes."

This appears to be a job description. I think David was referring to a person description, that is to say about the qualities the candidate would be expected to bring, rather than what the job was. The person might therefore be expected to demonstrate experience in handling human resource issues or management change skills (so that they could fulfil their duties in respect of identifying staff training needs or recommending staff changes).

[David Robertson]

I agree with this. However the ECF does indeed define the role of President

"Assists the Chairman in the preparation of the agenda for meetings of the Council. Acts as a focal point for the concerns of members and chess players generally; acts as an ambassador for the ECF. Monitors compliance with all agreements between the ECF and Government, sponsors and other external bodies. Liaises with member organisations. Establishes objectives and standards of performance for the Manager of Finance and Management Services, the senior staff appointment. Identifies any staff training, development and welfare requirements. Brings forward recommendations to the Board on organisation, facilities, or staff changes."

This appears to be a job description. I think David was referring to a person description, that is to say about the qualities the candidate would be expected to bring, rather than what the job was

@DG:Exactly so. A 'person spec' is precisely intended to identify the qualities a candidate should possess before considering an application for the post. The 'job spec' is different, albeit necessarily of a piece with the post in question.

@SH: the ECF description, as cited, seems to me completely at odds with the role of 'President' as I'd understand it. Indeed, it borders on nonsense. Many of the functions listed are the proper business of the CEO; others, of the Board collectively. I'd bet it's a legacy of the benighted time when ECF combined the offices of President & CEO in a single individual

[Roger de Coverly]

@DG:Exactly so. A 'person spec' is precisely intended to identify the qualities a candidate should possess before considering an application for the post. The 'job spec' is different, albeit necessarily of a piece with the post in question.

The BCF and ECF yearbooks give the hundred year plus history of the office. The qualification for the post appeared to be either or both of a person of eminence, but not a sport or media star, or someone with long standing service as a BCF office holder. The only "player" amongst them, restricting "player" to mean titled or Olympiad team member was Sir Stuart (as he later became) who qualifies both as eminent and by long service with the BCF.

With many of the English GMs approaching seniority, there's a case, perhaps not a good one, for expecting the ECF President to be a (retired) top player. You might argue that name recognition would not be good among the general public, but if you wanted to appeal to senior figures in commerce, industry or Government who were ex players at a reasonable standard, then a reasonably well known GM would attract recognition.

[Jonathan Rogers]

slightly off-topic, I believe that there used to be a rule - or convention - that the FIDE President had been one of the top 150 players in the world at some point. This was dropped from 1982 when Campomanes won against Olafsson.

[Roger de Coverly]

slightly off-topic, I believe that there used to be a rule - or convention - that the FIDE President had been one of the top 150 players in the world at some point. This was dropped from 1982 when Campomanes won against Olafsson.

Euwe and Olafsson certainly and Gligorich was in the same election as Olafsson.

The two before them were Rogard (49-70) and Rueb (24-49). There aren't any games on record for Rogard and just a handful for Rueb, so a top 150 convention could only date from 1970. Neither President features on the chessmetrics site.

Campo was good enough to play for the Phillipines in several Olympiads.

[William Metcalfe]

At least Roger stood for election unlike all the moaning minnies on this thread if you want to change things stand for election instead of bashing the few people who do bother to stand for election

[Jonathan Rogers]

William, I think you have rather misread this thread.

[Ernie Lazenby]

I dont know Roger but what I read tells me he is a safe pair of hands who is unlikely to cause the Federation the sort of problems we have endured during the last 12 months. He has no personal agenda nor carries any unwanted baggage.

Hopefully at the AGM council members will see past image and go with substance. Time to get a settled well run federation and get us of the bottom rung of the ladder.

[John Upham]

he is a safe pair of hands

See http://wiki.apterous.org/Roger_Edwards

There is video footage out there somewhere but have yet to find it.

[Sean Hewitt]

I dont know Roger but what I read tells me he is a safe pair of hands who is unlikely to cause the Federation the sort of problems we have endured during the last 12 months.

That's possibly correct but I think it is completely wrong to say

He has no personal agenda nor carries any unwanted baggage.

judging by his election statment

First and foremost, I believe that the interests of the grassroots chess players should be paramount. To concentrate on the interests of the elite player at the expense of those of the grassroots player will eventually lead the Federation to disaster. That is not to say that the interests of the elite should be ignored – far from it – but the grassroots have been neglected for too long and that is the road to perdition.
Secondly, I want to re-examine the membership scheme. There is much that I like about this scheme but, to many players it may seem over-complicated and not sufficiently mindful of their needs. More effort must yet be made to discover and take notice of the opinions of the ordinary player as well as to have a system which is easier to administer by Congress and League organisers – especially those of the British Championship.
Thirdly, I want more autonomy for the various constituents of the ECF with less transferring of funds from one part to another. I feel that each part of the Federation be it the British Championships or Junior chess or any other should be self-financing and I would work towards making it so in cooperation with the Finance Director and Committee.
Finally, I have always understood that grades are meant to indicate a player’s strength, not to show that he or she has been well behaved and played in the right events. Grading should not be used as a political tool and I also believe that there should be more cooperation between the ECF grader and the Scottish and Welsh graders to make sure that all a player’s games are included in order that the grade is as accurate as possible.

No one could argue with point 1, but point 2 is bonkers in my opinion given what we've been through to get a membership that has been agreed by 70% of council and which has not even gone live yet. Point 3 seems illogical and not well thought out and would simply shackle the federation in a way that is undesirable and unnecessary. If we want to spend money on promoting women's chess for example, it should not be relevant how much money women's chess brings in.

Most importantly for me though is the fact that it is not for the President to set out the strategic aims of the federation. That job sits fairly and squarely with the CEO. If Roger does win the election, I hope that he understands that that is not an endorsement of his agenda as set out in this manifesto.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Agreed - well, it would be hard to disagree - but what to do? The best bet seems to be to elect him anyway, and to hope that, with CJ gone, a CEO might then emerge, confident in the knowledge that he can concentrate on strategy and not spend the whole year explaining CJ's actions/inactions.

[Ernie Lazenby]

I agree with that. Mr De-Mooi's time is up give Roger a chance at least we should be free from newspaper articles dragging us into the gutter, free from horrendous finance reports, free from litigation with FIDE and in general trying to establish some normality through substance free of image.

[Steve Rooney]

Sean is absolutely right that the running of the federation is the job of a CEO not the president. I am much more interested in who is going to take on that very onerous role without recompense for the long hours and effort it will require, while subjecting themselves to the constant sniping on here.

Frankly the last thing we need is to "re-examine the membership scheme". Like it or loathe it, we simply have to make it work.