ECF Code of Conduct

[Alex McFarlane]

Welcome back.

Agreed, it is always nice to see people return to the fold. This is especially true when the person is one of the few to say with authority what is happening with the organisation of the ECF.

Will the ECF be issuing a statement about the matter? I know nothing has been issued in the other complaints but they never reached the public domain other than in a vague reference by Jack on this forum. This however is different. Genuine concerns have been expressed about the process involved. Our favourite blogger has indicated that the case was not initially dismissed so it looks more like the decision has been rescinded.

If the Board has overturned the decision of its Chairman then perhaps we should be informed of the reasons for this. Did the Chairman get it wrong? Was the decision reversed on a technicality? Did the Board feel that Sean’s actions were acceptable?

Will this case bring an end to the farcical situation of the Board investigating complaints about its own members? A situation which more than one Board member has told me they find unacceptable.
The Board, and especially Sean, has been put in the unfortunate position that such a ‘not guilty’ verdict may leave a dark shadow hanging over the outcomesimply because of the way it was carried out. The current situation cannot be allowed to continue but the fact that there have been several complaints means that it cannot simply be scrapped either. There is an obvious need for some system. Hopefully an improved and independant system will be the outcome.

[benedgell]

Complaint hearings should be on a committee basis, I would suggest a committee of three, to avoid exactly the situation described above that otherwise someone has to individually put their head on the block.

I would suggest 3 of the 5 Union presidents, with the 3 being chosen from Unions other than those of the 2 parties involved

Seems like a good idea to me.

[David Sedgwick]

The current situation cannot be allowed to continue but the fact that there have been several complaints means that it cannot simply be scrapped either.

I don't follow the logic of that.

If you introduce a Code that is inherently likely to generate a profusion of complaints and such complaints duly occur, then scrapping the Code sounds like an excellent idea to me.

[Alex McFarlane]

If all the complaints are vexatious or trivial I might agree. I don't think that has been the case.

There should be a built in filtering system which establishes the justification of a complaint (even a refundable fee if the complaint was justifiable would go some way to stop any such complaints). However, if even one person feels genuinely annoyed by an ECF decision (no matter how stupid it may seem to others) they should have some way of following it through.

If there is no process to be followed then that person will gather support. To paraphrase "I don't agree with the complaint but I will fight to the death to defend his right to complain".

If my reading of this thread is correct then a majority want a revised system rather than the removal of the system. I certainly know that in the not too distant past I was frustrated at having no official complaints procedure to follow. The current system is badly flawed but is still better than nothing.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I don't think anything will be gained by the ECF issuing a statement. There is enough dirty linen aired on this forum as it is and when Alan Burke complained about a breach of confidentiality I feel he had a point. Anybody who wants to be nosey could contact one of the parties involved directly if they wanted to.

I've always felt that the code of conduct, to be effective, must have three basic rules.

1, Anybody making a complaint also makes an undertaking to accept any ruling, even if it's not the one they want.
2, The matter should be kept confidential.
3, Common sense must be applied. If a complaint is obviously frivolous it should be dealt with quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

[Mike Gunn]

I have no intention of issuing a statement about this specific case, although some reference will be made to it in the reports of the Board meeting that will be issued.

The whole matter of the Complaints Procedure has been referred to the Governance Committee to propose revisions and I would be surprised if the feature of the Board acting as final court of appeal on complaints about its own members will survive any revision.

[benedgell]

Mike, what do you think of the suggestion I quoted above?

[Carl Hibbard]

I have yet to make a call on activating Alan's account again and no statement makes that even more difficult

[Mike Gunn]

Ben: I guess that is one idea which could work, but it relies on all the Union Presidents being prepared to carry out the task.

Carl: I can see that moderating a Forum is a difficult thing, because different posters will have different standards as to what is offensive and what is not. I would like to help you out, but I am afraid I am not really in a position to do so (unless you fancy a job swap?)

[Carl Hibbard]

Ben: I guess that is one idea which could work, but it relies on all the Union Presidents being prepared to carry out the task.

Carl: I can see that moderating a Forum is a difficult thing, because different posters will have different standards as to what is offensive and what is not. I would like to help you out, but I am afraid I am not really in a position to do so (unless you fancy a job swap?)

Actually given what goes on behind the scenes here then perhaps yes

[Alex McFarlane]

I actually agree with Andrew Z that, under normal circumstances, the decision making process should be confidential. In this case however the accused made the case public and has subsequently stated that the case was dismissed.

Unfortunately this leaves very many options available as the outcome, two of which are:
a) The Board decided that Alan Burke was not justified in making a complaint.
b) The Board 'closed rank' and decided against Alan Burke.

I have no reason to believe that (2) is the case but unfortunately I have already had this potential outcome expressed to me in communication and by more than one person (before the result was announced).
In the case of outcome (1), if the Board decided there was no case to answer then that is fair enough. However, if the Board had any reservations about the outcome and as a Board member made it public, then for the integrety of the whole process a statement should be issued stating that Alan Burke had reasonable cause to raise his complaint even though it was not upheld.
If Steve Giddins is correct (And I believe him to be so) that the original decision was at least partially in favour of Alan Burke then it is unfair on Mr Burke that the impression that he made a complaint which had absolutely no merit whatsoever is allowed to continue. This is especially true if he has been suspended from this forum as a result.

I hope that Mike Gunn will reconsider his position. I believe that in this case only some explanation is required. Sean has been cleared but Alan has been left with a stain against his name as a result. Is this justified? The non-answer gives an implication that it is, but the evidence that is in the public domain implies the opposite. The matter needs clarification.

[Carl Hibbard]

I actually agree with Andrew Z that, under normal circumstances, the decision making process should be confidential. In this case however the accused made the case public and has subsequently stated that the case was dismissed.

Unfortunately this leaves very many options available as the outcome, two of which are:
a) The Board decided that Alan Burke was not justified in making a complaint.
b) The Board 'closed rank' and decided against Alan Burke.

I have no reason to believe that (2) is the case but unfortunately I have already had this potential outcome expressed to me in communication and by more than one person (before the result was announced).
In the case of outcome (1), if the Board decided there was no case to answer then that is fair enough. However, if the Board had any reservations about the outcome and as a Board member made it public, then for the integrety of the whole process a statement should be issued stating that Alan Burke had reasonable cause to raise his complaint even though it was not upheld.
If Steve Giddins is correct (And I believe him to be so) that the original decision was at least partially in favour of Alan Burke then it is unfair on Mr Burke that the impression that he made a complaint which had absolutely no merit whatsoever is allowed to continue. This is especially true if he has been suspended from this forum as a result.

I hope that Mike Gunn will reconsider his position. I believe that in this case only some explanation is required. Sean has been cleared but Alan has been left with a stain against his name as a result. Is this justified? The non-answer gives an implication that it is, but the evidence that is in the public domain implies the opposite. The matter needs clarification.

How the ECF leaks to Steve so badly (if that is the case) is perhaps worthy of investigation

[Carl Hibbard]

This is especially true if he has been suspended from this forum as a result.

Alan Burke was suspended for other reasons and I believe his official complaint stemmed from me refusing to apply the level of moderation he directly requested

[Andrew Zigmond]

I have yet to make a call on activating Alan's account again and no statement makes that even more difficult

Could you not ask the board to supply this information on condition that you keep it confidential?

The ECF has always had an uneasy relationship with this forum. I suppose we need to decide whether we want this to be a semi official think tank for ideas with imput by ECF officials or an unofficial no holds barred area in which case every crank and their dog will bring grievances on here and ECF officials will be reluctant to involve themselves.

[David Sedgwick]

However, if even one person feels genuinely annoyed by an ECF decision (no matter how stupid it may seem to others) they should have some way of following it through.

Oh come on!

The ECF frequently makes decisions which annoy me. I am sure that would be equally true of Chess Scotland if I lived north of the border.

If I really don't like a decision made by the ECF Board, or by an individual Director, then it is open to me to seek the necessary support for the inclusion of a motion on the agenda of the next Council Meeting, or in an extreme case for the convening of an Extraordinary Meeting.

I have yet to be persuaded that any Code of Conduct even remotely similar to the present one will do more good than harm. Suggesting that someone should be entitled to bring a formal complaint simply because (s)he disagrees with a decision is unlikely to convince me.