ECF Code of Conduct

[Andrew Zigmond]

As a consequence, he would have liked the ECF to have the power to apply the code to ECF members as well, with the power to suspend members from playing chess for being critical of the ECF. Well perhaps he didn't, but if you withdraw from debate, you are unable to contest adverse statements.

Or dignify them with a response.

Does anybody actually have a `right` to play chess in this country? Congress organisers can refuse any entry, clubs can deny membership should they wish. In neither case are they obliged to offer any right of appeal.

I do think that that there has to be a mechanism whereby legitimate concerns and questions can be raised. The reason there was so much acrimony over Sheffield and the resulting fallout was a failure (or perceived failure) of certain former officials to answer direct questions.

[Roger de Coverly]

Does anybody actually have a `right` to play chess in this country? Congress organisers can refuse any entry, clubs can deny membership should they wish. In neither case are they obliged to offer any right of appeal.

Certainly they can. But if one local body declines your participation, you can move sideways to another. It's different if a national body both demands membership of itself as a condition of play and also imposes suspension of membership as a penalty for daring to be critical of its leadership or policies, or even, like some sporting bodies, suspends players for taking part in unauthorised competitions.

[Roger de Coverly]

The reason there was so much acrimony over Sheffield and the resulting fallout was a failure (or perceived failure) of certain former officials to answer direct questions.

The outcome there was strange. The former CEO acted very quickly to calm things down immediately after Sheffield with a set of agreed statements. What he didn't then do was attempt a further mutual resolution when material critical of the Sheffield organisers continued to appear in at least one newspaper. As a consequence, possibly as a retaliation, potential irregularities pertaining to the financing of the Congress started to become public. Denying the existence of these irregularities only served to reduce the credibility of ECF statements, not helped by the parallel revelation of the "forgotten" legal action against FIDE over Vice Presidents.

[JustinHorton]

Exchanges on these forums are matters for the forum moderator. The behaviour of board members in their official capacity is a matter for Council and the remainder of the board.

This is essentially right.

You really do need people to be acting very clearly within their official capacity before you even think about trying to impose some kind of official discipline on them. Even then you need to be realistic: you're not dealing with employees, you're not dealing with paid officials, you're dealing with volunteers.

I think it's a bad system brought in for generally poor reasons.

[Sean Hewitt]

I do think that that there has to be a mechanism whereby legitimate concerns and questions can be raised. The reason there was so much acrimony over Sheffield and the resulting fallout was a failure (or perceived failure) of certain former officials to answer direct questions.

That's what council is supposed to be for.

[Alex McFarlane]

I was intending not to comment on Roger's post regarding the former President however his last post which states

As a consequence, possibly as a retaliation, potential irregularities pertaining to the financing of the Congress started to become public.

cannot be left.

The problem he faced was that the Delegates from the British Isles were expected to sit together and to some extent work together in the meetings. Scotland's representatives were arbiters from Sheffield.

Stewart Reuben rearranged the seating so that De Mooi didn't have to sit beside the Scotland representatives. He had gone there stating that he was going to support the arbiters. Whilst talking to them might have been useful it was not compulsory. His attendance to vote would have been. It was well known that he was likely to resign, it was not so well known that he might do so during his time in Istanbul (which he did). Having gone at a cost in excess of £600 to the ECF he could and should have attended the meetings. If he was concerned about meeting me he should have realised that I could only be there when play was not in progress. He did not even attend when the motion to expel England from FIDE was due to be discussed. England were not represented at what could have been a very important time.

May I dispel the allegation that the revelations regarding finance was possibly a retaliation. Several Board members were informed of our concerns. Repeated requests to see the accounts were ignored (as it turns out they weren't ready). The Home Director is responsible for seeing that these are produced within 2 months. Attempts to use even this course were ignored. Only when I contacted Mike Truran did things start to happen officially. I do not see it as retaliation. The matter had to be revealed. The officials at the time would have been in deriliction otherwise. Unfortunately there was still a culture of defending De Mooi by certain Board members at that time, or at least trying to keep things quiet.

[LawrenceCooper]

If I have followed matters correctly the payment of expences to our previous President for his trip abroad has been discussed at council and action taken to recover part of the payment.

I think the idea of the President attending the FIDE meetings was reasonable before the event. It's a problem with Nigel's dual role as FIDE Delegate and member of the England team, that sometimes Nigel needed to be in two places at once and thus the President would attend meetings as the alternate. The problem he faced was that the Delegates from the British Isles were expected to sit together and to some extent work together in the meetings. Scotland's representatives were arbiters from Sheffield.

I don't know whether there was ever a new position in the chess world that was incompatible with being ECF President as nothing has been announced in the months since, but it was shortly after Istanbul, that he announced the withdrawal of his standing for re-election.

If only the England team had had a Head of Delegation who had paid his own flights and accommodation, was on good terms with the other home countries and was prepared to attend meetings on Nigel's behalf on days when he was likely to be playing in the team

[Andrew Zigmond]

I do think that that there has to be a mechanism whereby legitimate concerns and questions can be raised. The reason there was so much acrimony over Sheffield and the resulting fallout was a failure (or perceived failure) of certain former officials to answer direct questions.

That's what council is supposed to be for.

At the last two council meetings several key officials failed to attend and there was a definite sense that they were trying to avoid having to answer difficult questions. So it seems a slightly flawed mechanism in that respect.

What I meant above was that any ECF member should be able to contact any ECF official with a query and expect to receive a response, provided there's an understanding that abusive messages will not be tolerated and that the official cannot engage in protracted correspondance.

[Sean Hewitt]

What I meant above was that any ECF member should be able to contact any ECF official with a query and expect to receive a response, provided there's an understanding that abusive messages will not be tolerated and that the official cannot engage in protracted correspondance.

Agreed without doubt. I don't think the code of conduct facilitates that though. Nor, I suspect, is it intended to.

[Carl Hibbard]

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

I have activated the account of Alan again so he can highlight his further issues in public instead of repeatedly emailing me directly

[Alan Burke]

Just to correct the above comment from Carl Hibbard ... prior to him reinstating me in this forum (on 14 January) I had sent just ONE e-mail (not "repeated e-mails") to him about this subject, that being on 15 December after he had originally deactivated my account - to which is reply was "After consideration you are correct so I have enabled your account, Carl". Therefore, I would consider that e-mail to Carl Hibbard to be justified as I could not contact him via this forum as he had deactivated my account and also as he then agreed his action was wrong.

Since then I have made just one post in this forum (17 December) yet Carl Hibbard then again deactivated my account without notifying me of any reason why. In fact, until he made in a post in this thread on 13 January that he hadn't decided if my account should be reactivated, I was not even aware that he had, for a second time, deactivated it - even though he had previously admitted he was wrong to do so in the first place !

Having deactivated my account again, Carl Hibbard then posted a comment of his own in which claimed I had made a complaint elsewhere because of him banning me from this forum.

I did then send an e-mail to Carl Hibbard stating that his comment was wrong and any subsequent action of mine had nothing to do with what he stated and asked him to rescind that claim - yet that e-mail was AFTER he reinstated me on Janaury 14 and therefore could not be considered as a "repeated e-mail" which Carl Hibbard now claims is the reason for reinstating me.

It was after that e-mail that Carl Hibbard, instead of replying to me personally, then made the above post, in which he seems to want to give the impression that he had been bombarded with e-mails and his only reason for reinstating me was to stop them.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Alan. With great respect your message clearly shows an issue between you and Carl regarding this forum which he provides out of his own pocket. He also for the most part lets debates flow without much moderation. I think the issues you have with Carl should remain in private.
Of interest is anything you wish to say about the complaint you made to the ECF because that is relevant to the discusion about codes of conduct.

[Carl Hibbard]

It was after that e-mail that Carl Hibbard, instead of replying to me personally, then made the above post, in which he seems to want to give the impression that he had been bombarded with e-mails and his only reason for reinstating me was to stop them.

Your email from last night (not the one this morning) I believe classed me as I quote a 'coward' were 'those in your clan' received some sort of special treatment?

I have activated your account so you can comment on posts made referring to yourself but you were lucky I did not just delete it

You are clearly a pain

[Jonathan Rogers]

I think you shoud delete Mr Burke's account, Carl. Only Steve G (who will use any opportunity to criticise you) and a few people on here who have an American style (mis)undertanding about free speech will complain; and the silent majority will be much relieved.

[Carl Hibbard]

I think you shoud delete Mr Burke's account, Carl. Only Steve G (who will use any opportunity to criticise you) and a few people on here who have an American style (mis)undertanding about free speech will complain; and the silent majority will be much relieved.

I felt given the initial ECF ruling (and although I did not agree with it) comments made afterwards here would make that unfair