Nominations for the elections at the ECF AGM

[Angus French]

Neil Copper's secondary schools initiative has only been able to continue after he removed his events from ECF oversight.

The event could quite easily have continued under the umbrella of the ECF. Neill simply decided that he wasn't prepared to run the event on behalf of the ECF unless it was exempted from the ECF membership rules. That was something the ECF was not prepared to agree to.

Er, is that accurate? Wasn't it rules imposed - without consultation - by the Board which Neill objected to? So: not "ECF membership rules" and, in the phrase "something the ECF was not prepared to agree to", not the ECF but the ECF Board?

[Roger de Coverly]

not the ECF but the ECF Board?

Angus reminds us that the decision had been taken at the March 2013 Board meeting. The April Council meeting would have been an ideal time to get the wider ECF voting membership to endorse the rules, particularly as the general topic of special concessions was on the Agenda. Instead, the minutes of the Board meeting were not published until after the Council meeting and the Board "forget" to mention the tightening of interpretation. Any non-voting member of the ECF would not have been aware of the change, so not in a position to lobby representatives on Council as to what the policy should be.

[Sean Hewitt]

Neil Copper's secondary schools initiative has only been able to continue after he removed his events from ECF oversight.

The event could quite easily have continued under the umbrella of the ECF. Neill simply decided that he wasn't prepared to run the event on behalf of the ECF unless it was exempted from the ECF membership rules. That was something the ECF was not prepared to agree to.

Er, is that accurate? Wasn't it rules imposed - without consultation - by the Board which Neill objected to? So: not "ECF membership rules" and, in the phrase "something the ECF was not prepared to agree to", not the ECF but the ECF Board?

The quote is quite accurate. If you want to be precise, when I said ECF that meant English Chess Federation Limited.

[Sean Hewitt]

Neill simply decided that he wasn't prepared to run the event on behalf of the ECF unless it was exempted from the ECF membership rules. That was something the ECF was not prepared to agree to.

That surely is the point. The ECF were insisting on membership for everyone as a condition of grading. I class that as an impediment.

Presumably in the same way that shops having the audacity to demand payment for for food is an impediment to eating.

[Roger de Coverly]

Presumably in the same way that shops having the audacity to demand payment for for food is an impediment to eating.

That's not how the ECF now operate. In exchange for a flat sum, you can eat what you want. The Game Fee model is more like the supermarket model. So the ECF would charge a fee per team for participation in the National Schools and similar events. If it wants to encourage entries it sponsors the event to the extent of waiving the fee.

[John McKenna]

Now I get it - the ECF provide a rolling chess buffet!

[John McKenna]

... As opposed to the (game-fee) supermarket sweep they used to operate.

[Phil Neatherway]

The eat-all-you-want for a flat fee model is now quite common in the restaurant trade!

[John McKenna]

Yes, I am starting to see things in a whole new light - the ECF as a franchiser of pop-up chess feasts...

[Simon Brown]

Except that the ECF doesn't have the variable costs associated with the product it is selling, just the overheads associated with administering the product. Not an analogy worth pursuing, I would suggest.

[John McKenna]

Thanks for that advice - point taken. I will not be pursing that train of thought.

(Just an aside - no offence implied - I heard a discussion about finance in which it was said that once "QE" (quantative easing) is mentioned most people switch off. Well, all they need to remember when doing so is that it (QE) is simply the public being ripped off by the politicians & bankers.)

No doubt normal service will be resumed shortly.

[John McKenna]

Of course, above I should have written pursuing but trains are a strain on the purse so I will let it stand.

[Neil Graham]

You may infer what you wish. I couldn't possibly comment.

Jack not wishing to be critical about your stance, the ECF Board should be advising who this candidate is. It's hardly a matter to be shrouded in secrecy.

Candidates for all posts are declared simultaneously as soon as possible after nominations have closed on 4th September. It would be totally unfair to all concerned for the board to reveal the the identity of one nominee in advance. Of course, the candidate is free to publicise his candidature in advance if he or she so wishes.

I can confirm though that the board have not interviewed this candidate. There is no need, as he has put himself forward for election by council, not for appointment by the board. I hope that clears things up.

Well we know that six of the board have offered themselves for re-election. We also know that two candidates have been rejected by the board as prospective CEOs - of course these candidates may put themselves up for election as CEO to Council based on the above comment. Do the Board then advise that they have already rejected them? It seems odd to me that the prospective candidate for Director of Finance has not been interviewed by the Board - do they intend to do so or just let Council decide? If a Mr de Coverly was nominated as Director of Membership would the Board not interview him to ascertain whether or not he was a suitable candidate?

[Stewart Reuben]

The Board has often interviewed candidates for directorships on the morning of the Counxil Meeting. Somebody may not be available before then. Why seek to read into the actions of people more than is necessary? Basically they are all volunteers doing their best.
Some members of Council will regard rejection by the Board as a positive reason for voting for a candidate.

[Roger de Coverly]

Do the Board then advise that they have already rejected them?

It's not unknown for there to be a slate of candidates opposed to the prior board, the Martin Regan list comes to mind. Existing Board members are entitled presumably to express their opinion of new candidates and their policies, but the vote remains with the voting membership. What could be sharp practice is if a candidate declined to stand for election and was not known to be a candidate only to be later appointed by the Board.

I don't think the appointee to the proposed new post of Commercial Director is going to be subject to election. If there is a prospective job holder, you might hope they would declare both themselves and their policies for information of the meeting.