ECF Elections - Statement by Malcolm Pein

[John McKenna]

Can a shop or a magazine be successfully run without paying customers who get what they want for their money? The answer is a resounding NO!

Can a national organisation continue to be run, successfully or unsuccessfully, without its paying clients getting what they desire for their money? The answer would seem to be a qualified yes. That is because the paying clients do not know exactly what they want, or what they are going to get, from the organisation for their money. Therefore the clients may not know or care that much what happens to their 'donation' but they part with it grudgingly and grumble about how they perceive it being spent.

That is the fundamental difference between a purchase and a tax.

[John Cox]

For the love of God, will some of you people just try to get the faintest semblance of a grip?

If we lived in any kind of sensible world, all the people who voted for ‘none of the above’ in preference to Malcolm would be rounded up and banned en masse from any kind of work with chess players, children, animals, heavy machinery and pretty much anything else.

Who were these people, anyway? That’s what fascinates me. Where on earth does chess administration manage to find such massively self-important morons to get involved in it? I wouldn’t know where to start trying to find such people. I just can’t imagine how it’s done.

As Simon Brown rightly pointed out, anyone who needs a manifesto before they can decide that Malcolm has more to offer the ECF as a non-executive director than ‘none of the above’ is an utter pillock who shouldn't be allowed to administer an enema (I think those were his words, though I'd have to check). How in the wide world do these people continue to get appointed to anything, even the ECF Council? Well, I know the answer, I suppose, it’s because nobody else will do it, because in order to do it, they would have to deal with parties like the parties of the first part, so to speak.

[Roger de Coverly]

Malcolm has more to offer the ECF as a non-executive director than ‘none of the above’

In defence of those voting at the meeting and those who approve their nomination as Representatives, it was established that Malcolm would be little more than a name on the list of directors. In other words he wasn't going to review Board papers and he wasn't going to attend meetings. It seems an eminently sensible view to elect or appoint a non-Exec Director who was actually going to take part in Board deliberations. In fairness, it was proposed that an alternate would attend meetings, but if you are going to appoint rather than elect someone, make it the Board's choice not Malcolm's.

No matter how eminent the potential director, a brief statement of why you wish to grace this humble organisation with your presence or even attend the AGM wouldn't have come amiss.

[John Cox]

Maybe so, but the fact is there wasn't one, and that Malcolm was only willing to devote so much time and (for hugely understandable reasons) wasn't prepared to attend board meetings (do most non-executive directors do so? I wouldn't have expected it myself). The members had to take a decision in those circumstances, and I don’t think it’s at all unfair to describe the decision they took as cretinous. In fact I would find it hard to think of a less pejorative adjective that comes close.

[Paul McKeown]

I have to agree with every word Simon Brown and John Cox have said with regard to the folly of those who chose not to elect Malcolm Pein. MP knows what he is doing and has the record to prove it. His experience would be invaluable in a director.

However, I have strong doubts regarding Andrew Paulson. It is impossible to determine the nature of his connections with Kirsan Nikolayevich, therefore I believe that the soundest course is to fear the worst. I also find his belief that he can successfully lobby a future British government to label chess a sport incredible, in the absence of any indication as to why he believes that he can succeed. I also find myself irritated by a general sense of bluster from the man, although that might be more symptomatic of a clash of cultures across the Atlantic, than anything serious.

[Mick Norris]

It seems tedious to be once again talking about the AGM of 3 years ago, but having been roundly insulted (again) I'll repeat (again) what I said at the time:

• CJ advised that Malcolm had no time to read emails, and so CJ would forward him only vital emails, Malcolm would be unable to attend most meetings and intended appointing an alternate (a Mr Read employed by the Chess Centre I think) to do the work
• I felt that the role of non-executive director is crucial as it effectively helps the MCF hold the ECF board to account outside of Council meetings (which are only twice yearly)
• Accordingly, I used my judgement to vote against his appointment
• On a show of hands, he lost 12-11, the card vote was 62-49
• I agree with the sentiment expressed that Malcolm would be welcomed within the ECF but I don’t think this role is suitable for him
• Most of the ECF board supported him, but a couple appeared to be against him in this particular role
• Like the other vacant posts, the ECF board will seek to fill the position

Do you think that it would have been good idea, with CJ as President and looking in hindsight, to have CJ filtering the information to be looked at by a NED?

I think if Malcolm had stood for President this year, he would have been elected, but if he doesn't have time to be an ECF Director so be it

[Paul McKeown]

Mick,

No offence!

It's easy to forget that CJ would have been the filter!

Actually everything about CJ was forgettable. I think he was reading the Reggie Perrin script.

Paul

[Mick Norris]

Actually, the official minutes set it out in detail

Those present were:

The following list gives names only. The full Attendance document recording the capacities, in which people attended, together with apologies for absence, is held in the ECF Office with the official copy of these Minutes.
MJ Adams (MJA) DW Anderton (DWA) N Belinfante (NB) G Caller (GCa)
G Christie (GCh) L Cooper (LC) CJ de Mooi (CJdM) NW Dennis (NWD)
KL Escott (KLE) AP Farthing (APF) SN Gilmore (SNG) H Grist (HG)
MJ Gunn (MJG) RJ Haddrell (RJH) R Hardy (RH) AR Holowczak (ARH)
RW Jones (RWJ) AT Leadbetter (ATL) CE Majer (CEM) M Misson (MM)
MJ Norris (MJN) PW Purland (PWP) AN Raoof (ANR) S Reuben (SR)
RJ Richmond (RJR) PG Sherlock (PGS) BA Smith (BAS) DR Thomas (DRT)
D Welch (DW) JR Wickham (JRW) PJB Wilson (PJBW) DG Woodruff (DGW)

then we get to:

DRT proposed to elect all Directors en bloc down to 11.6.4 on the agenda. GCh brought the meeting's attention to some negative comments about the ECF in a newspaper in one of Malcolm Pein's columns and indicated a wish to discuss his candidature. DRT's proposal was therefore amended to elect all Directors down to 11.6.4 en bloc, excluding 11.5. This was approved nem con.

and finally to:

Non-Executive Directors

JRW was re-elected nem con.

The meeting then discussed the potential election of Malcolm Pein (MP) to the second Non-Executive Director role. GCh said that MP should only be elected if he apologised for anti-ECF remarks in his newspaper column. MJG disagreed, saying that MP should be elected with no conditions attached. MJA said that MP had been critical in the past, for which CJdM said that he had apologised. CJdM spoke of the positive influence MP could have on the Board. GCh said that the problem with the articles were factual errors, not matters of opinion. DRT said that it was important that confidential Board information did not make it into the press. CJdM said that MP was a busy man and would not view all Board e-mails himself; instead, CJdM would forward only relevant e-mails. This proposed approach was considered unacceptable. CJdM modified his suggestion, indicating that MP would defer his responsibilities to an Alternate. ARH argued that MP should deal with messages himself, as that was part of the responsibilities of the role. SNG asked why MP wanted the post. MJG said that he thought it was because MP wanted to help chess. PWP asked why, if he was that busy, he wanted the post. PJBW said that as a subscriber to MP's magazine, he believed that MP had abused his position as editor of it. ATL suggested that the role of the Non-Executive Directors was to turn up to Board Meetings, and that should be the only criterion considered to elect him. ATL also said that the Executive Members of the Board should not vote for the Non-Executive Directors. CJdM said that Matthew Read would be his Alternate; an employee of MP.

A hand vote was taken, not including the Directors. This was 6 for, 10 against. A second vote was taken including the Directors, which had 11 for, 12 against. MJG spoke of his dissatisfaction that Council was trying to override the Board's constitutional right to vote for the Non-Executive Directors. CEM ruled as Chairman that, in view of the closeness of the hand vote, he would call for a card vote. ATL said that, due to the discussion that had taken place, the directed proxy votes should not be counted in the card vote. The result was 49 for, 62 against, with abstentions including PWP and GCa. MP was therefore not elected.

Given the resulting vacancy, CJdM proposed Matthew Read (MR) as a candidate for the role, explaining that he worked in chess for MP’s organisation and had helped with the Staunton Memorial Dinner. In a hand vote, MR was not elected with 7 for and 8 against.

[David Sedgwick]

Members of this Forum are of course at liberty to discuss whatever they wish.

But I think it's fair to say that, when Malcolm Pein asked me to post his statement, he and I both envisaged that it would provoke discussion about the forthcoming elections rather than about those which took place in 2010.

[Peter D Williams]

Afternoon All

The ECF scored an own goal when it blocked Malcolm from joining the board.Malcolm contribution to chess with the London Classic and his chess shop speak for them self.I still do not understand how he was not voted on to the board just think what a positive contribution he would have made to the ECF.
Malcolm also a really nice guy I remember at the classic when he was very busy arranging the VIP room Malcolm still found time to come over and speak to me and Peter and ask how we where.

Lot colder today appears to be a wind chill so do wrap up if you have to go out.

[John Upham]

I also find his belief that he can successfully lobby a future British government to label chess a sport incredible,

Would you be upset if he was able to help make this happen Paul?

I guess it would upset RDdeC (he might be pleased but perhaps he won't want to admit that) and at least we won't have to endure his tediously dull repeating posts on the subject.

[Roger de Coverly]

I still do not understand how he was not voted on to the board

With a limited number of places on the Board, the voting membership at the AGM felt that every director should be an active part of the Board, rather than a sleeping partner. They felt that a commitment to read Board papers and attend meetings was necessary. Beyond that you have the potential for conflict of interest and disclosure of confidential material if a Board member is also the proprietor of a chess business, the editor of a magazine and a columnist for a national newspaper.

[Roger de Coverly]

I guess it would upset RDdeC (he might be pleased but perhaps he won't want to admit that) and at least we won't have to endure his tediously dull repeating posts on the subject.

Unless anyone can budge Sport England, which, as others have suggested is highly unlikely, Chess formally becoming a sport isn't going to happen. But it isn't a bed of roses even if does. Do you want to see the anti doping testers turning up at the British Championships for example?

[John Upham]

Beyond that you have the potential for conflict of interest and disclosure of confidential material if a Board member is also the proprietor of a chess business, the editor of a magazine and a columnist for a national newspaper.

Is there a conflict of interest if a board member is a promoter / organiser of chess events or perhaps charges a fee for coaching or any other commercial chess activity?

Can you be clear that you recommend that no ECF Director (even named official) should have a commercial interest in chess?

Please clarify...

[John Upham]

Do you want to see the anti doping testers turning up at the British Championships for example?

Yes please!

Do you think players might have something to hide?

They ought to test the officials and arbiters also.