The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
The problem is that the President trying to bring down the ECF's Delegate to FIDE and five of the Directors isn't productive either.Charlie Storey wrote: The ECF needs a little bit of support and trying to bring down its president is not very productive for Chess.
It's not the case that the Delegate to FIDE and five Directors have tried to bring down the President?Roger de Coverly wrote:The problem is that the President trying to bring down the ECF's Delegate to FIDE and five of the Directors isn't productive either.
It's plain enough that the relationship between the President and the Delegate to FIDE has completely broken down and arguably one or both have to go. The Board have been unable to resolve this amongst themselves so it goes to the ECF Voting membership for resolution. The five Directors thought it had to be the President and are now threatened with replacement by the President's nominees.Angus French wrote: It's not the case that the Delegate to FIDE and five Directors have tried to bring down the President?
Though as John McKenna just pointed out, there is a separate issue from the NS/AP one, in that at least 3 of the 5 directors focused on concerns more related to their own relationship with AP; specifically, AP appearing to ignore them / override their authority over their directorates.Roger de Coverly wrote:It's plain enough that the relationship between the President and the Delegate to FIDE has completely broken down and arguably one or both have to go. The Board have been unable to resolve this amongst themselves so it goes to the ECF Voting membership for resolution. The five Directors thought it had to be the President and are now threatened with replacement by the President's nominees.Angus French wrote: It's not the case that the Delegate to FIDE and five Directors have tried to bring down the President?
The constitutional question remains though. An EGM has power to dismiss directors. Does it also have the power to elect or appoint replacements?
Indeed they did. How were they able to do that when the discussion item on the agenda, which they themselves had agreed to or helped set, was worded:PeterFarr wrote:... at least 3 of the 5 directors focused on concerns more related to their own relationship with AP; specifically, AP appearing to ignore them / override their authority over their directorates.
If I understood the meeting structure as disclosed by the draft Minutes, each of the Directors was invited in turn to state whether they had confidence in AP (and NS). You may recall that the Director of Membership didn't have any direct complaints, other than that the Board as a whole had become dysfunctional. The Minutes also indicate that by the time they had taken each statement, the more general discussion had to be curtailed.Angus French wrote: How were they able to do that
The formalised meeting structure was proposed by the chair and agreed by the participants. Has the original agenda been published anywhere?Angus French wrote:My point is that the agenda wasn't adhered to and the people who did most not to adhere were among those who called the meeting and set the agenda.
.Minutes on ECF site wrote:PE noted that the agenda contained three items: a rather broad discussion point followed by two votes. PE announced that the structure of the meeting should be: opening statements from each Director with AP speaking last, discussion if time permitted and finally the votes. The Board agreed
Appendix 1 and Appendix 3 of the draft minutes wrote:Therefore, this letter is to request that you convene an urgent, additional Board meeting at 6.00pm on Saturday 8th February 2014 at The Exmouth Arms, 1 Starcross St, London NW1 2HR to deal solely with the following:
1. A discussion about the issues raised in the recent print and web articles, various claims involving the recent activities of Andrew Paulson and Nigel Short concerning the imminent ECU and FIDE elections, and various threats to refer ECF members to the FIDE Ethics Committee.
2. Motion: A vote of confidence in Andrew Paulson as President of the English Chess Federation
3. Motion: A vote of confidence in Nigel Short as the FIDE Delegate of the English Chess Federation
Barking up the wrong tree here Angus. Phil Ehr chaired the meeting and at the outset suggested that instead of item 1, each Director articulate their issues / views in turn. The meeting agreed this suggestion (unanimously as I recall; certainly nem com) and thus that is what happened.Angus French wrote:My point is that the agenda wasn't adhered to and the people who did most not to adhere were among those who called the meeting and set the agenda.
Sean, can you point to where in the draft minutes this is stated? I can't see it. All I can see is:Sean Hewitt wrote:Phil Ehr chaired the meeting and at the outset suggested that instead of item 1, each Director articulate their issues / views in turn. The meeting agreed this suggestion (unanimously as I recall; certainly nem com) and thus that is what happened.
andMinute 3 wrote:PE noted that the agenda contained three items: a rather broad discussion point followed by two votes. PE announced that the structure of the meeting should be: opening statements from each Director with AP speaking last, discussion if time permitted and finally the votes. The Board agreed.
Minute 7 wrote:Each Director was asked to present the charges against AP and NS which were the cause for this meeting to be convened
