Papers for ECF Council meeting 12th April 2014

[Michael Flatt]

Angus,

I can only indicate what I understand from my reading of the Minutes. Also, those present may request them to be clarified when they are formally presented and accepted, since they are marked as "IN DRAFT AND IN CONFIDENCE".

Anyone with a interest in reading the full entry for item 23 can do so and make up their own mind:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ublish.pdf

[Angus French]

The Board did not nominate the ECF President to stand in the ECU elections. It was requested that before standing for the ECU the President should justify his stance to the Board.

I think the above statement is misrepresentative of what the draft minutes state.

[Andrew Paulson]

The Board did not nominate the ECF President to stand in the ECU elections. It was requested that before standing for the ECU the President should justify his stance to the Board.

I think the above statement is misrepresentative of what the draft minutes state.

This is complicated because you are confusing what happened at two different Board Meetings.

As for the 80th Board Meeting, you are right, I was not nominated to the position of Deputy President of the ECU. However, at this meeting the issue of whether I could stand without ECF permission was resolved in my favour. And the issue as to whether I could lobby for greater inclusion of English commissioners to FIDE was approved. These seemed to have become controversial at the time, although they seemed obvious to me. Although there was not a formal vote on these, they were accepted by acclamation without dissent.

Then, at the 82nd Board Meeting, I was nominated to the position of Deputy President of the ECU. And the Board formally recommended to Council that I be given the proxy to vote for myself at this election in August. The vote was 8 in favour and one abstention. The text of the agreement includes:

"The Members of the Board agree to both the letter and the spirit of this Motion. They will support the passage of the Motion by ECF Council: although in no way obliged to lobby for this Motion, they will not in any way lobby against this Motion."

"The eight Members of the Board who voted for this Motion will publicly declare without reservation that they will support this Motion with their own votes, which do not necessarily include votes where they are duty bound to represent the expressed wishes of others at Council."

[Richard Bates]

"The Members of the Board agree to both the letter and the spirit of this Motion. They will support the passage of the Motion by ECF Council: although in no way obliged to lobby for this Motion, they will not in any way lobby against this Motion."

"The eight Members of the Board who voted for this Motion will publicly declare without reservation that they will support this Motion with their own votes, which do not necessarily include votes where they are duty bound to represent the expressed wishes of others at Council."

So they (the Board) were required to

a) cast their 9 votes held as Directors in favour of the motion
b) publicly state that their votes would be so cast
c) commit to not lobbying against the motion (but explicitly (whatever "letter and spirit" might imply otherwise) not committing to lobby in favour).

It seems clear that this was an agreement balanced on the pin of a needle, and equally clear that to the extent it may be perceived as having been broken down as a result of certain Directors breaking ranks and giving the appearance of now lobbying against the motion, this was an inevitable consequence of Phil Ehr's ill-judged (although one might suspect deliberate) memo which appeared to lobby (on behalf of, and citing the judgement of, 'individual' members of the board) in the motion's favour against the wishes of those Directors.

[Andrew Paulson]

"The Members of the Board agree to both the letter and the spirit of this Motion. They will support the passage of the Motion by ECF Council: although in no way obliged to lobby for this Motion, they will not in any way lobby against this Motion."

"The eight Members of the Board who voted for this Motion will publicly declare without reservation that they will support this Motion with their own votes, which do not necessarily include votes where they are duty bound to represent the expressed wishes of others at Council."

So they (the Board) were required to

a) cast their 9 votes held as Directors in favour of the motion
b) publicly state that their votes would be so cast
c) commit to not lobbying against the motion (but explicitly (whatever "letter and spirit" might imply otherwise) not committing to lobby in favour).

It seems clear that this was an agreement balanced on the pin of a needle, and equally clear that to the extent it may be perceived as having been broken down as a result of certain Directors breaking ranks and giving the appearance of now lobbying against the motion, this was an inevitable consequence of Phil Ehr's ill-judged (although one might suspect deliberate) memo which appeared to lobby (on behalf of, and citing the judgement of, 'individual' members of the board) in the motion's favour against the wishes of those Directors.

Richard, I'm glad you are trying to parse the decision. I draw your attention to the Motion itself, which was the principal statement of the Board: “... [T]he Board nominates Andrew Paulson for the position of Deputy President of the European Chess Union ... [and the] Board recommends that the ECF Council at its April meeting approves a Motion to give Andrew Paulson standing during the ECU General Assembly election meeting in Tromsø in August by designating him as the official ECF Delegate at that meeting.”

The Board’s agreement further stipulated: “The Members of the Board agree to both the letter and the spirit of this Motion. They will support the passage of the Motion by ECF Council..."

The idea that a Director might vote for something as a Director, but not stand behind it as an individual in some other context (as was argued by several of the directors here) is spurious (but interesting).

The notion "both the letter and the spirit of the law" is not a concept that the Board made up on the spur of the moment and its implications are not (as you suggest in your post) "balanced on the pin of a needle." It has meaning which is, on the contrary, broad and encompassing. "The Christian Bible references the letter and the spirit of the law in Romans 2:29 NASB. Though it is not quoted directly, the principle is applied using the words "spirit" and "letter" in context with the legalistic view of the Hebrew Bible. This may be the first recorded use of the phrase."

To help you out, I quote Wikipedia further: "The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording." Abiding by the letter and the spirit of the law means you are doing both!

Wikipedia goes further giving a literary example: "William Shakespeare wrote numerous plays dealing with the letter versus spirit antithesis, almost always coming down on the side of "spirit", often forcing villains (who always sided with the letter) to make concessions and remedy. In one of the best known examples, The Merchant of Venice, he introduces the quibble as a plot device to save both the spirit and the letter of the law. The moneylender Shylock has made an agreement with Antonio that if he cannot repay a loan he will have a pound of flesh from him. When the debt is not repaid in time Portia at first pleads for mercy in a famous speech: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." (IV,i,185). When Shylock refuses, she finally saves Antonio by pointing out that Shylock's agreement with him mentioned no blood, and therefore Shylock can have his pound of flesh only if he sheds no blood."

I'd say, there's no wiggle room. There is, though, an interesting conundrum: If Sean Hewitt voted to abide by the letter and the spirit of the law as a director, is he still bound by this after having resigned? That, I don't know. (That would depend, in Shakespeare, on whether or not he is a villain.)

[Roger de Coverly]

this was an inevitable consequence of Phil Ehr's ill-judged (although one might suspect deliberate) memo which appeared to lobby (on behalf of, and citing the judgement of, 'individual' members of the board) in the motion's favour against the wishes of those Directors.

In what is basically a contest between two East European GMs with dubious reputations, an objective opinion by the ECF Board or even the CEO as to why one should be favoured over the other ought to have been welcomed by the voting membership. No such reasons were given. The FIDE and ECU Delegate strongly favours one over the other. There might be an opinion that he has a personal bias, but what are the objective arguments against his choice, given that the Georgian is regarded as a FIDE establishment figure favouring the current FIDE President?

[Stewart Reuben]

JT Melsom >The best chess in this country is generally organised outside the ECF umbrella. Perhaps rather than the extended posturing on the international stage etc. , the Board might like to reflect on why this is, and whether the balance is appropriate.<

I believe this is incorrect. Virtually all English competitive chess comes under the ECF umbrella. This umbrella by no means necessarily provides total cover. Take the London Chess Classic, for the purpose of titles and ratings it has to relate to FIDE through the ECF. The same is true of Hastings and Gibraltar.

In my opinion, chess is better organised in England, not by the federation, but by administrators working under the ECF umbrella. I think very much the same of all activities, not just chess. I am anti big government.

Written in Croatia while playing for an ECF team in the European Senior Chess Team Championship. This activity does come completely under the ECF umbrella.

It is true that the ECF Board seems to have become distracted from their main objectives by the FIDE election taking place in August. It will probably all die down by October.

[Andrew Paulson]

this was an inevitable consequence of Phil Ehr's ill-judged (although one might suspect deliberate) memo which appeared to lobby (on behalf of, and citing the judgement of, 'individual' members of the board) in the motion's favour against the wishes of those Directors.

In what is basically a contest between two East European GMs with dubious reputations, an objective opinion by the ECF Board or even the CEO as to why one should be favoured over the other ought to have been welcomed by the voting membership. No such reasons were given. The FIDE and ECU Delegate strongly favours one over the other. There might be an opinion that he has a personal bias, but what are the objective arguments against his choice, given that the Georgian is regarded as a FIDE establishment figure favouring the current FIDE President?

Roger, excellent question, as usual. As ECF President I issued a report defending Azmaiparashvili's reputation of being 'dubious' and pointing out some of the problems with Danailov; perhaps you have read it. It should be attached to the Board Minutes of the 80th Board Meeting as it was requested by David Openshaw.

There are several reasons for overruling the FIDE Delegate on the ECU vote (not the FIDE vote!):

1. Nigel Short has stated clearly his dislike of the ECU incumbent Silvio Danailov in the past and regretted voting for him over Ali Yazici in the last ECU election.
2. Nigel Short is supporting Danailov solely in an attempt to secure more votes for Kasparov in Europe. He is not concerned for the negative consequences to the ECF in Europe of returning Danailov as ECU President.
3. Danailov's Executive Director, Sakotic, has resigned from his federation's presidency under investigation for embezzlement. Danailov refuses to remove him from the ECU leadership.
4. Zurab Azmaiparashvili's team/ticket also consists of highly respected chess professionals from Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Belgium, USA, Monaco, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Faroe Islands and Austria.
5. Zurab Azmaiparashvili has a coherent, wide ranging and well-thought-out Platform (reproduced on the EC Forum); please read it.
6. Silvio Danailov has a 'vision' (taken from his campaign site): "Chess is my job, chess is my hobby, chess is my life…and much more than that – chess is my dream. I have a dream… I have a dream one day our beloved game to be among the most popular and attractive sports in the world. I have a dream one day chess to become a symbol of the intelligent, modern and successful people. And I believe that all this is possible, because chess has huge potential. As I always say chess is not just another game, but is much more than that. It is unique and unusual combination between sport, education, culture and science. There is not another sport like chess... Chess is unusual, chess is unique and we have to show to the society its uniqueness, to reveal its treasures, to show its real face. I have a dream… I have a dream one day chess to become a symbol of the intelligent, modern and successful people. I have a dream one day our beloved game to be among the most popular and attractive sports in the world. I have a dream one day chess to become an Olympic sport. And I know…All this will happen! Gens Una Sumus!"

You can pursue Danailov's thought at: http://danailov-for-president.com/?page_id=1757

[Roger de Coverly]

As ECF President I issued a report defending Azmaiparashvili's reputation of being 'dubious'

I most certainly have read it. Asking your opponent to accept a take back is inexcusable in a club championship, let alone the European Championship. Faking results or claiming that a rapid-play tournament is a standard play tournament so as to boost a rating and get extra invitation to top tournaments is equally so. Publishing confidential material obtained whilst acting as a second is regarded as being in seriously bad taste in GM circles. Getting involved in fights with security guards isn't a reputation enhancer. He had already fallen out with the Spanish organisers by demanding two hotel rooms despite being one person.

[Roger de Coverly]

In my opinion, chess is better organised in England, not by the federation, but by administrators working under the ECF umbrella.

I think that's what Jon was saying, with the additional caveat that local organisations would continue to run chess even if the ECF were to disappear. Unlike some sports, the ECF exists because local clubs and leagues or counties allow it to continue and arrange to pay it money. FIDE have a partial monopoly in international chess, but the success and spread of the rating system can mean that it's just as easy to play in a different country as your own.

[NickFaulks]

It is true that the ECF Board seems to have become distracted from their main objectives by the FIDE election taking place in August. It will probably all die down by October.

Really? Playing the game of international chess politics seems to have dominated the ECF for at least the past five years, to the detriment of any efforts to slow England's steady chess decline. Is there any reason to believe that this will cease after Tromso?

[Richard Bates]

"The Members of the Board agree to both the letter and the spirit of this Motion. They will support the passage of the Motion by ECF Council: although in no way obliged to lobby for this Motion, they will not in any way lobby against this Motion."

"The eight Members of the Board who voted for this Motion will publicly declare without reservation that they will support this Motion with their own votes, which do not necessarily include votes where they are duty bound to represent the expressed wishes of others at Council."

So they (the Board) were required to

a) cast their 9 votes held as Directors in favour of the motion
b) publicly state that their votes would be so cast
c) commit to not lobbying against the motion (but explicitly (whatever "letter and spirit" might imply otherwise) not committing to lobby in favour).

It seems clear that this was an agreement balanced on the pin of a needle, and equally clear that to the extent it may be perceived as having been broken down as a result of certain Directors breaking ranks and giving the appearance of now lobbying against the motion, this was an inevitable consequence of Phil Ehr's ill-judged (although one might suspect deliberate) memo which appeared to lobby (on behalf of, and citing the judgement of, 'individual' members of the board) in the motion's favour against the wishes of those Directors.

Richard, I'm glad you are trying to parse the decision. I draw your attention to the Motion itself, which was the principal statement of the Board: “... [T]he Board nominates Andrew Paulson for the position of Deputy President of the European Chess Union ... [and the] Board recommends that the ECF Council at its April meeting approves a Motion to give Andrew Paulson standing during the ECU General Assembly election meeting in Tromsø in August by designating him as the official ECF Delegate at that meeting.”

The Board’s agreement further stipulated: “The Members of the Board agree to both the letter and the spirit of this Motion. They will support the passage of the Motion by ECF Council..."

The idea that a Director might vote for something as a Director, but not stand behind it as an individual in some other context (as was argued by several of the directors here) is spurious (but interesting).

The notion "both the letter and the spirit of the law" is not a concept that the Board made up on the spur of the moment and its implications are not (as you suggest in your post) "balanced on the pin of a needle." It has meaning which is, on the contrary, broad and encompassing. [SNIP]

I'd say, there's no wiggle room. There is, though, an interesting conundrum: If Sean Hewitt voted to abide by the letter and the spirit of the law as a director, is he still bound by this after having resigned? That, I don't know. (That would depend, in Shakespeare, on whether or not he is a villain.)

My point was that regardless of what "letter and spirit" might be conventionally interpreted to mean, the requirement for such interpretation is over-ruled because the agreement explicitly states what it means in this context. I would normally interpret "spirit and letter" to mean that the Director's would not just be voting for the measure, but publicly (enthusiastically?) endorse it with words and deeds. However since the agreement explicity states that they are not required to do this, it is clear that... they are not required to do this.

So you are resting your position on a selective quotation and interpretation of part of the agreement, an interpretation that is contradicted by the other part of that agreement.

[Roger de Coverly]

Really? Playing the game of international chess politics seems to have dominated the ECF for at least the past five years, to the detriment of any efforts to slow England's steady chess decline.

Nigel Short was elected as Delegate to FIDE in 2009 on the basis of a more active approach to FIDE. It was felt that the previous Delegate represented FIDE in the ECF rather than the other way round. Given the turnarounds of Yazici and now Karpov, Nigel remains someone who has consistently campaigned against the continued Presidency of Kirsan, at least since Bessel Kok forced an election in 2006. There was no election in Elista in 1998, but even in 2002 the opposition folded without an election when offered seats on the FIDE Presidential Board.

Perhaps it was coincidence, but the decline of English chess became apparent under the long Presidency of Nigel's FIDE Delegate predecessor.

[Roger de Coverly]

The SCCU has reported its decision making process on the ECU issue.

From http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/sccu.htm

(a) The Paulson proposal. The Executive had no enthusiasm for the Board's proposal that Council appoint Andrew Paulson as ECF Delegate at the 2014 ECU General Assembly. (The delegate, according to the "Directors and Officers Responsibilities Regulations", is supposed to be the Council-elected FIDE Delegate; who was understood not to favour usurpation.) The Board's proposal formed part of the package under which Mr Paulson had agreed to resign as ECF President. Some on the Executive had dark suspicions that the Board expected, if not intended, its proposal to fail. At all events the SCCU would vote against it.

[John Upham]

Will the SCCUs ECF delegate be delivering the SCCUs mandate in its entirety with total enthusiasm at the ECF Finance Meeting?