English Chess Forum

The ECF website has announced that all the current directors are standing for re-election.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/nominati ... -elections

The post of FIDE delegate (Malcolm Pein) is also up for re-election. It doesn't confirm yet that he is standing.

It doesn't actually say that Dave Thomas is standing does it?

I think it does......

• President (Dominic Lawson, standing for re-election)
• Chief Executive (Phil Ehr, standing for re-election)
• Finance Director (David Eustace, standing for re-election)
• Director of Home Chess (Alex Holowczak, standing for re-election)
• Director of International Chess (David Openshaw, standing for re-election)
• Director of Junior Chess & Education (Traci Whitfield, standing for re-election)
• Director of Membership (David Thomas)
• Commercial Director (Bob Kane, standing for re-election)
• Non-Executive Director (Julian Clissold, standing for re-election)
• Non-Executive Director (John Foley, standing for re-election)

Roger de Coverly wrote:

The post of FIDE delegate (Malcolm Pein) is also up for re-election. It doesn't confirm yet that he is standing.

Malcolm has e-mailed me from New York in the early hours (UK time) to confirm that he is standing, and I have amended the website post accordingly.

Mick Norris wrote

It doesn't actually say that Dave Thomas is standing does it?

Dave is currently away on holiday.

Oops - apologies to Mick. Failed to spot the significance of the missing words.

Mike Truran wrote:Oops - apologies to Mick. Failed to spot the significance of the missing words.

Apology accepted

A correspondent has just accused me of being an official of the ECF. If I’m going to receive that sort of abuse anyway, perhaps I might as well go ahead stand.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:A correspondent has just accused me of being an official of the ECF. If I’m going to receive that sort of abuse anyway, perhaps I might as well go ahead stand.

I was asked to stand, and said no thanks

David Thomas has now returned from holiday, and I have amended the website post to indicate that he is currently undecided as to whether to stand for re-election.

What is The Chris Fegan status in all this?

Carl Hibbard wrote:What is The Chris Fegan status in all this?

If you look at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/ecf-officials/
he is listed as "Strategic Advisor".

This is not an elected post, rather his appointment would be confirmed or otherwise at the November Board meeting.

I hope it's a question that will be asked at the AGM of the non-Executive directors is to what extent, if at all, they consider themselves independent of the rest of the Board and to what extent, if at all ,they are able to act or comment independently. To put it more bluntly if ECF Directors are banned from commenting at this and other independent forums or blogs, are they included in the ban, and if so why?

Roger de Coverly wrote:...a question that will be asked at the AGM of the non-Executive directors is to what extent, if at all, they consider themselves independent of the rest of the Board

It doesn't matter a jot what they consider themselves to be. As members of the Board, they are members of the Board. End of. Their 'independence' is not a property of their freedom to act, but of their duty to bring dispassionate judgements to bear upon the Board's deliberations, independent of any functional responsibilities.

David Robertson wrote: As members of the Board, they are members of the Board. End of. Their 'independence' is not a property of their freedom to act, but of their duty to bring dispassionate judgements to bear upon the Board's deliberations, independent of any functional responsibilities.

Are you quite sure about that? Within the constraints of the various Companies Acts, are not Companies limited by guarantee able to structure themselves so that some directors are elected by a limited constituency with a role to protect the interests of that constituency?

I didn't think Company law had got that authoritarian that it was no longer possible for those electing directors to elect dissidents to a Board.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Carl Hibbard wrote:What is The Chris Fegan status in all this?

If you look at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/ecf-officials/
he is listed as "Strategic Advisor".

This is not an elected post, rather his appointment would be confirmed or otherwise at the November Board meeting.

I think that the relevant Board meeting is actually in October, a few days after the Council meeting.

Chris Fegan may of course decide to stand for an elected position.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

David Robertson wrote: As members of the Board, they are members of the Board. End of. Their 'independence' is not a property of their freedom to act, but of their duty to bring dispassionate judgements to bear upon the Board's deliberations, independent of any functional responsibilities.

Are you quite sure about that?

Yes, I'm pretty sure of my ground here - though open to correction faced with relevant evidence.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Within the constraints of the various Companies Acts, are not Companies limited by guarantee able to structure themselves so that some directors are elected by a limited constituency with a role to protect the interests of that constituency?

Possibly, if the company's Articles are set up in that fashion. But nothing overrides the fiduciary duty of any Director, the duty to place the interests of the Company before all other interests, no matter what constituency may be involved

Roger de Coverly wrote:I didn't think Company law had got that authoritarian that it was no longer possible for those electing directors to elect dissidents to a Board.

Company law isn't the least bit authoritarian, except principally on matters of financial reporting, accountability and integrity. But various 'commissions' and their reports (Cadbury, 1992; and Higgs, 2003 for NEDs) do bear heavily on Boards. No Board behaving prudently would knowingly appoint/elect/admit to membership a person who would compromise Board unity. That is not to say a Board wouldn't welcome divergent opinion. Within a Board, dissent, differences of opinion, challenges to 'groupthink' and so forth are natural features of healthy debate. But a Board speaks with one voice only, not two, and not several. Dissent to a Board's decision remains within the Board. If it is pursued beyond the Board, it's a resigning matter.