English Chess Forum

Andrew Zigmond wrote: A slightly unfair question but is this likely to find its way into the `public` (ie officials and insiders) domain next week?

As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I believe Mike Truran is granted sight of some or all of the ECF Directors' internal circulars and correspondence. Draw your own conclusions as to whether he speaks with knowledge or conjecture of Board harmony.

The annual Andrew and Ravi show is a good thing which I have enjoyed for years: this year there were clearly technical (possibly budgetary) problems

An ECF maladminstration complaints procedure, to improve ECF administration, that applies to all Directors and that tries to avoid vexatious complaints, is a good thing.

The process should be open and transparent: this is 2015 not 1066.

Minor mistakes will sometimes be made even by ECF officials in budget decisions and the exercise of power.

Propriety is a good thing: was it the intention of those who devised the current system to end up in this (international) mess?

The way the current process has operated since Warwick is a bad thing : possibly a committee of all those ECF officers involved in the current mess... chaired by Andrew Martin??.... might improve procedures and processes and give us a better commentary next year!

Doubtless there will be Tigers at the ECF AGM....

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Andrew Zigmond wrote: A slightly unfair question but is this likely to find its way into the `public` (ie officials and insiders) domain next week?

As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I believe Mike Truran is granted sight of some or all of the ECF Directors' internal circulars and correspondence. Draw your own conclusions as to whether he speaks with knowledge or conjecture of Board harmony.

I should add that I'm privy to some of the facts but probably not as many as Mike.

This is an absurd situation. Clearly a lot of information is widely known and will eventually come out. In the meantime an election is imminent and decisions being made by potential candidates. The sequence of events may well change perspectives on whom people wish to see on their Board, and those perspectives are being changed by rumour rather than hard fact. No one can be bound by confidentiality after the event has taken place. Time for people to be straightforward in their statements and say what they know rather than dropping innuendos.

This

I refer here to the work of the CEO, the Chair of Governance, the Company Secretary and to the Legal Advice that was sought and given throughout the matter.

is absolutely fantastic.

JustinHorton wrote:This

I refer here to the work of the CEO, the Chair of Governance, the Company Secretary and to the Legal Advice that was sought and given throughout the matter.

is absolutely fantastic.

Yes, the fact is whoever it is that is driving this plot against one of their own number must have considered that they might have done something wrong. So, by consulting Legal Advice they think that they might conceivably get away with it.

Of course, only if no one asks any awkward questions, such as, "Why did you feel it necessary to seek Legal Advice?"
And, what was that advice?

My point was rather more along the lines of sledgehammers and nuts.

Can anyone see any difference between this thread and the one concerning a dispute between two 8 year olds?
In both cases the mess arises principally from their elders and betters not telling them to stop moaning and to get on with things

Michael Farthing wrote:Can anyone see any difference between this thread and the one concerning a dispute between two 8 year olds?
In both cases the mess arises principally from their elders and betters not telling them to stop moaning and to get on with things

David Robertson was way ahead of you there; the Aberystwyth thread started 4 days ago; Michael Flatt asked "what happens next?" And DR said "a forum thread develops and runs to 47 pages" - well it's already 84 posts and 6 pages.

In fairness, there is probably some value (for those interested in such matters) in discussing issues that these cases highlight in rule-making, the value of responding to issues quickly, and in flaws with the ECF code of conduct; on the other hand, with a bit more common sense at the point of dispute and in the immediate aftermath, neither case would have seen the light of day.

A dispute in an under-8 tournament goes all the way to the world governing body. Someone apparently tells a colleague to F--- off in an e:Mail and this triggers legal advice and a public suspension. Madness. People make mistakes, that's life; draw a line and move on.

Yes, quite (in agreement with Peter F's post).

PeterFarr wrote: Someone apparently tells a colleague to F--- off in an e:Mail and this triggers legal advice and a public suspension.

It goes beyond that. A non-executive director abandons his role as a non-exec and puts up a challenge to one of the incumbent directors, the precise nature of which in terms of policy differences remains to be revealed.

Until such time as they can abolish it, and they are working on it, directors are subject to annual re-election. It remains to be seen how such shenanigans are viewed by the voting membership, who are nominally representing local organisations and by extension players

Roger de Coverly wrote:

PeterFarr wrote: Someone apparently tells a colleague to F--- off in an e:Mail and this triggers legal advice and a public suspension.

It goes beyond that. A non-executive director abandons his role as a non-exec and puts up a challenge to one of the incumbent directors, the precise nature of which in terms of policy differences remains to be revealed.

Until such time as they can abolish it, and they are working on it, directors are subject to annual re-election. It remains to be seen how such shenanigans are viewed by the voting membership, who are nominally representing local organisations and by extension players

I would offer a contrary view. I see annual elections as one the key reasons for there being instability and public displays of petulance and animosity between fellow board members. For instance, it appears that a non Executive Director has decided not to stand for re-election in his own post and displace another individual who has openly declared his intention to seek re-election to a post he has occupied for the past three years and is just coming to terms with the job. You can't show greater disrespect to an ertswhile colleague than mounting a hostile challenge against him.

That fact that the Director is unable to make any headway in promoting unity amongst Board members, doesn't suggest that would he make any more headway in another post and take on more responsibility when he has failed or believes himself to be ineffective as a non Executive Director?

Longer terms for Directors
In Charities typically Trustees are elected for a term of 3 years and retire in rotation. In terms of Governance there is the benefit of continuity in that only a proportion of post come up for election each year.

Speaking of Governance, what is the purpose of the Governance committee?
It does seem to me that the members have an incomplete understanding of what Governance is. Their only role seems to cement the authority of the CEO against legitimate opposition and ride roughshod over the Articles of Association.

Legal Advice?
The fact that you may have sought Legal Advice does not in itself suggest that you are following that advice or that the advice was in any way correct. The test is in the Courts and the ECF are too regular a visitor to them already. I believe that Legal Advice should only be sought in extremis, since it casts considerable doubts on the abilities and competence of those that do not accept responsibility for their own actions.