English Chess Forum

At 24 pages the report is far too long and meandering.

The report seeks to respond and add adverse spin to points raised in the the end-of-year reports of the other Directors and Chairmen of the Governance and Finance standing committees which would not have been possible had all reports been published simultaneously.

It is very catty and unfairly criticises fellow Board members contributions after having had the benefit of readings their reports. It is even worse than last year where he identified those candidates with whom he could work and those he couldn't.

Simply, it is not acceptable as an end of year report from the Chief Executive Director.

Reference
1. The Chief Eexec's report, http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Report.pdf

In addition, of course, it is also peppered with (paraphrased) reports of comments made by other directors within Board meetings - a place where directors should be able to express their views freely as part of debate. So beware future directors: anything you say in future board meetings may be quoted by the CEO out of context and used in evidence against you.

It's an extraordinary document.

JustinHorton wrote:It's an extraordinary document.

'Appalling' would be my adjective to describe 24 pages of drivel.

The CEO writes:

In three unrelated incidents in the past few weeks, ECF members showed their lack of confidence in the Board to handle complaints properly. Instead, they (1) complained on social media about the way the ECF mistreated them; (2) wrote to FIDE about their dissatisfaction of an ECF-run tournament; and (3) threatened to sue the Board and an individual director.

Out of interest, what do 1, 2 and 3 refer to here?

JustinHorton wrote:The CEO writes:

In three unrelated incidents in the past few weeks, ECF members showed their lack of confidence in the Board to handle complaints properly. Instead, they (1) complained on social media about the way the ECF mistreated them; (2) wrote to FIDE about their dissatisfaction of an ECF-run tournament; and (3) threatened to sue the Board and an individual director.

Out of interest, what do 1, 2 and 3 refer to here?

In one word 'Aberystwyth'. They all relate to the same incident and, incidentally, the basis of the complaint was upheld.

So when Phil says "unrelated", are you saying that is not correct?

JustinHorton wrote:So when Phil says "unrelated", are you saying that is not correct?

There may have been another complaint by the same parent regarding selection of Juniors in International Tournaments but, as far as I am aware, all the complaints referenced are from the same individual. If not, at least two individuals have identical complaints.

There was also that incident at an International junior event where there was a complaint about racial discrimination. That was from a different parent.

Points 1,2 & 3 could easily be related from different posts on this forum.

Michael Flatt wrote:

JustinHorton wrote:The CEO writes:

In three unrelated incidents in the past few weeks, ECF members showed their lack of confidence in the Board to handle complaints properly. Instead, they (1) complained on social media about the way the ECF mistreated them; (2) wrote to FIDE about their dissatisfaction of an ECF-run tournament; and (3) threatened to sue the Board and an individual director.

Out of interest, what do 1, 2 and 3 refer to here?

In one word 'Aberystwyth'. They all relate to the same incident and, incidentally, the basis of the complaint was upheld.

Also in the report (4.c on page 7) there is this:

Chief Executive's Report wrote:Earlier in the year, the Home Director objected when the Board began to review the chess aspect of a complaint from the 2014 British Under 8 Championship that alleged abuse by volunteer staff and impropriety from an unusual 1.5-point result for one game of chess.18 A case was also filed with Hertfordshire County Court, which dismissed it. The plaintiff complained to the FIDE Ethics Commission, which dismissed the case but referred the 1.5-point game result to the FIDE Rules and Tournament Regulations Commission for its scrutiny

So a case was filed with Hertfordshire County Court??

Michael Flatt wrote: Points 1,2 & 3 are ALL related.

A lot of distraction could have been avoided by the ECF admitting that awarding one and half points isn't the best solution to what I presume started as a dispute between parents and arbiters/organisers. That's essentially what FIDE have ruled.

The material at the Watford website claims that the ECF stalled for months in making any sort of statement. It's a fact of life that silence invites adverse comments on social media almost as much as controversial decisions.

Angus French wrote: So a case was filed with Hertfordshire County Court??

I had no knowledge of that, but it is most likely. The parent was unfamiliar with ECF procedures and chess administration and pursued the case on his own when he got no sensible response from the ECF. Latterly, he gained support from Watford Chess Club.

I have to admit an interest since I am:
(i) Officer for Junior Chess, Hertfordshire Chess Association
(ii) Chairman Hertfordshire Schools Chess Association (elected Oct 2014)
(iii) Hertfordshire Representative on ECF Council (elected July 2015)
(iv) Member of St Albans Chess Club (which were not involved in the dispute)

As you will be aware I have made significant contribution to the thread about Aberystwyth, but have had no direct dealing with the parent or the ECF over the matter. I have had no sight of any correspondence between the parent and the ECF, nor between the ECF and Watford Chess Club.

An interesting revelation came recently from Alex McFarlane regarding his availability to defend a UK Arbiter at a FIDE commission.

Michael Flatt wrote: The parent was unfamiliar with ECF procedures and chess administration and pursued the case on his own when he got no sensible response from the ECF.

The lack of response is well established. Was this the CEO or the Home Director being intransigent? The CEO report seems to suggest the latter, as does the censored snippet from the FIDE Report.

I remain amazed how this particular saga has been allowed to run and run, not being entirely clear what redress the third party wronged by the one and half points decision was seeking. Was it as simple as a "we (ECF) got it wrong" admission?

Am I the only one wondering what happened to board confidentiality when browsing through the document?

I resent that Loz!!!! Look earlier in the thread!

Michael Farthing wrote:I resent that Loz!!!! Look earlier in the thread!

Oops, my humble apologies.