English Chess Forum

My undercover, deeply placed source has provided an update as follows:

1. The current board is split 50:50 regarding the actions of the Chairman of the Governance Committee concerning the incumbent Chief Executive Officer.
Borrowing from a famous Monty Python sketch, "The Sensible Party" wish to the see replacement of the Chairman whilst the rest are content with what happened. I predict the current Chairman will step down otherwise resignations from the sensible ones will follow. Should this resignation occur then a past resignee may well feel able to return.

2. The most likely Director to fill the CEO void is the Director of Finance.

3. Tradewise are deeply unhappy about the removal of the Commercial Director and CEO. It was the CD that their trust was placed in. There was an attempt to transfer responsibility of the relationship to a very sensible person who is not a Board member. This offer was declined.

I suspect none of the above (no pun intended) will come as a surprise.

Any news on the other place?

John Upham wrote: 3. Tradewise are deeply unhappy about the removal of the Commercial Director

I hope that nobody has encouraged them to be deeply unhappy.

NickFaulks wrote:

John Upham wrote: 3. Tradewise are deeply unhappy about the removal of the Commercial Director

I hope that nobody has encouraged them to be deeply unhappy.

The actions resulting in the Commercial Director being replaced by "None of the Above" were the cause of ongoing unhappiness.

Well, John's first prediction has now materialised!

Michael Farthing wrote:Well, John's first prediction has now materialised!

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/chris-majer/

Chris has gone some way towards making up for his original error of judgment and that is a credit to him. Perhaps the one member of the GC who stood up for the idea of even-handed governance should now be invited back into the fold.

Ditto for Bob Kane.... reading his report, I can see no reason why not.
Perhaps some lessons should be taken here by all... Chris made an unfortunate error of judgement..
Councils actions in hitting the `non of these candidates ` button, was rather amateurish, in my view.
But, I would say that if rules are badly/repeatedly over stepped, there should be an option to sack an offending Director, where no other remedy can be reached. A larger Board, I believe, would still be desirable, and hopefully bring some useful additional experience to the top team and maybe help lighten the load that some Directors carry..

Martin Regan wrote:Chris has gone some way towards making up for his original error of judgment and that is a credit to him. Perhaps the one member of the GC who stood up for the idea of even-handed governance should now be invited back into the fold.

I would second that Martin.

At least one wrong from the AGM has been righted.

I too support the return of Dave Robertson but I wonder what Dave makes of the other members of the Governance Committee who had no issues with what Chris Majer did but have offered no apologies or words of explanation themselves following Chris Majer's departure?

What do you recommend, public apologies and self-criticism sessions?

No need for a drama, just an acknowledgement from the committee that in retrospect what happened should not have happened. However, my point was that it'll be interesting to see what Dave wants to do given his comments after resigning.

David Pardoe wrote:Ditto for Bob Kane.... reading his report, I can see no reason why not.

Call me a pedant but there seems to me to be a difference between resigning on principle and leaving a position because you lost an election -when up against nobody - by a gazillion votes.

This has got nothing to do with Bob Kane’s ability to do the job. He may be and may have been great at it for all I know. Either way, unless we’re going to not bother at all with elections (or council) any more, I don’t really see how Bob Kane returning to his former position is a feasible option.

Jonathan Bryant wrote: unless we’re going to not bother at all with elections (or council) any more

It is possible to suspect that the Sensible Party has little use for either.

Are the Sensible Party opponents of the Organiser-Arbiter Nexus or are they a militant faction within it?

Have either of these parties published a manifesto to assist the Bewildered and Confused?