ECF elections 2016

[LawrenceCooper]

Three at a current count, only two of whom seem to be involved with the business side of the 4NCL. A senior 4NCL figure did stand for Director of Junior Chess a few years back before withdrawing in favour of the other candidate; it was believed she did so with PE's endorsement.

She was persuaded to stand (in partnership with Kurt Moreby) because the outgoing director had told them there was no one else standing. Once it became apparent that this wasn't strictly true they were happy to withdraw and let me take my chances against "None of the Above" I suspect that you are mistaken about the PE endorsement to withdraw though

[JustinHorton]

Is Phil still involved with CSC?

[Roger de Coverly]

You could argue that there are three interest groups on the ECF Board. The first being arbiters as accused of being a cabal last year, the second 4NCL and the third CSC. Arbiters overlap with the other two and at a playing level, ECF Directors as players take part in the 4NCL and potentially the CSC London event. There might also have been historic involvement at a local organisation level with UKCC.

[NickFaulks]

ECF Directors as players take part in the 4NCL and potentially the CSC London event.

Should we be troubled if directors of Unilever sometimes eat ice cream?

[Andrew Zigmond]

You could argue that there are three interest groups on the ECF Board. The first being arbiters as accused of being a cabal last year, the second 4NCL and the third CSC. Arbiters overlap with the other two and at a playing level, ECF Directors as players take part in the 4NCL and potentially the CSC London event. There might also have been historic involvement at a local organisation level with UKCC.

The English chess scene is a relatively small one and the people willing to get involved in organisation rather than just play is even smaller. Therefore it's not particularly surprising that there is some overlap between different `interest groups`. It is also the case that when people stand for office who are outside of the interest base (such as occasional players with a professional background) the response can often be, `Who the hell are you?`

[Gary Kenworthy]

Andrew,
True, agree, and furthering the point.
"Who are you statements" do happen. Not just the Beau Brummell - whose your fat friend? Situations.
It happens the other way around as well with famous and notable people, like guests of honour.

It is useful if Board members are active in chess and can actually play chess. Many standing have done little in chess and their application for posts that should have been kept vacant - often a cry from NCCU officials.
Not all nobodies and under-skilled have been rejected. Importantly, they often have an "interest", that is unhelpful and undesirable for the corporate body and good. Such interest groups should be rejected (certainly in BCF days).

Conversely, D Lawson played very seriously in the Cutty Sark Grand Prix, was a Div I Eastman Cup and London League player (e.g. I saw him, a few boards from me, grinding down Scottish Captain C J Morrison.). that's a chess player.(and author of the game).
M.Truran beat a 214 Scottish player with a London System, in Round 1 in the 4NCL. That's a chess player. Note in the 4NCL why should that be held against him? He had a vision of the event. He confided in me that day on his disappointment in a way chess was being treated at the top levels (he was very correct -IMHO). He actually did things to solve real problems. Still is.
They know chess, it should be seen as a positive not a negative.

rgds GK

[JustinHorton]

You could argue that there are three interest groups on the ECF Board. The first being arbiters as accused of being a cabal last year, the second 4NCL and the third CSC. .

It's certainly hard to see how working for CSC would be consistent with the claim of having no conflicts of interest.

[Andrew Zigmond]

It is useful if Board members are active in chess and can actually play chess. Many standing have done little in chess and their application for posts that should have been kept vacant - often a cry from NCCU officials.
Not all nobodies and under-skilled have been rejected.

Only two members of the current ECF board can be dismissed as non players and one of those became involved as a chess parent.

I personally feel that positions should never be left vacant unless a candidate is obviously completely and utterly unsuited for a role or the behaviour of an incumbent has proved damaging. Most Northern organisers, including myself, take no lectures from the NCCU.

[Andrew Zigmond]

You could argue that there are three interest groups on the ECF Board. The first being arbiters as accused of being a cabal last year, the second 4NCL and the third CSC. .

It's certainly hard to see how working for CSC would be consistent with the claim of having no conflicts of interest.

Phil Ehr is not currently listed as a member of the CSC team (besides Malcolm Pein the only current member of the board to feature is Julian Clissold as a regional co-ordinator). He is listed as a tutor along with Julian and Alex Holowczak. I can't recall him ever being listed as a team member although during the Andrew Paulson controversy he was described as a friend by Malcolm Pein.

[Gary Kenworthy]

Moving from UKCC to CSC for some sniperscope work?

There was always differences of opinion and arguments in the chess world. They can end up working together, and going forward togther. e.g. I do remember who described who as a "weasel" for instance.

Our greatest contributor to the game was Howard Staunton, who was completely troll-ed out, and used his chess column, at times to blast back. He operated an open and transparent policy. Welcomed input from around the world. Despite suffering such falsely charged criticisms, some folks only wish to remember him in that that way and his outbursts back. Fischer understood Staunton. Many British folk refused to do so and were lopsided and just existed to poke ridicule by various degrees. These legacies have often been described as an English sport. So, again, nothing is new in the world of chess administration.

Constructive criticism is absolutely essential. Post reviews and lessons learnt are mandatory.

I also dealt with Malcolm Pein (and knew him as a player from 15) I had nothing but good dealings with him in negotiations, especially when I was on the BCF board. I know others have said differently, but pointing out my personal experiences. Plus pointing out CSC is a very good thing.

BTW: On Staunton, he corresponded with other places like chess centres in Vienna, and received and published the latest theory and ideas - e.g with Szen. He collected and reviewed gamescores. He trawled these inputs. He predicted and talent spotted a lad called Paul Morphy who he said and also published it, had massive talent, nearly a decade before he came to Europe.
rgds - RM

[IanCalvert]

Nick

"Should we be troubled if directors of Unilever sometimes eat ice cream?"

As a small Unilever shareholder, I expect my Unilever directors can be classified as: Exotic, Vanilla, Abstainers , Others(Ben & Jerry's etc).

Maybe the ECF could learn much from the Dutch ( or even German) chess federations??

[Mick Norris]

The other document is a bit more outspoken, I'm happy to email it on Monday to anyone who PMs me their email address - if Jack or Carl want to see it and decide whether it should be posted on here, that's fine

The relevance is of course about who Phil is supporting in the ECF elections, given that he has now withdrawn his own candidature

Better let me have a look to the usual address since even this still drags out the supposed plot.

I have emailed it to you this morning, so you should have it

I have also emailed it to the half a dozen people who have supplied me with their email address, so if that's you, you should have it unless I have used the wrong email address for you

Genuinely surprised about how few people have seen it, given Phil emailed it to 4 of us at the MCF on 5 September, and I assumed he had sent it to many more people

For the avoidance of doubt, I am glad that Phil has withdrawn his candidature

[Carl Hibbard]

Ouch it's critical no wonder the ECF wants to gag this one.

[Mick Norris]

Has Phil said much on Twitter?

[Julie Denning]

Ouch it's critical no wonder the ECF wants to gag this one.

I presume we're all thinking about the same letter, which I have received through 2 separate emails. Firstly, as a Board member and I wouldn't seek to distribute it in that capacity beyond its original addressees. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I have not been party to, or aware of, any "gagging order". I don't know who has advised Carl. Secondly, it was emailed to me as President of the SCCU, along with all my fellow committee members, seeking our support. I imagine it was sent similarly to all the other Unions. In principle, if I was to vote in favour of the SCCU backing the author, I would have felt quite entitled to circulate it around officials of the County I represent there. In reality this didn't happen as it only appeared a couple of days ahead of the deadline for candidates for election at the forthcoming AGM, thus making meaningful consultation impractical and, as already observed, was then promptly withdrawn.

As Mike Truran has reported on this Forum, the Governance Committee are considering points raised in the letter, but it is my suspicion (noting that they largely refer to matters before I was on the Board) that the person they say most about is the author.