Candidates confirmed

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
benedgell
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by benedgell » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:11 am

Some extremely harsh comments (from one person). I don't know Peter, but I doubt he would appreciate being summed up as "unknown Durham student". I can only hope they either don't read this Forum or don't take Roger's comments in the least bit seriously. I for one am very grateful that they all wish to stand for what is a largely thankless voluntary role and will wait at least until they have the opportunity to publish their candidate statements before rushing to judge.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:16 am

Mike Truran wrote:Your suspicion maybe - but then you always think the worst of people.

No doubt your question is rhetorical. But as I don't believe that being an active player particularly qualifies one for being on the Board (or indeed for anything much other than playing a lot of games), to my mind your question has no particular relevance.
I take it you are totally opposed to granting the paying membership any say in the election of Directors?
Absolutely not - but again, being who you are you're hardly likely to believe me.
The question has (some) relevance for those who think the makeup of the Board should come from those interested in playing chess.
Some do consider this a relevant attribute. You have made it clear that you do not.

However, elections are about what different people think and in what weight. The appropriate composition of the Board is determined by the voting membership, not the Chief Executive, nor some written statement of required qualities, and that principle has been specifically fought over in recent years when the last Chief Executive sought explicitly to tell Council what it should do on the very basis that as Chief Executive he knew best.

I am one that disagrees striongly with the attempt by outside organisations to dictate to the chess playing community what would be 'good practice' for it. This 'good practice' stems largely I believe from the view that a sports organisation is there to win prestige for England (or the UK or whatever) by winning elite international competitions with the (very) incidental benefit that this success will 'trickle down' and that its success in doing this should be repaid with money from the public purse. Though the international success bit is is a laudable aim, it is not the fundamental purpose of the ECF and, I trust, never will be. For that reason I personally feel that all our officials should have an active involvement in the game as played in England. That might be as a player or as arbiter or as organiser and just possibly as a trainer. I remain highly dubious about other categories (which should not be interpreted as a comment on current candidates about whom we currently know very little).

We seem to disagree here, Mike, but I still support you and still believe you are the best person for the job you are carrying out. In one-to-one discussion over a quality beer I'm sure we could argue fiercely about these matters without ever feeling a personal antagonism. Here it is considerably harder, but I do urge you to separate the issue out from any personal antipathy you may have.

In fairness to the Personal Antipathy involved, though he may make cutting and smearing comments about third parties, he does always treat those who respond to him here with politeness.

*This should not be read as a comment on any of the current candidates for NE positions. With the exception of Julie (who may be slightly surprised to learn that she has my support) I wait to see what these individuals say they can offer.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18152
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:41 am

Neill Cooper wrote: More recently http://2020chess.com/
The unofficial (in the sense of not recognised by the ECF) BUCA. Some mainstream players taking part though.

It took a while coming, but competitions ignoring the ECF entirely were a likely consequence of membership requirements. I thought it somewhat bizarre that a four board match finishing 2.5-1.5 should be awarded 3 points, when one finishing 2-2 only got 1 point.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2391
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Mike Truran » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:50 am

Michael

I'm not sure we are disagreeing particularly.

1. I think an interest in chess doesn't just include players (and certainly not just players who play a lot). As you say later on, arbiters, organisers etc also have a valid voice.

2. Of course Council appoints the Board. I'm trying to suggest some of the things that Council may want to consider when appointing candidates.

3. Nobody is suggesting that outside bodies should dictate to the ECF. I think though that I'm suggesting that there isn't any reason why we shouldn't look at and if appropriate adopt best practice wherever we find it.

4. I think the best Boards have a good spread of knowledge and experience. Directors who have a good knowledge of, for example, the business world, good governance etc add a lot to a Board. Not having such expertise and experience diminishes a Board's effectiveness.

Mike

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1719
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:01 am

Michael Farthing wrote:[ For that reason I personally feel that all our officials should have an active involvement in the game as played in England. That might be as a player or as arbiter or as organiser and just possibly as a trainer. I remain highly dubious about other categories (which should not be interpreted as a comment on current candidates about whom we currently know very little).
Is there any example in recent years of an official who did not have `active involvement` in chess? It is true that some individuals don't play in a congress every other weekend; as I pointed out above not everybody has that luxury.

As for `obscure`, when I talk to club colleagues about the ECF board the only directors with any name recognition are Malcolm Pein and Sarah Longson; the latter only because she gave a simul for us a few years back. There are many excellent local individuals within chess who have the capability to step up to national roles and the fact that somebody in the other end of the country may not have heard of them should not be a bar.

Council (or indeed the membership) can only vote for candidates on the ballot paper (or none of the above). We had this out earlier this year when a titled player chose to make some deeply unpleasant comments but those who want the ECF run by stronger players should not that it is not a failure of Council to elect them but a failure of such players to stand.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:04 am

Mike

There is a difference of emphasis.

Our current chief executive has a goof spread of knowledge and experience and for that reason is an asset to the Board. However, he also has a deep involvement with chess over a long time. Had he not he wouldn't be nearly as useful on the Board.

Our current President has a good spread of knowledge and experience and a lot of very useful contacts. However, he also has a deep involvement with chess over a long time, Had he not he wouldn't be nearly as useful on the Board.

Our previous chief executive had a good spread of knowledge and experience but essentially only a vicarious interest in chess.
Our previous president had a.. spread of knowledge and experience.. but not a deep interest in the game.

Which pair led the better Board? [Of course, you can't answer that question, but we all know the answer anyway].

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:12 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Michael Farthing wrote:[ For that reason I personally feel that all our officials should have an active involvement in the game as played in England. That might be as a player or as arbiter or as organiser and just possibly as a trainer. I remain highly dubious about other categories (which should not be interpreted as a comment on current candidates about whom we currently know very little).

There are many excellent local individuals within chess who have the capability to step up to national roles and the fact that somebody in the other end of the country may not have heard of them should not be a bar.
For clarity, when I said 'about whom we currently know very little' my implication was intended to be that once we have seen their mainfestos (I don't think that's quite what we call them, but let's not quibble) we would know more and might be better placed to make a more informed choice.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18152
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:16 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: Is there any example in recent years of an official who did not have `active involvement` in chess?
I would say yes. In his later years as President, Gerry Walsh would turn up every so often , but didn't otherwise seem to be doing very much. When he stood down, the "establishment" candidate opposing CJ de Mooi was someone whose biggest claim to fame was that he was also a member of Mensa. When he ventured out to a Congress, he was surprised by the range of chess literature available.

The fourth candidate has now been identified as a young organiser. The reason he doesn't show up on a grading search is that he runs events outside of the ECF grading system.

Should one suspect a hidden battle for influence, when one Candidate is supported by the head of CSC and another by the former CEO? It's known that the former CEO contemplated standing for Finance Director and circulated a document in opposition to the incumbent. Whether any of the allegations will be repeated in a more open context remains to be seen. It certainly discloses infighting during his stint as CEO.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2391
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Mike Truran » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:23 am

Michael

Most kind!

Just to be clear - I'm certainly not saying that the Board should not contain people who have a deep knowledge and understanding of and involvement in chess (whether that be playing, arbiting, organising or whatever). I certainly am saying that Boards benefit from a good leavening of knowledge and experience from the non-chess world. So the best of both worlds is to have a blend of both. Hopefully with the current (and future) Board we have something approaching that blend.

Mike

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18152
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:30 am

Mike Truran wrote: I certainly am saying that Boards benefit from a good leavening of knowledge and experience from the non-chess world.
The current stance on UKCC is a case in point. A national event where the turnover is likely to exceed the VAT threshold has to address how it deals with VAT. I'd assume the ECF Board are well aware of this, being a standard business issue, and will dismiss some of the more fanciful notions being put about for salvation of the UKCC.

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by David Shepherd » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:58 am

Not that its really relevant, one thing to always remember, is that increasingly due to internet play the grading list doesn't reflect the amount of chess being played.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5139
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:25 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote:It looks like I might be the first to share this breaking news.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/candidat ... more-37795

With the exception of the candidates for non executive director there is nothing really of interest, let alone anything worth raising eyebrows over.
How did you find this? I'm still not very good at navigating the website.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1719
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:34 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:It looks like I might be the first to share this breaking news.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/candidat ... more-37795

With the exception of the candidates for non executive director there is nothing really of interest, let alone anything worth raising eyebrows over.
How did you find this? I'm still not very good at navigating the website.
It appeared on the main page of the ECF website so there wasn't really anything to it. The next point of interest will be when the papers for the AGM including election addresses are published, which will be under the `About` tab and Council Papers.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18152
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:39 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote:The next point of interest will be when the papers for the AGM including election addresses are published, which will be under the `About` tab and Council Papers.
Towards the bottom of the left hand side margin, there's a section labelled "Page Update". Currently (18th Sep am) this shows Council Papers in the second slot of recent updates. It's only a holding page for the moment as regards papers for the next meeting.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/ec ... and-board/

NickFaulks
Posts: 5139
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Candidates confirmed

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:04 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: It appeared on the main page of the ECF website so there wasn't really anything to it.
Thanks. Now that it has dropped off the main page, can it be found via the menu?

Post Reply