English Chess Forum

benedgell wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:15 am

I'm not going to bother registering on the Telegraph site just to point out how incorrect that article is ....

An entirely reasonable response. Perhaps you could do so here?

I’m not disputing what you say, but the ECF has rather left itself opening to something like this happening. By not having a proactive strategy re: explaining the decision I mean (as per my comment upthread).

On a positive note, at least it’s clear from the comments at the end of the article that the ECF recognise that the appointment of a man to the role wasn’t ideal. I wonder how many people - non-chessers - who say the headline actually read that far, though.


Accurate or not, the story makes the ECF and chess in general look bad.

The fact that ‘ordinary’ ECF members aren’t able to make an informed decision as to whether the Telegraph piece is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ is a secondary but also signifcant problem.





PS:
A minor point but Chris Fegan isn’t a “tutor”at CSC as suggested in the article.

benedgell wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:18 am

It reads very much like they just took Amanda Ross' views and turned it into an article.

That seems quite likely.

But how about a bit of conspiracy.

In the very first post of this thread, I quoted the ECF as saying

the Board resolved to remove the Director of Women’s Chess role from the ECF website and to prepare a paper on what a new Development Director role, focussing on these and other problems in English chess

If you wanted to add a former strategic adviser to the Board, what role might be created to give an excuse?

Having a body for women's chess is nothing new. There used to be a British Women's Chess Association that now appears defunct. In its heyday, it was high enough profile for the Eagle sisters to run a coup to take it over and later Rachel Reeves was its champion.

It appears to have ceased activity back in 2002 if a Google search is anything to go by.
http://www.bwca.printf.net/old/magazine.shtml

That's how newspapers work! Can the names of the other candidates be revealed - I think I can guess one.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:00 am

Can the names of the other candidates be revealed

At the time of the Finance meeting, there were claimed to be two candidates and as a consequence, the Board were withdrawing their proposal to abolish the post. It now appears they rejected both candidates and appointed Chris Fegan instead. Did they know they might do this at the time of the Finance meeting?

I can see their point to an extent. If they appoint someone with no experience of the organisation and governance of chess, it's really a non-Executive position and to the extent the role is going to involve running tournaments, training sessions or whatever, someone else is going to be required to supply the expertise to do the legwork.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:21 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:00 am

Can the names of the other candidates be revealed

At the time of the Finance meeting, there were claimed to be two candidates and as a consequence, the Board were withdrawing their proposal to abolish the post. It now appears they rejected both candidates and appointed Chris Fegan instead. Did they know they might do this at the time of the Finance meeting?

What makes you think that Chris Fregan was not one of the original candidates?

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:38 am

What makes you think that Chris Fregan was not one of the original candidates?

Two candidates were mentioned when the topic was raised at the time of the Finance meeting and two female candidates are mentioned in the Telegraph article. That doesn't preclude the second female candidate having only recently emerged.

What impression was given to attendees at the Council meeting? Was the subsequent appointment of Chris Fegan completely unexpected?

No names were given at Council.
Someone did draw Amanda's attention to the post.

Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:49 am

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... promoting/

"England's number one female player, International Master Jovanka Houska, also expressed surprise, saying: "That is very strange because it is very important to have female presence on the board.""

Not for the first time, Jovanka ( if correctly quoted ) seems out of touch. Is she aware that there are currently two women on the Board?

Also, on a matter detail, Jovanka is a very fine player, but on what basis is she England's number one?

#1 of the players currently active in serious tournament play, I think; Harriet Hunt's only rated chess is the 4NCL.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:00 am

Can the names of the other candidates be revealed ....

Possibly - although not by me, because I don’t know - but whether it’s a good idea or not is another matter.

The internet is not a oniversally welcoming place for women. Particularly when gender issues are being raised. To say the least, abuse and threats are not unknown. It may or may not be the case that their experience of the chess world thus far would influence the women’s choice with regard to this. Perhaps they’ll be happy to out themselves. Perhaps they’d consider it might make them targets. Maybe it’s somewhere in between or a bit of both.

Obviously I have no idea what the women themselves think about this but unless/until their wishes become clear, I would suggest that caution is the best option when considering whether or not to name them.

Telegraph wrote: We tried to work with the ECF – now we have to go around them. The new Women's Chess Network will be a registered charity supporting existing female chess players, and bringing more women into the game."

It will often make sense to have a dedicated body as it can be a charity and outside the scope of VAT by reasons of turnover. Unless the objective of such a body is hatred and hostility towards the ECF, it should really become an ECF member with a Council vote. The ECF constitution is flexible enough to permit other national chess bodies to become members.

Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:15 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:00 am

Can the names of the other candidates be revealed ....

Possibly - although not by me, because I don’t know - but whether it’s a good idea or not is another matter.

The internet is not a oniversally welcoming place for women. Particularly when gender issues are being raised. To say the least, abuse and threats are not unknown. It may or may not be the case that their experience of the chess world thus far would influence the women’s choice with regard to this. Perhaps they’ll be happy to out themselves. Perhaps they’d consider it might make them targets. Maybe it’s somewhere in between or a bit of both.

Obviously I have no idea what the women themselves think about this but unless/until their wishes become clear, I would suggest that caution is the best option when considering whether or not to name them.

At the same time had they been successful they would have been named upon being appointed. There's also the fact that this is a board level appointment to fill a vacancy caused by a resignation. It has bypassed the usual election process. Had they run against Chris Fegan in a council election (and indeed they could still challenge him at the October AGM) then they would have been named.

[Following from Jonathan's comment: Roger and Andrew have jumped in while I was typing]

I think I would go further. I would expect that if I applied for a job unsuccessfully that the application should be treated as in confidence and should not be made public (unless the aplicants do so themselves, of course). Surely that is standard practice? Nothing to do with women issues, or the internet or threats (which are all valid additional reasons), but it is at heart just common decency at a basic level.

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:31 pm

[Following from Jonathan's comment: Roger and Andrew have jumped in while I was typing]

I think I would go further. I would expect that if I applied for a job unsuccessfully that the application should be treated as in confidence and should not be made public (unless the aplicants do so themselves, of course). Surely that is standard practice? Nothing to do with women issues, or the internet or threats (which are all valid additional reasons), but it is at heart just common decency at a basic level.

Michael, I think you are missing my point. If somebody wishes to stand for a position on the ECF board they ordinarily have to be nominated by an individual or organisation able to do so and submit themselves to an election process (generally with a published election address although this is not mandatory). It is only the fact that the appointment was made at board level following a resignation that allowed them anonymity.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:48 pm

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:31 pm

[Following from Jonathan's comment: Roger and Andrew have jumped in while I was typing]

I think I would go further. I would expect that if I applied for a job unsuccessfully that the application should be treated as in confidence and should not be made public (unless the aplicants do so themselves, of course). Surely that is standard practice? Nothing to do with women issues, or the internet or threats (which are all valid additional reasons), but it is at heart just common decency at a basic level.

Michael, I think you are missing my point. If somebody wishes to stand for a position on the ECF board they ordinarily have to be nominated by an individual or organisation able to do so and submit themselves to an election process (generally with a published election address although this is not mandatory). It is only the fact that the appointment was made at board level following a resignation that allowed them anonymity.

Well the post was in answer to Jonathan and written before I saw yours - but I decided it didn't affect my view.

Appointments made by the Board during the year are appointments and lapse at the next AGM. At that point a previously appointed person might usually stand for election, but of course might not. It is at the point of facing an election that the candidature should be public. Apart from anything else, parading offers of help all over the shop is likely to discourage people from coming forward when you need them.