Ecf Silver member letter

[NickFaulks]

Who has oversight of register of interests / conflict of interests within the ECF?

The comment of a dinosaur, if ever I saw one.

[J T Melsom]

I may have misunderstood. I thought a register of interests went beyond being a factor in elections, and that on certain key issues where a conflict was considered to exist and to be material, that individual might be invited to excuse themselves from the debate. Are you saying this doesn't happen at ECF board meetings? And I'm asking the question for clarification not because it forms part at present of a deliberate voting strategy - I leave that as a tactic for others should they so wish.

I assume Nick Faulks comment is directed at someone other than myself, but it is somewhat opaque.

[Michael Farthing]

I may have misunderstood. I thought a register of interests went beyond being a factor in elections, and that on certain key issues where a conflict was considered to exist and to be material, that individual might be invited to excuse themselves from the debate. Are you saying this doesn't happen at ECF board meetings? And I'm asking the question for clarification not because it forms part at present of a deliberate voting strategy - I leave that as a tactic for others should they so wish.

I assume Nick Faulks comment is directed at someone other than myself, but it is somewhat opaque.

You are correct that individuals with a conflict of interest (whether on the register or not) should withdraw themselves from debate and voting. That is part of the rules of the organisation. If a Board member failed to do it that would be an issue for Governance. Board members often do do it. Quite recently, for example, a Board member associated with CSC withdrew from discussion of which side in the FIDE Presidential elections the ECF should support because he was part of one of the tickets.

No one has here suggested or given any examples of misconduct of people associated with CSC. In the absence of any misconduct or suspicion of misconduct what reason has Governance to intervene?

In practice, I accept, that Governance is often asked and sometimes on its own initiative considers possible changes to the structures and rules of the ECF because it is an appropriate independent body for forwardin this. Thus, the Board involved Governance in following up the Pearce Report.

[NickFaulks]

I assume Nick Faulks comment is directed at someone other than myself, but it is somewhat opaque.

No, it was directed squarely at you ( and Nick Grey re previous post ). The comments of dinosaurs are frequently of great value, taking us back to an age when the line between right and wrong was less blurred.

[Michael Farthing]

To add a little more, there are of course other issues of this nature that might genuinely concern Governance. For example, if money were to be channelled by the Board towards CSC associates or CSC activities in a way that was preferential compared with other similar organisations that might merit investigation. I'm sure I could think of many other possible irregularities. But none of these things are the basis of the current suggestion which is basically saying "No more than x people should be allowed".

[Angus French]

To add a little more, there are of course other issues of this nature that might genuinely concern Governance. For example, if money were to be channelled by the Board towards CSC associates or CSC activities in a way that was preferential compared with other similar organisations that might merit investigation. I'm sure I could think of many other possible irregularities. But none of these things are the basis of the current suggestion which is basically saying "No more than x people should be allowed".

My view is that the Governance Committee oughtn't to be concerned with such issues. The way I see it, the Governance Committee looks after - or at least has input into - the top level procedures and processes of the Federation. It doesn't - or shouldn't - concern itself with operational matters (except perhaps to provide interpretations of processes/procedures etc.). If an issue such the one cited occurred, then I think it would be the job of the Non-executive Directors (who have responsibility for scrutiny) to take action.

[Michael Farthing]

Misconduct in office is not an operational matter. It is a matter for Governance. It is a matter for the non-executive officers. It is a matter for the executive officers. It is also (potentially) a matter for the police.

[J T Melsom]

I'm grateful to the comments of others in clarifying the process, and also to reassurances received in private message. I am satisfied that this is a matter taken very seriously by the ECF, and that the suggestions of some here that this aspect of governance is poorly managed is unfounded.

[Nick Grey]

Nick dinosaurs cannot speak. Way before right & wrong became human concepts. God 1 - 0 Man (Genesis).

What I'm taking exception to are any 'old farts' (Will Carling captaining his country) on Council that are holding back English Chess.

Others may just be 'grumpy old men'. There appear to be far more grumpy old men on the organisational side than the chess playing side in my experience.
From time to time I may be in that category. I'm not my young & enthusiastic self any more.
And have to take 6x more drugs than when I was at school.

[Paul Cooksey]

The Board's proposed response includes:
1. Simplifying the financial structure by effectively making the BCF dormant and amalgamating trust funds into the Chess Trust.
2. Grow membership through the activities of a newly appointed Development Officer, incentivised through meeting growth targets.
3. Increase the budget of Women's Chess from £5,000 to £15,000, to be used in developing the British and English Women's Championships and in support of organisations encouraging Women's participation in chess.
4. Increase staffing and pay of ECF Office staff by £6,000 p.a.
5. Increased international team support of £9,000 p.a.

I realise the forum isn't treating this debate very seriously, but anyway, in my opinion:
1 fine, 2 fine, 3 fine. 4 not fine. This is not an exceptional expense to grow English chess. This ought to be in any budget. 5. Not fine, this is something the International Director should ask for if he stands for reelection

[J T Melsom]

Paul, I think you've got it the wrong way round slightly. Better pay ( by which we mean fairer) and conditions should be the priority item. Staff retention is not discretionary spend. I need to consider more closely the case for greater international spend, but I am minded to agree that if budget increases are to be made then the Women's chess budget is more of a priority, even I don't really trust the person who will be responsible for the budget. Others will no doubt favour zero spend, or spend across all categories.

[Angus French]

The Board's proposed response includes:
1. Simplifying the financial structure by effectively making the BCF dormant and amalgamating trust funds into the Chess Trust.
2. Grow membership through the activities of a newly appointed Development Officer, incentivised through meeting growth targets.
3. Increase the budget of Women's Chess from £5,000 to £15,000, to be used in developing the British and English Women's Championships and in support of organisations encouraging Women's participation in chess.
4. Increase staffing and pay of ECF Office staff by £6,000 p.a.
5. Increased international team support of £9,000 p.a.

I realise the forum isn't treating this debate very seriously, but anyway, in my opinion:
1 fine, 2 fine, 3 fine. 4 not fine. This is not an exceptional expense to grow English chess. This ought to be in any budget. 5. Not fine, this is something the International Director should ask for if he stands for reelection

A few comments:

2. (Employment of a Development Manager). I think the growth targets are going to be tough to meet. In order to receive a bonus and a payment for expenses, membership counts will need to be in excess of the budget figures which are +500 members in each of the current and following two years. The Board's paper doesn't say how membership growth might be achieved.

3. (Support for Women's chess). I'm wondering how spending a total of £10K/yr on supporting women at the British Championships and funding the English Women's Championships is going to increase female participation in competitive chess. It's not stated exactly how the money would be spent - if, for example, a lot of the money is going to be spent on increasing the prizes then maybe that'll mostly benefit the top female players but not encourage participation so much?

4. (Staffing of the ECF Office and extra pay for Office staff). To be clear, the figures are an extra 6K for extra staff resource and another £6K for salary increases (depending on the outcome of a salary review exercise).

5. (International expenditure). It appears from reading the supporting documents that very little sponsorship money was found for the last two team events - just £1,300 for last year's European teams and £0 for the recent Olympiad. It looks like the ECF will be left footing nearly all of the bills and the figures appear substantial: forecast expenditure of, I calculate, £42.5K for the European Teams and a revised expenditure budget of £43.5K for the Olympiad. Both these figures are in excess of the original budget amounts of £26.5K and £36K... and then there are other proposed increases in international expenditure (though these will mostly be covered by trust fund grants).

[Nick Grey]

I agree with Paul on 4. It is the same argument using on schools funding - we get 0.4 percent per pupil extra in 2019/20 & therefore some schools will not be able to pay for pay rises or other cost increases (work together on collaborative savings). I am not expecting that there is any good news in a late December announcement bearing in mind the Government has big problems in March.

Try & get more volunteers.

Not sure why not looking for supporting a little to initiatives on WCC but may have missed that in the small print.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Regarding the perceived over representation of CSC and other groups within the ECF; ultimately the English chess playing community is a relatively small one to start with and the pool of individuals within that willing to get involved with organisation is far smaller still (writing on forums does not count incidentally). Then when you consider that only a very limited number of volunteers have the right skill set to direct a national body or head up a charitable organisation it's not surprising that the same people tend to end up being involved. In any case only three members of the current board are listed as being involved with CSC at this moment in time (Malcolm Pein, Chris Fegan, Julian Clissold).

One of the main criticisms of the ECF in recent years (and by extension the board) is that they simply act as a back office, collecting money and not giving back much in return except for a grade. We now have a board that is putting together a pro active development strategy and all they are getting in return is nitpicking negativity; mainly from people who would never dream of volunteering for anything.

[Roger de Coverly]

We now have a board that is putting together a pro active development strategy and all they are getting in return is nitpicking negativity; mainly from people who would never dream of volunteering for anything.

It's not just forum posters who can be accused of nit-picking negativity. The same applies to the ECF, a particular example being the demand to pre-register and establish a grade for a temporarily ungraded player taking part in a totally Open competition.