ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[Stewart Reuben]

The style and benefit each elected officer brings to his post varies tremendously.
Clearly Steve Davis was elected to be a figurehead and I was chairman (including CEO) for 3 of his 4 years.
Gerry Walsh was elected chairman but I believe was deemd inadequately active for this role. When Steve stepped down he was 'elevated' to President with some executive responsibility. Susan Richards succeeded him as CEO.
Then CJ was elected President when Gerry stood down. He is something of a celebrity and also wanted to be hands-on. He has now stood down.
Personally I would prefer the next President to be: famous, e.g. Steven Fry or Sir Tim Rice; or rich, e.g. Richard Branson; or a GM, e.g. Nigel; or hold a sonorous title, e.g. Prince William; or an ex-politician, e.g. Charles Clarke or Sir Jeremy Hanley.
We have gone shopping for some such people in the past. CJ stood down so abruptly there was no opportunity for the Board to do so this time.

[Sean Hewitt]

We have gone shopping for some such people in the past. CJ stood down so abruptly there was no opportunity for the Board to do so this time.

Of course, if none of the above defeats Roger in the election, that may give the ECF time to find a candidate along the lines you describe. I would support such an approach.

[Richard Haddrell]

I read what I believe to be the relevant pages of the SCCU archive on BCF news and on grading matters: here and here and got a different picture [from Martin Regan].

You’ve missed something here (see AGM report, item 6) which goes into a little bit of detail about the reasons for the £5000 disaster to the 2000 list. There were several contributing factors, but it’s not hard to piece together what happened. (ChessMoves followed a path of its own and blamed the millennium bug.) I wouldn’t like to say how relevant any of this is to the 2012-13 elections.

[Stewart Reuben]

I applied for a salaried job about 40 years ago and there were 4 or 5 of us short-listed. They decided to re-advertise. That was very disheartening. Had somebody else been appointed, I would have had no problem.
I would be very unhappy to do that to anybody. The ECF can live with Roger for one year as President.

[Sean Hewitt]

The ECF can live with Roger for one year as President.

Perhaps, but that very much depends on what he intended to do whilst in post.

[Roger de Coverly]

I wouldn’t like to say how relevant any of this is to the 2012-13 elections.

It would be fair to say Roger Edwards had a policy disagreement with the BCF Council in 2000. He thought the new results and grading system should be abandoned, Council was on balance inclined to authorise doing the necessary work to complete it.

If you go back even further into the SCCU bulletin archive, the "old" system from 1988 was struggling to cope by 1997 and had become over reliant on expertise in the BCF Office. This caused problems when the expert left the BCF's employ.

Directors do resign from time to time because of policy disagreements with Council.

[benedgell]

Assuming there's no CEO in the immediate aftermath of the AGM, would the President take on his responsibilites in interim? And if Roger doesn't get voted in then....

[Angus French]

I read what I believe to be the relevant pages of the SCCU archive on BCF news and on grading matters: here and here and got a different picture [from Martin Regan].

You’ve missed something here (see AGM report, item 6) which goes into a little bit of detail about the reasons for the £5000 disaster to the 2000 list. There were several contributing factors, but it’s not hard to piece together what happened. (ChessMoves followed a path of its own and blamed the millennium bug.) I wouldn’t like to say how relevant any of this is to the 2012-13 elections.

Thanks, Richard. You're right: I did miss the item about the additional £5,000 cost for the 2000 list.

That said, my impression remains that the 1999 list was much worse affected. The BCF News page for 1999/2000 quotes part of an email from Gary Kenworthy (itself referred to in a communication of 4 October 1999) which I'll repeat: "It [The grading fiasco] has already cost the BCF £15,000 in next years projected revenue. As I said at the Sunday "informal" board [meeting?] the full cost is circa 5 Witleys and others the day before believed it to be higher ... The reason is that it's the biggest blunder by the BCF for at least 15 years - the degree of blundering is on the three or four question mark move on the annotations scale.". Presumably, Roger wasn't to blame for this as he was appointed after the 1999 list was due (and, in fact, had to expend significant effort to correct the situation he'd inherited).

The gist of all this is that Martin Regan made a serious allegation and it appears, on the evidence available, not to be correct.

[Richard Haddrell]

It would be fair to say Roger Edwards had a policy disagreement with the BCF Council in 2000. He thought the new results and grading system should be abandoned, Council was on balance inclined to authorise doing the necessary work to complete it.

I don’t think there was a policy disagreement. Roger Edwards told the AGM in 2000 that he would resign if required to continue with the new-fangled system, such was its user-unfriendliness. He would, however, be prepared use a “hybrid” version incorporating elements of the old system which he would feel more at home with. Council did not reject this. It remitted it to the Board, and a committee set up by the Board decided to accept Roger’s terms. Roger did in fact resign as Grading Director - I don’t know why - but agreed to resume control on those terms as an ECF Officer. The hybridisation meant, in practice, that graders could go on reporting raw game results just as they had under the new-fangled Chris Howell system; but the results were then converted into old-fashioned “bundles” (Player X, Games Y, Points Z) when they got to the ECF end. This was a backward step, and the hybrid was probably always seen as a temporary measure. After two years it was superseded by the Howard Grist program which was conceptually very similar to Howell but ran far more smoothly.

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger Edwards told the AGM in 2000 that he would resign if required to continue with the new-fangled system, such was its user-unfriendliness. He would, however, be prepared use a “hybrid” version incorporating elements of the old system which he would feel more at home with. Council did not reject this.

Thank you for the clarification. In retrospect, trying to upgrade from a system that could work with mental arithmetic and a pen, to one which would permit an eventual on-line archive of results may have been one that was too big to handle in one go or over one calendar year. Whether it would have been better to upgrade the back office first is an open question.

[Richard Haddrell]

Thanks, Richard. You're right: I did miss the item about the additional £5,000 cost for the 2000 list.
That said, my impression remains that the 1999 list was much worse affected. The BCF News page for 1999/2000 quotes part of an email from Gary Kenworthy (itself referred to in a communication of 4 October 1999) which I'll repeat: "It [The grading fiasco] has already cost the BCF £15,000 in next years projected revenue..."

You’ve lost me, Angus, or Gary Kenworthy has. I doubt if I understood him in 1999, and I certainly don’t now. He is quite colourful about the Howell system - and you add some colour of your own with the word “fiasco” - but doesn’t explain his opinion. More important, perhaps, is the £15000. I don’t understand this either. Maybe you do?

I know. We've got even further from the 2012-13 elections.

[Roger de Coverly]

He is quite colourful about the Howell system - and you add some colour of your own with the word “fiasco” - but doesn’t explain his opinion. More important, perhaps, is the £15000. I don’t understand this either.

I'm not sure I really understand either, but there might have been lost sales of grading lists. There could also be lost Game Fee income , since organisations might elect to run private grading systems, local Yorkshire leagues being an example. Non renewal or non sale of Direct Memberships was also possible.

I'm a little surprised by the vocal campaign for "none of the above" in the vote for President.

[Martin Regan]

The gist of all this is that Martin Regan made a serious allegation and it appears, on the evidence available, not to be correct.

Your gist is nonsense.

First, Martin Regan did not make a "serious allegation". Upon request, I clarified my doubts about the Candidate's suitability by pointing out whilst "not solely responsible" he had been the man in charge of the grading fiasco.

I based this on the following: There was a grading fiasco. The Candidate was provably in charge.

I said I believed his failure had been due to "underestimating the work required and overestimating his own ability to complete it" I based this on the fact that this was what the candidate himself had written to the BCF in two letters - you have actually seen one of them.

In addition you have been directed by the SCCU grader to the fact that the software itself was not to blame -it was only doing what it was told to do by the Candidate.

If you are going to dispute this please address the above points. Do not introduce claims that were not made so you can dismiss them. Address what was actually claimed.

It is like a man looking at a puzzle of a four-move mate and "proving" it is not a mate because if the queen were swopped for a Bishop the mate would not work.

By all means argue that the grading incident does not affect the ability of the Candidate to be President, but do not ignore either what was actually said or what the facts show - simply because you don't like them.

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm a little surprised by the vocal campaign for "none of the above" in the vote for President.

I suspect the problem is two fold.

1 - Roger Edwards, nice man and sound arbiter that he is, is he really made of national body Presidential material? Could we sensibly wheel him out at the kinds of events one would want to wheel your President out at?

2 - He has espoused a number of policies that he wishes to pursue. It is not for the President to try to set ECF policy. That is a matter for the CEO and the rest of the board and we have seen in recent times the problems created by a President who tries to follow his own agenda. Notwithstanding that, the policies themselves are nuts (in my opinion).

It is for these reasons I suspect that a number of people feel that the ECF would be best served by not appointing Roger and instead actively seeking to appoint a President who does have the characteristics that make a good President.

[Angus French]

Thanks, Richard. You're right: I did miss the item about the additional £5,000 cost for the 2000 list.
That said, my impression remains that the 1999 list was much worse affected. The BCF News page for 1999/2000 quotes part of an email from Gary Kenworthy (itself referred to in a communication of 4 October 1999) which I'll repeat: "It [The grading fiasco] has already cost the BCF £15,000 in next years projected revenue..."

You’ve lost me, Angus, or Gary Kenworthy has. I doubt if I understood him in 1999, and I certainly don’t now. He is quite colourful about the Howell system - and you add some colour of your own with the word “fiasco” - but doesn’t explain his opinion. More important, perhaps, is the £15000. I don’t understand this either. Maybe you do?

I know. We've got even further from the 2012-13 elections.

The quote was from the SCCU's BCF News page for 1999/2000. It's in a section labelled "ON GRADING, CHESS AS A SPORT, AND CHESS IN EDUCATION", which begins about three-fifths of the way down the page. Yes, the words of the quote could be clearer but I took them to mean:
1) that the work to produce the 1999 grading list had gone seriously awry. The quote attributed to Gary refers, for example, to the "the biggest blunder by the BCF for at least 15 years"
2) that the cost associated with (1) was significant. The quote attributed to Gary says "It has already cost the BCF £15,000 in next years projected revenue" and "the full cost is circa 5 Witleys and others ... believed it to be higher".
I thought "grading fiasco" was a fair and accurate description - I was trying to put the text I'd quoted back in context (rather than quote at greater length).

What I'm trying to say is that it seems to me that the problems with the production of the 1999 grading list were more significant than the problems with the production of the 2000 grading list. And further, that Martin Regan's charge that "The man in charge of this disaster was Director of Grading Roger Edwards" is unfair because Roger didn't become Director of Grading until AFTER the 1999 list was due. Indeed, it might be recognised that Roger stepped in when the situation was probably at its worst.