ECF Annual General Meeting 13 October 2012

[Roger de Coverly]

Well done, Jack. Excellent illustration of Andrew Farthing's reservations about ECF directors posting on this forum. I wonder whether Andrew will be so willing to volunteer for this task (or others) in future.

Surely that was information already disclosed?

That particular ECF meeting was notorious for some strange advice as to whether the ECF Directors were permitted to vote in the election for non-Exec directors.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

Well done, Jack. Excellent illustration of Andrew Farthing's reservations about ECF directors posting on this forum. I wonder whether Andrew will be so willing to volunteer for this task (or others) in future.

Surely that was information already disclosed?

That particular ECF meeting was notorious for some strange advice as to whether the ECF Directors were permitted to vote in the election for non-Exec directors.

If so, I apologise to Jack.

[Richard Bates]

I imagine the ECF has some kind of policy about membership, and I don't suppose it's for the Membership Director to change that policy on his own say-so. He should implement it.

You could suppose that the ECFs policy is to implement the Farthing proposals as hacked about/modified by the April 2012 Council meeting. The October 2011 meeting showed the original version of the proposals to only have 70% support. The limited public statements of the prospective Membership director indicated that he wanted to implement his own, harder line, version. But as suggested, I suspect the rejection was not solely on policy issues.

No they didn't.

Adam, if this is your view of how the membership scheme should work, will you be proposing changes in your new role as Membership and Marketing Director?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you previously posted that you believe there there should be a single membership category costing around £25 per adult.
Is that still your position?

Personally, probably yes. However I agree with Richard, we have what we have, and I would think the best thing to do is to see how it goes for at least a season - my feedback is that people don't actually mind having to join the ECF, and it doesn't put them off playing events - rather it actually, dare I say, excites them with the possibilities.

They do have real practical problems understanding what the scheme involves, what level they should join at and are happier to give their club secretary money to pass on to the ECF than using PayPal to do it online.

[Sean Hewitt]

That's not a surprise given my proposal of the 'toothless tiger' motion but what did surprise me is that the other dissenter was the newly elected Gold member rep. Given that e2e4 events are nearly all FIDE rated (so mainly Gold members playing) and seem to be well received by the players I was surprised by that vote. To the best of my knowledge, I've never met nor corresponded with the chap. Can anybody who was at the AGM shed any insight on his reasoning?

I wasn't at the AGM and have no idea of his reasoning but Bill Armstrong plays for the same club as Roger Edwards and I think he was one of those who "proposed" him as President. (I can't remember in what capacity.)

[/quote]
Thanks Ian. Two others have emailed me to say that he is pals with Roger Edwards and that he voted against me because of my opposition to Roger's policies. It's good to see that the new Gold member representative is acting in the best interests of those he represents rather than following a personal agenda.

[Alex Holowczak]

I wonder whether Andrew will be so willing to volunteer for this task (or others) in future.

He was a Teller at the meeting just gone. He was re-elected to the Governance Committee with 1 against.

[Sean Hewitt]

Ok lets cut to the chase here can we can anybody please tell me what Adam did as director of home chess.Alex ran the county champs Lara ran the british Adam even screwed up the Grand Prix prize giving.

I think you've answered your own question. He got volunteers on board to do jobs. So Alex with the county champs, Lara with the British, Michael Bennett with the grading site, etc etc. Getting more people involved is usually seen as a good thing. Until all the nonsense following Sheffield, consensus was that he was doing a good job.

[Sean Hewitt]

I liked an earlier post from Sean which suggested that Adam if elected could have been instructed to tidy up the membership list.
Whilst this statement is true it failed to acknowledge that until Saturday that self same list had been Adam's responsibility as Director of Home Chess!!
Why weren't the desired changes implemented in the first place?

Because the person wanting the change (which was a formatting issue, not tidying up btw) hadn't mentioned it before as far as I'm aware.

[Sean Hewitt]

So now lets get back to Adam in the past 15 months he got into a dispute with the person running the flagship event of British chess

I didn't know this. What did he fall out with Malcolm Pein over?

[John Cox]

> I am sure that eventually the message will get through one day that women make up 50% of the population as well as a significant portion of the chess playing public and should be represented on the board.

This always strikes me as a curious notion. After all, the strict constitutional position, surely, is that women are represented on the board just as much as men are. Each member of the Board represents all members of the ECF. And if none of those representatives is women, is that perhaps something to do with the fact that no women can be bothered to stand?

What is being proposed is actually that women for some reason need to be over-represented on the board, despite the fact that their - let's face it - relatively rather incompetent efforts at the game are already massively overresourced in comparison to male players of equivalent ability.

It may well be that that does need doing, but that's the case that needs to be made, not daft rhetoric about representation.

[John Cox]

So now lets get back to Adam in the past 15 months he got into a dispute with the person running the flagship event of British chess

I didn't know this. What did he fall out with Malcolm Pein over?

Careful, Sean. You will find yourself going the same way as Adam. Humour - let alone mildly funny humour - at the expense of members of the Council is unwise. People never forget being made to look ridiculous. Especially when they are in fact acting ridiculously.

[John Cox]

Please, AH, do let us know the name of this hapless Teller. He deserves a greater role in history.

Andrew Leadbetter.

Well done, Jack. Excellent illustration of Andrew Farthing's reservations about ECF directors posting on this forum. I wonder whether Andrew will be so willing to volunteer for this task (or others) in future.

Come now, Brendan. I don't know the man, but his efforts certainly deserve wider celebration. In fact, it would be a good idea if a statue of him were erected at the venue of the ECF Council meeting every year, and a song composed in his honour, to be sung before every vote. It might, possibly, help to bring the members of the Council to some sort of proper sense of their importance and responsibities.

[Peter Sowray]

For God's sake, man. I can't believe this needs spelling out, but here goes.

We're all on the same side. People with an obvious track record of huge contribution to chess at a local level should not be lightly cast aside when they offer their time at a national level. They should be treated with respect. It should be totally inconceivable for this sort of thing to happen, certainly without warning.

In my opinion, if Council delegates see an uncontested election coming up and they've got doubts about the candidate, the first thing they should do is search their consciences and see whether those doubts are in fact motivated by personal dislike and ego. If the answer is yes, then they should resolve to abstain. They should also reflect on a rule of life which states that when people say 'I could never work with X again' , what they invariably mean is 'I could easily work with X again if I had to but I don't like him and I intend to do him down if I can.'

If the answer is no, then they should contact the candidate, express those doubts and seek reassurance. For example, if someone truly thinks that they can't vote for someone without a personal manifesto, then they should say so openly before the meeting. It's *pathetic* waiting until after the meeting and then saying that the candidate only has himself to blame. You're all to blame. What has happened is a disaster, because it possibly involves losing the services of someone enthuasistic and able - and God knows the ECF can do with some of those - for ever, and for no reason. Saying 'now tell me why Council was wrong in not voting for him' misses the point entirely. This sort of situation simply shouldn't be allowed to develop. It creates the impression of a pack of squabbling schoolchildren, using the Council meeting for the settling of scores and not the efficient dispatch of necessary business.

Anyway, there should be none of this petty nonsense about manifestos. I've no idea how the board of the ECF goes about making the almighty cock of things it invariably does, but how it *should* go about things when it creates a new post is to set out some kind of job description, and it's reasonable to assume people who stand for that post propose to carry out that description. I imagine the ECF has some kind of policy about membership, and I don't suppose it's for the Membership Director to change that policy on his own say-so. He should implement it. No-one needs a personal manifesto to say they're going to do that. All that going on about manifestos does is create the impression that Council is fixated on making sure that would-be Board members recognise how very, very important Council and its members are, which is not a good look.

The same applies to candidates not attending the meeting. If it's truly that important to you to ask them questions, contact them beforehand and do it. If you can't be bothered to do that, you are the problem, far more than the candidate. Believe me, your questions are not necessarily so important and interesting to everyone else that it's worth making 40 odd people schlep up to Birmingham to sit through them.

As for the other two points made, I have no idea if they're right or not. Possibly Adam has been totally useless all year. I rather doubt it, but it's possible. But if that's what people think, they should raise it before the meeting. That's the main point - no organisation which isn't utterly dysfunctional lets this sort of thing happen in public.

John,

Yes, of course. It shouldn’t need spelling out but thank you for doing so.

You posted a few pages back that I was involved in the ECF some years ago. Until you’re inside the organisation it’s hard to appreciate just how dysfunctional it is. There are lots of good people on the Council, but their efforts are completely overshadowed but a significant minority who use it as a forum to fight old battles (some of which have been going on for decades). I don’t know the motivation of these wreckers – but as well as personal feuds and petty jealousies, I witnessed sexism and racial prejudice.

It seems that this appalling tradition continues with the latest meeting in Birmingham and if anything is getting worse.

We need a strong ECF. There are three highly competent and experienced Board members who might be able to sort it out, but they will need a considerable amount of help and support over coming months.

I would like to see the Board do the following:-

1. A line needs to be drawn under Sheffield and any other associated incidents. I think Mike Truran referred to ‘lancing a boil’. The Board should adopt a zero tolerance approach to anyone who wants to continue this dispute in any way.

2. If that provokes resignations, accept them. If we end up with different organisers at the British that will be regrettable but probably unavoidable. If in extremis the British doesn’t continue in its present form then so be it.

3. If the Board wants Adam Raoof or Sabrina Chevannes, then they should just go ahead and appoint them (if they’re still willing, and I certainly wouldn’t be in their position …). Likewise anyone else that can contribute positively.

4. If the Board wants to communicate, then it should use its own web site. Board members should stop posting on this Forum in any capacity. It’s poison.

5. There are other important issues that need to be addressed, e.g. governance, the charity split off and not least how the ECF might better use the roughly £900,000 it has in various bank accounts … But those can wait for another day. The number 1 priority must be to change the culture.

Peter

[Roger de Coverly]

Until all the nonsense following Sheffield, consensus was that he was doing a good job.

Notwithstanding an ability to become involved in petty disputes over rating fees and a desire to exercise power by trying to ban players.

[Ernie Lazenby]

From time to time Giddins posts something interesting. The following has appeared. Seems odd that Sean says he has no knowledge of the matter alluded to by William. Perhaps Sean can explain this loss of memory. Of course SG may be wrong- hes not often wrong just acerbic in the method of delivery.

SG said ''As was to be expected, anguished debate on the termite mound has followed Saturday's ECF AGM. Much of the argument has been about the defeat of "Odious" Adam Raoof. I was disappointed to see him being vigorously defended by several of the few Forum contributors for whom I have any respect, such as John Cox, Peter Sowray and Sean Hewitt.However, I have one question for them all: if the Odious One is such a wonderful chess organiser, then why was he sacked earlier this year from his role running the main congress at the London Chess Classic? Sacked to be replaced, as a matter of fact, by Sean Hewitt...!'' end of SG quote

[Bill Porter]

That's not a surprise given my proposal of the 'toothless tiger' motion but what did surprise me is that the other dissenter was the newly elected Gold member rep. Given that e2e4 events are nearly all FIDE rated (so mainly Gold members playing) and seem to be well received by the players I was surprised by that vote. To the best of my knowledge, I've never met nor corresponded with the chap. Can anybody who was at the AGM shed any insight on his reasoning?

I wasn't at the AGM and have no idea of his reasoning but Bill Armstrong plays for the same club as Roger Edwards and I think he was one of those who "proposed" him as President. (I can't remember in what capacity.)

Thanks Ian. Two others have emailed me to say that he is pals with Roger Edwards and that he voted against me because of my opposition to Roger's policies. It's good to see that the new Gold member representative is acting in the best interests of those he represents rather than following a personal agenda.

As you were willing to post Philip Nižetić's email, presumably without his permission, will you will back up your criticism of Bill Armstrong by posting the emails you refer to here?