The ECF Board: Leakgate

[Andrew Zigmond]

I think before this can be taken any further Adam Raoof needs to be asked whether he is willing to name the directors involved. If not, then we need to ignore this as an unhelpful distraction.

IF one of the individuals involved was the former President then I think everybody had suspicions anyway.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Adam would have to very sure of his facts to name individuals. He could find himself funding lawyers holidays. If he is very sure let's wait and see what happens next.

[Alex McFarlane]

I raised the matter of Board leaks last year. I was ignored. When Board members and others with access to Board minutes publicly leaked information about me I made an official complaint on both occasions. On neither occasion did the CEO take further action against the people. He did apologise on behalf of the Board but refused to even insist that the people should apologise themselves for their actions.

The only surprise I have about Adam Raoof's revelation is that there were only two people 'leaking' info. Having said that, all of my information was at least second hand and from a variety of sources.

Sean's list of Directors seeking re-election had one name missing - his own!!! Please do not read anything into that other than as a correction.

[LawrenceCooper]

I raised the matter of Board leaks last year. I was ignored. When Board members and others with access to Board minutes publicly leaked information about me I made an official complaint on both occasions. On neither occasion did the CEO take further action against the people. He did apologise on behalf of the Board but refused to even insist that the people should apologise themselves for their actions.

The only surprise I have about Adam Raoof's revelation is that there were only two people 'leaking' info. Having said that, all of my information was at least second hand and from a variety of sources.

Sean's list of Directors seeking re-election had one name missing - his own!!! Please do not read anything into that other than as a correction.

I suspect Sean's list was of those seeking re-election to the post they had previously held. If that is what Adam meant remains to be seen.

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean's list of Directors seeking re-election had one name missing - his own!!! Please do not read anything into that other than as a correction.

LOL! I'd forgotten that I became International Director for a few weeks when Loz stepped down after the Olympiad. Technically, I wasn't seeking re-election but I take the point.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I think before this can be taken any further Adam Raoof needs to be asked ....

Depends what you mean by "this". Surely it was transparently obvious that *somebody* was leaking something. Whether it be two people, whether Adam knows the names of these two people, whether Adam is willing to reveal the names of these two people is beside the point in many ways.

There was leaking going on and we (meaning the ECF and its membership) can ask ourselves whether we want to pursue an investigation into this or not. We don't need Adam to do or say anything to ask and answer that question.

Mind you, I refer you and the other honourable gentlemen to the post I made near the top of this thread. It may have referenced two comedy programmes, but it was not meant to be flippant.

[Andrew Zigmond]

My point is this. There's a lot that happened in the past year that will live on in infamy. However (somewhat surprisingly) there are also some positive things we can build on.

A once popular but ultimately divisive President is gone. Adam Raoof is relegated to the sidelines. Unfortunately a CEO who most of us learnt to appreciate too late is also gone.

I'd prefer to look forward for once rather than looking back.

[David Robertson]

My point is this. There's a lot that happened in the past year that will live on in infamy. However (somewhat surprisingly) there are also some positive things we can build on. A once popular but ultimately divisive President is gone. Adam Raoof is relegated to the sidelines. Unfortunately a CEO who most of us learnt to appreciate too late is also gone. I'd prefer to look forward for once rather than looking back.

This is about as helpful to the ongoing serious discussion as a Pardoe ellipsis

[Paul McKeown]

Unfortunately a CEO who most of us learnt to appreciate too late is also gone.

"Most learnt to appreciate too late"?????

Strewth.

No one I know. No one, without exception. No one, apart from a few demented blog monkeys (that's you, Justin Horton, Roger de Coverley and Steve Gobshite) and a howling crew of hardcore "North Easter Alexis" fans, had anything but praise for Andrew Farthing.

Too late? They say better late than never, but the man is gone and he's not coming back.

Words fail me at this point. Printable ones, anyway.

[Andrew Zigmond]

My point is this. There's a lot that happened in the past year that will live on in infamy. However (somewhat surprisingly) there are also some positive things we can build on. A once popular but ultimately divisive President is gone. Adam Raoof is relegated to the sidelines. Unfortunately a CEO who most of us learnt to appreciate too late is also gone. I'd prefer to look forward for once rather than looking back.

This is about as helpful to the ongoing serious discussion as a Pardoe ellipsis

Jonathan Bryant wrote above that we need to decide whether it's in our interests to pursue this or not. My post above was an attempt to explain why I don't think we should.

I think we can work on the assumption that CJ was one of the individuals leaking something. When you think about it the majority of recent controversies can be traced back to him. However, there's no way we can hold him to account for anything now.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think we can work on the assumption that CJ was one of the individuals leaking something. When you think about it the majority of recent controversies can be traced back to him. However, there's no way we can hold him to account for anything now.

Is it not the case that Board papers and discussions are also disclosed to the alternates? So those in the know are wider than than just the list of directors.

The Board managed to maintain confidentiality on one issue, namely the CAS action. Eventually it was leaked by Kirsan himself to mostly silence from the ECF Board.

Perhaps, like Council, the ECF Board has an exaggerated sense of its own importance. I can agree that matters involving the paid staff in Battle should be kept confidential, but what else does the ECF do that needs to be kept secret from English, British and other chess players?

As is known, I am not a fan of the ex-CEO. It goes back to the March 2011 paper on membership. Whilst an unbiased paper would have been welcome and might have established just what "universal membership" actually meant and what the drawbacks and advantages were presumed to be, the paper itself was biased in favour of per head schemes. The very obvious fib being that even in the first year, an individual membership scheme was stated as being cheaper to run than one which worked on organisational membership, thus totally ignoring both the transaction and implementation costs which are now being incurred. The other bias being that notwithstanding an investigation into office processes, nothing was done to integrate grading data with Game Fee collection, thus establishing the political story that Game Fee was "expensive".

[Jonathan Bryant]

Jonathan Bryant wrote above that we need to decide whether it's in our interests to pursue this or not.

Not quite.

Rather, I was pointing out that we *can* ask ourselves that question if we wish, and that the issue of what AR does or does not say (as rasied by your post) is irrelevant to whether we ask it or not.


Anyhoo, Roger's question

what else does the ECF do that needs to be kept secret from English, British and other chess players?

is a rather good one, I think. Which is not to say that I assume that the answer is nothing.

[Michele Clack]

I can't see that the ECF is in a position to pursue anything much at all of any nature with so few people in post! That's what people should be worrying about.

[Roger de Coverly]

The ability for board members to speak their minds without fearing that their views will leak to outside world - perhaps out of context - is pretty basic to a board's proper functioning.

Was it really a question of views? At least some of the leaks were of basic factual information which should have been disclosed in the first place. For instance, it was stated in response to questioning at the 2011 ECF AGM that the sources and, by implication, the disbursements of the monies raised for the Sheffield British were known to the ECF. Managers would have been aware, or at least had suspicions, that wasn't the case, given the unorthodox approach taken by the President towards player fees and expenses. Nevertheless it took a leak to a blog writer for the story to emerge.

To make a distinction, it was wrong that the individual voting for and against the CAS action was revealed, but even more wrong to embark on that action without making a public statement. Curiously the ECF involvement in the CAS action didn't leak, or not in a way that informed the British chess public.

[Roger de Coverly]

Someone should take a look at the ECF's own site, as for 2012 it contains not summaries, but actual reports on each of the Board meetings. The disturbing thing is not so much what they discuss, but what they don't discuss.