ECF Elections - Statement by Malcolm Pein

[David Sedgwick]

I receive fees or honoraria as an arbiter at several events. I could list them if required to do so, but I'm not convinced of the necessity of my so doing.

If people feel that there is a conflict of interest with my role as ECF Manager of Arbiters (International), then it would probably be better if I stepped down from that position.

Oh, I think the tournaments should be listed, David, but there's absolutely no need to step down. As Phil Ehr said 'recusal for all instances of overlapping interests is not practical in our small community' and I think the tournaments qualify you for your position of 'ECF Manager of Arbiters (International)'.

Listing everything for which I receive some remuneration is one thing - I have to do that for my tax return anyway.

Listing everything I do voluntarily is a rather different matter.

We're in danger of going too far here. A few years' ago, lots of people were standing down from Parish Councils all over the country because of the onerous and intrusive nature of the disclosure requirements.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'm sometimes paid a small amount over and above expenses to arbit tournaments. I very occasionally get fees for being an IM in a title-norm tournament. Apart from that, I have no interests to declare.

Jack, can you say which tournaments (in the last year, say)?

Playing: Big Slick, plus one other tournament I'm declining to reveal at the organizer's request at the time.
Arbiting: Various e2e4 events, Bournemouth Grand, CCF Jessie Gilbert

[Roger de Coverly]

We're in danger of going too far here. A few years' ago, lots of people were standing down from Parish Councils all over the country because of the onerous and intrusive nature of the disclosure requirements.

I don't think a broad and perhaps vague statement is any more than is necessary, particularly when the activities are already in the public domain, like being the man on the stage at the London Chess Classic. It's also generally known, or at least should be, that arbiters at the British Championships are compensated for accommodation and related expenses.

The ECF doesn't really control any activities that are potentially lucrative with the possible exception of training or licensed training.

Returning to the commercial theme, if an ECF Director set up a contract with an external agent or partner to co-finance and profit share the British Championships or other ECF event, it would be an undesirable outcome if the external partner took the lion's share of the profits. It would be even worse if the Director had an undisclosed interest in the external partner.

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm not sure I'm clear what I'm being asked to be declared. I'm happy to do it, but I'd like to get it right! Voluntary chess stuff? Chess stuff where I get expenses? Chess stuff where you get a fee? What about non chess related interests (voluntary and paid)? Over what time period should such interests be declared? Still, here goes with the chess stuff

This is a list of most of the events I've been involved with http://ratings.fide.com/arbiter_hist.phtml?event=404993, irrespective of payment. You can add the 2011 European Individual Championships in Aix-les-Bains (France) and the Gibraltar Chess Festival 2005-2009.

I'm former Chairman of Leicestershire & Rutland Chess Association, Vice President of Coventry Chess League and Secretary of of Stockport Chess League. I am the the ECF rep for these three organisations, plus the South East Lancashire league which has just this year re-affiliated. I'm also one of LRCA's reps to the MCCU, and a former MCCU Director.

I've been appointed Chief Arbiter of the 2014 Bunratty Chess Classic.

I'll try to think if I've missed owt!

[Angus French]

I'm not sure I'm clear what I'm being asked to be declared. Im happy to do it, but I'd like to get it right! Voluntary chess stuff? Chess stuff where I get expenses? Chess stuff where you get a fee? What about non chess related interests (voluntary and paid)? Over what time period should such interests be declared?

Great. I suggest we keep it simple for the moment: Chess stuff, for which a payment is received which isn't expenses, over the last year. Perhaps if payments are given that should be stated also - but, for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we leave that for the moment.

[Angus French]

I'm sometimes paid a small amount over and above expenses to arbit tournaments. I very occasionally get fees for being an IM in a title-norm tournament. Apart from that, I have no interests to declare.

Jack, can you say which tournaments (in the last year, say)?

Playing: Big Slick, plus one other tournament I'm declining to reveal at the organizer's request at the time.
Arbiting: Various e2e4 events, Bournemouth Grand, CCF Jessie Gilbert

Thanks Jack.

[David Pardoe]

My comments above (see P4), were aimed specifically at those with significant perceived vested or commercial interests, who, in my view should be kept at arms length from the main board, because of the ever present dangers that the ECF and its officers could be adversely influenced, and the integrity and independance of the ECF might seriously risk being called into question.
I hope those voting in the ECF elections will consider these and other concerns raised very carefully, before casting those votes, particularly those who have multiple delegate & proxy votes.
Faced with a difficult choice, due in part to a lack of clear information, many delegates dont show up at these meetings, and are accused of apathy, when what many probably suffer from is `bewilderment` and confusion.

Many have expressed concerns about the voting system, its lack of transparancy and being wide open to abuses

[Angus French]

My comments above (see P4), were aimed specifically at those with significant perceived vested or commercial interests, who, in my view should be kept at arms length from the main board, because of the ever present dangers that the ECF and its officers could be adversely influenced, and the integrity and independance of the ECF might seriously risk being called into question.

I think people with commercial interests should be allowed to be Board members. Indeed their commercial experience could well qualify them for a position on the Board. However, I think interests should be registered so that everything is clear and public. As Phil Ehr said, on some occasions a Director or Officer shouldn't be involved in the making of a decision - a Register of Interests would help identify when this would be the case.

[Angus French]

Thanks for your reply, too, Sean. That's an impressive list you've provided.

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm not sure I'm clear what I'm being asked to be declared. Im happy to do it, but I'd like to get it right! Voluntary chess stuff? Chess stuff where I get expenses? Chess stuff where you get a fee? What about non chess related interests (voluntary and paid)? Over what time period should such interests be declared?

Great. I suggest we keep it simple for the moment: Chess stuff, for which a payment is received which isn't expenses, over the last year. Perhaps if payments are given that should be stated also - but, for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we leave that for the moment.

Rather than setting arbitrary things and timescales on stuff to declare (which can often end up being 'on the hoof'), I suggest it would make more sense to consider what we want to achieve and what we want to prevent (and why), and then set appropriate policy parameters to achieve those aims.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think people with commercial interests should be allowed to be Board members. Indeed their commercial experience could well qualify them for a position on the Board. However, I think interests should be registered so that everything is clear and public. As Phil Ehr said, on some occasions a Director or Officer shouldn't be involved in the making of a decision - a Register of Interests would help identify when this would be the case.

Can you explain how this would assist the ECF, given the Directors legal responsibilities as set out in Chapter 2 of the Companies Act? I'm thinking in particular of Sections 175 - Duty [of Directors] to avoid conflicts of interest and Section 177 - Duty [of Directors] to declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangements. Failure to adhere to these requirements could lead to a criminal conviction.

MPs require their register because they are not bound by the stringent requirements of the Companies Act in the way the all company directors are.

[Angus French]

Come off it Sean, members of the ECF and 'ordinary' chess players aren't going to know about Chapter 2 of the Companies Act; it's not going to provide any reassurance for them. They might, however, be interested in the simple measure of the adoption of a Register of Interests, as originally suggested by Andrew Farthing.

A fundamental question for you: Are you for openness or not? Your last two posts suggests to me that you are not.

[Sean Hewitt]

Come off it Sean, members of the ECF and 'ordinary' chess players aren't going to know about Chapter 2 of the Companies Act; it's not going to provide any reassurance for them.

Really? I don't doubt that many 'ordinary' chess players aren't going to know about the Companies Act, but I'd certainly hope that directors and potential directors are going to know about it, and the legal requirements contained therein.

A fundamental question for you: Are you for openness or not? Your last two posts suggests to me that you are not.

I am for openness, as my actions have amply demonstrated. I'm surprised that my last posts would lead anyone to believe otherwise.

Being pro-openness does not mean that such openness should know no bounds. For example, in the interests of openness someone might ask you to list who you've been employed by in each of the last five years, your total remuneration package in each role, and how much tax you've paid. The fact that you might respond by telling them to sod off does not mean you are anti-openness.

In striking the balance, you have to identify (1) what you want to know, (2) why you want to know it, and (3) what you are going to do with the information once you do know it. Highlighting things like this is what a good non-executive director should strive to do. Points 2 and 3 are more important than point 1, primarily because the answers to (2) and (3) will drive the answer to point (1). I'm not sure that the second and third points have been properly addressed.

[Roger de Coverly]

In striking the balance, you have to identify (1) what you want to know,

What you want to know is things that aren't obvious and cannot easily be established. Acting as an arbiter or an invited titled player is reported, therefore not really an issue requiring excess disclosure. Being a journalist is also obvious, although it could present problems with handling of material required to be confidential.

What isn't known and cannot be established are commercial and financial arrangements involving offshore companies, particularly if there are hidden financial backers. Obscure commercial and business arrangements between directors is also something that can be established with some sleuth work, but might be better in the open.

The area where it would appear that any number of people have chess related income is coaching. Those, if any, on the ECF Board not involved with paid for coaching, perhaps should be aware that this is an area where conflicts may exist.

[David Pardoe]

My comments above (see P4), were aimed specifically at those with significant perceived vested or commercial interests, who, in my view should be kept at arms length from the main board, because of the ever present dangers that the ECF and its officers could be adversely influenced, and the integrity and independance of the ECF might seriously risk being called into question.

I think people with commercial interests should be allowed to be Board members. Indeed their commercial experience could well qualify them for a position on the Board. However, I think interests should be registered so that everything is clear and public. As Phil Ehr said, on some occasions a Director or Officer shouldn't be involved in the making of a decision - a Register of Interests would help identify when this would be the case.

Angus, I dont think this even gets close to the potential problems that could arise, with the possible conflicts being both difficult to spot, and quite extensive. One might even begin to wonder whether there would be any point in him showing up for board meetings, were he to be elected....assuming he had time in his busy schedule to fit these in...
I think he might be far better served operating as a `consultant`or some such, operating at arms length to the organisation.