Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[Brian_Jones]

In general, whenever the question arises of why chess in England has been lagging behind other nations, the ECF has found it easier to say "it's FIDE's fault" than to do anything constructive. To the outside world the ECF just looks like a backbiting shambles, and the idea that it might play any significant global role is at present ridiculous.

Have to agree with you there Nick. Last time I went to my old chess club in England they were still using Analogue Clocks.

[PeterFarr]

Whether this means the confidence motion in AP should have happened is an open question, since the substantive grounds for it remain unclear, in spite of all the speculation in this thread. We have heard nothing from the Board members involved, presumably because they have made a collective decision to not engage here. Thus, we simply don't know whether it's all about Agon / FIDE and AP v NS or if it's more about AP's general style / behaviour / inter-action with the Board.

The grounds for the motion and the way that board members voted are clearly articulated here.

Well there's nothing clear about the underlying rationale. Each director when invited to comment on the charges is reported as giving a different list of complaints, covering a variety of areas. The result is a long list of issues without a clear indication of exactly what is considered to be of key importance.

Edit - I'm not criticising anybody in particular for this; minutes are just minutes, rather than a coherent story. I just hope the story really is clear when presented to Council.

[JustinHorton]

Well there's nothing clear about the underlying rationale. Each director when invited to comment on the charges is reported as giving a different list of complaints, covering a variety of areas. The result is a long list of issues without a clear indication of exactly what is considered to be of key importance.

Edit - I'm not criticising anybody in particular for this

I am. If you want your reasons for something to be clear, set them out clearly where people can see them. Then people can judge whether they accept them, whether they believe them, whether they consider them adequate and so on.

Otherwise everything is intrigues, leaks and rumours, and a process which treats the paying members with contempt.

Have to agree with you there Nick. Last time I went to my old chess club in England they were still using Analogue Clocks.

Tsk, that's nothing. I don't even have an operational chess program.

[PeterFarr]

Well there's nothing clear about the underlying rationale. Each director when invited to comment on the charges is reported as giving a different list of complaints, covering a variety of areas. The result is a long list of issues without a clear indication of exactly what is considered to be of key importance.

Edit - I'm not criticising anybody in particular for this

I am. If you want your reasons for something to be clear, set them out clearly where people can see them. Then people can judge whether they accept them, whether they believe them, whether they consider them adequate and so on.

Otherwise everything is intrigues, leaks and rumours, and a process which treats the paying members with contempt.

But the April Council meeting is the right occasion for that isn't it? Otherwise what is the right mechanism? I can certainly understand the Board being tight-lipped on here.

Having just checked, I see there is a Wednesday deadline for resolutions for the Finance meeting - there's also a rather dry note to the effect that resolutions on non-financial business can be considered with the agreement of either the President or the CEO.

[JustinHorton]

But the April Council meeting is the right occasion for that isn't it?

Well, only if you consider that it's a debate that should be carried on without the members knowing what's happening and only being informed when it's all over - and that only after a very short discussion in which there will be no time whatsoever to look into any of the inevitably contradictory claims of any of the warring parties.

I don't, and not just on democratic grounds - if you try and do things that way, the absolutely inevitable outcome is that the people and factions involved engage in leaks, off-the-record briefings, proxy wars in the chess press and so on. (Which is fun in its way, but also not very amusing.) It doesn't actually save you any trouble - it just means the standard of information is abysmal and the standard of discussion not much better.

As a process, it's rubbish. We need to do better.

[Angus French]

Whether this means the confidence motion in AP should have happened is an open question, since the substantive grounds for it remain unclear, in spite of all the speculation in this thread. We have heard nothing from the Board members involved, presumably because they have made a collective decision to not engage here. Thus, we simply don't know whether it's all about Agon / FIDE and AP v NS or if it's more about AP's general style / behaviour / inter-action with the Board.

The grounds for the motion and the way that board members voted are clearly articulated here.

Well there's nothing clear about the underlying rationale. Each director when invited to comment on the charges is reported as giving a different list of complaints, covering a variety of areas. The result is a long list of issues without a clear indication of exactly what is considered to be of key importance.

The Directors also (according to the draft minutes) spoke up on issues outside the original agenda which they themselves had set. That’s a further indication of a lack of clarity.

[JustinHorton]

It seems to me that there's a conception of the ECF (and by conception, I mean how it actually works in practice, as well as a belief that it should be so) as a body with a very small number of insiders, who get to know what's going on, and a very large number of outsiders, who don't, especially where controversies and disputes are concerned.

It also seems to me that this model is dysfunctional. It lacks proper transparency and scrutiny, it has encouraged a number of people to consider the ECF as a vehicle for their own personal schemes and that if the idea is to try and prevent controversy by keeping disputes behind closed doors, that has been just about as complete and manifest a failure as one could possibly imagine.

It doesn't work. Not even on its own terms does it work.

[John McKenna]

JustinHorton>I don't even have an operational chess prog...<
Ah but, Justin, how many non-operational ones do you have?

Brian_Jones>... they were still using Analogue Clocks.<
Ah, Brian, but were the exact same ones they had when you departed, years ago?

PeterFarr>The ECF is one of 170 odd FIDE members and 50 or so ECU members; there is no reason to suppose that the ECF has, or should have, a very big say in either organization and it should act accordingly.<

Ah so, Peter, if you think in terms of the realpolitikal world - rather than the unreal chess world - by dropping the C from ECU you are left with EC (European Community) and it is true to say the UK government does NOT "have a big say" therein. However, if you replace FIDE by UN (United Nations) in that organisation the UK is one of the big 5 with a now much sought-after permanent(*?) seat and powerful veto. I am sure there are those - Short & Paulson among them - who think that the ECF should be "punching above its weight" in FIDE, and the ECU for that matter.

*NB: It is the UK's continuing decline that may soon result in its fall from a permanent seat at the UN. Should that happen France may accept that the EU should replace them and the UK leaving the way open for India, Brazil or Indonesia (to counterbalance India) to become permanent members of the UN Security Council.

[John Philpott]

Peter Farr wrote

there's also a rather dry note to the effect that resolutions on non-financial business can be considered with the agreement of either the President or the CEO.

Any suggestions as to how to make a statement drawing attention to a technical provision of the ECF's Articles of Association sound sexy will be gratefully received.

[PeterFarr]

John - I detest the phrase "punching above our weight " - it's an excuse for all sorts of spurious drivel and nonsensical actions, up to and including getting unnecessarily involved in conflicts in far away places.

Yes give our security council place to India, Brazil or whoever. I don't see this as a decline in the UK so much as a re-alignment to a more realistic view of ourselves.

[PeterFarr]

Peter Farr wrote

there's also a rather dry note to the effect that resolutions on non-financial business can be considered with the agreement of either the President or the CEO.

Any suggestions as to how to make a statement drawing attention to a technical provision of the ECF's Articles of Association sound sexy will be gratefully received.

very droll.

[PeterFarr]

It seems to me that there's a conception of the ECF (and by conception, I mean how it actually works in practice, as well as a belief that it should be so) as a body with a very small number of insiders, who get to know what's going on, and a very large number of outsiders, who don't, especially where controversies and disputes are concerned.

It also seems to me that this model is dysfunctional. It lacks proper transparency and scrutiny, it has encouraged a number of people to consider the ECF as a vehicle for their own personal schemes and that if the idea is to try and prevent controversy by keeping disputes behind closed doors, that has been just about as complete and manifest a failure as one could possibly imagine.

It doesn't work. Not even on its own terms does it work.

Just to pick up on one point; it's not even just transparency, it's about positive communication with the membership and indeed the outside world. You only have to look at the website, which is (or should be) English chess's window on the world. It gives no sense of purpose, coherence, message, or logical structure of information; it is only of use to insiders, and even then you need to know where to look. It seems symptomatic of an organisation that doesn't care about how it presents itself externally. Ironically, with his background you would have thought Andrew Paulson could have done something on this, but it seems not (though come to think of it, Agon never had a website).

Just look at the ECF website for a few minutes, and then go and look at the website of almost any other sporting organisation (except Bridge!) and you can immediately see the difference.

[Mike Truran]

Well ...... you probably get what you pay for.

[PeterFarr]

Well ...... you probably get what you pay for.

Probably, but then it's a vicious circle - with no investment ( even of thought and purpose) it will never be a better product.

[John McKenna]

Apologies for dropping that well-worn phrase on you in passing, Peter.
As John Philpott has used a form of the word - you'd think someone would have sexed-up the ECF by now.
Agon rely solely on their name and logo - I often sit and ponder on its suggestive possibilities while chanting AGON, quietly under my breathe.