Papers for ECF Council meeting 12th April 2014

[Roger de Coverly]

But you haven't suggested another way in which the exit should have been managed.

The alternative was always going to be at least two motions for the Finance meeting or an EGM. One motion by AP to remove Nigel. The other motion by whoever to remove AP. There might even have been motions to remove various other directors and to propose their replacement by AP nominees.

What will the meeting make of the debate and motion on the ECU elections? If you go back to before the announced candidacy of AP for ECF President, the choice would have looked like one between a pair of Eastern European GMs of dubious repute. Assuming the ECF is expected to vote, what's the tie-break? Nigel's recommendation? or the presumed attitude of the candidates towards the incumbent FIDE President.

[Roger de Coverly]

I just find this business of a collective decision from which individuals detach themselves something of a novelty and I'd like to know more about it.

Is it particularly difficult? Ever since it became a Company, the ECF has had a separate legal personality. The views for this are formed by the Board of Directors and the voting membership. It's extremely possible for an individual board member not to agree with the collective decision.

[JustinHorton]

Of course, but one wouldn't usually expect that disagreement only to be revealed shortly before the collective agreement concerned was put to the test. (As I'm sure everybody understands.)

[Jonathan Rogers]

Of course, but one wouldn't usually expect that disagreement only to be revealed shortly before the collective agreement concerned was put to the test. (As I'm sure everybody understands.)

Here's a thought: it is not a usual situation, when you are trying to make your President resign.

I don't know why we are going round in these circles. Of course, if you think that asking AP to resign was wrong in the first place then you will also condemn an odd/insincere arrangement that facilitates it; but the basis of the problem is still in the original decision. If there were good reason to ask AP to resign, I don't see a better arrangement than the present one in these circumstances; and clearly you will always say that it is not for you to suggest what a better one might have been!

[JustinHorton]

I think the key word in your posting is "insincere" - I can think of stronger ones, but chacun à son goût. Either way, I think both that we have had quite enough, ah, "insincerity "already, and that letting this, ah, "insincerity" pass merely encourages it in the future, perhaps for purposes less conducive to universal happiness than this one. But as you said yourself not very long ago, live and don't learn is the ECF motto.

Anyway, I will spare you further circles tonight as I have an all-you-can-eat tapas evening to sleep off. Hasta la mañana.

[Angus French]

Presumably you object to this bit:

"Council’s approval of this motion regarding the ECU General Assembly proxy would support the Board’s collective judgment, as well as the respective individual judgements of Sean Hewitt, Julian Clissold, David Eustace, David Thomas, Alex Holowczak, Lawrence Cooper, Phil Ehr and Andrew Paulson".

on the basis that while you have agreed to vote for AP qua director, and have agreed not to lobby against AP, you are not thereby exercising your own "individual judgement" on the merit of his candidature. If that is the position, then I would agree that the statement doesn't reflect it properly. To be fair the rest of it seems good (informative, even) so not much amendment seems to be required.

I have also asked for my name to be removed from this document.

Lawrence, can you say why? What is it you object to?

Can Sean also say what it is that he objects to?

(I'm struggling to get my head around what's wrong given that both Lawrence and Sean voted for the agreement which saw Andrew Paulson resign as President.)

[Richard Bates]

Speculating, because they supported the compromise on the assumption that Council would not fall into line with the Board's recommendation. In other words it is not Council's approval of the motion which would support their 'individual judgements', but rather its rejection!

[Sean Hewitt]

Speculating, because they supported the compromise on the assumption that Council would not fall into line with the Board's recommendation. In other words it is not Council's approval of the motion which would support their 'individual judgements', but rather its rejection!

I am bound by an agreement not to lobby against the motion so, whilst you may very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment. It is well known that I was keen for an expeditious solution to the impasse.

What I will say is that Phil's document looks like an official board statement when it is not. Including the names of other directors without their permission seems to perpetuate this fallacy. I have not been involved in any discussion of a statement along these lines and the first I was aware of the existence of this document was Roger's posting the link here.

[Michael Flatt]

Oh dear. The resignations continue.

Will there be any board members left by the time they next meet?

see ECF website for breaking news. http://www.englishchess.org.uk/

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'm willing to take over either of the recently vacated posts, if needed. If anyone wants to put my case forward at the Council meeting (which I am, unfortunately, unable to attend), feel free.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Oh dear. The resignations continue.

Will there be any board members left by the time they next meet?

see ECF website for breaking news. http://www.englishchess.org.uk/

Well, that's one fewer promised vote for Paulson, I suppose

Has the catalyst for this really been the statement issued by Phil the other day? If so, maybe there will be others. Or not, because in chess politics Sean has always been a walking resignation time bomb.

[Sean Hewitt]

Oh dear. The resignations continue.

It is extremely disappointing that Phil Ehr has choosen to openly misrepresent the board. He is of course free to lobby for his friend Andrew Paulson if he wishes, but he is wrong to suggest that the board collectively want Council to support the motion to appoint Andrew Paulson as the ECF proxy at the ECU meeting. This tactic smacks of desperation, but cannot be allowed to go unchecked.

I have therefore decided, with much regret, to leave the board immediately to bring this matter out into the open - before the April Council meeting.

I had hoped that we would see a change in approach from the CEO once Andrew Paulson had gone but recent actions by him proved my hope to be forlorn. His recent behaviour has been so bizarre that one other director openly asked him if this was all an April Fool's joke! A most pertinent question.

[Phil Ehr]

Sean,

Abrupt departures over email and public screen correspondence demonstrate extreme dysfunction. Lessons are surely there to be identified and learned. The stated reasons for your resignation are directed at my leadership and performance as Chief Executive. That’s unfortunate. Council will have the opportunity to review the situation in an orderly fashion next weekend. You are welcome to submit an outgoing Non-executive Direct’s report to Council in the usual manner.

I’m sure much more will be said in the coming days, hopefully for the positive advancement of chess and the ECF. Two quick observations:
- It is important that the ECF operates well. I interpret your resignation as an attempt at putting the organisation first. Thanks.
- Someone famous once said, “Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it” That’s directed more at myself than you, but applies to all of us. That same person also said, “Get mad, then get over it."

Thank you for your contributions. You are a great servant of chess. I enjoy your social company, your excellent tournaments and your challenging contributions in two years as a fellow director and earlier service as Alternate International Director. Thanks also for your assistance with this year’s British Championships, and e2e4’s organisation of several tournaments in which English titles will be awarded. They will surely provide excellent conditions for exciting chess.

Best wishes for the future. I look forward to seeing you on the 12th April if not earlier.

Phil

[LawrenceCooper]

Sean,

Abrupt departures over email and public screen correspondence demonstrate extreme dysfunction. Lessons are surely there to be identified and learned. The stated reasons for your resignation are directed at my leadership and performance as Chief Executive. That’s unfortunate. Council will have the opportunity to review the situation in an orderly fashion next weekend. You are welcome to submit an outgoing Non-executive Direct’s report to Council in the usual manner.

I’m sure much more will be said in the coming days, hopefully for the positive advancement of chess and the ECF. Two quick observations:
- It is important that the ECF operates well. I interpret your resignation as an attempt at putting the organisation first. Thanks.
- Someone famous once said, “Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it” That’s directed more at myself than you, but applies to all of us. That same person also said, “Get mad, then get over it."

Thank you for your contributions. You are a great servant of chess. I enjoy your social company, your excellent tournaments and your challenging contributions in two years as a fellow director and earlier service as Alternate International Director. Thanks also for your assistance with this year’s British Championships, and e2e4’s organisation of several tournaments in which English titles will be awarded. They will surely provide excellent conditions for exciting chess.

Best wishes for the future. I look forward to seeing you on the 12th April if not earlier.

Phil

Whilst fully understanding Sean's position I have to say I'm astonished that the Chief Executive appears to have made no effort to try and salvage the situation by asking Sean to reconsider or by withdrawing the document that has seemingly proven the final straw.

I am aware that my own position has come under scrutiny and my performance repeatedly criticised by senior board management but I would like to think that other members of the board (Sean included) are more highly valued. I for one think the board will be weakened by this departure and I share Sean's concerns.

[Simon Brown]

That same famous person said "You don't know what you can get away with until you try". Looks like Sean doesn't want the CEO to get away with it.