Papers for ECF Council meeting 12th April 2014

[Michael Flatt]

As an outsider looking in, I can't believe that a non-executive Director should be censured for doing his job.

It is the Chief Executive who appears to have created this almighty mess.

He should look to himself and not blame all those around him.

[Ernie Lazenby]

A very regretable situation that does nothing for the good of the game. I learnt to my cost that playing out these drama's on public forums does more harm than good and harm long term friendships. The current situation is quite serious and it is very sad that dirty washing is once again being washed in public.
I dont know the personalities involved, nor do I wish to follow the core matter in any great detail, and therefore have no axe to grind one way or the other however I wish they could reflect on the long term harm that could be done to our game; perhaps they may feel less inclined to make public comments on this forum. The danger is the next board meeting could become poisonous if it has not already become so.

One must reflect a little on how this situation has arisen, perhaps the dinasaur council system is to blame after all. Also I am minded to remind everyone that the parties involved are all unpaid volunteers trying to do their best while holding down paid jobs.

[David Shepherd]

Hopefully that will be the end of the resignations, it would be good to have a period of stability to let things calm down, if there are even more resignations it will just leave the ECF in a complete mess.

[Jonathan Rogers]

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

Phil,

No doubt the arguments are better made in Council than here; but the papers given to Council beforehand must be correct. Many Council members may give directed proxy votes to others based on the papers, after all; for them, any corrections that might be made on the day are too late. So, if Sean and others have not said that it is their own individual judgement that the ECF Council should support Azmaiparashvili and Andrew in the ECU elections, then the words stating the opposite must surely be corrected immediately. It is not as though this relates to one of the minor items on the agenda!

Jonathan

[Angus French]

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.

The Board recommends that the ECF Council at its April meeting approves a Motion to give Andrew Paulson standing during the ECU General Assembly election meeting in Tromsø in August by designating him as the official ECF Delegate at that meeting. [See http://www.englishchess.org.uk/board-statement/]

4. The Board agreed to amicably settle an internal matter with an agreement with Andrew Paulson.
The vote was:
FOR: DE, DT, AH, LC, SH, JC, AP
AGAINST:none
ABSTAIN: DO
Not Voting due to chairing the meeting: PE. I support the agreement. [See http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... h-2014.pdf]

What am I not getting here? Is Sean saying the Board "recommend" a course of action but don't "support" it?

[Sean Hewitt]

Hopefully that will be the end of the resignations, it would be good to have a period of stability to let things calm down, if there are even more resignations it will just leave the ECF in a complete mess.

Well, with perhaps one exception. We have a Chief Executive who does not seem to understand what his role is, nor the role of the board. He seems to think that he is in unilaterally in charge and can do what he likes, with no regard for due process or what anyone else thinks. He may have been taking lessons from his erstwhile friend in that regard.

The mess regarding the lack of minutes has been entirely down to him, as is the complete shambles of the board meeting that wasn't on 23rd March. His behaviour towards the Junior Director has been abominable and a complete abuse of his access to privileged information.

The board is completely dysfunctional in a way that it wasn't before he was elected, and that's no coincidence. I'm sure it will continue to be so whilst he is on it.

We are extremely fortunate to have a great bunch of executive directors on the board. If they were just allowed to get on with their jobs, it would be absolutely great.

[Jonathan Rogers]

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.

The Board recommends that the ECF Council at its April meeting approves a Motion to give Andrew Paulson standing during the ECU General Assembly election meeting in Tromsø in August by designating him as the official ECF Delegate at that meeting. [See http://www.englishchess.org.uk/board-statement/]

4. The Board agreed to amicably settle an internal matter with an agreement with Andrew Paulson.
The vote was:
FOR: DE, DT, AH, LC, SH, JC, AP
AGAINST:none
ABSTAIN: DO
Not Voting due to chairing the meeting: PE. I support the agreement. [See http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... h-2014.pdf]

What am I not getting here? Is Sean saying the Board "recommend" a course of action but don't "support" it?

The Board both recommends and supports it, The difference is between the individuals as board members and the individuals as individuals (and in some cases council members). You seem to have difficulty getting that the Board (as a board, which tends to be bound by collective responsibility) agreed to recommend a course of action but that is not the same as each individual doing so as a matter of their own judgement. The latter is a separate matter, and it should not be claimed that it is the case if it is not in fact the case.

[Angus French]

The Board both recommends and supports it, The difference is between the individuals as board members and the individuals as individuals (and in some cases council members). You seem to have difficulty getting that the Board (as a board, which tends to be bound by collective responsibility) agreed to recommend a course of action but that is not the same as each individual doing so as a matter of their own judgement. The latter is a separate matter, and it should not be claimed that it is the case if it is not in fact the case.

Let's get this straight.
What is being suggested is that Sean and Lawrence (and possibly some other Directors) supported a course of action as Directors which they opposed as individuals and further, I assume*, which they didn't declare they opposed as individuals at the time the (then proposed) agreement was tabled. Would that be correct? Because if it is then... well, what sort of way is that to behave?

*Assumed because the positions aren't given in the Board's statement of 8 March or the 'snapshot' of the Board Meeting of 7 March.

[Michael Flatt]

Is it really necessary to keep kicking at a man when he is down?

[Carl Hibbard]

Is it really necessary to keep kicking at a man when he is down?

Which one?

[LawrenceCooper]

The Board both recommends and supports it, The difference is between the individuals as board members and the individuals as individuals (and in some cases council members). You seem to have difficulty getting that the Board (as a board, which tends to be bound by collective responsibility) agreed to recommend a course of action but that is not the same as each individual doing so as a matter of their own judgement. The latter is a separate matter, and it should not be claimed that it is the case if it is not in fact the case.

Let's get this straight.
What is being suggested is that Sean and Lawrence (and possibly some other Directors) supported a course of action as Directors which they opposed as individuals and further, I assume*, which they didn't declare they opposed as individuals at the time the (then proposed) agreement was tabled. Would that be correct? Because if it is then... well, what sort of way is that to behave?

*Assumed because the positions aren't given in the Board's statement of 8 March or the 'snapshot' of the Board Meeting of 7 March.

Putting the long term interests of the ECF ahead of personal opinion and supporting the majority wishes of the board doesn't seem an entirely unreasonable way to behave. Using other people's names without their consent and not removing their names when requested is rather regrettable though.

[Michael Flatt]

Michael Flatt wrote:
Is it really necessary to keep kicking at a man when he is down?

Which one?

Any!

[Matthew Turner]

The last ECF elections saw a contest between Team Hewitt and Team Ehr. Since this effectively finished in a tie the ECF Board has been more dysfunctional than normal ever since. However, gradually Team Hewitt gained the upper hand, possibly because David Openshaw moved away from Team Ehr (perhaps hoped for funding wasn't forthcoming). Sean took his opportunity to weaken Team Ehr by removing their weakest link and getting rid of Andy Paulsen. It now appears that he has gone for the lot and decided to try and push through his advantage and remove Phil himself. It will probably work; but Phil Ehr demonstrated some clever moves at the election so it is not without risk for Sean.

[David Shepherd]

In the document that seems to be causing some of the problems it refers in the last paragraph to respective individual judgements of ....... Would it be more accurate/acceptable if the word judgement was replaced with the word votes in this instance?

[Roger de Coverly]

What am I not getting here? Is Sean saying the Board "recommend" a course of action but don't "support" it?

It's something to do with the Board as a collective decision making body having a position not endorsed, but not opposed by individual directors.

The rather dubious compromise of approving a course of action opposed by the ECF Delegate to FIDE and ECU appears to have been forced on the Board as a whole as a means of avoiding dismissal motions at the Finance meeting. In the spirit of compromise, it's pushing your luck to try to claim that individual directors personally support the deal.