Papers for ECF Council meeting 12th April 2014

[Roger de Coverly]

There's a new paper by the CEO on ECF strategy
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... rategy.pdf

I'm sure there are any number of contentious points, but let's start at the beginning

What is chess?
A sporting pursuit, a recreational activity, an academic discipline, a pedagogical tool and a
feature in British culture.

I had to look up what a pedagogical tool actually was

A pedagogical tool is anything that a person uses to learn or teach.

I suppose this is referring to the CSC idea that it doesn't matter if no-one actually continues to play chess after being taught it. I don't think this an idea the ECF should support.

I also note it repeats the misleading notion that parental contributions to support their child's chess holiday are part of the ECF's Income. They are in the ECF's books, but always balanced by an equal and opposite expenditure.

I'm not really sure of the point of organising additional tournaments for seniors. Just go to any existing Congress and look around.

The serious upheaval and one which needs justification is the concept of aligning ECF Director responsibilities by function, not by age or geography. Oddly I thought they were arranged by function as the work of being Home Director is surely almost entirely divorced from that of being International Director.

The idea of trying to market English chess as one under the banner of the ECF comes back again. Isn't there a three letter acronym which says this is rather a bad idea? VAT

Down at the end it says

Improve membership processes and phase out game fees

So what does this mean? Is it that non-members can play in graded competitions, or is it that they should be banned.

[Carl Hibbard]

So what does this mean? Is it that non-members can play in graded competitions, or is it that they should be banned.

Has to eventually mean a ban if not an ECF member.

[LawrenceCooper]

There's a new paper by the CEO on ECF strategy
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... rategy.pdf

Thanks for making me aware of this. I'll make sure the rest of the board take a look.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'll make sure the rest of the board take a look.

At the risk of stating the obvious, why wouldn't a functioning board have a pre-publication comment phase on something like a strategy document, particularly as it appears to advocate a total restructure of Board functions and responsibilities?

[Michael Flatt]

These two new discussion papers on Transformation and Strategy don't allow much time for any meaningful discussion.

Are they merely a tactic to stiffle any meaningful business in the forthcoming meeting.

Something doesn't add up!

[Mike Truran]

stiffle

Love it!

[Richard Bates]

I'll make sure the rest of the board take a look.

At the risk of stating the obvious, why wouldn't a functioning board have a pre-publication comment phase on something like a strategy document, particularly as it appears to advocate a total restructure of Board functions and responsibilities?

"This paper is the Chief Executive's outline of a Strategy. Whilst it is not a Board product and therefore arguably premature for Council's review..."

But, what the hell, let's submit it anyway!

Perhaps the cunning Paulson/Ehr plan we've all been missing is that if the entire rest of the Board can be so antagonised as to resign en masse that gives Phil Ehr free reign to appoint the entire Board himself and fill it with the Paulson slate that he was toying with offering before his resignation...

[JustinHorton]

it's pushing your luck to try to claim that individual directors personally support the deal.

If an individual votes for X they can reasonably to be said to support X. If they do not like this, they should not have voted for it.

You really don't get to qualify your votes for X and say ater on that it was you as a member of the Board, but not actually you. That really is pushing your luck.

No sympathy from me whatsoever. There's been far too much game-playing and mucking about already. Far far far too much.

[Richard Bates]

it's pushing your luck to try to claim that individual directors personally support the deal.

If an individual votes for X they can reasonably to be said to support X. If they do not like this, they should not have voted for it.

You really don't get to qualify your votes for X and say ater on that it was you as a member of the Board, but not actually you. That really is pushing your luck.

No sympathy from me whatsoever. There's been far too much game-playing and mucking about already. Far far far too much.

There is a fairly obvious distinction between supporting a decision to recommend something, and supporting the thing itself.

[JustinHorton]

I really don't think there is.

[Richard Bates]

I really don't think there is.

Look up the word compromise in the dictionary. You might learn something. I know it is difficult sometimes always being right.

[Roger de Coverly]

No sympathy from me whatsoever. There's been far too much game-playing and mucking about already. Far far far too much.

Of course there has. But it was a truce, if you like, so that the normal business of the ECF at the Finance meeting could be conducted without being overshadowed by the ECU row.

It's a characteristic of the English legal system that Companies have a personality distinct from that of individual directors. So the Board, exercising the ECF's legal personality, determined that the ECF Board would recommend the ECU motion. It has become apparent that whilst they would make no objection to the ECF's voice in saying this, at least two dissident directors didn't want to be publicly quoted as being in favour and didn't want a paper prepared by the CEO to appear to represent them and the rest of the Board.

None of this current row would presumably have arisen in the first place, were it not for AP's personal ambition to become a Vice-President of the European Chess Union. I think he joined the wrong party if looking for national support, as the ECF seems more easily persuadable to support the Danilov slate.

[Paul Dargan]

Was this not always an obvious fig-leaf to get Paulson out and as such many directors must have EXPECTED Council to bin it. As long as Paulson going isnt tied to Council approving this shambles then job done. Understandably members of the Exec cant go round campaigning against the proposal but that hardly means that with their other hats on they're going to vote for it.

Paul

[Neill Cooper]

Initiative 3: Correct shortfalls in secondary schools, women’s and seniors’ chess
o Organise secondary school team tournaments

I have got that one underway already!

[LawrenceCooper]

Initiative 3: Correct shortfalls in secondary schools, women’s and seniors’ chess
o Organise secondary school team tournaments

I have got that one underway already!

Doing it very well too