ECF Vacancies

[benedgell]

Just looking on the ECF website it strikes me there are a fairly significant number of roles vacant at the moment:

Commercial Director.
Chairman of Finance Committee.
Chairman of Governance Committee.
Bronze Members' Rep.
Strategic Advisor.
Manager of ICT.
Editor, Chess Moves.
Manager of Women's Chess.
Manager of Girl's Chess.
Junior Ratings Officer.
Junior Development Officer.
National Primary Schools Co-ordinator South.
Junior Clubs Co- ordinator.

I think thats all of them.

Just thought I'd mention it in the vague hope that there are people who might be interested in taking on some of the roles.

[Andrew Martin]

Perhaps the legacy of volunteers hardly ever given positive feedback or encouraged.

Thanking people for hard,unselfish work is important.

Kicking people out of jobs and replacing them with 'none of the above' is just about as demoralising as it gets.

[Roger de Coverly]

Kicking people out of jobs and replacing them with 'none of the above' is just about as demoralising as it gets.

From what I understand, part of the reason for removing the CEO was his habit of telling volunteer officers that "they were doing it all wrong". Reports of the AGM suggest that was even extended to the attendees being told they were asking the wrong type of question.

[Michael Flatt]

I volunteered to the Junior Directorate to do the Junior Ratings Officer job but was told they weren't looking for anyone.

If a post is redundant or one that is intentionally being left unfilled it would be best not to advertise for applicants!

[Andrew Zigmond]

Of the positions Ben names the top three listed are different in nature from the others as they are elected positions (one board level and two attending board meetings). Two are vacant for political reasons and the third has just become vacant because the previous holder has stepped up to a higher position within the ECF.

As an ECF volunteer I've never felt unappreciated either by those in elected positions (there was one exception but that was during an election campaign) or on the whole with the rank and file members I work for; the odd snotty email is offset by praise and thanks from elsewhere. What is far more demoralising is the accusation of being part of a `nexus` or a `rag bag of amateurs` and made to feel that you are responsible for the decline of the game.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Were I not worried about taking too much on I might be tempted by Chess Moves or even Governance, although the latter is probably me getting ideas above my station.

[Nigel_Davies]

Filling posts with a rag bag of clueless amateurs has nothing to do with achievement. A good start for any chess federation would be to define its role, what it wants to achieve and what should be beyond its remit. I would argue that most of the good things in chess are actually achieved by individual enterprise, rather than federations, which is certainly the case in the UK when you look at what has actually succeeded (4NCL, UK Chess Challenge, Chess in Schools and Communities etc.). In this case the federation(s) might consider how it can help facilitate such efforts rather than trying to run things.

[Martin Regan]

ND:

I would argue that most of the good things in chess are actually achieved by individual enterprise, rather than federations,

Oh dear. Why is it that people judge things on what has been good for them alone? The Tories cut my taxes. Best government we've ever had.

One example. When I was CEO I must have had numerous conversations with Scotland Yard about various issues involving children and chess players.

Individual enterprise would fix that, of course.

Your self interest is risible.

[Nigel_Davies]

Oh dear. Why is it that people judge things on what has been good for them alone? The Tories cut my taxes. Best government we've ever had.

One example. When I was CEO I must have had numerous conversations with Scotland Yard about various issues involving children and chess players.

Individual enterprise would fix that, of course.

Your self interest is risible.

My interest is purely in the future of chess at a time when I won't be around. I haven't needed any federation for quite some time, and I certainly don't need useless posturing chess politicians whose main goal appears to be the gratification of their egos via roles and awards. Or even ex-chess politicians who hang out on bulletin boards, congratulating themselves on their non achievement.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I believe we agreed in a thread last week that there was an argument for a separate organisation for professional and/ or titled players in order to raise funding and promote professional chess without having to `interface` with the different goals of amateur chess. I don't currently see anybody coming forward to take the `individual enterprise`, even though such an organisation would shut out the `clueless` amateurs straight away.

The vast majority of the vacancies this thread is concerned with are relatively minor posts that are solely concerned with the amateur side of things anyway. And you don't know that anybody coming forward will necessarily be clueless - they may well have the right professional background and/ or have enthusiasm and be willing to listen.

[Nigel_Davies]

I believe we agreed in a thread last week that there was an argument for a separate organisation for professional and/ or titled players in order to raise funding and promote professional chess without having to `interface` with the different goals of amateur chess. I don't currently see anybody coming forward to take the `individual enterprise`, even though such an organisation would shut out the `clueless` amateurs straight away.

The vast majority of the vacancies this thread is concerned with are relatively minor posts that are solely concerned with the amateur side of things anyway. And you don't know that anybody coming forward will necessarily be clueless - they may well have the right professional background and/ or have enthusiasm and be willing to listen.

With such separation still 'pending', and possibly unlikely to happen, I'm afraid you're going to be stuck with professional input.

[Roger de Coverly]

Filling posts with a rag bag of clueless amateurs has nothing to do with achievement.

It will depend on the post, but some will require a minimum standard of non-chess knowledge and ability.Those involving IT, bookkeeping or accounting in particular.

At what grading or rating level does someone cease to be a "clueless" amateur? The organisation of chess events has certainly been handicapped by arbiters totally clueless as to what can and cannot be accomplished using computers.

[Andrew Zigmond]

With such separation still 'pending', and possibly unlikely to happen, I'm afraid you're going to be stuck with professional input.

I can happily live with that. I have a lot of respect for titled players and am always interested in what they have to say. Their views matter. Unfortunately the converse is also true - you're going to be stuck with the `clueless amateurs`. Dare I suggest it might be worth trying to find common cause?

With respect I don't quite see what relevance your comment had to this thread except that I quoted your `rag bag` remark when picking up on Andrew Martin's post; suggesting that it might be a disincentive for volunteers to come forward for fear of being tarred with that brush, even if the role they are volunteering for is solely concerned with the amateur side.

[Nigel_Davies]

With respect I don't quite see what relevance your comment had to this thread except that I quoted your `rag bag` remark when picking up on Andrew Martin's post; suggesting that it might be a disincentive for volunteers to come forward for fear of being tarred with that brush, even if the role they are volunteering for is solely concerned with the amateur side.

I'd argue that discouraging those who have nothing to contribute from taking 'roles' is actually a good thing, the efficiency of organizations does not exactly rise with numbers. Once a federation's role is clearly defined it might be that it can be manned by very few people.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I'd argue that discouraging those who have nothing to contribute from taking 'roles' is actually a good thing, the efficiency of organizations does not exactly rise with numbers. Once a federation's role is clearly defined it might be that it can be manned by very few people.

Leaving aside the fact that nobody can just take on a role for the ECF (below board level they have to be appointed and will be held accountable by a director) how do you know that somebody necessarily has nothing to contribute?