CEO succession plan

[Andrew Farthing]

Understandably, this is a topic which is occupying my mind. I realise that my reasons for not standing again in October won't have encouraged volunteers to step forward for the role, and I regret that.

I think that the ECF Council - and, by extension, the wider population of English chess players - needs to make some important decisions about the type of national federation it wants and how it is run. I've tried to engage people in this debate in the context of the ECF's long-term strategic plan and the funding issue, but it isn't easy to generate interest unless the dissatisfaction with the status quo reaches a certain level.

I agree with Paul that one of the key questions is what we want the ECF to do. I suspect that we might have different views of how small an organisation it could reasonably become, but this may be a reflection of my own assumptions about what a national federation should do. In my opinion, a national federation has a duty to strive to develop the game, including achieving international success, and this implies a certain level of activity which may go beyond other people's definition of the necessary minimum.

Roger's point about the ECF's being either too big or too small is probably right as well (although again I suspect that if we dug deeper our views would diverge). As it stands, the ECF has the ambition and scope of a larger organisation than it is but it has resources at a subsistence level for a much smaller-scale operation. This creates stresses between expectation and ambition on the one hand and the capacity of the organisation to deliver on the other.

Michele and Paul both touched on the theme of volunteers, which I also think is critical. On the assumption that a larger complement of paid staff is unrealistic, there is clearly a need for a broader network of volunteers if the ECF is to deliver its stated aims. For most of my tenure, I have covered the roles of Strategic Planning Officer and Minutes Secretary as well as Chief Executive, along with what I would normally describe as project management roles except that they have also involved a large element of "doing" as well as "managing". To have more resources to call on would have made a big difference, but I have no right to expect people to give up their time, so I can't complain that my efforts to drum up support largely failed.

The Director of Junior Chess & Education, Phil Ehr, is currently building a much more substantial support team for his area of responsibility, and the signs are positive that this will translate into visible progress in terms of what is delivered. Perhaps this will serve as a model to encourage more support in other areas, but of course this all depends on whether the ECF is trying to achieve things which are considered worth achieving.

I'll do what I can in the papers I'm preparing for Council to ask the right questions and stimulate a constructive debate. In the meantime, further thoughts from Forum members would be very welcome. As usual, there are no absolute rights and wrongs, just choices about what we want for ourselves and for English chess as a whole.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think that the ECF Council - and, by extension, the wider population of English chess players - needs to make some important decisions about the type of national federation it wants and how it is run.

There are examples here and there where the ECF could reduce its work load by dumping competitions. Take the National Club for instance. The competition could be stopped entirely on the grounds that hardly any clubs enter and the same ground is covered by the 4NCL, in particular division 3. Alternatively the name and continuity could be handed over to any third party organisation who agreed to develop and run it. Similarly with the Counties Championships.The winter competitions at a regional stage are already run by the Unions. If the Unions also took on running the national stages, perhaps by appointing a co-ordination committee to agree and vote on contentious issues, then Council or Board would no longer have to debate the venues for the final and the costs of refreshments and trophies.

[David Sedgwick]

Similarly with the Counties Championships.The winter competitions at a regional stage are already run by the Unions. If the Unions also took on running the national stages, perhaps by appointing a co-ordination committee to agree and vote on contentious issues, then Council or Board would no longer have to debate the venues for the final and the costs of refreshments and trophies.

It would be far from straightforward to agree on the composition of any such committee. There are two larger Unions (MCCU and SCCU) and three smaller ones. If each Union has one nominee, the larger ones won't like the idea of being outvoted three to two. If the larger Unions each have two places, the smaller ones won't like the idea of being outvoted four to three.

The Counties Championships do take up a certain amount of ECF time at both Board and Council level. Given the status and importance of the event, I don't regard that time as disproportionate.

[Roger de Coverly]

It would be far from straightforward to agree on the composition of any such committee..

Voting rights could be proportionate to the number of teams in the regional stages. Personally I'm unconvinced of the continued relevance of Unions and indeed the whole eligibility based approach for organising weekend team chess. But if you are going to have regional bodies, they could make themselves useful by reducing the complexity of some of the ECF's decision making. Venues and move rates for these competitions aren't of any great relevance to the representatives of Congresses and for that matter non-county leagues.

[Martyn Harris]

Similarly with the Counties Championships.The winter competitions at a regional stage are already run by the Unions. If the Unions also took on running the national stages, perhaps by appointing a co-ordination committee to agree and vote on contentious issues, then Council or Board would no longer have to debate the venues for the final and the costs of refreshments and trophies.

It would be far from straightforward to agree on the composition of any such committee. There are two larger Unions (MCCU and SCCU) and three smaller ones. If each Union has one nominee, the larger ones won't like the idea of being outvoted three to two. If the larger Unions each have two places, the smaller ones won't like the idea of being outvoted four to three.

The Counties Championships do take up a certain amount of ECF time at both Board and Council level. Given the status and importance of the event, I don't regard that time as disproportionate.

Which neatly summarizes the problems of trying to overhaul ECF activities - as soon as one person suggests that something need not be a concern of the ECF, someone else pipes up to say it does.

[Michele Clack]

As a percentage of overall workload I imagine running the counties competition is a very small part. This forum does seem to have a habit of wandering off into minor pathways. Is that perhaps because the size of the task is too big to contemplate? However it does touch on an important point about the ECF organisation. It is basically a micro-managed organisation paying lip service to having a board. The board should be able to delegate running of things like The Counties Championship and The British Championships. Then if people have complaints about such services they would go to the board who would look at the specification for the following year.

I do think the ECF needs to move to OMOV and I do think it would be unwise to make any decisions on future scope of the ECF until a board had been voted in under such a system and left to do its best for a year or two to see how much more could be achieved.

I suggested trying to find an HR Director because things are so much more complicated in this area now than even a few years ago and someone with upto date knowledge would be invaluable. I also feel that the ECF needs to make more structured use of volunteers so that people know what they are taking on and are not put off from volunteering by a worry that they are letting themselves in for more than they can cope with. Someone with HR skills would be best for managing volunteers.

I would hate for chess to disappear as an organised activity and I hope we can all work together to improve the ECF both for chess players and the people like Andrew who give up so much of their time to try and make it work.

[Steve Rooney]

I think the reliance on volunteers is a mixed blessing. Of course all sports and activities rely on a huge army of volunteers at the grass roots and it is in fact a sign of a healthy organisation. But at the centre, it is not the same.

It’s great that the ECF can benefit from someone of the calibre of Andrew to work for a negative wage but it is not really a sustainable model. Of course the response will be that’s because it’s all we can afford, but does it have to be this way? Would a much more ambitious plan, delivered by paid executive staff, garner more financial support from individual members and sponsors? There will undoubtedly be cynics who doubt that anything will change but there are examples, like the London Chess Classic, that show what can be achieved if you aim high.

[Adam Raoof]

As a percentage of overall workload I imagine running the counties competition is a very small part. This forum does seem to have a habit of wandering off into minor pathways. Is that perhaps because the size of the task is too big to contemplate? However it does touch on an important point about the ECF organisation. It is basically a micro-managed organisation paying lip service to having a board. The board should be able to delegate running of things like The Counties Championship and The British Championships. Then if people have complaints about such services they would go to the board who would look at the specification for the following year.

This is effectively what happens at the moment with most of the activities of the ECF. The Board makes strategic decisions and agrees funding, ratified by Council, and various hard working managers and volunteers put those plans into action during the year.

There are several (ok, probably many) changes that would make the ECF work more efficiently.

Directors should be elected for three years, not one year. This is in line with other similar organisations and the voluntary sector. The amount of inherited planning means you really spend the first year catching up, and much less time developing ideas. All new Directors and probably managers should have to receive induction training, which doesn't happen at the moment.

I believe that the Board should actually meet more often to review projects and plan ahead. There is naturally a limit on the amount of time a volunteer is going to have available to work on projects for any organisation, and the only way to change that is to pay Directors, or at least permit them to be paid (currently Directors are not allowed any payment, but are allowed reasonable expenses).

We have failed significantly to deliver minutes of meetings in a timely fashion, which is a problem with many voluntary organisation and other Federations. However insignificant this may seem, it is really important. Not just for those who couldn't attend the meeting!

I am very happy with the idea of OMOV for electing Directors. I am very anti proxies. Membership will make a difference, if we implement it properly.

[Roger de Coverly]

I believe that the Board should actually meet more often to review projects and plan ahead. There is naturally a limit on the amount of time a volunteer is going to have available to work on projects for any organisation, and the only way to change that is to pay Directors, or at least permit them to be paid (currently Directors are not allowed any payment, but are allowed reasonable expenses).

Well that's Adam's vision of the ECF. Make it really expensive for average players to take part in chess events, so directors have lots of money to spend on themselves and fancy projects. A minimalist ECF it isn't. That was one of the Regan plans. Charge something like £30 a head for the right to play chess and spend it on - we never really found out.

[Paul Cooksey]

The Counties Championships do take up a certain amount of ECF time at both Board and Council level. Given the status and importance of the event, I don't regard that time as disproportionate.

Which neatly summarizes the problems of trying to overhaul ECF activities - as soon as one person suggests that something need not be a concern of the ECF, someone else pipes up to say it does.

As a percentage of overall workload I imagine running the counties competition is a very small part. This forum does seem to have a habit of wandering off into minor pathways. Is that perhaps because the size of the task is too big to contemplate?

I agree we need to be careful to keep the issues perspective. But this is a nice illustration of the issue.

So focussing on the county championship. I’d be happy to see it become a “real member” of the ECF, with votes in council, rather than a thing the ECF does. I admit that by treating it like any other event, I am downgrading its status a little. Also, whoever the team were running this county championship they would be volunteering for something a bit bigger than the current volunteers do, because the ECF would not be providing some of the admin support. But the county championship would be standing on its own feet as a competition that justifies the effort to run it. I’d expect it to survive in this form, because people like David are committed to it.

I’m not sure the national club championship would survive. I’ve nothing against any event that people play in, but if it can’t survive on its own I think the ECF has to let it go.

(I realise corporate type thinks he can solve everything by outsourcing is a stereotype . But splitting activities off like this is a way to make the hard decisions on where to focus)

(Edit: County not country as David noted, spelll chcek only gets you so far!)

[Alex Holowczak]

I think I'm about to go into John Philpott mode:

We have failed significantly to deliver minutes of meetings in a timely fashion, which is a problem with many voluntary organisation and other Federations. However insignificant this may seem, it is really important. Not just for those who couldn't attend the meeting!

We have 13 weeks to publish the minutes of Council and Board meetings. I know this because when I did them once, I either nearly missed the deadline, or did just miss the deadline. I don't know if this is an ECF rule or a Company Law rule, but I suspect the latter.

I am very happy with the idea of OMOV for electing Directors. I am very anti proxies. Membership will make a difference, if we implement it properly.

You're going to have to live with proxies - even under OMOV - because they're part of Company Law.

[David Sedgwick]

So focussing on the country* championship. I’d be happy to see it become a “real member” of the ECF, with votes in council, rather than a thing the ECF does.

That's effectively the situation at the moment as far as the Union Qualifying Stages are concerned. Each Union pays Game Fee for its own Counties Championships, thereby increasing its voting entitlement at Council.

However, it's hard to see this set up continuing under a universal membership scheme, nor should it in my view.

*sic - you may like to correct the typo in the original.

[Simon Brown]

Alex, I think you should leave John Philpott mode to John Philpott......

[Roger de Coverly]

We have 13 weeks to publish the minutes of Council and Board meetings. I know this because when I did them once, I either nearly missed the deadline, or did just miss the deadline. I don't know if this is an ECF rule or a Company Law rule, but I suspect the latter.

I suppose by publish, you mean publish internally.

Board meetings, if not AGMs, can be kept confidential. But that's another governance issue. Are you telling us the ECF Board aren't recording their own discussions and decision making?

You're going to have to live with proxies - even under OMOV - because they're part of Company Law.

Even Companies limited by guarantee? I rather thought, rather like unincorporated bodies, they were free to dream up any weird and wonderful voting structure they wanted. After all the current voting structure is, possibly appropriately for a chess federation, based not on one organisation one vote, but on how many games of chess the organisation is "responsible" for.

[John Philpott]

Alex Holowczak wrote

We have 13 weeks to publish the minutes of Council and Board meetings. I know this because when I did them once, I either nearly missed the deadline, or did just miss the deadline. I don't know if this is an ECF rule or a Company Law rule, but I suspect the latter.

The 13 week deadline only applies to Council meetings, and it derives not from company law but from paragraph 5.2 of the Procedural Bye Laws. This is a sensible provision. In many of the other organisations with which I am involved, the first sight that the members tend to have of one year's AGM minutes is when these are circulated with the agenda for next year's AGM, by which time it can be difficult to recollect what was said.

Board minutes have never been published. There was a good practice of publishing on the website summaries of proceedings, from which confidential material could be excluded, but this fell into abeyance after meeting 39 in November 2009. In my report to the 2010 AGM I stated:

Clear, prompt and effective communications are also extremely important. Considerable progress has been made with the website in the last twelve months. However, it is disappointing that the publication of summaries of Board meetings has fallen into arrears, and that at the date of this report the most recent summary relates to the November 2009 meeting. Going forward, the Board should make a commitment to publish summaries within a defined period.

While I cannot necessarily claim that it was cause and effect, publication did resume with effect from meeting 49 in October 2010, but there has unfortunately been nothing since meeting 54 in June 2011.

Alex Holowczak wrote

You're going to have to live with proxies - even under OMOV - because they're part of Company Law.

Correct - section 324 of the Companies Act 2006 entitles a member of a company to appoint another person as his proxy to exercise all or any of his rights to attend and to speak and vote at a meeting of the company.