ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[John Philpott]

The nomination deadline will arrive at 1.30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday). The current state of play is on the ECF website at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... p-2012.pdf. As I am spending the day at the Olympic Park, I will be unable to provide a blow by blow account of developments leading up to the deadline, although I can update Forum members as soon as I get home, which may in practice be fairly late in the day. There is, of course, nothing to prevent anybody who makes a late nomination, or is nominated, or decides to withdraw at the 11th hour from posting here.

[Gerard Killoran]

This could be more thrilling than transfer deadline day. My breath is bated.

[John Philpott]

Gerald Killoran wrote

This could be more thrilling than transfer deadline day. My breath is bated.

"Thrilling" does not appear to be the right word: this seems to have been a non-event, which sadly means that there is no candidate for either Chief Executive or International Director. I am liaising with the ECF Office to ensure that nothing came in there of which I am unaware before publishing the final nominations list. The most interesting development was the following proposal, which has received sufficient support to appear on the AGM agenda, but which is only of relevance if Roger Edwards is elected President.

Council notes the following points in the election address of Roger Edwards:

A. “I want to re-examine the membership scheme.”

B. “I want more autonomy for the various constituents of the ECF with less transferring of funds from one part to another. I feel that each part of the Federation be it the British Championships or Junior chess or any other should be self-financing.”

C. “I have always understood that grades are meant to indicate a player’s strength, not to show that he or she has been well behaved and played in the right events. Grading should not be used as a political tool and I also believe that there should be more cooperation between the ECF grader and the Scottish and Welsh graders to make sure that all a player’s games are included in order that the grade is as accurate as possible.”

Council rejects these ideas for the following reasons respectively:

A. The membership scheme has been introduced after extensive discussion, taking into account significant differing opinions, and the priority now is to implement the scheme successfully.

B. There are now, and will be in the future, worthwhile activities which the ECF undertakes but which are unable to be self-financing and therefore which require financial support.

C. The provision of Grading Services underpins the entire financing of the ECF. In order to maintain this it is necessary to ensure that all graded events apply the membership rules as laid down in order to be included in the grading list.

Accordingly, Council instructs the Board not to pursue these ideas.

[David Pardoe]

I wonder whether this is partly a responce to some of the negativity that has been expressed on these boards recently...and previously.
With personnal attacks and demands for `gold plated` candidates, its perhaps no wonder no-one wants to know..
We firstly must be rather more generous (and grateful) to those who volunteer, to offer there services for free, putting in many hours of hard work...only to get slagged off by some mindless thugs , misguided perhaps...ungrateful, or simply pursuing personnal agendas.
And yes, those who do clearly break rules or step out of the regular process, or break promises, etc should be subject to proper accountability, so that lessions can be learnt....and if these actions actually turn out to be `beneficial`, they should be duely acknowledged. We must not castigate those who appear to be `different`, simply because they dont follow the standard dogma.... free thinking and new ideas is what helps to breed a healthy and vibrant organisation.
Finally, with Loz`s very late decision (received with great disappointment), to step down as International Director, it is no surprise that a candidate for such a `specialist` role has not instantly popped out from the woodwork.
I hope Loz might stay on for a while whilst someone can be found to fill this position. Certainly, going from the successes in the Olympiad, Loz will be a hard act to follow.
Rogers ideas and proposals in his address should be given an open reception. We need to hear more on what he actually proposes before deciding on what should be done. And some of the reforms may have a timescale of several years...I dont think Roger is one for waiving magic wands.
And that CEO role needs a trusted figure to carry things forward..... and none of this `workaholic madness` that Andrew subjected himself to.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Finally, with Loz`s very late decision (received with great disappointment), to step down as International Director, it is no surprise that a candidate for such a `specialist` role has not instantly popped out from the woodwork.

I thought Loz's decision to step down as International Director was taken some months ago? I distinctly remember it being mentioned around here somewhere. I am somewhat surprised that no candidate was put forward for CEO (we should wait, as John points out, to see if anything was submitted to the ECF Office). What happens for any position if no candidate fills the position?

[John Philpott]

Lawrence advised the Board as long ago as February that he would not be seeking re-election.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Lawrence advised the Board as long ago as February that he would not be seeking re-election.

Do you know if the Board made any efforts to seek someone to carry on the work? Ditto for the CEO role as well (when did Andrew announce his intention not to seek re-election?).

[LawrenceCooper]

Finally, with Loz`s very late decision (received with great disappointment), to step down as International Director, it is no surprise that a candidate for such a `specialist` role has not instantly popped out from the woodwork.
I hope Loz might stay on for a while whilst someone can be found to fill this position. Certainly, going from the successes in the Olympiad, Loz will be a hard act to follow.

Thanks for the kind sentiments but I wouldn't consider February being a very late decision I won't be staying on beyond October as I consider that six months plus notice to be sufficient and I desperately want a break from the board and ECF politics and a first holiday in four years would also be nice Hopefully once a successor is appointed by the board it'll be "Loz who?" in a couple of months

[Greg Breed]

...Hopefully once a successor is appointed by the board it'll be "Loz who?" in a couple of months

... Loz Enge perhaps

[Roger de Coverly]

What happens for any position if no candidate fills the position?

Standard practice is that the remaining directors appoint someone to hold office until the next Council AGM. If no-one is appointed, they would either have to cover the function amongst themselves, rely on the office staff, rely on the unpaid managers or just accept that whatever it was the director was supposed to do wasn't going to happen, or at least not with the ECF having any say in the matter.

[Angus French]

The most interesting development was the following proposal, which has received sufficient support to appear on the AGM agenda, but which is only of relevance if Roger Edwards is elected President.

Council notes the following points in the election address of Roger Edwards:

A. “I want to re-examine the membership scheme.”

B. “I want more autonomy for the various constituents of the ECF with less transferring of funds from one part to another. I feel that each part of the Federation be it the British Championships or Junior chess or any other should be self-financing.”

C. “I have always understood that grades are meant to indicate a player’s strength, not to show that he or she has been well behaved and played in the right events. Grading should not be used as a political tool and I also believe that there should be more cooperation between the ECF grader and the Scottish and Welsh graders to make sure that all a player’s games are included in order that the grade is as accurate as possible.”

Council rejects these ideas for the following reasons respectively:

A. The membership scheme has been introduced after extensive discussion, taking into account significant differing opinions, and the priority now is to implement the scheme successfully.

B. There are now, and will be in the future, worthwhile activities which the ECF undertakes but which are unable to be self-financing and therefore which require financial support.

C. The provision of Grading Services underpins the entire financing of the ECF. In order to maintain this it is necessary to ensure that all graded events apply the membership rules as laid down in order to be included in the grading list.

Accordingly, Council instructs the Board not to pursue these ideas.

I wonder: will this increase or reduce Roger's appeal?
The way it's expressed seems a bit self-righteous to me.
I should have thought that a review of the implementation of the membership scheme would be a good thing.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Yes, but that is not what Roger Edwards said and it doesn't seem to be what he meant either.

I think that one interpretation of the motion is that its sponsors are saying "look, we feel that we have to oppose CJ (or, we think CJ will lose anyway) but we don't want Roger to think that his election carries any mandate to pursue these ideas - and better that he understands it from the start".

[Sean Hewitt]

I wonder: will this increase or reduce Roger's appeal?

Speaking personally, I think this makes Roger far more electable. It allows council members to vote for Roger in the Presidential election whilst, at the same time, rejecting the strategy that he wants to implement. I suspect that this motion reduces the chances of the anti CJ vote being split between Roger and None of the Above.

Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of parts of Roger's manifesto, it is not the role of the President to drive the strategic direction of the federation. Indeed, it has been argued that this has been one of the major problems with the exisiting incumbent.

I should have thought that a review of the implementation of the membership scheme would be a good thing.

Perhaps it would, if we could set appropriate goals in terms of what we were looking to discover. And that could still be done if it were considered worthwhile. However, the point is that that's not what Roger is suggesting. He is seeking to change the actual mechanics of the membership scheme. He is suggesting this before the scheme has even started, and in spite of what the ECF has gone through to deliver a scheme that, let's not forget, the majority of council found themselves able to support. For these reasons, Roger's proposal to re-examine the scheme at this stage is bonkers.

[David Pardoe]

Finally, with Loz`s very late decision (received with great disappointment), to step down as International Director, it is no surprise that a candidate for such a `specialist` role has not instantly popped out from the woodwork.
I hope Loz might stay on for a while whilst someone can be found to fill this position. Certainly, going from the successes in the Olympiad, Loz will be a hard act to follow.

Thanks for the kind sentiments but I wouldn't consider February being a very late decision I won't be staying on beyond October as I consider that six months plus notice to be sufficient and I desperately want a break from the board and ECF politics and a first holiday in four years would also be nice Hopefully once a successor is appointed by the board it'll be "Loz who?" in a couple of months

My mistake...
I took it that the first mention of your departure was a recent post on here by yourself..
yes, indeed...you certainly deserve your holiday....

Incidentally, I`m not convinced that the ECF are really convinced about this membership scheme...and I thought that a significant group of council were also sceptical...
And the `review` (which might take some while), may be all that is done...if only to take soundings, and maybe consider various major points that have been pointed out as flawed, or requiring some reforms.
OMOV is a glaring omission....other structural issues may in fact be modified with moderate effort...

[Roger de Coverly]

let's not forget, the majority of council found themselves able to support.

Let's also not forget that 30% of Council didn't support it and the ECF is in the somewhat ridiculous position of being divided between institutional members who can get membership for free and individual members who are now expected to finance the Federation and have next to no voting rights, including crucially what 2013-14 membership costs are going to be demanded.

I do see any particular problem with the President trying to establish a direction for the ECF and the CEO trying to work out how to get there. If that requires shuffling of some responsibilities, so be it. A unified Great Britain grading or rating system including the Welsh and Scots is an interesting objective.

It depends what sort of President you want of course. If you want a "celebrity" or "name" President that should be a lot more non-exec than if the President is to be a senior or experienced figure within the chess world.