ECF Elections - Statement by Malcolm Pein

[Roger de Coverly]

If not so ... well how do we know other than Andrew Paulson's say so?

I thought I saw a statement that Agon was 100% owned by AP. As a Jersey based Company, I think verification of that will be impossible or very difficult. It doesn't preclude Agon being lent or given money by Kirsan or FIDE itself.

[Jonathan Bryant]

He's said that before. He said it again when I asked him here who owns AGON.

Of course that statement could be true and still allow him sufficient wriggle room to be in a business arrangement with Kirsan. Unfortunately he disappeared from the forum before I could follow up on his business relationship with FIDE and its officials.

[Roger de Coverly]

his business relationship with FIDE and its officials.

This is what was stated in May

http://www.chess-news.ru/en/node/12092

The time frame given to Paulson is pretty tight though - he has time till September."

It's now October, but perhaps the continuing relationship will be discussed in Tallinn. The Kasparov manifesto is silent on the matter.

[Simon Brown]

Malcolm shouldn't have needed an election address. If anyone with a vote isn't aware of what he can bring, that person doesn't deserve a vote. Of all its own feet the ECF has shot in recent times, rejection of Malcolm was the least excusable.

You don't think it was disrespectful not to provide an election address and not to attend the AGM (perhaps preferring to do chessboxing instead)? I do.

No I don't. I don't know you so I want to know what you think. Everyone knows, or should know, Malcolm, so shouldn't need to ask.

The ECF should have just welcomed him. I find it hard to believe that you don't accept that, and that says much about your suitability for the board. You will no doubt be elected by the Council, clearly.

[John Swain]

Malcolm Pein has asked me to post the statement below on his behalf.

STATEMENT BY MALCOLM PEIN

Aside from the people behind the membership scheme, which is starting to work, only the Junior Director Phil Ehr emerges with credit this year and he did particularly well as he inherited a poor situation a few years back.

With the regard to non exec directorships, I’ve looked at the statements from the candidates and one thing seems abundantly clear: they do not all seem to understand what the role of non executive director is.

This is, in my humble opinion and in the opinion of many non execs I have met and worked with: to challenge and question decisions, actions and policies of directors, even when they agree with them. This ensures that they are well thought through. It is not the job of non exec directors to pursue their own individual agendas.

Malcolm Pein
08.10.13

I've been a subscriber to Chess since 1972 and have a lot of respect for what Malcolm has done with the magazine (and business) and more recently CSC.

However, I don't think Malcolm has done himself any favours with some of his intervention. A lot of ECF officials have performed well as far as I have heard, not least those I saw in action at the National Schools' Finals at Uppingham in July: Richard Haddrell, Dave Welch and Andrew Martin, and also Neill Cooper, whose resignation was ultimately caused by the inept and ill-informed policies of some of the membership devotees whom Malcolm praises highly but whose one-size-fits-all mentality has been so controversial and damaging for the National Schools and other junior events. It seems to me that only two of the candidates for non-exec positions have a commendable viewpoint on this issue, judging by their election addresses and comments on the Forum, and they are Julian Clissold and Angus French.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I don't think Malcolm has done himself any favours with some of his intervention.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. He was asked for his opinion, including on here, and he's given it. Precisely why he would be bothered about having anybody's approval of his opinion(s), mine included, is not clear to me. He'll just carry on living in David Pardoe's "fantasy land" - which the rest of us might define as successfully running a chess shop and the most greatest chess tournament the country has ever seen with a sideline of introducing chess to thousands of primary school children to boot. Living in it quite happily I would imagine.

[MartinCarpenter]

Not a bad little magazine too
(Until very recently they did the main UK Bridge magazine as well. Sadly no longer in printed form.).

[JustinHorton]

No I don't. I don't know you so I want to know what you think. Everyone knows, or should know, Malcolm, so shouldn't need to ask.

Yes, they should. Knowing somebody - or put better, having heard of somebody - doesn't mean you know anything at all about what they propose to do in a role for which they're standing. A candidate for election doesn't usually neglect to issue a manifesto just because people in a constituency know who they are.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect a candidate to produce a manfiesto, and if they don't, they're liable to suffer at the polls as a result.

[Matthew Turner]

Simon Brown wrote "Of all its own feet the ECF has shot in recent times, rejection of Malcolm was the least excusable."

I agree. I think the wider English Chess community would endorse Malcolm for whatever position he wanted within the ECF. I agree with much of what he has said in his statement but I think there are two flaws.

Malcolm talking about the role of a non-executive Director
"This is, in my humble opinion and in the opinion of many non execs I have met and worked with: to challenge and question decisions, actions and policies of directors, even when they agree with them. This ensures that they are well thought through. It is not the job of non exec directors to pursue their own individual agendas" I agree

but then he goes on to whole-heartedly endorse Sean Hewitt for the role. What Sean has done may be good or bad, but he simply hasn't performed the role described by Malcolm. He has set policy, sometimes against the wishes of Executive Officers. If Sean wishes to continue performing such a role within the ECF then he should be standing for the CEO position.

The second related point is that Malcolm has judged each of the candidates on what he perceives as their abilities. That sounds perfectly sensible, but there is the danger that we end up with a disharmonious board which is unable to work together. Malcolm has endorsed Andrew Paulson and Sean Hewitt, but is that really going to work in practice? Well it might because you can imagine an amicable way to split territory, but then you throw in whoever is elected CEO into the mix and I cannot see it working effectively.

The voters are offered a stark choice for President. Hope against Malaise, Malcolm is right that the voters should choose hope and Elect Andrew Paulson. The rest of the votes flow naturally from that decision. To paraphrase a certain lady "Non-Executives advise and scrutinise, Executives decide"

[John Swain]

I don't think Malcolm has done himself any favours with some of his intervention.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. He was asked for his opinion, including on here, and he's given it. Precisely why he would be bothered about having anybody's approval of his opinion(s), mine included, is not clear to me. He'll just carry on living in David Pardoe's "fantasy land" - which the rest of us might define as successfully running a chess shop and the most greatest chess tournament the country has ever seen with a sideline of introducing chess to thousands of primary school children to boot. Living in it quite happily I would imagine.

I agree that Malcolm Pein doesn't need my endorsement or approval, or anyone else's. Some on the Forum asked for his opinion and he's given it.

What I was trying to say is that by selectively praising a handful of ECF officers and saying the rest don't emerge with credit over-simplifies the situation. I pointed out some ECF officers who deserve a lot of credit. I would also contend that whilst the membership scheme has been a success in many ways, and those involved in it deserve some credit, they also deserve to be criticised for their inflexibility about the way they have treated the National Schools and other junior events.

[LawrenceCooper]

What Sean has done may be good or bad, but he simply hasn't performed the role described by Malcolm. He has set policy, sometimes against the wishes of Executive Officers. If Sean wishes to continue performing such a role within the ECF then he should be standing for the CEO position.

It's worth remembering that Sean was also acting Director of Marketing & Membership and acting International Director so some of his involvement was in addition to his role as a Non Executive Director.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's worth remembering that Sean was also acting Director of Marketing & Membership and acting International Director so some of his involvement was in addition to his role as a Non Executive Director.

I would have thought being Non-Exec and acting Exec simultaneously should not be possible, thereby leaving the Non-Exec role unfilled. Someone, and it should have been a non-Exec, should have told the Board they were asking for trouble in attempting to impose compulsory membership on matches between schools and if they didn't think so, they should try getting approval for their plan at the April Council meeting. Even logistically it was necessary so that the entry conditions for the 2013-14 season could be finalised without them potentially being overturned by hostile motions at the October AGM.

[Chris Rice]

There seems to be a lot of discussion of what a Non Executive Director is or isn't allowed to do. There is definitive guidance on this from the Institute of Directors on the role of NEDs in business (link below in case you're interested). NEDs have just as much a stake in the business as Executive Directors, to be utilised properly they are not expected to stray into making executive decisions but they are expected to get fully involved.
I know it won't suit the Hewitt haters but as far as I can see Sean does exactly what it says on the tin but doesn't want the extra responsibilities of being the CEO presumably with all the irons he has in the fire that shouldn't be surprising. Some of the Executive Directors on the other hand seem to be invisible. In the business world CEOs tend to be more like Andrew Paulson who are ideas people but don't do detail and are resistant to challenge or not getting their own way. CEOs are often risk takers who don't see failure as an option and can make mega-money but this is precisly where you also need the strong NEDs to guide them or to be able to challenge and reign them in from the excesses of their own ambitions if necessary.

The other current NED candidates up for nomination (is it Jack, Angus and Julian Clissold?) all appear to be sufficiently experienced and competent and I'm confident any of them would do a good job. Therefore I can't agree with what Malcolm said regarding the role of NEDs but I do know Malcolm and what he has done for Chess in Schools which he concentrates most of his time on these days and the London Classic is absolutely awesome and he would have made a great CEO for the ECF as well IMHO.

http://www.iod.com/MainWebSite/Resource ... s_1006.pdf

[Roger de Coverly]

There is definitive guidance on this from the Institute of Directors on the role of NEDs in business (link below in case you're interested).

The ECF is a voluntary organisation rather than a business. If it wanted to become a business, it should change its structure to become a Company limited by shares.

[Chris Rice]

There is definitive guidance on this from the Institute of Directors on the role of NEDs in business (link below in case you're interested).

The ECF is a voluntary organisation rather than a business. If it wanted to become a business, it should change its structure to become a Company limited by shares.

The ECF is a business that provides a number of services to its members. Any business should aim to have robust governance procedures. I certainly expect that they would anyway, I pay my money to be a Gold Level member and expect a certain degree of good governance from my governing body. Not that my expectations regarding the ECF are always met of course.