Papers for ECF Council meeting 12th April 2014

[Sean Hewitt]

First, the Chief Executive asked for my resignation not because I had lost his confidence — quite the contrary, as he stated and as is recorded in the Minutes, he noted that I had been doing an excellent job as President — but because he felt that the rage whipped up on the ECF Board by you and Sean Hewitt could only be abated by my departure. It is for this reason that I resigned: to allow the Board get on with its work.

That's nonsense.

Firstly, though you still refuse to believe it, four of the executive directors independently voiced their concerns about your conduct and interference in their work. As NED, I listened to their concerns and put them in touch with each other so they knew that they had had similar experiences. I spoke to you about their concerns over dinner. Your inability to recognise your part in this, or to do anything to change your approach, played a significant part in your exit I'm afraid.

Secondly, you did not resign to let the board get on with its work. Phil asked you to resign on the same day that you lost the confidence vote - 8th February. Rather than resign (as most people would) to let the board get on with its work, you attempted to obtain significant concessions from the board to facilitate your resignation. When the board refused to meet your unacceptable demands, you tried to influence council members to support you in a vote. You also tried to find others to serve on a board with you in place of the five directors who voted against you. Only when both of those attempts also failed, and you realised you would leave the ECF empty handed, did you finally agree terms to resign - 28 days later on 8th March.

I do agree that Phil had not lost confidence in you, and that he thought you had been doing an excellent job as President. Indeed, he appears to have adopted some of the approaches that led to the confidence vote in you. Whether that is wise, time will tell.

[Michael Flatt]

The Minutes of the Board Meeting held on 8th February provide an official and public record of what happened.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... 014-v7.pdf

[Andrew Paulson]

First, the Chief Executive asked for my resignation not because I had lost his confidence — quite the contrary, as he stated and as is recorded in the Minutes, he noted that I had been doing an excellent job as President — but because he felt that the rage whipped up on the ECF Board by you and Sean Hewitt could only be abated by my departure. It is for this reason that I resigned: to allow the Board get on with its work.

That's nonsense.

Firstly, though you still refuse to believe it, four of the executive directors independently voiced their concerns about your conduct and interference in their work. As NED, I listened to their concerns and put them in touch with each other so they knew that they had had similar experiences. I spoke to you about their concerns over dinner. Your inability to recognise your part in this, or to do anything to change your approach, played a significant part in your exit I'm afraid.

Secondly, you did not resign to let the board get on with its work. Phil asked you to resign on the same day that you lost the confidence vote - 8th February. Rather than resign (as most people would) to let the board get on with its work, you attempted to obtain significant concessions from the board to facilitate your resignation. When the board refused to meet your unacceptable demands, you tried to influence council members to support you in a vote. You also tried to find others to serve on a board with you in place of the five directors who voted against you. Only when both of those attempts also failed, and you realised you would leave the ECF empty handed, did you finally agree terms to resign - 28 days later on 8th March.

I do agree that Phil had not lost confidence in you, and that he thought you had been doing an excellent job as President. Indeed, he appears to have adopted some of the approaches that led to the confidence vote in you. Whether that is wise, time will tell.

1. The concerns of the Executive Directors are clearly stated in the Minutes of the Emergency Board Meeting, as are my responses. I recommend to all who care to read their complaints; it is a thin gruel.

2. I resigned at the next Board Meeting, proposing a compromise that you enthusiastically embraced. The Minutes of this meeting are also available.

3. I didn't attempt to obtain significant concessions after the Emergency Board Meeting. I simply repeated the suggestion I had made even before the Emergency Board Meeting: that if it was so direly urgent to get rid of me, let me represent the interests of English chess on the Board of the ECU by giving me the ECF vote and I'll leave. Nothing more.

4. I made no attempt to find others to serve on the Board (although I did say I was going to in a moment of irritation). The current Board is made up of excellent people, including you, as I have always maintained. They were simply distracted by FIDE politics.

[LawrenceCooper]

The Minutes of the Board Meeting held on 8th February provide an official and public record of what happened.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... 014-v7.pdf

Please note: "DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD"

There are outstanding corrections/amendments awaiting action.

[Andrew Paulson]

The Minutes of the Board Meeting held on 8th February provide an official and public record of what happened.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... 014-v7.pdf

Please note: "DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD"

There are outstanding corrections/amendments awaiting action.

Loz, here are your complaints as recorded in the DRAFT. Please correct any errors here and now rather than simply alluding to revisions which may at some time appear in the future:

1. At the first December meeting LC raised a point of order about being undermined as Junior Director in dealings with UKCC/UKCA.

2. A number of meetings took place without his involvement, arranged at times LC couldn't make,

3. LC wasn’t informed of, or told too late to have chance to participate.

4. LC was told on the phone by the President that he wasn't the person to negotiate on behalf of the ECF and was better suited to working in the background. He subsequently refused to recognise in an e-mail thread that the Board had decided that LC was to take an active/lead role in negotiations.

5. The only updates LC received on this issue are when Sainbayar Tserendorj contacted him on Facebook to ask if LC knew what's going on.

6. Despite AP's assertion that the board were being kept fully informed they only found out the latest information when LC asked him in a board thread if ST’s Facebook update was accurate.

7. LC was glad to have raised the point of order when he did as despite claims at the time that was being ridiculous etc he asserted his point had sadly been proven correct.

ALSO, for convenience, see my response and please identify any inaccuracies, for the record:

"Loz felt insulted and hurt by being marginalised and excluded from negotiations ... which weren’t taking place. In my presidential election platform, I advocated the general principle that the ECF should welcome back under its wings all elements of English chess that had been alienated from it over the years. I identified UKCA and UKSCC, representing 55,000 chess-playing children, as a priority and asked the Chief Executive to produce a Term Sheet which would be acceptable both to the ECF Council and to Michael Basman and his team; subsequently, other groups (such as EPSCA) were to be encouraged to work with us under the same terms. The Chief Executive is compiling a chronology of this process for the Board, which is forthcoming: we held one introductory meeting, we invited Basman to a Board meeting to present his case, and I had one meeting after we decided not to proceed with the UKCA negotiations, on a different subject (lining up trainers for a Pushkin House chess club). No other meetings were held and I had no private conversations with anyone on Basman’s team. Aware of his anxiety (initially he had been categorically against such a relationship), I formally reassured LC by phone that no terms would be proposed to UKCA which he had not signed off on."

[LawrenceCooper]

The Minutes of the Board Meeting held on 8th February provide an official and public record of what happened.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... 014-v7.pdf

Please note: "DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD"

There are outstanding corrections/amendments awaiting action.

Loz, here are your complaints as recorded in the DRAFT. Please correct any errors here and now rather than simply alluding to revisions which may at some time appear in the future:

1. At the first December meeting LC raised a point of order about being undermined as Junior Director in dealings with UKCC/UKCA.

2. A number of meetings took place without his involvement, arranged at times LC couldn't make,

3. LC wasn’t informed of, or told too late to have chance to participate.

4. LC was told on the phone by the President that he wasn't the person to negotiate on behalf of the ECF and was better suited to working in the background. He subsequently refused to recognise in an e-mail thread that the Board had decided that LC was to take an active/lead role in negotiations.

5. The only updates LC received on this issue are when Sainbayar Tserendorj contacted him on Facebook to ask if LC knew what's going on.

6. Despite AP's assertion that the board were being kept fully informed they only found out the latest information when LC asked him in a board thread if ST’s Facebook update was accurate.

7. LC was glad to have raised the point of order when he did as despite claims at the time that was being ridiculous etc he asserted his point had sadly been proven correct.

ALSO, for convenience, see my response and please identify any inaccuracies, for the record:

"Loz felt insulted and hurt by being marginalised and excluded from negotiations ... which weren’t taking place. In my presidential election platform, I advocated the general principle that the ECF should welcome back under its wings all elements of English chess that had been alienated from it over the years. I identified UKCA and UKSCC, representing 55,000 chess-playing children, as a priority and asked the Chief Executive to produce a Term Sheet which would be acceptable both to the ECF Council and to Michael Basman and his team; subsequently, other groups (such as EPSCA) were to be encouraged to work with us under the same terms. The Chief Executive is compiling a chronology of this process for the Board, which is forthcoming: we held one introductory meeting, we invited Basman to a Board meeting to present his case, and I had one meeting after we decided not to proceed with the UKCA negotiations, on a different subject (lining up trainers for a Pushkin House chess club). No other meetings were held and I had no private conversations with anyone on Basman’s team. Aware of his anxiety (initially he had been categorically against such a relationship), I formally reassured LC by phone that no terms would be proposed to UKCA which he had not signed off on."

Andrew,

I no longer answer to you. The board are aware of changes that need to be made from my e-mail on 20th February. All the best for the future.

Regards,
Lawrence

[Michael Flatt]

The daft Minutes have, nevertheless, been released to the Public and we can gain an overall impression of the meeting and its business.

Doubtless, any detailed corrections that members of the meeting deem important will be resolved at the next meeting in which they will be reviewed, amended and accepted or rejected.

It is clear that the President at the time was in conflict with majority of the other board members which resulted in him losing a vote of confidence.

One point stands out to me that seems typical of this episode. On page 6 (item vii), in the President's response to points raised by other board members:

(a) it was agreed that I could stand for ECU Deputy President without the permission of the ECF Board, and (b) it was agreed that as President of the ECF I could lobby for the appointment of additional competent members to FIDE Commissions at the next AGM in Tromso in August

I saw no evidence of any other Board members agreement in these matters. These statements merely record the President's intent to do what he wanted regardless of what the Board as a whole might think or decide.

[Andrew Paulson]

The daft Minutes have, nevertheless, been released to the Public and we can gain an overall impression of the meeting and its business.

Doubtless, any detailed corrections that members of the meeting deem important will be resolved at the next meeting in which they will be reviewed, amended and accepted or rejected.

It is clear that the President at the time was in conflict with majority of the other board members which resulted in him losing a vote of confidence.

One point stands out to me that seems typical of this episode. On page 6 (item vii), in the President's response to points raised by other board members:

(a) it was agreed that I could stand for ECU Deputy President without the permission of the ECF Board, and (b) it was agreed that as President of the ECF I could lobby for the appointment of additional competent members to FIDE Commissions at the next AGM in Tromso in August

I saw no evidence of any other Board members agreement in these matters. These statements merely record the President's intent to do what he wanted regardless of what the Board as a whole might think or decide.

Quoting from the Minutes of the 80th Board Meeting of the English Chess Federation 11.00 – 17.30 – Sunday, 19 January 2014:

“AP asked and received the Board’s approval to travel to Lausanne (24-27 January) to meet with the there-assembled chairmen of all of the FIDE commissions to discuss their substantive issues and priorities for the coming year and openings that would appear on their committees at the General Assembly in August 2014; and meet with the FIDE Executive Director to discuss these opportunities and procedures for achieving these goals. AP agreed to report on these discussions at the next Board Meeting."

"The Board, however, acknowledged AP’s right to stand for the ECU post if nominated in accordance with ECU regulations, but that the ECF was under no obligation to support his ticket.”

[Angus French]

Please note: "DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD"

There are outstanding corrections/amendments awaiting action.

Loz, here are your complaints as recorded in the DRAFT. Please correct any errors here and now rather than simply alluding to revisions which may at some time appear in the future:

1. At the first December meeting LC raised a point of order about being undermined as Junior Director in dealings with UKCC/UKCA.

2. A number of meetings took place without his involvement, arranged at times LC couldn't make,

3. LC wasn’t informed of, or told too late to have chance to participate.

4. LC was told on the phone by the President that he wasn't the person to negotiate on behalf of the ECF and was better suited to working in the background. He subsequently refused to recognise in an e-mail thread that the Board had decided that LC was to take an active/lead role in negotiations.

5. The only updates LC received on this issue are when Sainbayar Tserendorj contacted him on Facebook to ask if LC knew what's going on.

6. Despite AP's assertion that the board were being kept fully informed they only found out the latest information when LC asked him in a board thread if ST’s Facebook update was accurate.

7. LC was glad to have raised the point of order when he did as despite claims at the time that was being ridiculous etc he asserted his point had sadly been proven correct.

ALSO, for convenience, see my response and please identify any inaccuracies, for the record:

"Loz felt insulted and hurt by being marginalised and excluded from negotiations ... which weren’t taking place. In my presidential election platform, I advocated the general principle that the ECF should welcome back under its wings all elements of English chess that had been alienated from it over the years. I identified UKCA and UKSCC, representing 55,000 chess-playing children, as a priority and asked the Chief Executive to produce a Term Sheet which would be acceptable both to the ECF Council and to Michael Basman and his team; subsequently, other groups (such as EPSCA) were to be encouraged to work with us under the same terms. The Chief Executive is compiling a chronology of this process for the Board, which is forthcoming: we held one introductory meeting, we invited Basman to a Board meeting to present his case, and I had one meeting after we decided not to proceed with the UKCA negotiations, on a different subject (lining up trainers for a Pushkin House chess club). No other meetings were held and I had no private conversations with anyone on Basman’s team. Aware of his anxiety (initially he had been categorically against such a relationship), I formally reassured LC by phone that no terms would be proposed to UKCA which he had not signed off on."

Andrew,

I no longer answer to you. The board are aware of changes that need to be made from my e-mail on 20th February. All the best for the future.

Regards,
Lawrence

It's disappointing an approved version of the minutes is still to be published. I note that Lawrence requested changes more than a month-and-a-half ago. (FWIW, I'm not sure why Lawrence would have been answerable to Andrew who was President rather than CEO.)

[Carl Hibbard]

It's disappointing an approved version of the minutes is still to be published.

I doubt those will appear for general discussion before the meeting will they, so it's more 'handbags' for now.

[Roger de Coverly]

I doubt those will appear for general discussion before the meeting will they, so it's more 'handbags' for now.

Is there rather a lot going on behind the scenes, of which glimpses appear infrequently on the forum or on the ECF website? You might hope that those Representative Members who feel they are being subjected to secret lobbying should report this, if only after the meeting, to the organisations and individuals they represent.

There appear to have been internal conflicts within the ECF Board almost from the first month after the elections. Mostly they were kept secret by the device of not announcing anything and not publishing any minutes. It didn't become public until the Agon financial beneficiaries row and the rumour of a no-confidence Board meeting that was confirmed several days after the event.

[Michael Flatt]

Quoting from the Minutes of the 80th Board Meeting of the English Chess Federation 11.00 – 17.30 – Sunday, 19 January 2014:

The Minutes of Meeting for 19th January 2014 are themselves marked "IN DRAFT AND IN CONFIDENCE".

Much of the business identified on the Agenda of 19th Jan, including some Reports of Directors, was skipped or deferred due to "time constraints".

Item "23 ECU Presidential Election."

1. None of the 3 motions regarding ECU Presidency were voted on.

2. The Board did not nominate the ECF President to stand in the ECU elections. It was requested that before standing for the ECU the President should justify his stance to the Board.

[Sean Hewitt]

I doubt those will appear for general discussion before the meeting will they, so it's more 'handbags' for now.

Is there rather a lot going on behind the scenes, of which glimpses appear infrequently on the forum or on the ECF website? You might hope that those Representative Members who feel they are being subjected to secret lobbying should report this, if only after the meeting, to the organisations and individuals they represent.

There appear to have been internal conflicts within the ECF Board almost from the first month after the elections. Mostly they were kept secret by the device of not announcing anything and not publishing any minutes. It didn't become public until the Agon financial beneficiaries row and the rumour of a no-confidence Board meeting that was confirmed several days after the event.

Enquiries about delayed publication of the minutes should be sent to the Chief Executive. I forget how often I emailed him about this one matter, but it was alot. More often that not, he didn't reply. Whether this is all cock up or conspiracy, only he can say. However, the board were as much in the dark as everyone else.

[Carl Hibbard]

However, the board were as much in the dark as everyone else.

The board agreed a statement and then just prayed their proposal would actually fail at vote time, nobody comes out well in all this.

[Angus French]

Quoting from the Minutes of the 80th Board Meeting of the English Chess Federation 11.00 – 17.30 – Sunday, 19 January 2014:

The Minutes of Meeting for 19th January 2014 are themselves marked "IN DRAFT AND IN CONFIDENCE".

Much of the business identified on the Agenda of 19th Jan, including some Reports of Directors, was skipped or deferred due to "time constraints".

Item "23 ECU Presidential Election."

1. None of the 3 motions regarding ECU Presidency were voted on.

2. The Board did not nominate the ECF President to stand in the ECU elections. It was requested that before standing for the ECU the President should justify his stance to the Board.

Micheal, I am concerned this misrepresents what the draft minutes state. The discussion on the ECU election (minute 23) ends:

None of the three motions above was passed. The Board, however, acknowledged AP’s right to stand for the ECU post if nominated in accordance with ECU regulations, but that the ECF was under no obligation to support his ticket. JC offered the following motion: ‘The Board welcomes the decision of the President to seek a greater role in the European Chess Union. The Board further looks forward to presentation on the issues involved in the ECU election.’ The Board agreed.