A letter to Governance

[Roger de Coverly]

For the CEO repeatedly to lecture Council on what it is and is not their place to consider is disrespectful, and probably a sign that the relationship is already beyond repair.

The ECF has signed up for the SRA's Code of Governance, I forget the exact title. Some of the stuff in there is actually quite scary as it appears to envisage an all powerful governing body which gives permission for lower level bodies such as leagues and clubs to exist and for participants to take part. That's where Phil and others who might take a similar line are coming from.

[NickFaulks]

The ECF has signed up for the SRA's Code of Governance, I forget the exact title. Some of the stuff in there is actually quite scary as it appears to envisage an all powerful governing body which gives permission for lower level bodies such as leagues and clubs to exist and for participants to take part. That's where Phil and others who might take a similar line are coming from.

You may be right, but the ECF being all powerful within English chess is not the same as the CEO being all powerful within the ECF.

[Alan Kennedy]

Martin there are a couple of points where i do not agree:

David, you don't half talk a load of old rubbish

He well might. But it is honest and heartfelt and not with motives. Congrats. You have helped beggar the ECF.

As Mike did not have enough votes to influence any of the results this comment may not be factually correct. The nice bit about democracy is that you do not know why the electorate voted the way they did but you have to accept the result unless you want anarchy. It may be for example that the electorate did not want to be governed by Directors who were so openly critical of their colleagues - it does not create the right image for English chess. If that is the case I consider the electorate (including the organisations Mike Truran represents) have made a good decision. Also I understand Mike put in a considerable amount of time trying to resolve conflict between Directors so he would have hardly wanted "to beggar the ECF".

A fine day's work. No CEO, no commercial director - a governance chairman who feels able to intervene on the eve of a vote for a board and no discussion of the Pearce Report.

(quoted from another place - sorry Carl!)

I would consider it was a good result for English chess because clearly the electorate decided Messrs Kane and Ehr were not right for the job (whether I agree with then or not is irrelevant). In business I would prefer it is better (albeit a tough decision) to have a vancancy rather than appoint the wrong person so I am very pleaesd the electorate appear to have applied this principle and acted in a way consistent with good business practice.

When politicans lose an election, they generally congratulate the other party, wish the new government well and move on. Perhaps we can all now do the same?

[Michael Farthing]

The division, in Martin's view, is about the whole direction of chess in this country. Sadly, I think that the election was not about this issue, but about perceptions of competence, cooperativeness and readiness to listen to opposing points of view. I would prefer it to have been about the direction of the ECF as a body but, as it happens, the right result emerged anyway. The conveniently undefined 'progressive' approach would in my view have been a disaster, but I doubt that you will get Martin to discuss the progressive line and its merits - merely disparage those who do not agree with him. And I still can't see why he's even interested.

[Martin Regan]

Oh God, where to begin

MF:

Sadly, I think that the election was not about this issue, but about perceptions of competence, cooperativeness and readiness to listen to opposing points of view.

You may think that on the basis of forum postings. But that is an Alice in Wonderland view.

Competence? The former CEO had presided over a stable financial period - not something we can always take for granted -had seen an improvement in our contacts with government, seen a major sponsor recruited and had set the Federation firmly on the course for a much needed review of its governance.

Co-operativeness? The majority of the board backed the CEO. The dissent was entirely caused by the actions of two directors -one in seeking what was in effect a vote of no confidence in the CEO - the second by sending abusive emails to two directors. Yet it was the CEO who is blamed.

Unwillingness to listen? The man had passed on the biggest review of the ECF in a generation to an independent group.

The conveniently undefined 'progressive' approach would in my view have been a disaster, but I doubt that you will get Martin to discuss the progressive line and its merits - merely disparage those who do not agree with him.

The "progressive" approach is something that would have been a disaster, though you are not sure what the progressive approach is.

Let me tell you what the "progressive" approach is and always was. It is about having an ECF that strives to make chess something more than it is at present. That does not think for one millisecond that holding a national championship in a church hall is acceptable, nor does it think that the broadcast of our flagship competition will be "alright" because it worked last time. Nor does it see a few directional signs at the venue as proof of improvement.

It does not see the players merely a tool to fund the hobby of a handful of people, or to promote the outside interests of others, and it most definately does not see the purpose of the federation as the management of decline.

What's your vision?

[Roger de Coverly]

What's your vision?

Perhaps ex CEOs should support the playing of chess by the novelty well, of actually playing some from time to time. If chess is in decline, which it is, it's because fewer people take part in it as a sporting and leisure activity. Putting up barriers to participation, such as demanding up front annual payments and completion of forms as conditions of entry for participation in matches and tournaments are not helpful steps by the national body.

Chess, as measured by the number of participants and numbers of games played is now just about marking time and has been for the last ten years if not longer. As always, whether this is despite or because of the national body is unclear. Areas of activity that have expanded have been at the expense of those that have contracted, although not always with cause and effect.

[JustinHorton]

Well, a vision usually consists of more than a row of nots.

If there actually had been any "vision", we'd have known what it was. Vision isn't about picking fights with people, signing up to grand statements of principle and issuing incomprehensible and passive-aggressive statements. It means having s clear idea where you want to go, articulating it and making the case for it. I'm afraid Phil Ehr couldn't make a case for opening a window in midsummer.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Co-operativeness? The majority of the board backed the CEO. The dissent was entirely caused by the actions of two directors -one in seeking what was in effect a vote of no confidence in the CEO - the second by sending abusive emails to two directors. Yet it was the CEO who is blamed.

We don't know that. We have reasonable evidence that two directors had differences with the CEO and that two did not. The remaining five have made little public comment either way. I should add that I know a bit more than I can say publicly - that said, given that your standing within English chess is far greater than mine you may have other information.

As for the supposed abusive emails I think we would need to see the infamous exchange between the commercial director and the home director to form a judgement and that isn't going to happen. We know two words of it with no idea of the full context. There are allegations that the first email was equally provocatively worded. Some major figures in English chess have backed allegations of intimidation and bullying against various members of the board by the ousted directors.

Let me tell you what the "progressive" approach is and always was. It is about having an ECF that strives to make chess something more than it is at present. That does not think for one millisecond that holding a national championship in a church hall is acceptable, nor does it think that the broadcast of our flagship competition will be "alright" because it worked last time. Nor does it see a few directional signs at the venue as proof of improvement.

If I wanted to be facetious I could suggest that we've been to very different British championships in the past five years. Of course you didn't specify the British in which case the County Championship has been held at the Poseidon Centre in Warwick for at least the past three years and the National Club Championship (and I appreciate there is a seperate debate about this event) has been at a luxury hotel for the last two. Which director made that happen?

[Martin Regan]

Rdc:

Putting up barriers to participation, such as demanding up front annual payments and completion of forms as conditions of entry for participation in matches and tournaments are not helpful steps by the national body.

Roger you have argued this point endlessly for more years than I care to remember. Your analysis is only part correct - a membership organisation is perhaps the only way that the ECF can break out from its long-term decline by encouraging its own members, or rather a large part of them to become more engaged.

But a membership structure which simply involves taking the player's money and telling them what to do can never and will never work.

[JustinHorton]

The idea that it's just about two directors, who despite being completely in the wrong have been backed up by their powerful arbiter mates, really does require us to avoid seeing a fair few elephants in a relatively small room.

[Martin Regan]

AZ:

Of course you didn't specify the British in which case the County Championship has been held at the Poseidon Centre in Warwick for at least the past three years and the National Club Championship (and I appreciate there is a seperate debate about this event) has been at a luxury hotel for the last two. Which director made that happen?

Andrew, you are falling into the trap of reading things too literally. The venue does not matter as long as the competition is a resounding success. However, you may take it for granted that a church hall does not give a national championships the best chance to prosper, not should you assume that a good venue - welcome though that is - is in itself case for celebration.

I understand you are part of Alex's team and your loyality does both you and him credit and believe it or not I do wish you both well in the undoubtedly turbulent times ahead.

[JustinHorton]

(I mean there!s a real shortage, today, of people saying this is an outrage, this great figure, this agent of necessary change, has been kicked out by a conspiracy of arbiters. Why do people think this is? Could it possibly be because rather than driving an agenda of change, the CEO and his sidekick actually spent the last year and a half alienating everybody in sight?)

[Michael Farthing]

..but I doubt that you will get Martin to discuss the progressive line and its merits - merely disparage those who do not agree with him. And I still can't see why he's even interested.

Case proven. And I still don't understand why this non-chess player has an interest.

[Roger de Coverly]

And I still don't understand why this non-chess player has an interest.

It's an old grudge from the 2008 meeting after which he and his supporters resigned.

Take a look at the RJH report at the SCCU site.

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0708/bcf.htm

You need to scroll down to
ECF COUNCIL MEETING
26.4.08 in London

and then to the section where the discussion on membership is reported. Do you see any familiar names?

[Roger de Coverly]

It means having s clear idea where you want to go, articulating it and making the case for it.

Andrew Farthing usually had an admirable clarity about his writing, which made it all the more obvious when he was trying to cover something up.