ECF Board meeting, Hinckley Island 16th January

[JohnPaines]

The current President is a member of the board and, as I understand it, wishes to remain so. That being the case, the circumstances discussed in April 2009 requiring the creation of the post of Chairman no longer seem to exist. If the board want one of the non-exec's to chair board meetings then I'm sure that's a change to the articles which would be passed nem com.

As I mentioned many pages ago, Council in October endorsed nem.con. a proposal that read "Figurehead President with a non-Executive Chairman and a Chief Executive. The Chairman, who would chair both Council and Board meetings, would provide a degree of oversight on the Chief Executive", after the Board had advised that under such an arrangement the President would have a seat on the Board. There was some suggestion at that meeting that the President might not have a vote on the Board, but for what it's worth I disagree with that and will argue against it when the time comes; if you are going to have non-voting directors, you might as well make it a non-Board office and just give the postholder a standing courtesy invite to Board meetings.

As far as my own status is concerned, having taken advice from John Philpott and noted other comments, the Board accepted on Saturday that I am a director appointed under Articles 43(1)(e) and 57, without any other title at this point.

[Adam Raoof]

I have posted a brief report at

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1386

[JohnPaines]

John (Paines),
It was interesting that the Board meeting was held at the 4NCL. As somebody who may not have been to the 4NCL before, I just wondered, what were your initial impressions?

I found it a very vibrant environment and would enjoy playing in it if I were a better player. I didn't get a chance to see much actual play as the meeting lasted 6.5 hours and coincided with most of the playing session, but I ran into several people I knew during the lunchbreak.

I was also impressed with the range of books and other materials on sale. Modern chess publications seem to be packaged in a much more attractive way than older ones tended to be, and that has to be a good thing.

[Adam Raoof]

I found it a very vibrant environment and would enjoy playing in it if I were a better player.

To be fair, if you look at any results table from a 4NCL weekend there are always defaults. Anyone who is present at the 4NCL and wants to do more than just spectate would be well advised to speak to one of the control team and they might get a game from a team wanting to avoid defaults! Whatever your ECF grade

[Sean Hewitt]

The current President is a member of the board and, as I understand it, wishes to remain so. That being the case, the circumstances discussed in April 2009 requiring the creation of the post of Chairman no longer seem to exist. If the board want one of the non-exec's to chair board meetings then I'm sure that's a change to the articles which would be passed nem com.

As I mentioned many pages ago, Council in October endorsed nem.con. a proposal that read "Figurehead President with a non-Executive Chairman and a Chief Executive. The Chairman, who would chair both Council and Board meetings, would provide a degree of oversight on the Chief Executive", after the Board had advised that under such an arrangement the President would have a seat on the Board.

John,

I'm beginning to feel as Martin Regan clearly does also that you are deliberately ignoring the facts. The proposal that you quote was not on the October 2009 agenda. The actual agenda item was

10. To consider the future role of the President and, if thought appropriate, to recommend that the Board brings formal proposals to the April 2010 Finance Council meeting to amend the Articles of Association to establish a “triumvirate” in accordance with the proposals in the paper prepared on behalf of the Board by the Chairman of the Governance Committee *

and whilst minor ammendments to that proposal can be tabled from the floor, substantive changes such as the one you quote simply are not allowed.

This is not "to satisfy abstract concepts of democracy" as you have previously put it, but is to ensure good corporate governance which exists to prevent exactly kind of coup d'état that you and your supporters are attempting.

EDITED : TO INSERT MISSING "] QUOTE

[JohnPaines]

I'm beginning to feel as Martin Regan clearly does also that you are deliberately ignoring the facts.

Are you sure that Martin wants you speaking for him?

The proposal that you quote was not on the October 2009 agenda. The actual agenda item was

10. To consider the future role of the President and, if thought appropriate, to recommend that the Board brings formal proposals to the April 2010 Finance Council meeting to amend the Articles of Association to establish a “triumvirate” in accordance with the proposals in the paper prepared on behalf of the Board by the Chairman of the Governance Committee *

and whilst minor ammendments to that proposal can be tabled from the floor, substantive changes such as the one you quote simply are not allowed.

Except that the words which I quoted earlier today, and which were voted on and agreed by Council, were taken directly from the "paper prepared on behalf of the Board by the Chairman of the Governance Committee" which was circulated with the Council papers.

It really would facilitate debate if you and a few others checked your facts before posting.

[Paul McKeown]

I must take issue with some of this in particular 'Chess strength is a measure of interest and commitment to chess'

The highest rating I ever had was 160 (old money) and for a long time now I have been down in the 140's and below. Therefore its not unreasonable to say I am not a strong player

Actually, Ernie, by most standards you are a strong player. 160 (old money) is inside the top fifth. Perhaps you have now subsided a little, but that generally happens as players age. Your playing strength and experience of chess are good enough to make sensible decisions regarding the laws and conditions on which chess is played, and good selections for teams and tournaments, etc.

During the last 40 years I have suported chess both financially and physically taking an active interest in all aspects of the game I love. I dont think my commitment and interest is any less than those rated above me and indeed I know quite a lot of higher rated players who dont do anything to support the game other than playing from time to time.

We know this, Ernie. Well done.

Dedication to the game cannot be measured by a players strength all the higher grade proves is that the individual is better at the game itself and thats all it proves.

Not sure that that is true, although I note IM Richard Bates's intervention to the same effect. There are many notable exceptions, but, in my experience, a certain level of playing strength - that of the fair to decent club player - goes alongside a willingness to undertake those boring but necessary tasks involved in making chess actually take place under acceptable conditions. Perhaps, at higher levels, players take a more selfish attitude and typically confine themselves to preparing for and playing chess. Of course, for many reasons, such as parents involved in helping their progeny play chess, some weaker players and non-players do help with running chess, but I think it only fair to ask those taking it up, as to why they want to, and what their degree of commitment is.

Its a bit like saying chess players are all intelligent because they can play chess

I didn't say that. Did someone else?

I know a lot of players who fail to demonstrate much intelligence about life in general or how to interact with thier peers. In fact a great many display a distinct lack of intelligence

Manifestly true - we all know some real nutters who play chess!

Chess experience is the not the only requirement for organising chess. One would hope a finance director was able to understand accounts, for example! Someone mentioned the idea of the ECF board requiring a diversity of experience and skills to handle the various tasks.

So Paul please dont dismiss those of us who work very hard for the benefit ofthe game we love even if we dont appear on your radar of suitable people.

I don't. I applaud them.

I am sure John Paines has many attributes the ECF can use but thats not what we were discussing.

Well, that is what other people, including yourself, on this thread have been trying to establish. And rightly so, I would say. He is known to few in English chess, plays relatively infrequently to a relatively low standard. It is possible that he will render great service over the next few years, but, it is only fair that, whilst he remains unknown to most, that they should want to know why he wants to help and what he wants to offer. I don't think my very small contribution to this thread is at all nasty or suspicious - as several have been - but simply wished to say that it was fair comment to ask what playing experience and strength a candidate for director of the ECF has.

Best Regards,
Paul McKeown.

[Simon Spivack]

It really would facilitate debate if you and a few others checked your facts before posting.

I find this debate revealing. For instance, John himself could be chided on his point. When challenged whether he was, indeed, de jure ECF Chairman, he responded with several posts that would have excited the envy of a Jesuit priest. I'd have much preferred it if he had written that it was his understanding that he was chairman, but would check with the Chairman of the Governance Committee. That would have been one post.

Indeed, he leaves much to guesswork, for instance, I have the impression that he has negligible experience as a chess organiser. Has he run any chess tournaments? He has never run a club or county organisation, what he has told us is that he captained for "several seasons, for two different clubs". Note the marvelous imprecision. I still couldn't say whether this means two matches or a hundred. Probably closer to the former. But still not all that much, even if the latter assumption is true. He has chaired a league, which could involve turning up to just one meeting a season; but again, we are left to ruminate. Perhaps John is of the view that all this is immaterial?

All I see is someone who enjoys meetings, has gone to a lot of them, and loves chairing them. Somebody brought in, furthermore, by those who presided over very heavy financial losses, by ECF standards, without doing anything about it, until kicked out of their slumber by the Department of Culture Media and Sport.

[Sean Hewitt]

The proposal that you quote was not on the October 2009 agenda. The actual agenda item was

10. To consider the future role of the President and, if thought appropriate, to recommend that the Board brings formal proposals to the April 2010 Finance Council meeting to amend the Articles of Association to establish a “triumvirate” in accordance with the proposals in the paper prepared on behalf of the Board by the Chairman of the Governance Committee *

and whilst minor ammendments to that proposal can be tabled from the floor, substantive changes such as the one you quote simply are not allowed.

Except that the words which I quoted earlier today, and which were voted on and agreed by Council, were taken directly from the "paper prepared on behalf of the Board by the Chairman of the Governance Committee" which was circulated with the Council papers.

It really would facilitate debate if you and a few others checked your facts before posting.

John, I am well aware of the facts and do find it interesting that you simply choose to ignore them where the facts interfere with what you are attempting. Let me break it down so that the facts cannot be ignored.

i) There was a proposal on the Oct 2009 agenda for Council to consider the role of the President et al and, if appropriate, recommend that the Board brings formal proposals to the April 2010 Finance Council.

ii) There was a paper from the Chairman of the Governance committee outlining various options.

iii) Council decided that it preferred the figure-head President, non-exec Chairman plus CEO model as outlined by the Chairman of the Governance committee and therefore passed the motion on the agenda.

The next step is now for the Board to comply with that motion and "bring it's formal proposals to the April 2010 Finance Council" incorporating the preferred structure outlined above. Undoubtedly there will be associated proposals to change the relevant articles of association.

If the Board's proposals are passed at the April 2010 meeting then an election for the vacant, newly created position of non-exec Chairman would be held in October 2010.

What Council did not do in October 2009 was

a) Pass a proposal to create "Figurehead President with a non-Executive Chairman and a Chief Executive. The Chairman, who would chair both Council and Board meetings, would provide a degree of oversight on the Chief Executive". That proposal was not on the agenda in October 2009 and therefore was not able to be passed.

b) Elect you as a Director

c) Elect you as Chairman

d) Authorise the board to appoint you or anyone else as Chairman, either of the Board or Council.

[E Michael White]

John Paines

Nothing personal John but following the last few posts I think you should get your experience out in the open now rather than later.

Looking at your Oct 2009 CV for the election of president I noticed your statement that you are the current Bristol League Chairman. Whilst literally true, is it not correct that you were elected to that role on 28th May 2009 with no opposing candidates ? So your experience in that respect was approx 4 months during a quiet summer period before you submitted your CV. During that period, when you sought election had you been involved in any Bristol League organisation as chairman ?, such as attendance of committee meetings, organising, playing or perhaps visiting the Bristol open tournament in August 2009 to see that the conditions and organisation were to the participants liking and commensurate with expectations of a big city tournament ?

I personally don’t think your playing strength is an issue except as regards meeting potential sponsors. However I expect players would like board members to have a range of experience. Is it not correct that you had not played for 18 months and before that played on the lower boards for a Bristol clubs F team ? You mentioned that you had been a captain at two clubs; I don’t recall that, perhaps you could say where and when. I think most of your recent experience was playing for a small club of about 9 members, associated with your employer at the time and so inherited a free venue. You would be less likely to experience the financial problems that some clubs have and so some might believe that makes you less able to contribute usefully to a debate on ECF game fee levels.

When was the last time you played in an open congress rather than a Bristol closed event ? And when outside Bristol ? Have you ever played in Wales, Scotland or abroad ? Its useful experience to see what bits others can do better. Have you ever, and when, been involved in organising junior tournaments or international FIDE rated events.

I would feel it inappropriate for you to have two votes effectively on a board discussion for say international issues when other more experienced members have only one. Maybe the board regulations should be changed so that you don’t have a vote unless the voting is tied and the post is made permanently an administrative role of board chairman, a title you suggested.

I think there are procedural difficulties with the way the board appointed you but i'm still looking at that.

[JohnPaines]

He has never run a club or county organisation, what he has told us is that he captained for "several seasons, for two different clubs". Note the marvelous imprecision.

It was imprecise because I don't feel the need to commit to memory every detail of what I've done in chess. I played for 20 years for a club in the Bristol League, which had a "B" team for the seasons 1989-90 through 1994-95. I captained that "B" team for several of those seasons, three or four to the best of my recollection, while the club captain was registered for the "A" team. Then I was a team captain for a different club for the last season I played in to date, 2007-08.

I still couldn't say whether this means two matches or a hundred. Probably closer to the former.

Probably between 60 and 70 in total.

[JohnPaines]

Looking at your Oct 2009 CV for the election of president I noticed your statement that you are the current Bristol League Chairman. Whilst literally true, is it not correct that you were elected to that role on 28th May 2009 with no opposing candidates ? So your experience in that respect was approx 4 months during a quiet summer period before you submitted your CV. During that period, when you sought election had you been involved in any Bristol League organisation as chairman ?, such as attendance of committee meetings, organising, playing or perhaps visiting the Bristol open tournament in August 2009 to see that the conditions and organisation were to the participants liking and commensurate with expectations of a big city tournament ?

I chaired last year's AGM, which I don't think you attended. Before that I was on the League Management Committee for the previous 11 years, most of them as General Secretary, which you know since you and I worked together at one point to develop some proposed changes to playing conditions for the League.

I personally don’t think your playing strength is an issue except as regards meeting potential sponsors.

Which I would not expect to come within the remit of the Chairman as the proposed role is conceived.

You mentioned that you had been a captain at two clubs; I don’t recall that, perhaps you could say where and when.

I said "team captain".
Sun Life, several seasons in the first half of the 1990s.
Bristol & Clifton, 2007-08.

You would be less likely to experience the financial problems that some clubs have and so some might believe that makes you less able to contribute usefully to a debate on ECF game fee levels.

Those people might want to point out to the Bristol LMC* how stupid they are to have sent me along to Council for the last 11 years as the person charged with voting on their behalf for the level of Game Fee for the upcoming year.

(*Edit - and to the voting members at the AGM, in the years since the position of ECF Representative was made a directly-elected one rather than forming part of the General Secretary's duties.)

I would feel it inappropriate for you to have two votes effectively on a board discussion for say international issues when other more experienced members have only one.

As I've said previously, I don't intend to use the casting vote to change the status quo. I demonstrated that on Saturday, when on one issue I used the casting vote in the opposite direction to the way I had cast my own vote. Essentially it's a safeguard to make sure that the Board can't put something new into effect unless a majority is in favour.

[Carl Hibbard]

As I've said previously, I don't intend to use the casting vote to change the status quo. I demonstrated that on Saturday, when on one issue I used the casting vote in the opposite direction to the way I had cast my own vote. Essentially it's a safeguard to make sure that the Board can't put something new into effect unless a majority is in favour.

How someone who hasn't been elected gets anywhere near a "casting vote" I just don't get sorry

[JohnPaines]

What Council did not do in October 2009 was
a) Pass a proposal to create "Figurehead President with a non-Executive Chairman and a Chief Executive. The Chairman, who would chair both Council and Board meetings, would provide a degree of oversight on the Chief Executive". That proposal was not on the agenda in October 2009 and therefore was not able to be passed.

Agreed. What was passed was authority to bring proposals to the next Council meeting to change the Articles to put that arrangement into effect. And Council was well aware, contrary to your earlier posting, that the intention of such proposals would be that both the President and the Chairman would be on the Board along with the Chief Executive.

b) Elect you as a Director

Agreed. Nobody has suggested that they did. The Board had authority to appoint me as a Director without recourse to Council.

c) Elect you as Chairman

Agreed. Nobody has suggested that they did.

d) Authorise the board to appoint you or anyone else as Chairman, either of the Board or Council.

Agreed. Nobody has suggested that they did. The Board has now accepted that they didn't have the authority to appoint me as Chairman.

(They could, and can, appoint me or any other director to a role called "Chairman", by changing the Directors and Officers Responsibilities Regulations to create such a role and define its duties; but that wouldn't override the current Articles which say, for example, that Council is chaired by the President or, failing that, by a person selected by Council.)

[JohnPaines]

How someone who hasn't been elected gets anywhere near a "casting vote" I just don't get sorry

What about Chris Majer after Martin resigned?