English Chess Forum

"A number of directors have confirmed that they intend either not to stand for re-election at October’s AGM or to step down before the end of their three-year term at this April’s Council meeting. The directors in question are:

Mike Truran (Chief Executive)
Alex Longson (Finance Director)
Nigel Towers (Home Director)
Alex Holowczak (Junior Director)

I’m sure you’ll all join me in recognising the contribution that the departing directors have made to the ECF over the years and their role in making the ECF what it is today. They will be sorely missed, and will be hard acts to follow.
While the large number of key people stepping down creates challenges, it has given the Board the opportunity to review and reorganise our future Board structure – the main purposes being to (a) spread the Board’s workload more evenly across the directorate as a whole, and (b) put in place a clearer distinction between operational and developmental roles. The reorganisation involves the creation of a number of new posts, details of which can be found in the new ‘Regulation 2: The Directors and Officers Responsibilities Regulations’ document: https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... ations.pdf . We believe that this will position the Board well to continue the progress and development of the last ten years, and provide an attractive opportunity for talented and committed people to join the Board and share in the ECF’s future success.


All the director posts that we are seeking to fill will of course be subject to this October Council’s usual election process. In the meantime, however, we have a number of interim roles to fill before we get to October, and so we would like to hear from people who are interested in filling those roles in the short term and who are, we hope, willing to stand for formal election in October.

The roles we would like to fill are as follows. Job descriptions for all the roles can be found in the Regulation 2 document above:

Chief Executive
Finance Director
Events Director
Operations and Administration Director
Home Development Director
Junior Development Director

If you’re interested in being considered, do please contact the ECF Office on [email protected] by Sunday 6th April in the first instance to arrange an informal and confidential chat with me.

Finally, Rob Willmoth has kindly agreed to step down as Membership Director once the vacancies above have been filled, as the responsibilities of the Membership directorate have been subsumed within other directorates as part of the Board reorganisation. Our thanks also go to Rob for his contribution to the ECF during his time in office.

Kind regards

Stephen Woodhouse
Chair, English Chess Federation"

So I’ll ask the obvious question, to anyone who might know the answer. What’s really going on?

Jon Hunt wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:07 am

So I’ll ask the obvious question, to anyone who might know the answer. What’s really going on?

Are you reading too much into what is a big upheaval, but might just be the natural end point for many people to step back, having (in some cases) had enough of what can be a very demanding and time-consuming role?

Having said that, it is interesting that this reorganisation is being driven by.... whom?
Is the ECF Council, or is it the Governance Committee?

Six of the top posts need filling on an interim basis between now and October. Who’s minding the store?

To be fair, at least one of these vacancies was communicated even earlier than this, but it appears that succession planning only works if you can identify successors. Hopefully there is interest being shown behind the scenes, even if maybe not in public.

Jon Hunt wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:33 am

Six of the top posts need filling on an interim basis between now and October. Who’s minding the store?

I think you have misread the note. Nobody is resigning before the Council meeting in late April and some are staying on until the AGM in October, when they will not seek re-election.

It doesn't seem long ago that there was an outburst of enthusiasm for term limits which would have forced them out anyway!

This is a worrying development with so many key roles needing to be filled at the same time.

The point about "who is deciding on the new structure" is a valid one, as surely the new CEO should determine the shape and structure of the organisation that they are to lead?

We have been blessed for many years to have Mike Truran in this role. He has steered the ship admirably, not an easy task with such a "demanding" membership base.

When I read the description though for the new CEO I am amazed at the breadth of the role:

- Lead on strategic direction;
- Overall management on a day-to-day basis; and
- Deputise for the President.

How has Mike slept in recent years with such a workload?!

Why would someone take on this responsibility on a voluntary basis when they seemingly don't even have the authority to shape the organisation that they are being appointed to lead?

Whoever is leading on this at present maybe needs to realise that to get the best leaders, you need to allow them to lead and make their own decisions.

Too many politics, too many opinions, too many committees, too many hidden influencers, too slow, too stuck in a structure designed for a different time.

Time to modernise ECF!

Andrew Wainwright wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 5:10 pm

Why would someone take on this responsibility on a voluntary basis when they seemingly don't even have the authority to shape the organisation that they are being appointed to lead?

My suspicion is that if a good candidate came along who said "I'll do the job but I might wish to change the structure a bit", they would not immediately be shown the door.

Andrew Wainwright wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 5:10 pm

too stuck in a structure designed for a different time.

Time to modernise ECF!

The Pearce report was only ten years ago. Have things really changed enough to make it completely obsolete?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... j0QivO1z1T

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... uQm8P_cuE3

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 5:17 pm

Andrew Wainwright wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 5:10 pm

Why would someone take on this responsibility on a voluntary basis when they seemingly don't even have the authority to shape the organisation that they are being appointed to lead?

My suspicion is that if a good candidate came along who said "I'll do the job but I might wish to change the structure a bit", they would not immediately be shown the door.

Maybe I’m too used to working with private sector CEOs, but that’s kind of the point. If you want good people then tell them what you want, put them in place and then let them decide how to deliver what you asked for!

Whether the changes needed are big or small is irrelevant.

Andrew Wainwright wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 5:10 pm

We have been blessed for many years to have Mike Truran in this role. He has steered the ship admirably, not an easy task with such a "demanding" membership base.

Who (generally, not personally) are you talking about when you refer to the ECF’s “demanding membership base”? What sort of people make up the “demanding” part of the membership (as I’m sure many paid-up members have never made a demand on the ECF in their lives), and what sort of demands do they make on the ECF as an organisation?

Jon Hunt wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 6:17 pm

Andrew Wainwright wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 5:10 pm

We have been blessed for many years to have Mike Truran in this role. He has steered the ship admirably, not an easy task with such a "demanding" membership base.

Who (generally, not personally) are you talking about when you refer to the ECF’s “demanding membership base”? What sort of people make up the “demanding” part of the membership (as I’m sure many paid-up members have never made a demand on the ECF in their lives), and what sort of demands do they make on the ECF as an organisation?

I can't comment on what demands the membership make of the ECF officers as I am not a member of that circle. Yet anyone who has volunteered at a local, or county level, such as myself to run chess organisations will have a good understanding of what I am saying here.

I love the game, and many of my best friends are fellow chess players. However, when you put your head above the parapet and take on roles of responsibility there is never a lack of people wanting to place demands on your time to (i) share their thoughts, (ii) tell you what you are doing is wrong, and/or (iii) provide you with the wisdom of their own experience.

Most are coming from a good place when they do this. Some absolutely are not. Others are sometimes just clueless of the fact that as well as being an unpaid volunteer, you are also a person with a life/family of your own.

Taking on these roles at a national level, I can only imagine, comes with these issues x10 compared to what we experience at a local level.

We owe the ECF Officers a debt of gratitude for their hard work and selfless dedication to the game. Yet anyone willing to step in to their shoes should do so with open eyes as to what they are getting themselves in for, and should not be asked to start a role with one hand tied behind their back due to layers of governance (hence my earlier comments).

Maybe it’s because I’m a retired teacher, but I’ve found (I’ve been a junior organiser myself) that sort of “feedback” quite manageable. In my limited experience, it’s poor behaviour from those who are or have been ECF Officers themselves which is far more damaging and difficult to address. Worst of all, a terrible example is set from the top (in general terms), and I think that has a very deleterious effect on the way ordinary members end up being treated.

Jon Hunt wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2025 6:50 pm

Maybe it’s because I’m a retired teacher, but I’ve found (I’ve been a junior organiser myself) that sort of “feedback” quite manageable. In my limited experience, it’s poor behaviour from those who are or have been ECF Officers themselves which is far more damaging and difficult to address. Worst of all, a terrible example is set from the top (in general terms), and I think that has a very deleterious effect on the way ordinary members end up being treated.

Some strong statements there Jon.

Dare I say that you are making my point quite well.

You dare. I'd have to agree with you as to what there are "too many" of in the ECF and with your call to modernise the institution. I was thinking of a couple of grievances (one about an unhappy public mess, the other private to the organisation) about which the ECF published the findings of its disciplinary committee. I know only what I read in those findings, but in my opinion *all* the officers involved were at fault - being a volunteer is no excuse for failing to meet ethical / legal / professional standards - and the committee which then examined the grievance was, to judge from how it says itself it considered the matter, obviously unfit for purpose. I've also had personal experience of bullying and worse (at local level) from a former ECF Officer, which became so bad over several years that it forced me to leave my club / league - and I was far from the first to suffer that fate at this person's hands.