English Chess Forum

The following has appeared on the ECF website

"Following the recent Annual General Meeting, there remained two vacancies on the ECF Board. At a meeting on Monday, 1st November, the Board voted to appoint the following:

Non-Executive Chairman – Mike Gunn
Mike is experienced in chess organisations and the responsibilities of chairman. He is an active player, qualified arbiter and President of the Southern Counties Chess Union.

Non-Executive Director – Jack Rudd
Jack brings the perspective of an International Master, arbiter and chess organiser to the Board."

I think this is very good news.

Jack, whilst I applaud this appointment do you feel there to be any conflict with your moderation role here?

I don't but a comment is probably needed on the matter...

I don't feel there to be any conflict in itself; if anything comes up where my roles as moderator and as board member may come into conflict, I will let Carl do the moderating.

"Non-Executive Chairman – Mike Gunn
Mike is experienced in chess organisations and the responsibilities of chairman. He is an active player, qualified arbiter and President of the Southern Counties Chess Union."

Mike is certainly experienced at occupying the post of chairman, and he does now normally attend Surrey meetings. However, it is clear that he does not have time to fulfil his existing duties for various organisations. I assume he will now give up some existing posts. I admire the fact that he happily takes on posts left, right and centre, but you reach a point where you get swamped and find you cannot actually do the work.

Unless he is going to give up work and do chess administration full time!

Thanks for the good wishes, Kevin.

I now have a part-time job (3 days a week) so I now do have some more time, but you are probably right that I should give some things up.

Kevin Thurlow wrote:However, it is clear that he does not have time to fulfil his existing duties for various organisations.

Kevin,

Have you recently become MGs PA? I must assume this since I'm struggling to understand how you know what time MG has to fulfil various roles?

Do let us in on your method of insight!

For the record I very much welcome Mike to the board (along with JR)

John Upham wrote:

Kevin Thurlow wrote:However, it is clear that he does not have time to fulfil his existing duties for various organisations.

Kevin,

Have you recently become MGs PA? I must assume this since I'm struggling to understand how you know what time MG has to fulfil various roles?

Do let us in on your method of insight!

For the record I very much welcome Mike to the board (along with JR)

I too welcome Mike's appointment. I am sure that he'll make an excellent Chairman of the ECF and I wish him every success.

However, it's not difficult to tell when a voluntary officer has taken on a little too much. You certainly don't need to be that person's PA in order to be able to do so.

I also have reservations about the same person being President of his County, President of his Union and Chairman of the ECF. That is nothing personal against Mike. I was pleased to serve as his deputy in Surrey for five years.

I'm also confident that Jack Rudd will make an excellent Non-Executive Director.

However, I'm concerned that there has been no statement from the Board about the situation that arose at the Council Meeting, with the alleged defeat of Malcolm Pein.

I wasn't present, but my understanding is that:

a) the directed proxies should have been cast, but were not;
b) the voting should have been conducted by secret ballot, but was not.

The adoption of the correct procedure in either or both respects could well have led to a different result.

Having once chaired a (BCF) Council Meeting myself, I know that it can be very difficult. Confusing situations arise and mistakes happen.

Nevertheless I think we could have expected the Board to say something about the events of the day prior to, or at the same time as, announcing Jack Rudd's appointment.

As somebody who was present at the meeting (and supported Malcolm's candidacy) I don't think a different voting procedure would have changed the result.

Clearly it is important that we follow the correct procedures and I will be printing out the ECF's rules and studying them with care and try and make sure we do.

David Sedgwick wrote:However, I'm concerned that there has been no statement from the Board about the situation that arose at the Council Meeting, with the alleged defeat of Malcolm Pein.

I wasn't present, but my understanding is that:

a) the directed proxies should have been cast, but were not;
b) the voting should have been conducted by secret ballot, but was not.

The adoption of the correct procedure in either or both respects could well have led to a different result.

Having once chaired a (BCF) Council Meeting myself, I know that it can be very difficult. Confusing situations arise and mistakes happen.

Nevertheless I think we could have expected the Board to say something about the events of the day prior to, or at the same time as, announcing Jack Rudd's appointment.

David,

Your understanding (points a) and b)) is correct as far as it goes. There were additional complications to add to the confusion.

I shall issue a formal statement about what happened at the AGM as soon as I can. You'll appreciate that this is a matter on which accuracy is important, and I need to confer again with the Chairman of the Governance Committee.

I did speak with Malcolm Pein a few days after the AGM to explain what happened and to apologise on behalf of the ECF for the procedural errors made. Malcolm accepted the situation remarkably graciously, assured me that there was no ill will on his part towards the ECF as a result and advised me that he would not wish to be considered for the Non-Executive Director role in view of the objections expressed by a significant number of those who attended the AGM.

In the light of this, I felt that it was acceptable to go ahead with the announcement of Jack Rudd's appointment, although I acknowledge that it would have been ideal to have commented on the AGM proceedings beforehand.

Needless to say, the fact that such errors occurred on so important a matter as this is embarrassing and unsatisfactory. Lessons have been learned. I shall say more in a statement on the ECF website.

Andrew,
Ljubica Laazarevic posted this about the role of a Non-Executive Director
"My understanding of a NED is to be an independent body from the organisation so that they can, with impartiality, monitor the board for any potential issues that may affect the legal and lawful standing of the organisation, as well as monitor operations for any issues with strategy, planning and goal-making."

That seems very succinct to me. Given the oversight role that the NED has it seems strange to me that the Board can appoint an NED?

Matthew Turner wrote:Given the oversight role that the NED has it seems strange to me that the Board can appoint an NED?

We saw during the great Regan walk-out that directors have the power to resign at any time. The remaining directors therefore need the power to appoint new directors otherwise an organisation could be left without direction.

As far as non-execs are concerned wiki says this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-executive_director from which

wiki wrote:Non-executive directors are the custodians of the governance process. They are not involved in the day-to-day running of business but monitor the executive activity and contribute to the development of strategy.

It's a one year term before re-election, so it's not as if a president for life is being appointed.

It might have been possible to call an EGM to vote in the new Chairman and NED. Would the expense be justified?

Matthew Turner wrote:Andrew,
Ljubica Laazarevic posted this about the role of a Non-Executive Director
"My understanding of a NED is to be an independent body from the organisation so that they can, with impartiality, monitor the board for any potential issues that may affect the legal and lawful standing of the organisation, as well as monitor operations for any issues with strategy, planning and goal-making."

That seems very succinct to me. Given the oversight role that the NED has it seems strange to me that the Board can appoint an NED?

I was all too aware of the irony of the situation, but those are the rules. It would clearly have been preferable for the appointment to have been made by election at the AGM, but events determined otherwise.

It's for others to judge, of course, but in my opinion the Board exercised its power responsibly in this instance and selected someone whose independence and expertise are plain for all to see.

I entirely agree that the Board exercised their power responsibly, I was merely unsure wherther they had that power to exercise.

Matthew Turner wrote:I entirely agree that the Board exercised their power responsibly, I was merely unsure wherther they had that power to exercise.

Alan Martin had been a mid term appointee as non-exec back in 2008 ( replacing Mike Truran)