ECF Code of Conduct

[David Sedgwick]

Open Letter to Chris Majer and the ECF Board

Gentlemen,

ECF Code of Conduct

I warned at both ECF Council Meetings in 2012 that the terms of the proposed Code of Conduct were far two wide and were likely to give rise to a profusion of instances of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The most glaring example was that the report of then Chief Executive of Andrew Farthing would itself have contravened the Code had it already been in force.

So it proved and the Code was hastily suspended by the Board after a few months.

I did then expect that Chris Majer, who reviewed the subject, and the Board would have learned the lessons. There are perfectly viable alternatives available for consideration; the English Bridge Union have one which has served them well for many years.

The actual new proposals beggar belief. The Standards of Conduct are unaltered, with all the faults I have mentioned. However, the complaints procedure has been modified, so that complaints cannot be brought against a Director or, curiously, the FIDE Delegate. The justification for exempting the Directors is issues of company law; if soundly based, this would not apply to the FIDE Delegate. It is an elected post, but the same is true of the chairmen and members of the Finance and Governance Committees; they are not exempt.

The effect of this is that the generals (Board members) can effectively do and say what they like, but the poor b..... infantry (appointed Officers) are likely to be hauled over the coals if they step a fraction out of line. I regard this as outrageous.

Nigel Short's report to the forthcoming meeting provides a good example of the problems that will arise. It contains extremely strong criticism of Andrew Paulson and I am sure that it would contravene the Code were it in force; criticism of individuals is not permitted. (This is another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.) The FIDE Delegate is exempt for whatever reason, but that would not help. Nigel did not publish the report on the ECF website; John Philpott, Company Secretary, did that, as is his responsibility. Hence it would have been he, not Nigel, who would have been guilty of the breach. The Company Secretary is not exempt.

Finally I would suggest that having a dress code for the British Championships prizegiving, but exempting Directors from it, is ridiculous given the history.

The only course of action open to Council is to reject the motion to "note the proposed Regulation No 4". I urge members of Council to do precisely that and I would like to thank all those who have already expressed their support.

Yours sincerely,

David Sedgwick

[benedgell]

I've spoken privately with Chris about this and share your concerns. I'll be voting to reject the motion.

[Carl Hibbard]

Who is responsible for this nonsense?

[Jonathan Bryant]

The actual new proposals beggar belief. The Standards of Conduct are unaltered, with all the faults I have mentioned. However, the complaints procedure has been modified, so that complaints cannot be brought against a Director or, curiously, the FIDE Delegate.

David,

thanks for bringing this to our (my) attention. I'm rather concerned about this news. Not so much the proposals themselves - although what you describe is awful - as much as the fact that somebody within the ECF thought this acceptable in any way.

[Mike Gunn]

This proposal was agreed by the whole ECF Board. If you want to understand something of the thinking about it, you could read my report (posted today on the website).

[Roger de Coverly]

The original Code of Conduct was drawn up by the then CEO to be discussed at the April 2012 meeting. As that meeting ran out of time, it was put through rather hurriedly at the October 2012 AGM. As David Sedgwick notes, it was suspended within a few months and has now reappeared with the scope if not the wordings modified, the Governance Committee being responsible for the latest changes.

[Jonathan Bryant]

This proposal was agreed by the whole ECF Board. If you want to understand something of the thinking about it, you could read my report (posted today on the website).

Mike, I can well understand the need to not waste time on what we might call 'nuisance' complaints. I think most would agree with the need for that. What I'm not sure I understand is the jump from that starting point to 'board members plus Nigel (at present) are above any formal system of complaint about anything at all'.

Or do I misunderstand and that is not what's being proposed?

[JustinHorton]

This proposal was agreed by the whole ECF Board. If you want to understand something of the thinking about it, you could read my report (posted today on the website).

Can anybody direct me to it? Finding it seems to be beyond my limited wit.

[Roger de Coverly]

Can anybody direct me to it? Finding it seems to be beyond my limited wit.

Mike's report has been added to the electronic pile of meeting papers
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about-2/ ... and-board/
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... report.pdf

Approval of the revised Code of Conduct does not of itself appear to be minuted although the topic appears regularly in the last few Board minutes.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Every time this comes up on the forum we focus on the `code of conduct` part rather than the `complaints and resolution` aspect which is surely more important. This whole discussion point came up because a former President refused to answer a few straightforward questions and engage in any sort of reconciliation process (which, contrary to a few accusations from elsewhere, was all the complainants in this case were seeking) - there was not, and still isn't, any sort of formal mechanism to make this happen.

Is it too much to ask that ECF officials a) make a commitment to be courteous to each other at all times and b) are prepared to find amicable solutions to differences of opinion in the first instance (even if the outcome might be to beg to differ)? There's too much digging of trenches and sniping from behind lines at present.

[David Sedgwick]

This proposal was agreed by the whole ECF Board.

So the Board was united in seeking to impose a Code of Conduct which would not apply to them, only to those who give up their time work for them.

However, I appreciate that the Board members are also voluntary officers doing their best. Everyone makes errors of judgment from time to time.

I urge the Board to withdraw the proposal before Council meets.

Many thanks for the expressions of support upthread and in emails and private messages which I have received.