ECF Code of Conduct
Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:18 pm
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
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