The CEO Report for the AGM 2015

[Roger Lancaster]

I must be one of the few survivors from among those who took part in the 1965 British Championship. During the intervening 50 years I have played quite a few games, organized a dozen or more tournaments, served on club and county committees and co-authored a handful of chess books. I am currently a committee member of the Watford club but write here, as always, in a personal capacity.

I have got to know, at one time or another, several highly-placed ECF officers about whose industry and integrity I have no reservations. Their unpaid work often attracts little thanks and I admire their dedication in undertaking it. On the other hand, there has been the occasional charlatan, incompetent, or someone with good intentions who tackled the wrong problems in the wrong way.

After reading Phil Ehr’s thoughts on how English chess should be reformed, I found there was a good deal with which I agreed. Chess is in many respects a Cinderella sport and this needs to change. In order to attract financial backers, Phil Ehr argues, chess needs to present a united front and appear to be free from internal dissent.

That sounds reasonable although a look around reveals relatively few sports where all is sweetness and light. There are examples where internal dissension, even wrongdoing, has been apparent for years without affecting sponsorship as long as the sport in question attracted large audiences. The only development causing those sponsors to review their positions has been the prospect of criminal proceedings.

There is something to be said for Phil Ehr’s argument - unnecessary bickering should be minimized – but that is rather different from contriving a situation where all key decisions are made by the chief executive and the directors are reduced to lackeys carrying out his commands. And I have heard it asked – more or less publicly - of one director, “Is (s)he able to make decisions or is (s)he just doing what (s)he is told?”

Strikingly, over the years, several chief executives have seen the need to reform (often in similar terms to Phil Ehr) the ECF, and previously the BCF. Although I would argue that the status of chess has improved since the 1960’s, my feeling is that the improvement has nevertheless been modest.

The reasons for this are complex but reforming UK chess is, almost certainly, akin to changing the course of a large ship. It is not something which can easily be achieved at once. Whether it can be achieved at all may depend on any potential reformer’s relationship with incumbent directors who may feel, perhaps with good reason, that their experience means they know how to do their jobs better than the would-be reformer.

Phil Ehr’s background career until 2008 was in the United States Navy where he served at operational and strategic levels with, in all likelihood, although he is too modest to say this in his CV, some distinction. He subsequently tutored officers in the British forces.

Since 2001 he has also been a chess coach although presumably at very junior level as I can identify 8-year-olds who, on the basis of their respective grades, probably play chess as well as Phil Ehr. That, of course, in no way disqualifies him from high ECF office but it may circumscribe his ability to tell others how best to do their work.

I mention this because, as far as I am aware, we have never met. So the only three criteria on which I can base any assessment are his past record, his dealings with others, and the one issue where we have come into contact – the Aberystwyth affair.

I’ll deal with Aberystwyth next – but only briefly, as there are separate threads covering the subject in detail, in order to refute various errors and omissions in a single paragraph from Phil Ehr’s 24-page report.

First, as a cursory check would have shown, the “Hertfordshire County Court” does not exist. A small detail, perhaps, but one that suggests that Phil Ehr is not assiduous over checking facts.

Secondly, notwithstanding Phil Ehr’s assertion, no-one sued the ECF or its officers over this affair. I am vaguely aware (vaguely, because neither I nor Watford Chess Club was in any way involved) of an earlier case brought against the ECF in relation to another junior issue. However, this case pre-dated Aberystwyth and consequently could have had nothing to do with it.

Thirdly, Phil Ehr alleges that the FIDE Ethics Commission “dismissed the case”. Not at all, the Ethics Commission simply decided that the matter was not one of ethics but one which should be considered instead by two other commissions, as mentioned in my next paragraph.

Finally, in remonstrating over how unreasonable various people were to take issue with the ECF, Phil Ehr conveniently overlooks the conclusions of the FIDE Rules & Tournaments Commission and the FIDE Arbiters Commission, neither of which gave the ECF a clean bill of health. Much the opposite, in fact.

The collective feature of these four examples is that they suggest that Phil Ehr suffers from selective amnesia, so I suggest his 24 pages need to be treated with some caution when he there describes his dealings with his fellow-directors.

The ECF Board certainly appears dysfunctional which, in Phil Ehr’s view, is entirely due to the failings of others. Some of those criticized by Phil Ehr are among those whom I have known over the years and, even disregarding Phil Ehr’s somewhat semi-detached relationship with facts, my reaction is to give greater credence to their account of affairs.

Further, in the last analysis, part of the role of any chief executive is to maintain a cohesive board. Phil Ehr has not simply failed to do this, he seems to have presided over its division and now compounded this with publication of an ill-judged report.

My suspicion is that Phil Ehr’s military background, distinguished though it may have been, may have proved a hindrance rather than an asset. Any military organization has a distinctive command structure where orders are to be obeyed. This does not always transfer well to the civil sector and I suspect it may transfer least well when applied to organizations where the key personnel are volunteers.

Whatever one thinks of Phil Ehr’s management style, and he will have his supporters as well as his critics, a chief executive’s effectiveness is fatally compromised if his or her integrity is an issue.

Phil Ehr’s pronouncements over Aberystwyth alone, even without considering other remarks, suggest that is the case here. One test of integrity is said to be whether someone is a person, from whom you would buy a used car. Sadly, after poring through Phil Ehr’s 24 pages, readers will feel that the only object they should consider buying from him, secure in the knowledge that it was unused, is a bottle of mouthwash. He should consider his position.

[Steve Rooney]

Roger,

A very well-argued comment and a conclusion with which I agree wholeheartedly.

[John McKenna]

After hearing Group Capt. Lancaster grinding his axe I half expect to hear the retort of Sergeant York's rifle in the distance.

[NickFaulks]

The real question is of course how he came to be elected ( as the wingman of another puzzling choice ) and then re-elected. Is Council fit for this purpose? They do seem to have a record of getting carried away by candidates for high office who turn out to be entirely unsuitable.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Is Council fit for ... purpose?

I’m allowed to edit out one your words, I’d say, "very obviously not".

[John McKenna]

I blame the abolition of National Service for turning the ECF Board, Council, members of this forum and me into a right undisciplined shower.
Our American foul-weather friends are not that much to blame for the parlous state of the ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

The real question is of course how he came to be elected ( as the wingman of another puzzling choice ) and then re-elected.

He had moved sideways from being Junior Director. His manifesto there had been to expand the number of children representing England in International events and to build up a management team to spread the workload. He's generally thought to have succeeded in raising the quantity of teams if not outstanding in results over the board. In the previous year, the absence of a formal CEO had enabled the "working" directors, of which he was one, to get on with their functions. In other words to act and pursue policies autonomously.

By contrast to Aberystwyth, in his role as Junior Director a potentially damaging confrontation with a parental couple that could have run and run was deftly side-stepped.

[Rad Kadengal]

Roger L's comment is very much an invigorating call to re-position principles of governance at the heart of ECF..

[John McKenna]

Really?
You are too diplomatic.

It sounded more like a loaded critique of the current CEO's managment style. If his title was Managing Director I think it would be more justified because then he would be more of a primus inter pares than the imperator the title CEO implies.

He is the Chief - hail to him - elected by the tribal council to lead from the front. If an American is put in charge don't expect the English password 'compromise' to be his and the organisation's watchword.

Why is it that there's another night of the long knives in the making in the run-up to the Annual Gathering of Malcontents this coming Sat?

It's not just the silly season. It's also the season for settling old scores, reopening old wounds, bloodletting and head-hunting.

As has been pointed out elsewhere - there's a Lord of the Flies buzz of words in the air.

[JustinHorton]

Caption: "I could do a better job than Chris Fegan"

[John McKenna]

I see you're a fan of the graphic novel, Justin.

[NickFaulks]

Can we keep the Prime Minister out of this?

[Roger Lancaster]

I would just say to John McKenna that, yes, my earlier post was a criticism of the chief executive's management style but it was also a criticism of his overly personal attacks on colleagues and - and this is my personal experience - on a consistent pattern of obfuscation and misleading responses when faced with disagreeable facts.

[JustinHorton]

This last point is not to be overlooked.

[Martin Regan]

Roger

One could easily read your comments and see them as a towering structure of supposition and innuendo which actually has no solid foundations - but that would be to derail the thread.

Instead I shall address the consensus that seems to be emerging across social media that the CEO's report was a "rant" showing both poor judgement and bad management.

Whilst I agree that it was 23 pages too long and contained a little too many US-style blue-sky phrases, I think the overall thrust was admirably direct and to the point. The CEO says the board is not working as well as it ought, and that is to the determent of English Chess. No one would disagree.
He explains his view as to why the board is not working as well as it ought and invites the voters to remedy this. Council has the choice to support this view or not. However, the suggestion that it is not a wholly coherent view, given the circumstances we are aware of, is unfair.