A letter to Governance

[Carl Hibbard]

The unique user count Saturday was 719 which is actually around normal for a day.

[Roger de Coverly]

It appears the nexus has struck again. There's been a resignation from the Governance Committee.

In other news, Leagues and Congresses with the exception of the Atkins will continue as scheduled, unaffected seemingly by the demise of "good governance". In addition, the grading system seems to be functioning as expected.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... t=30#p3581

[Martin Regan]

David Roberston has resigned from the Governance Committe.

He has resigned in order to make a point about the importance of good governance in the ECF.

He has resigned because he did not feel that his chairman should become a central figure in a bitterly contested election.

He has resigned because he is an honourable man.

He looked to the other members of the committee for support.

They line up: Haddrell, Leadbetter, Gunn - long serving ECF members whose collective party trick has always been to dazzle members with their nit-picking approach to procedure, their incorruptability and their attention to the consitution.

See them in action. Haddrell at the most recent AGM challenging the minutes to ensure members were not short-changed, Leadbetter who will and has stopped procedings to challenge the position of a semi colon, and Gunn who boasts how he acts always in the interests of the federation.

The test came and they turned out to be made of straw.

A good servant to the federation has resigned. If good governance is important it matters. Is it?

[JustinHorton]

No more so than other good servants about whom you've gone out of your way to be aggressively unpleasant, Martin.

[Mike Gunn]

The job of the Governance Committee is indeed a technical one: to offer advice on procedural and constitutional matters but this does not remove the right of those who serve on it to express their views on policy matters or (at election time) on the merits of candidates for office.

I support Chris Majer's continued chairmanship of governance on this basis, while not necessarily supporting all his judgements or the timing of his intervention. He was clearly acting in what he thought were the best interests of the ECF and I respect that.

(Why does this all remind me of Julius Caesar?).

[Jonathan Rogers]

I have by no means agreed with everything thar David and Martin have been saying ove rthese past weeks; and I am sure that Chris M was acting for the best of the ECF, as he saw it.

But regrettably I find myself in agreement with Martin and David on this one. The reputation of GC for impartiality strikes me as arguably its most valuable asset; and I don't see how it will regain it while CM is in the Chair.

[Martin Regan]

JH:

No more so than other good servants about whom you've gone out of your way to be aggressively unpleasant, Martin.

Justin's that is subjective. Governance is objective.

I should have thought, given your track record, that a breach of what is proper, so serious and so premeditated as this, would have rightly attracted your ire. Or is it only when those with whom you disagree transgress that you become concerned?

Had Majer interjected in favour of Ehr - I would have been of the same view and I'm sure that the Prof would also have resigned.

[Michael Flatt]

The Governance committee are in for a busy year mulling over the Pearce report and redrafting the Articles and Bye Laws.

Now that David Robertson has departed do those remaining have the necessary technical knowledge, understanding and capacity to originate proposals to implement the report's recommendations?

[Martin Regan]

MG:

but this does not remove the right of those who serve on it to express their views on policy matters or (at election time) on the merits of candidates for office.

Then you disagree with your own wretched chairman who at least had the good grace to acknowledge that his first intervention was an error.

Secondly, I really can not let you escape your weasel wording.

Majer did not express a view between candidates - he said that if council elected one he would resign. The Governance Committee, in effect, delivered a threat to the electorate. If you can not see how this breaches every rule, in spirit and letter, of good governance, then that in itself is a reason for you to step aside.

[Michael Flatt]

MG:

but this does not remove the right of those who serve on it to express their views on policy matters or (at election time) on the merits of candidates for office.

Then you disagree with your own wretched chairman who at least had the good grace to acknowledge that his first intervention was an error.

Secondly, I really can not let you escape your weasel wording.

Majer did not express a view between candidates - he said that if council elected one he would resign. The Governance Committee, in effect, delivered a threat to the electorate. If you can not see how this breaches every rule, in spirit and letter, of good governance, then that in itself is a reason for you to step aside.

In this instance I believe Martin Regan is entirely correct. The members of the Governance Committee should be apolitical and impartial.

[Michael Farthing]

I was not of course at the meeting so my only knowledge - like many others - is that he said he would resign if Phil Ehr was reelected. It seems unlikely to me that such a sentence was uttered divorced from reasons and surely it is relevant what those reasons were. If Chris said such a thing because he disagreed with Phil's policies that is clearly unacceptable: if his grounds were that Phil was conducting his office with irregular behaviour and was not amenable to changing this, then that is a governance issue and proper grounds for his stance. Can anyone present at the meeting shed light on the reasons given (or maybe everyone was so astounded that the reasons have disappeared into the ether).

I do agree that the timing was inappropriate and it would have looked better had the position been taken at a much earlier stage: dropping a bombshell as individuals enter the polling booth is hardly a fair thing to do.

[JustinHorton]

is it only when those with whom you disagree transgress that you become concerned?

Projection, Martin. I've said more than once I wasn't happy with it, and you're aware of this. I don't share your view of its importance.

[JustinHorton]

If you can not see how this breaches every rule, in spirit and letter, of good governance, then that in itself is a reason for you to step aside.

Fab, now Mike Gunn should step down as well?

[Michael Flatt]

Can anyone present at the meeting shed light on the reasons given (or maybe everyone was so astounded that the reasons have disappeared into the ether).

I was there and don't think anyone could believe what what was happening. It was so unexpected and shocking.

[Richard Bates]

MG:

but this does not remove the right of those who serve on it to express their views on policy matters or (at election time) on the merits of candidates for office.

Then you disagree with your own wretched chairman who at least had the good grace to acknowledge that his first intervention was an error.

Secondly, I really can not let you escape your weasel wording.

Majer did not express a view between candidates - he said that if council elected one he would resign. The Governance Committee, in effect, delivered a threat to the electorate. If you can not see how this breaches every rule, in spirit and letter, of good governance, then that in itself is a reason for you to step aside.

In this instance I believe Martin Regan is entirely correct. The members of the Governance Committee should be apolitical and impartial.

Seems from the above to be a bit of disagreement/inconsistency between individuals about whether the core issue is impartiality, or the manner (and/or timing) in which partiality was expressed. And i suppose by extension whether there is a difference between opinions expressed about a contested and 'uncontested' election. David R posted strongly in favour of Phil Ehr - from a "commitment to good governance" perspective - in advance of the meeting. But of course he made no threats to resign if Phil Ehr was rejected (and for all i know may have had reservations about Phil Ehr as CEO for other reasons).