Finance Council meeting

[Jonathan Bryant]

I couldn't help noting the way you were deflected by the top table (with the assurance it would be covered under AOB) when you attempted to raise the issue of communications early in the meeting, with AOB being something that is frequently timed-out.

(my emphasis)

Just like every other meeting held by any organisation anywhere.

Ironically perhaps, with this 'deflection' we have an example of the ECF communicating a very clear message indeed.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'm going to be chairing an AGM tomorrow. I won't let AOB time out, for what that's worth.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Julie Denning, speaking on behalf of Surrey said that without an increase the ECF would have to eat into its reserves, and so Surrey supports it. "

Thanks to Ben and Julie for their reports.

Presumably an individual on the Surrey "Board" supported it - I don't recall anyone asking the clubs...

[Mike Gunn]

Kevin, see my post on page 5 of this thread (in response to Angus and Roger).

[Kevin Thurlow]

I don't really regard that as acceptable, clubs could have been emailed as well. Did the people contacted understand the issues? I know you favour ECF getting more money as you said so at a previous ECF meeting.

[Mike Gunn]

Fair enough, Kevin, but clubs and members received exactly the same notice of the proposals as board members and we received one email on the matter from a non board member on the day before the Finance Council. Previously we have attempted to consult clubs but it was a mixed success (in terms of the response). The main problem here was the shortage of time from when the relevant papers appeared on the ECF website to the Council meeting. It was difficult enough for the Board to give the matter proper consideration, let alone attempt a wider consultation. It would be great if SCCA members (and the wider ECF membership) would take more interest in what is coming up on the ECF's agenda, but only a few do.

[Roger de Coverly]

It would be great if SCCA members (and the wider ECF membership) would take more interest in what is coming up on the ECF's agenda, but only a few do.

Given the complete lack of ability, other than griping on forums, to affect the decisions are you really surprised?

Let's not forget that the one CEO who was prepared to engage with the wider chess community retired into complete silence when the questions got too much. There's a limit to which the indefensible (conspiring with Kasparov to embarrass FIDE without the knowledge or approval of ECF members) can be defended.

[Mike Gunn]

(...) Let's not forget that the one CEO who was prepared to engage with the wider chess community retired into complete silence when the questions got too much (...)

As I recall it, it's not that "the questions got too much" - he gave a truthful account of a series of events and was accused of lying!

[David Robertson]

...and the questions got too much, and who can blame him!

One wretched feature of online forums is that they allow some sour and ill-adjusted individuals to harry and belabour well-intentioned people far beyond reasonable limits to transparency and accountability. The effect is to drive responsible individuals out of office in search of a tolerable life

[JustinHorton]

(...) Let's not forget that the one CEO who was prepared to engage with the wider chess community retired into complete silence when the questions got too much (...)

As I recall it, it's not that "the questions got too much" - he gave a truthful account of a series of events and was accused of lying!

In point of fact, we were never actually given a full and candid account of the CAS fiasco.

[JustinHorton]

The thing is, what you have with ECF controversies is a problem of organisational culture which never resolves itself. It goes like this.

1. ECF officials do things they should not, not (usually) because of any ill intent but often because they are influenced by people who are using the ECF rather than acting in its interests.
2. This causes controversy.
3. The reaction to the controversy is to try and deny, hide or otherwise obscure important facts relating to it.
4. This causes further controversy.
5. At this point ECF officials complain that all this controversy makes it impossible for ECF officialdom to function.
6. This means that the particular problem is not resolved properly and everybody involved is left with a feeling of profound dissatisfaction.
7. It also means that the problem of organisational culture is never resolved which means that pretty soon we return to 1.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The thing is, what you have with ECF controversies is a problem of organisational culture which never resolves itself. It goes like this. (etc)"

True

[John Saunders]

...and the questions got too much, and who can blame him!

One wretched feature of online forums is that they allow some sour and ill-adjusted individuals to harry and belabour well-intentioned people far beyond reasonable limits to transparency and accountability. The effect is to drive responsible individuals out of office in search of a tolerable life.

Amen to that, Dave. The culture of the ECF is one thing, but the culture of this place quite another. Online forums feed off one of the baser instincts of humanity, which I can't quite put a name to but which reminds me of school days and the unholy excitement generated by watching two kids square up to each other in a playground. It is hardly surprising that the ECF should have considered setting up a rival playground in an effort to counter the barrack-room lawyers here. It was ironic that Carl's comments at the other place and here only served to increase traffic there. A better strategy to kill the rival forum stone dead would have been to maintain a statesmanlike silence about its existence.

Whether the ECF was wise to set up its own forum is another matter and doesn't concern me unduly. On the whole I'm not convinced that two playgrounds, with one reserved for children who play nicely, are significantly better than one.

[Michael Flatt]

I am not exactly clear as to what is to be gained by the grumbling expressed in the last few posts.

It seems to me that one member of Council quite openly tried to explain how and why she voted on a particular motion. I would suggest that anyone who is in disagreement with what she said and how she voted should enter into private correspondence with her.

As has been stated earlier not all the elected representatives attended the ECF Finance meeting. The motions were decided by the votes of all representatives present (either physically or by proxy) and not by the vote of a single member. Had more members attended the vote might well have been different.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I am not exactly clear as to what is to be gained by the grumbling expressed in the last few posts.

It seems to me that one member of Council quite openly tried to explain how and why she voted on a particular motion. I would suggest that anyone who is in disagreement with what she said and how she voted should enter into private correspondence with her."

Just to clarify - I was stating a fact not grumbling, and it in no way related to any specific incident, (just many incidents over the years!) and certainly didn't relate to Julie Denning's comments. I was delighted that she explained what she had (quite rightly) done.

It is an issue to some people in Surrey that the members are not consulted over which way to vote. Of course, it is also true that many would have no idea which way to vote.