ECF Elections 2015

[JustinHorton]

Well, I'm not an unqualified admirer of either of Messrs Holowczak or Reuben, but the conduct of Fegan and Ehr, as described, does fit a very recognisable pattern. We know how they work by now, it's rather worse than merely irritating and it doesn't constitute the behaviour of clear-sighted and competent individuals frustrated by obstructive colleagues.

[David Robertson]

We know how they work by now

No, you don't - whoever this 'we' is. Ad hominem attacks and bar-room gossip are no substitute for evidence.

My only concern here is orderly conduct delivered by good governance. No one takes a more severe and austere view of good governance than me. And what I've observed since August, among most parties involved with the ECF - absolutely including this opinionated, game-playing and dismally-informed cluckfest here - is disorderly conduct of an egregious kind. Barely a thread on this forum contributes to the health of the ECF. Hardly a comment passes without being whipped into a froth of self-referential and self-righteous indignation. Stir in the axe-grinders, the vengeance-seekers, the slighted, the clueless, and the bombastic. You end up with a rancorous serpentine swamp called the ECF and its online communities.

Within this awful morass, only one significant person stands firm. He's capable of outstanding misjudgement on occasions, and some inflexibility. But he is the only person who remotely comes close to the severity of my understanding of what is required for good governance. That person is Phil Ehr. His commitment to organisational probity, financial rectitude, and operational competence is, in my year-long experience, unfailing and absolute. It requires him to face down, fearlessly and dispassionately, colleagues whose performance matches historical ECF performance, but falls short of standards taken as routine in a professional organisation. That causes trouble; breeds resentments; and both spill over into places like this. Do not seek explanations in his nationality, nor in his military service, nor in his psychology, nor in those who embarrass his judgement. Seek only an explanation in his pursuit of orderly conduct to high standards within the ECF, and his pursuit of good governance. That pursuit is far from complete.

In my view, we would be well-served if Phil Ehr were allowed to complete a process he himself began by seeing through the recommendations of the Pearce Commission. All else is trivia.

[Roger de Coverly]

Seek only an explanation in his pursuit of orderly conduct to high standards within the ECF, and his pursuit of good governance. That pursuit is far from complete.

Please explain then why he was unable to prevent a spat between parents or even a spat between third party parents and organisers escalating to numerous FIDE committees?

Perhaps it was all the fault of Alex for defending those in the British Championship team who reported to him.

Is it disorderly conduct to expect that the affairs of the ECF can be conducted in good grace and without the intervention of those who could create an argument in an empty room?

[E Michael White]

Please explain then why he was unable to prevent a spat between parents or even a spat between third party parents and organisers escalating to numerous FIDE committees?

Perhaps it was all the fault of Alex for defending those in the British Championship team who reported to him.

Well I'll explain that one Roger from what I've read on this forum but wasn't there; none involved read all the complicated rules/laws, which requires reading 3 separate documents :-

1. the FIDE Laws
2. the FIDE Competition Rules (Tournament rules in 2014)
3. the Event rules printed in the BCC brochure.

As a result parents were led to believe that the CA decision was overruled. It was unwise for the CA to be involved at that stage as that prevented him being involved at the next stage with the CO to find an acceptable solution; one of the other 2 senior arbiters should have taken the bowling at that stage.

Phil Ehr couldn't be expected to know exact details of the 3 sets of regulations.

The FiDE RTRC didn't read the Event Rules. The Arbiters Commission realised they didn't know the Event Rules. Watford Website and earlier comentators on this forum do not seem to have read either the Event Rules or the FIDE Competition Rules. The Watford Website seem to have wound things up considerably since. The arbiting team and CO seem to me to have conducted things exactly as the rules required. The FIDE commissions do not say otherwise except they do not recommend ½-1 results.

The true result of the game was actually ½- ½ I guess. But the scoreline ½-1 used to determine prizes and places so no one was worse off in that respect. Tucked away in the Rules is the statement that the CO's decisions may be referred to the appeals committee but no one availed themselves of that possibility so presumably the parents were in the end reasonably happy.

[Roger de Coverly]

The true result of the game was actually ½- ½ I guess.

It seems reasonable to guess that the claim of a win by illegal move may not have been valid, even if an illegal move had been played. The event arbiter could reasonably have ruled that play should continue. If one or both players or their parents threw a tantrum, that gets difficult to resolve. Either way, awarding one and a half points for a game is seriously disadvantageous to third parties.

I could have made the same noise about the round ten game at Canterbury in the Major Open in 2010. This was game that wasn't played, but was scored as win/draw. It wasn't obvious that I had been disadvantaged as I suspected a round 10 win as Black, regardless of other results, would give me Black against the top seed

[E Michael White]

Could be that but somewhere it says the players could not agree the position, which would mean the game could not continue.

I have only seen one situation which vaguely resembles that, at Stroud in 1984 ish. One player insisted the last move was a knight moved from g3 and the other said f3 which was not legal. Within seconds both sides were moving pieces to prove their view and by the time the arbiter arrived the final position could not be replaced. The players resolved this by agreeing a draw. Although the arbiter could insist play continues it would need to be from an agreed position which might be move 1 !!

Without further information its only speculation as to what happened at Aberystwyth. But what actually happened does not necessarily mean the arbiters proceeded incorrectly. If a piece had become dislodged from a square giving the impression of an illegal move, the action needed is different from that after an illegal move.

Yes Canterbury 2010 was completely inappropriate. The event was FIDE rated so how is it FIDE didn't notice the scoreline later ?

[JustinHorton]

That person is Phil Ehr. His commitment to organisational probity, financial rectitude, and operational competence is, in my year-long experience, unfailing and absolute.

Oh, nonsense Professor. He can't even produce minutes properly and when they finally appear, there are curious omissions. He's twice told me flaty unbelieveable stories relating to the ECF's financial affairs. His commitment to organisational probity doesn't extend to anybody understanding the presence, status or activities of the Special Advisor. I could give many more examples. Whatever else is being pursued or achieved, it isn't "standards taken as routine in a professional organisation". I do not, for instance, imagine that his sprawling, erratic and incoherent report to the AGM would be considered "routine". I certainly hope not.

You might want Phil Ehr to be something other than he is. So do I. So do other people. But he isn't and never will be.

[JustinHorton]

(I guess if you wanted a single, long-term example of evasivessness, incompetence, waste of resources and the quite unnnecessary alienation of colleagues and members, the creation and conduct of the official forum would be as good a folly as any.

EDIT: and for a single and spectacular example of gross misjudgement, we could take the continued patronage of the genuinely amazing Chris Fegan, whose apparent mission it is to mislead, bully, offend and alienate as many people as possible in the time available. The time available should, of course, be "no more".)

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes Canterbury 2010 was completely inappropriate. The event was FIDE rated so how is it FIDE didn't notice the scoreline later ?

The game that was never played was scored as a half point bye and a full point bye. I suspect in the other one, it was scored as a win and a loss, the extra half point only being used in the pairings.

[Michael Flatt]

With regard governance of the ECF, there is no consensus regarding what might be an appropriate model to follow particularly now the method of raising funds has switched from game fee to direct subscription of members.

The governance committee have a role in researching and recommending how the structure of the ECF might be reformed but that has largely been taken out of their hands by the Board's initiative in setting up of the Pearce Commission.

Although the Pearce Commission have done significant work and have presented a plethora of recommendations it should not be assumed that the membership and Council are disposed to act on them without having had the time to debate them, identify priorities and agree actions and timescales.

[Roger de Coverly]

He's twice told me flaty unbelieveable stories relating to the ECF's financial affairs.

I'd always thought one of these believable. The ECF or perhaps a donation contributed £ 1,000 to an event with restricted eligibility. The total distributed prize fund was £ 800. So where did the missing £ 200 go? Obviously enough, it was pocketed by the organisers, or putting it in more diplomatic language, absorbed by the expenses of running the event. Like the Minutes, it did seem to take a while to establish this. It wasn't known when after several months, the organiser was finally compelled to disclose the abolition of part of the advertised prize fund. The Home Director had been present at the wider event as an arbiter, but was never considered responsible for the prize fiasco. It could have been an issue for last year's AGM if he had been.

[Roger de Coverly]

Without further information its only speculation as to what happened at Aberystwyth. But what actually happened does not necessarily mean the arbiters proceeded incorrectly. If a piece had become dislodged from a square giving the impression of an illegal move, the action needed is different from that after an illegal move.

The threshold for awarding a win by illegal move is relatively high. The illegal move has to be observed by the arbiter or a valid claim made by the offended player. As with repetitions and 50 move counts, it has to be the offended player to move with the clock running.

[Carl Hibbard]

It seems Chris Fegan is trying to destroy the other place singlehanded? Or is it about to vanish and be replaced with other software so his toxic comments are no more?

[Martin Regan]

Oh God. Where to begin.

A member of the GC posts what appears to be an important post only for the nit-pickers to immediately derail the subject.

JH:

His commitment to organisational probity doesn't extend to anybody understanding the presence, status or activities of the Special Advisor.

You confuse understanding with disagreement.

Everyone knows what it means when the chief executive brings in an outside advisor - it has been done for decades - David Andersen being the obvious example. Those who profess to not understanding - including the chairman of governance whose own behaviour in nominating one of the two warring directors is on a quite difference scale of misjudgement to that complained of - are doing so because they disagree with the advice that the advisor is giving. Do grasp that.

Whatever else is being pursued or achieved, it isn't "standards taken as routine in a professional organisation"

What on earth does that mean? Your search for professionalism does not seem to deter you from urging people to ditch a CEO and other directors despite having no replacement.

I do not, for instance, imagine that his sprawling, erratic and incoherent report to the AGM would be considered "routine". I certainly hope not.

I accept sprawling, but to me it was one of the most coherent reports that have come out of the ECF in many years - in that it a had a view of the endgame.

In passing, I do not for one moment accept the faux anger about "name-calling" from a man who has taken it to an art form on this forum and on various blogs.

[Martin Regan]

It seems Chris Fegan is trying to destroy the other place singlehanded? Or is it about to vanish and be replaced with other software so his toxic comments are no more?

I think you might find Carl, that Mr Fegan has single-handedly saved the other place from what seemed an inevitable closure. Some things have unforeseen consequences.