That's what I thought.Paul McKeown wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:18 pmSurely the correct procedure for the selector is to recuse themselves from the process in such a case?Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 1:41 pmConsider a selector who has to choose between two juniors with more or less identical records, one of whom he knows personally. S/he has to make a choice but, if that choice is the junior whom s/he knows, there's the risk of being accused of being unduly influenced by this - but it's equally 'unfair' to reverse the process and choose the other junior instead.
ECF Governance and conflict of interests
-
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
-
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:55 pm
- Location: Holmfirth
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
One solution I have used was to increase the boards. Of course that needs opposition agreement and is something of a local league solution. It got several juniors games though.
HDCA President
-
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
I feel that in junior chess though, there will be an approximation where people 'know' a very large number of juniors and that shouldn't itself require recusingPaul McKeown wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:18 pmSurely the correct procedure for the selector is to recuse themselves from the process in such a case?Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 1:41 pmConsider a selector who has to choose between two juniors with more or less identical records, one of whom he knows personally. S/he has to make a choice but, if that choice is the junior whom s/he knows, there's the risk of being accused of being unduly influenced by this - but it's equally 'unfair' to reverse the process and choose the other junior instead.
In an academic context, similar issues arise with committees that award grants or prestigious fellowships. The community is small enough so that, on some level, everyone knows everyone else, but there are still degrees of separation.
One example of rules here is that panel members who are (a) at the same institution or (b) the PhD or postdoctoral advisor or (c) are co-authors must recuse themselves, but not beyond that. One could see potential analogies in chess - e.g. a coach or member of the same club maybe should recuse themselves, but not beyond that (so e.g. I wouldn't suggest Paul would have to recuse himself simply because someone had once entered a Richmond Rapidplay, but for a member of RJCC perhaps yes)
-
- Posts: 7262
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
When I undertook a viva voce examination of my University of Sussex D. Phil. thesis "Monte Carlo Simulation of Cluster Ion Fragmentation Peak Shapes" I undertook a gruelling half day interrogation by an external examiner who knew of my work as we had attended the same conferences.Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:29 am
In an academic context, similar issues arise with committees that award grants or prestigious fellowships. The community is small enough so that, on some level, everyone knows everyone else, but there are still degrees of separation.
It was probably the most stressful experience of my life up to date. He definitely did not hold back and was a leading expert in the field of molecular beams and mass spectrometry.
Perhaps I should have objected to him on grounds of conflict of interest?
Scientific papers that I "co-authored" (or had my name on) were subject to peer review from persons who knew my work and possibly myself.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
-
- Posts: 1932
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
Sorry, guys, I didn't make the issue clear enough. Supposing there are half-a-dozen juniors applying for something, it's almost inevitable that each of the selectors will know at least one of them. And any selector who knew none of them is unlikely to be familiar with English junior chess which probably means they shouldn't be on the panel in the first place. [There's a secondary issue about your answer - how well does a selector need to know a junior to have to recuse himself? Eg. Previous coach? Member of same club? Same county? Same union? Friend of selector's son? ].Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:24 pmThat's what I thought.Paul McKeown wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:18 pmSurely the correct procedure for the selector is to recuse themselves from the process in such a case?Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 1:41 pmConsider a selector who has to choose between two juniors with more or less identical records, one of whom he knows personally. S/he has to make a choice but, if that choice is the junior whom s/he knows, there's the risk of being accused of being unduly influenced by this - but it's equally 'unfair' to reverse the process and choose the other junior instead.
-
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
As I understand it, conflict of interest is used in ECF documents a bit more narrowly that I have been using it. Since I think the ECF is using a definition from company law, I should probably think of a different way to express myself.Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 8:31 amIn passing, I note that the way I am using conflict of interest is different to what I see in the official documents. So I will try to be more precise when I have thought about it.
I would like ECF executives to treat all organisations they deal with fairly, which is a bit more that their obligation to act in the best interests of the ECF as defined as a company.
I am finding the EJCOA threads problematic, since I am not convinced they are lobbying for fair process, but rather processes which give them the outcome they want. Maybe Tim Wall has influenced me overmuch, and his "with or against us" mentality is not representative of the other members. But equally I think I'd being naïve if I did not acknowledge that people who make their living from chess, wholly or partially, want to influence ECF decisions in their favour.
-
- Posts: 7262
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
Up and down this land there are many people who want to see an increase in chess playing, participation, clubs, leagues, tournaments, public events, education, sponsorship, number of titled players, media coverage, educational establishments partaking, prize funds, championships, public recognition, improved legal status etc.Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:08 amBut equally I think I'd being naïve if I did not acknowledge that people who make their living from chess, wholly or partially, want to influence ECF decisions in their favour.
A proportion of these good people work tirelessly as volunteers and another proportion work for chess whilst earning revenue from it.
I suspect most if not all (regardless of generating revenue, small or large) would be keen to see the ECF making decisions that lead to the above goals.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
To be clear, you're saying that the ECF currently does the opposite?John Upham wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:44 amI suspect most if not all (regardless of generating revenue, small or large) would be keen to see the ECF making decisions that lead to the above goals.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 7262
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
To be clear, No, I am not but maybe you are?NickFaulks wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:03 amTo be clear, you're saying that the ECF currently does the opposite?John Upham wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:44 amI suspect most if not all (regardless of generating revenue, small or large) would be keen to see the ECF making decisions that lead to the above goals.
I am referring to the goals and aspirations of many people who work for chess either voluntarily or paid.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
Sure, you're in favour of all that is virtuous. People don't generally bother to say that unless they are at least hinting that others aren't.John Upham wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:15 amI am referring to the goals and aspirations of many people who work for chess either voluntarily or paid.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm
Re: ECF Governance and conflict of interests
John Upham wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:44 amUp and down this land there are many people who want to see an increase in chess playing, participation, clubs, leagues, tournaments, public events, education, sponsorship, number of titled players, media coverage, educational establishments partaking, prize funds, championships, public recognition, improved legal status etc.Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:08 amBut equally I think I'd being naïve if I did not acknowledge that people who make their living from chess, wholly or partially, want to influence ECF decisions in their favour.
A proportion of these good people work tirelessly as volunteers and another proportion work for chess whilst earning revenue from it.
I suspect most if not all (regardless of generating revenue, small or large) would be keen to see the ECF making decisions that lead to the above goals.
I suppose the other instance in which they say it is when they think someone else might be hinting that they are not virtuous themselves.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:18 amSure, you're in favour of all that is virtuous. People don't generally bother to say that unless they are at least hinting that others aren't.
I found John's clarification a bit gnomic. But I am going to assume that was his intention since it helps me expand on my position.
Yes, indeed, I agree. Most people in the EJCOA are undoubtedly people working hard for the benefit of chess, whether they are paid or not. But the problem is that the various groups of people working for the benefit chess disagree on the best way to do it. I have a vision of English chess where the ECF is how different groups come together to coordinate their efforts. I don't think that makes me too much of a dreamer, although I will admit it is an imperfect mechanism for doing so.
I get frustrated when the ECF decision making process is to try to work out who are the good virtuous guys working for the benefit of chess, and who are the scoundrels working for some other nefarious objective. On the whole it is virtuous people on both sides of the debate and the difference is how they want to achieve their goals. Do we want to be more successful internationally? Yes, we all do. Should we raise membership fees to do it? Opinions vary.
In my model the EJCOA is one of the players when decisions need to be made by the Junior Director, so it can't decide how the referee is appointed. Apart from anything else, if it does this cycle repeats with some other party considering itself the one unfairly treated.
My first though was the the ECF Governance committee appoints referees. But maybe I am looking for something else such as bids process as Mike Gunn proposed. I particularly care about processes when people are paid because I think that makes it more important that it is done correctly.