Have your say to the Chief Executive

[Matthew Turner]

Andrew,
Ernie mentioned your speech at Scarborough. Can you give us an idea of what you said to inspire the masses, or even some of your less corny jokes?

[Matthew Turner]

Ernie,
I'm impressed he did it too. It is exactly what we need. I just wanted to know what is the message the ECF want out there.

[Andrew Farthing]

Andrew,
Ernie mentioned your speech at Scarborough. Can you give us an idea of what you said to inspire the masses, or even some of your less corny jokes?

The organisers kindly offered me the chance to introduce myself, so I just made a few complimentary remarks about the congress - no need for recourse to flattery with an event as good as Scarborough - and said that my only ambition in taking on my role in the ECF was to do whatever I could to help English chess develop and thrive at every level. To do this, I said that the ECF had to be open, accessible and responsive to the views and wishes of players and organisers, and I invited people to collar me at the event or contact me afterwards with any ideas, comments or questions.

The only attempt at humour was when I wished everyone luck in the next round, except my opponent, to whom I said, "Have mercy!" This was a complete waste of time because he turned up late, missed my remarks and crushed me like a bug.

[Sean Hewitt]

The decision to remove the link was made by Council following a vote. Regardless of whether people see this as misleading (i.e. "it's what the Board wanted, so Council did what they were told"), it does mean that the decision to restore a link has to be made by Council.

I wasn't at the Council meeting where this vote was taken Andrew, but I do know that there was no such motion on the agenda. Consequently directed proxy votes (such as mine) had no opportunity to have themselves heard. Motions from the floor are not legal (under the Companies Act) and as such Council's decision is (in my opinion) invalid.

I hope the board might see fit to put the question of a link to the forum on the agenda of the next Council meeting so that ALL members of council might have an opportunity to cast their vote.

[Andrew Farthing]

The decision to remove the link was made by Council following a vote. Regardless of whether people see this as misleading (i.e. "it's what the Board wanted, so Council did what they were told"), it does mean that the decision to restore a link has to be made by Council.

I wasn't at the Council meeting where this vote was taken Andrew, but I do know that there was no such motion on the agenda. Consequently directed proxy votes (such as mine) had no opportunity to have themselves heard. Motions from the floor are not legal (under the Companies Act) and as such Council's decision is (in my opinion) invalid.

I hope the board might see fit to put the question of a link to the forum on the agenda of the next Council meeting so that ALL members of council might have an opportunity to cast their vote.

John Philpott would be best placed to respond to the technical point about the AGM in question (Oct 2008). I wasn't there either, so I know no more than what's in the Minutes, namely that the proposal was made (by David Anderton, seconded by Gerry Walsh) following discussion of the President's Report. It was carried with 2 votes against.

I think I answered the point in your second paragraph:

I plan to ask the Board to consider this issue again, and if there is support, I'll put a proposal to the April 2011 Council meeting. I'll do this in sufficient time so that, if the Board is not in favour, others will still have the opportunity to put forward the proposal independently.

If the Board does not favour restoring the link, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to put the proposal to Council, my personal views notwithstanding. That wouldn't stop me from hoping to see a proposal made from others on Council.

[David Sedgwick]

John Philpott would be best placed to respond to the technical point about the AGM in question (Oct 2008).

John responded in detail at the time:

This is a collective response to various recent posts, not to mention a PM from John Upham. My general perception is that although I do not like the decision taken, I do not think that there is any mileage in seeking to oppose it on the grounds of being unconstitutional or contrary to the Companies Act. If the Forum as it came to exist had been the direct result of a vote by Council initiated by a proposal on the agenda in 2006 to create just such a Forum, then there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this decision could only be undone by following the same route. However, this is not the case. As indicated and now confirmed by Carl the Council decision (which if I read the minutes correctly itself resulted from discussion about an Officer's report rather than a formal agenda proposal) only related to a grading forum. The wider Forum "happened" on Carl's call, and I would regard it as within the power of the Board to take action on this. It had of course already done so earlier in the year without reference to Council when the "ECF Official Forum" became the "English Chess Forum". If the Board meeting at which further concerns were articulated had not been taking place on the same day as a Council meeting, I suspect that the severance of links would similarly just have happened. I would be inclined to intepret the discussion and show of hands at Council as being the Board taking soundings about a decision within its remit, in much the same way as views were invited from Council about the suitability of Andrew Martin as Director of Chess For Schools prior to the Board making this appointment immediately after the conclusion of the Council meeting, rather than Council taking a decision without the necessary notice being given.

It is, of course open to any combination of Council members meeting the minimum criteria to qualify as "the requisitionists" to put down a motion for a future meeting in respect of an official Forum. If the maximum benefit from having a Forum is to be derived, such a motion might usefully also seek to amend the Directors' and Officers' Regulations so that these specify not only that Directors are expected to make every effort to attend meetings of the Board and Council, but that they are expected to participate in debates on the Forum in respect of matters pertinent to their Directorates. However, the next meeting of Council will be the Finance Council, and the consent of the President or Chairman would be necessary to allow a non-financial item to appear on the agenda.

For the immediate future more pragmatic steps need to be considered. Independent links to the Forum will be necessary if non-members are to find it now that it can no longer be accessed via the ECF homepage. The SCCU website has a working link, and I have requested the Essex Chess Association webmaster to follow suit.

[Carl Hibbard]

It was purely my call to direct this forum away from simple grading matters alone

[Andrew Farthing]

Should the main ECF web site not have a link into here or is that still not considered 'appropriate' given the history?

'Tis done!

[Mick Norris]

Andrew

Good decision

Well done

[Matthew Turner]

I rather like Andrew's comments about the forum on his blog
http://englishchess.org.uk/farthing/

Well done

[David Sedgwick]

Andrew, can I ask you about the implications of the ECF Office move taking place this weekend? Would I be correct to conclude that the Board has taken a strategic decision to maintain the Office in Battle, albeit at a smaller size than was the case until recently?

[Andrew Farthing]

The decision to move across the corridor is partly financial, partly to do with practicalities.

Previously, the ECF occupied two separate rooms, which was a workable arrangement when the staff consisted of 5 people. Now that it's been reduced to 3, it made much more sense to put everyone together in the interests of more efficient communications and working together.

The new space is a little smaller than the combined area of the old offices, so there is a modest financial saving. The new room is a more pleasant working environment (much better lighting), which was an additional consideration. The office staff themselves favoured the move, and in view of the difficulties and uncertainties of the last year, the Board was pleased to be able to accommodate their wishes while at the same time saving a little money.

The office staff are moving all the ECF's files, etc. into the new office themselves (and I thank them for giving up their weekend to do this) in order to avoid expenditure on the move.

We've taken the opportunity presented by the move to have a clear-out of redundant stock, etc. and to improve the phone system, taking us onto a contract which meets our needs but should produce a substantial saving on what we were paying before.

The strategic situation is essentially unchanged. The ECF had a six-month break clause in the old lease (i.e. we can give six months' notice to vacate) and we have the same clause in the new one. The old lease would have expired in mid-2011, so technically we could have chosen to vacate Battle at that time. As it is, the Board's view was that it was happy to commit to a continuation of the status quo (i.e. the Board accepted that any future change to the location of the ECF office would have to be taken six months ahead of implementation).

I'm happy with the arrangements we now have, but the strategic position remains as set out in the Management Services Review paper presented to Council, i.e. we need to see what decisions emerge on future funding, look at the implications for the ECF's support needs and act accordingly.

That said, in view of the comment made in passing in the BCM ('Late News') that the ending of the DCMS grant must put the future of the office in Battle in doubt, I should stress that the loss of the grant does NOT affect the future of the office and that there are no plans to close or move the office at present.

[Alex Holowczak]

That said, in view of the comment made in passing in the BCM ('Late News') that the ending of the DCMS grant must put the future of the office in Battle in doubt, I should stress that the loss of the grant does NOT affect the future of the office and that there are no plans to close or move the office at present.

Were you asked by the editor of that magazine for the facts on this situation? Or was the comment speculation rather than news?

Maybe it could be worth contacting the editor of that magazine and offering to answer any questions he may have. That way the journalistic integrity of the magazine improves, and the facts are in the public domain rather than speculation.

[Andrew Farthing]

Were you asked by the editor of that magazine for the facts on this situation? Or was the comment speculation rather than news?

Maybe it could be worth contacting the editor of that magazine and offering to answer any questions he may have. That way the journalistic integrity of the magazine improves, and the facts are in the public domain rather than speculation.

No, I wasn't approached for comment. The remark was clearly speculative.

I have written to the editor and given my perspective on the issue. I restated my availability for comment and to answer questions on ECF matters. I don't want to infringe on the chess magazines' right to express their views, of course. In this case, my concern was that the "news item" related to the future of the ECF's paid staff and bore no relation to the true situation.

[Andrew Farthing]

I'm going to be playing in the Torquay congress this weekend (19-21 Nov), so if anyone else who's going to be there has any comments or questions or just wants to say hello, feel free to track me down. I'll be struggling somewhere in the Intermediate section.