Friday, October 10, 2014

What a carve-up!

Well, tomorrow some time Ray Keene's friend will be elected President of the English Chess Federation, not that "elected" is the right term for a one-candidate affair deliberately organised in such a way as to avoid a contest. There was, of course, no need to do it that way: the electorate could have been provided with a variety of names, or the Board's preference could have been announced well in advance so as to allow for the emergence of other candidates, as opposed to at the last minute, giving opponents no chance. But instead it was deliberately done in such a way as to allow for the minimum of discussion and the maximum of dissatisfaction. So well done.

You can divide the ECF's year, like Gaul, into three parts, all of them under somebody else's thumb. The first third of the year was dedicated to Andrew Paulson's mad plans, none of them realised and the last of them, his proposal to run as Zurab Azmaiparashvili's running mate, the immediate cause of his downfall.

The second third was devoted to getting rid of Andrew Paulson, in the course of which the ECF established the principle that the purpose of making an agreement was to signal that you proposed to break it. This involved several months' worth of chaos in which elementary procedures such as the writing and approving of minutes ceased to be carried out, let alone anything more useful - but still, who cares provided the right people got their way?

The final third, now we'd established that chess politics was far more important than doing anything for English chess, was almost entirely devoted to supporting Garry Kasparov's FIDE Presidential campaign.

Well to be fair there was the new Forum that scarcely anybody uses. And Phil Ehr, as well as scooting off to Tromsø for no reason that strikes me as necessary, did also sign us up to the "Voluntary Code of Good Governance for the Sport and Recreation Sector".

What does this entail?


What's your favourite, do you think? Mine would be "Accountability and transparency" or "Balanced, inclusive and skilled" but tastes will differ, as indeed would the make-up of the Board if it were actually balanced or inclusive. Anyway, the satire writes itself, just as it does when an organisation proclaims its intention to "address sexism" and then appoints a President who accuses twelve-year-olds of dressing like prostitutes.

I've got not the slightest objection to the ECF supporting Kasparov if that's what the membership want: however, whether the membership want that to be the ECF's priority, to the exclusion of all else, is another question. Not that it's a question anybody asked them.

But who does ask the membership? If you're unacquainted with the ECF, in which case you probably stopped reading some time ago (and rightly so, if you ask me) you may think that it's an organisation which, for all the faults it may possess, is representative of its members. But such is not the case. I, for instance, am a member and yet have no vote either direct or indirect. I am not able to vote for its officials, nor for the delegates that elect them.

The ECF's voting structure is an ancient affair in which the electorate is mostly comprised of chess leagues, congresses and county organisations rather than the organisation's members. This may seem absurd, because it is, but it developed that way because that was the basis on which English chess was organised: we played in league chess, county chess and congresses. By and large, we still do, but these days there is a membership scheme which makes it compulsory to be an member if one wishes to play graded chess in England. Similarly, one has to be registered with a national federation into order to play FIDE-rated chess elsewhere.

Now why am I being made to pay into an organisation which has the right to say it represents me but which does not give me the right to be represented? It's gone beyond absurd.

But it's more, and worse than that: because surely the division between people who have a voice and people who do not, between the included and the excluded, is at the root of the problem - the problem of the ECF behaving as a private club whose members are not its first priority - and at the root of the working methods which keep much of the ECF's business away from the prying eyes of the bastards who actually pay for the thing. Which might be a suitable way for NATO to operate, but not, I think, for what is basically a chess club.

It used to be a private club - now it only functions as a private club. It's a private club that you pay not to join. Functions? Malfunctions is a better word.

It has a stupid and unrepresentative voting structure. Its inner workings are frequently hidden from the people who pay for it. Its elections are a farce. Free and open discussion of its intentions and decisions is discouraged. And you want me to make a fuss about FIDE?

16 comments:

Jonathan Rogers said...

The late report from Angus French alludes to discussions between the ECF and the Times for sponsorship. This also seems to have been kept under wraps and I wonder whether I can guess Justin's views ...!

ejh said...

I imagine you can. You'd also guess correctly if you surmised that I am terribly sick of having to point out to English chess why this sort of thing should not be happening.

Anonymous said...

Streatham and Brixton club is part of the London Chess League.
Their delegate to the ECF is Brian Smith.
Surely he is elected to the post at an AGM of constituent clubs, of which yours is one.
Surely he is your representative?

Rob Thompson said...

You do have an indirect vote as a member, assuming you are a member of at least gold standard. Admittedly, there are only 2 member representatives per category, but it is at least better than nothing. Should more candidates for each tier come forward than there are posts, there is an election for them.

I am of course making no claim that this is satisfactory.

ejh said...

Yes....I don't seem (as a Gold member) to recall being invited to vote for any representative, or to prefer Not the Above. Or even being informed by the ECF as to who it it was. Is there a term in political science for non-participatory democracy?

Anonymous said...

If you keep old emails, check the date 24th September 2012, when you may have received an email titled
Gold Direct Members' Representatives election.

If you hadn't renewed for 2012-13, presumably you would not have seen it.

It was flagged on the ecforum as well.

I'm not sure whether it should be expected that they should do this, but it hasn't been the practice of the member representatives to directly ask for opinions on how their one vote should be cast.

RdC

Anonymous said...

How much do you think Dominic Lawson will be pulling down for being President of the ECF? My assumption was he was giving up his time and doing it for free, but from the scorn he is getting I'm assuming he must be getting a significant number of reddies and people are queuing up to do the job.

Whenever I've seen him out and about (London Classic, 2013 Candidates) he's been one of the most approachable people you can imagine, often preferring to sit in the standard commentary room than the VIP one. I don't recall ever seeing Keene at the Classic either, so they can't be that close....

I like reading your posts Justin, but I think you've got it wrong here.

PH

Jonathan B said...

"I don't recall ever seeing Keene at the Classic either ...."

Ray’s certainly been to the Classic. He was photographed signing a copy of Kingpin at the bookstall iirc.

Not that whether Ray has or hasn’t been to a tournament says much about whether he’s close to Dominic Lawson or not.

Jonathan B said...

"Streatham and Brixton club is part of the London Chess League.
Their delegate to the ECF is Brian Smith.
Surely he is elected to the post at an AGM of constituent clubs, of which yours is one.
Surely he is your representative?"


This comment just got passed because it had somehow got into blogger’s spam filter.

This blog is not the blog of Streatham & Brixton Chess club. Therefore Brian Smith is not the representative of anybody writing here. Although he might be a representative of some of those who write here when they are operating in another capacity (i.e. playing for Streatham & Brixton). That number doesn’t include the author of the original post.

Jonathan B said...

PH and others may be interested to read what Ray himself has to say about Dominic Lawson ...

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=6922

Anonymous said...

"I don't recall ever seeing Keene at the Classic either ...."

Whereas I recall seeing Lawson there every day....speaking to a wide number of people and avidly following the chess (with the odd distraction of the cricket score). And you (perhaps conveniently) fail to mention in The Inner Game Lawson shows quite clearly he is smart enough when dealing with Keene.

I repeat my question - If indeed Lawson is offering his time to the ECF free of charge (and so far as I can tell not courting either FIDE office or publicity) does this not make him worthy of respect, rather than scorn?

PH

Jonathan B said...

If you’re going to try to continue a conversation PH, you’re going to have to be clear as to who you’re having it with. When you write 'you ...' in your last comment do you mean me (the most recent commenter who has addressed you' or do you mean EJH (author of the original piece)?

If you mean me, it’s not clear why you would think I would include a reference to the Inner Game in my comment.

If you meant EJH, on the other hand, it’s not clear to me why you would write your comment in the way that you did.


As for your repeated question, I personally have zero interest in whether Lawson becomes President or not. However, the idea that anybody who volunteers for anything should be told, "well righto then off you go" is clearly absurd. Similarly, the fact of volunteering makes any questioning by definition unnecessary and somehow impolite is also a bit silly.

ejh said...

And you (perhaps conveniently) fail to mention in The Inner Game Lawson shows quite clearly he is smart enough when dealing with Keene

I've not read the book, as it happens. I'd be keen (if you will) to have my attention directed to the passage or passages concerned, they sound interesting.

If indeed Lawson is offering his time to the ECF free of charge (and so far as I can tell not courting either FIDE office or publicity) does this not make him worthy of respect

It's not really relevant, is it? The fact that he'll be doing it for free doesn't mean that he's not got a thirty-year association with Ray, it doesn't mean that he hasn't written horrendously about teenage girls and it doesn't mean he's not a divisive figure. Nor does it mean that there weren't other people willing to serve in the post, which had the "election" not been a stitch-up we'd have been in a position to know.

I've no reason to think Lawson isn't an entirely affable individual in person (which is more than I'd claim for myself). I've also no reason to think that that's of any particular relevance.

(Apologies for not replying to before, by the way: I was away from my computer and I haven't worked out how to do this on my first-ever smartphone yet.)

ejh said...

Streatham and Brixton club is part of the London Chess League.
Their delegate to the ECF is Brian Smith. Surely he is elected to the post at an AGM of constituent clubs, of which yours is one.
Surely he is your representative?


I'm not actually a member of any chess club at all at the moment, though I am a member of the ECF. Even if I were a member of the aforesaid club (which club I recommend to all our readers) I really don't think that being able to vote for a club rep, to vote for a league rep, to vote on ECF Council for ECF officials is really what I'd mean by having an indirect vote for officials by virtue of being an ECF member. If you follow.

Re: Roger's characteristically informative remarks above, September 2012 was more than two years ago now and I was under the impression the term of office for ECF officials was one year. Is that not so?

Anonymous said...

Whilst there were three nominations for two positions in 2012, there were no challenges to the existing incumbents in 2013 and 2014, so the positions just roll over from one year to the next. Other than having the special ability to put motions to the AGM, there's not a lot of influence carried by one vote out of two hundred and fifty.

RdC

ejh said...

there were no challenges to the existing incumbents in 2013 and 2014, so the positions just roll over from one year to the next.

Good of them to tell us