A Federation's President replaced by FIDE with no warning, simple erasure! Not their government, a rival or anyone else, by the FIDE Executive Director who decided just like that!
ECF President ignores longstanding ECF position on FIDE President, alienates virtually the entire ECF board through his exceeding of his authority over areas within their constitutional and mandated jurisdiction and voluntarily resigns from office before putting his case (in respect to international matters) before the ECF Council where he is comprehensively defeated.
A number of individuals with voting powers in a FIDE election (unlike, as it happens, the ECF President) are (allegedly) disenfranchised by FIDE themselves (not their own constituency) when they state their intention to case their vote against the incumbent in said election.
Yes, i can see an obvious equivalence between the two situations, that means that all complaints from all sides should be disregarded...
File under - "it's completely different when we do it".
By the way, just as the removal of Paulsen discredits itself by having been done in the shadows, so there's no real reason why that comment shouldn't have a name attached to it, is there?
By the way, your account misses out such unimportant elements as "just happens to occur when he proposes to stand against Kasparov's ECU candidate", "is carried out secretly without a word of explanation to the membership or electorate", "is organised by Kasparov's allies in English chess" and "is persuaded to resign only by the agreement of a deal on which his opponents openly cheat".
So yes, I can see a very obvious equivalence between the ethics of both sides.
No doubt there are some parallels but the fact that Paulson was removed (by hook or by crook) within the ECF itself is a pretty big distinguishing point.
Criticise the internal ECF crookery if you will, Justin - not that it is very convincing since Paulson's removal, even on your own account, was presumably triggered by his trying to remove Short as FIDE Delegate. But even then there is still very little comparison with what is alleged to have happened to the Afghan delegate, who was not removed internally, and did not even know about his removal.
Yeah but Jonathan, you can even go back further and say that Paulsen tried to remove Short because Short's behaviour as FIDE Delegate was way out of line. (I disagreed with Paulsen, but then again I disagreed with Short's conduct too.)
The thing is that I have no problem whatsoever with people openly challenging an elected official for good and clearly stated reasons which they put before the membership. This is the opposite to what actually happened, which was a disgraceful process taken behind the backs of the members. If the Afghan president isn't being told what's going on now - well neither were ECF members told then, and I regard that as a very sound reason to draw a parallel.
If the cases also have substantial differences (which of course they do) then OK. But the coup disgusted me and marked the point where I ceased to be interested in anything Kasparov's people in English chess had to say about ethics, openness and proper procedures*. If they don't like that then they shouldn't have acted in a way that displayed so much disrespect for ECF members. They're lying in a bed they made themselves.
[* If indeed we didn't reach that point over Short/CAS/CJ.]
Given that the voting membership with the power to dismiss directors, the ECF Council, only meets every six months, it is by no means obvious what the constitutional alternatives were to Board action. No doubt they could and perhaps should have told the wider world what was going on, but then there is also the principle of Board confidentiality to respect.
Just a guess, but if the ECF's position on the FIDE elections had been put to a vote of individual players, would you not expect a serious anti-Kirsan majority?
In English chess, surely "Kirsan supporter" is a term of abuse.
No doubt they could and perhaps should have told the wider world what was going on, but then there is also the principle of Board confidentiality to respect.
I have no idea why the "principle" of Board confidentiality is in any way applicable to the removal of the leading member of that Board. I could put the matter more strongly.
In English chess, surely "Kirsan supporter" is a term of abuse.
Yeah it is, for some good reasons and also for some bad ones, since as I've occasionally pointed out, the complaints of English chess when it comes to Kirsan are not matched by any attachment to principle in its own affairs. There's a long piece to be written on that subject, which I hope I will never have enough free time to write.
It's now quite evident there were tensions amongst the Board before it was brought to a head by the confidence motion. These could have been leaked but weren't (hence Board confidentiality). The only way it was possible to tell something was going on was the total lack of communication from the Board telling us of all the wonderful things they were doing.
Unless, as eventually happened, a Director can be persuaded to resign, under English company law you have to go back to those who elected him, which in the ECF's case are the Representatives making up the ECF Council. A motion of confidence or no-confidence would be an essential first stage. I don't really see what alternatives the directors had.
Nigel although not a Director had also been elected, so I don't think he could have been dismissed either. So if you get a conflict between the President and FIDE Delegate as to who to support in a forthcoming election, one of them has to go or the issue put to the voting membership.
Going back to the Afghan case, whilst not a shock that a President is dismissed for alleged corruption, it is surely odd that the first the public or even the individual gets to hear of this is when a change of name appears on the FIDE site
Hi Roger. There's no reason why any of that couldn't have been put to the membership, and it's a scandal that it wasn't. And anybody who complains about secrecy, lack of communication and political manoeuvering anywhere else has no business whatsoever defending the same in the ECF.
It's not all right when the side you like does it. Hence this piece.
As a matter of general principle, I would have thought that the Directors of a Company limited by Guarantee need to be confident that what they say in Board meetings isn't leaked to all and sundry. So catfights about who the ECF should support in ECU or FIDE elections can be kept secret until such time as there's a policy to be announced. What I would regard as totally hypocritical would be for members of such Boards to claim transparency as part of their election or re-election campaigns. That particularly applies to non-Executive Directors who you might hope have a role as the eyes and ears of the wider chess playing public.
Roger, if you've got any names to name then name them. As for me, I'm more than tired of the Company status of the ECF being used as a justification for keeping secret loads of things that don't actually need to be kept secret from grown-up people.
And as you and I both understand perfectly well, our relationship to the ECF is that we are subs-paying members of a representative organisation. If you want to treat it as such, good: if you want to treat it as if it were Tesco, then do that. But you don't do one when it suits you and the other when you want to complain about something.
As far as my relationship to the ECF is concerned, it's a body that demands money as a condition of access to competitive chess. I certainly don't have any say in its administration other than indirectly by influencing the organisations that hold the voting rights.
The recently appointed Non-Exec Director, Angus French, made points about openness in his election address last year. I don't think he has commented on anything since his appointment.
I would be undecided about whether ECF Board members should leak discussions. It was apparent in the aftermath of Sheffield 2011, that the anti CJ campaigners had inside information, but earlier in the year, the CAS action had been put through under a news blackout.
15 comments:
A Federation's President replaced by FIDE with no warning, simple erasure! Not their government, a rival or anyone else, by the FIDE Executive Director who decided just like that!
I also think it is not a scandal in Afgan chess but a scandal in FIDE!
Hi Peter
You forgot to mention your role in Kasparov's campaign.
As for me, I have no patience at all with either camp shouting "scandal" at the other for doing the same things they are. No patience whatsoever.
ECF President ignores longstanding ECF position on FIDE President, alienates virtually the entire ECF board through his exceeding of his authority over areas within their constitutional and mandated jurisdiction and voluntarily resigns from office before putting his case (in respect to international matters) before the ECF Council where he is comprehensively defeated.
A number of individuals with voting powers in a FIDE election (unlike, as it happens, the ECF President) are (allegedly) disenfranchised by FIDE themselves (not their own constituency) when they state their intention to case their vote against the incumbent in said election.
Yes, i can see an obvious equivalence between the two situations, that means that all complaints from all sides should be disregarded...
File under - "it's completely different when we do it".
By the way, just as the removal of Paulsen discredits itself by having been done in the shadows, so there's no real reason why that comment shouldn't have a name attached to it, is there?
By the way, your account misses out such unimportant elements as "just happens to occur when he proposes to stand against Kasparov's ECU candidate", "is carried out secretly without a word of explanation to the membership or electorate", "is organised by Kasparov's allies in English chess" and "is persuaded to resign only by the agreement of a deal on which his opponents openly cheat".
So yes, I can see a very obvious equivalence between the ethics of both sides.
No doubt there are some parallels but the fact that Paulson was removed (by hook or by crook) within the ECF itself is a pretty big distinguishing point.
Criticise the internal ECF crookery if you will, Justin - not that it is very convincing since Paulson's removal, even on your own account, was presumably triggered by his trying to remove Short as FIDE Delegate. But even then there is still very little comparison with what is alleged to have happened to the Afghan delegate, who was not removed internally, and did not even know about his removal.
Yeah but Jonathan, you can even go back further and say that Paulsen tried to remove Short because Short's behaviour as FIDE Delegate was way out of line. (I disagreed with Paulsen, but then again I disagreed with Short's conduct too.)
The thing is that I have no problem whatsoever with people openly challenging an elected official for good and clearly stated reasons which they put before the membership. This is the opposite to what actually happened, which was a disgraceful process taken behind the backs of the members. If the Afghan president isn't being told what's going on now - well neither were ECF members told then, and I regard that as a very sound reason to draw a parallel.
If the cases also have substantial differences (which of course they do) then OK. But the coup disgusted me and marked the point where I ceased to be interested in anything Kasparov's people in English chess had to say about ethics, openness and proper procedures*. If they don't like that then they shouldn't have acted in a way that displayed so much disrespect for ECF members. They're lying in a bed they made themselves.
[* If indeed we didn't reach that point over Short/CAS/CJ.]
Given that the voting membership with the power to dismiss directors, the ECF Council, only meets every six months, it is by no means obvious what the constitutional alternatives were to Board action. No doubt they could and perhaps should have told the wider world what was going on, but then there is also the principle of Board confidentiality to respect.
Just a guess, but if the ECF's position on the FIDE elections had been put to a vote of individual players, would you not expect a serious anti-Kirsan majority?
In English chess, surely "Kirsan supporter" is a term of abuse.
RdC
No doubt they could and perhaps should have told the wider world what was going on, but then there is also the principle of Board confidentiality to respect.
I have no idea why the "principle" of Board confidentiality is in any way applicable to the removal of the leading member of that Board. I could put the matter more strongly.
In English chess, surely "Kirsan supporter" is a term of abuse.
Yeah it is, for some good reasons and also for some bad ones, since as I've occasionally pointed out, the complaints of English chess when it comes to Kirsan are not matched by any attachment to principle in its own affairs. There's a long piece to be written on that subject, which I hope I will never have enough free time to write.
It's now quite evident there were tensions amongst the Board before it was brought to a head by the confidence motion. These could have been leaked but weren't (hence Board confidentiality). The only way it was possible to tell something was going on was the total lack of communication from the Board telling us of all the wonderful things they were doing.
Unless, as eventually happened, a Director can be persuaded to resign, under English company law you have to go back to those who elected him, which in the ECF's case are the Representatives making up the ECF Council. A motion of confidence or no-confidence would be an essential first stage. I don't really see what alternatives the directors had.
Nigel although not a Director had also been elected, so I don't think he could have been dismissed either. So if you get a conflict between the President and FIDE Delegate as to who to support in a forthcoming election, one of them has to go or the issue put to the voting membership.
Going back to the Afghan case, whilst not a shock that a President is dismissed for alleged corruption, it is surely odd that the first the public or even the individual gets to hear of this is when a change of name appears on the FIDE site
RdC
Hi Roger. There's no reason why any of that couldn't have been put to the membership, and it's a scandal that it wasn't. And anybody who complains about secrecy, lack of communication and political manoeuvering anywhere else has no business whatsoever defending the same in the ECF.
It's not all right when the side you like does it. Hence this piece.
As a matter of general principle, I would have thought that the Directors of a Company limited by Guarantee need to be confident that what they say in Board meetings isn't leaked to all and sundry. So catfights about who the ECF should support in ECU or FIDE elections can be kept secret until such time as there's a policy to be announced. What I would regard as totally hypocritical would be for members of such Boards to claim transparency as part of their election or re-election campaigns. That particularly applies to non-Executive Directors who you might hope have a role as the eyes and ears of the wider chess playing public.
RdC
Roger, if you've got any names to name then name them. As for me, I'm more than tired of the Company status of the ECF being used as a justification for keeping secret loads of things that don't actually need to be kept secret from grown-up people.
And as you and I both understand perfectly well, our relationship to the ECF is that we are subs-paying members of a representative organisation. If you want to treat it as such, good: if you want to treat it as if it were Tesco, then do that. But you don't do one when it suits you and the other when you want to complain about something.
As far as my relationship to the ECF is concerned, it's a body that demands money as a condition of access to competitive chess. I certainly don't have any say in its administration other than indirectly by influencing the organisations that hold the voting rights.
The recently appointed Non-Exec Director, Angus French, made points about openness in his election address last year. I don't think he has commented on anything since his appointment.
I would be undecided about whether ECF Board members should leak discussions. It was apparent in the aftermath of Sheffield 2011, that the anti CJ campaigners had inside information, but earlier in the year, the CAS action had been put through under a news blackout.
RdC
Post a Comment